Most combat in open fields takes place at 300 meters and under and 75% of that at 150 and under. Most urban combat takes place at 100 and less, and a lot taking place at feet not yards. So accuracy is more about the shooter then the tool. Shooting someone that's trying to do you and your buddies harm, while you heart rate is like a hummingbird, and while your targets are moving and hiding as well as they can, is not near as easy as most (who have not done it) think it is.
Having been on the wrong end of AKs many times, I am still convinced that for the average town or city dweller, one of the best (if not THE best) weapons you can have in an AK47. They are not usually super accurate, but they are reliable and easy to use. With the advent of scope mounts that actually work on AKS I am of the opinion that a militia member or unit, armed with AKs that are set up with low powered scopes might just be the very best type of weapon that could be asked for by a soldier.
In reality a 3 MOA weapon and ammo with which you can use to hit a 5 MOA target in 1-2 seconds is way better then a 1/4 MOA weapon you can hit a 1/4" target with in 10 seconds.
You will almost never have 10 seconds to make a shot in a fight. Shoot as fast as you can make hits, BUT NO FASTER! Thinking you can hit a "1/2" target" is not realistic because if your target is 1/2" part of a man, you will not know for sure who the man is--------- and if he should be shot or not.
I have real experience in both areas. (USMC and later working for DOD as a trainer for troops, favored by our government) Precision shooting does have it's place, but in real fights you'll find that even as a sniper you fire most shots in combat at under 500 and a lot at 350 or there-abouts, but what you shoot at is often going to be a "piece of the enemy" shot through a hole in a wall, a gap in the brush or trees or between rocks. In fights that are comprised of dozens of bad guys VS dozens of good guys, about 99% of the shots are going to be close, and pretty fast. If the SHTF scenario is to come to be, going after the enemy and taking the war to them is how you will win. NEVER in a defensive mindset. if 19,000 japs can't hold Iwo Jima with 4 years to get ready, you are NOT going to hold you position either. Patton told the world and he was right. "Fortified positions are monuments to the stupidity of man". If [bleep], you need to go hunting, not waiting for the enemy to dictate the rules of the contest. Go AFTER THEM and let them worry about defending their homes.
Practical and useful accuracy for war is about fire and maneuver. You need to have the initiative. In civilian shooting think flushing birds not sniping prairie dogs.
So "accuracy" is BY FAR more about the man than it is the weapon or ammo.
If you have a 1/2 MOA weapon and ammo that is NEVER a bad thing, but the usefulness of 1/4 MOA over 1.5 MOA will not be seen in 1 shot out of 1000 in a real war. More accuracy is never a disadvantage, but in most cases anything better then 2MOA will never be noticed in a real war. It may be for taking out a few the communist leaders, but only for about the first 2 days of the war.
After that all of the leaders are going to be in hiding and the only want to get them is to go after them and kill all those loyal to them 1st. Standard rifles, shotguns and fire bombs are going to be doing the bulk of the damage to the enemy. Like about 99.999% of it.
Mostly this.
Not keen on other posts advising "belt buckle" shots.
Though a pelvic cradle hit is an immediate mobility disabler it usually takes several minutes to bleed out.
Generally lots of screaming too. Don't ask.
My philosophy was alway, if someone is worth shooting, they're worth killing. Go for upper thoracic hits, the closer to center line the more effective they are, and don't be stingy. Several hits good!
Don't get too wrapped around the axle about ammo. Use the best, most accurate you can, but I have shot through car doors and rims with 5.56 frange.
As always, the better Indian you are, the less the arrows matter.
