When talking about precision long range shooting, things can get extremely expensive very quickly. It actually wouldn't surprise me if the glass alone ran well over $5,000.
I mean commercially available Zeiss optics can run northwards of $4,000, Schmidt Benders can easily double that... Hell, I was looking at a Tangent Theta a couple of years ago because I really liked some of it features only to take a look at it $6,000+ price tag and I decided I'd rather just buy some better reloading equipment...
Anyway, here's a good article from the Precision Rifle Blog from about 10 years ago kinda puts things into perspective as to what is actually important. I'm specifically referencing a graph on that page that shows how decreasing a rifle's group size from 0.5moa to 0.2moa only really increases hit probability on a 10 inch circle by roughly 2% at 700 yards.
https://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/04/1...ze-matter/
In the following article, same source, it goes on to discuss how accurately estimating the range to the target is fundamentally more important than having a laser beam accurate rifle. Pulling a quote directly from the article.... "Hit percentage drops off quick! On that 10” target at 700 yards, if you’re off by just 10 yards your odds of hitting the target drop by almost 10%. If you’re off by 20 yards, you’ve got a 50/50 shot of hitting it."
https://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/05/0...ng-matter/
As note these 2 articles are part of a series that comes to the data driven conclusion that caliber selection, accurate range estimation, and accurate wind judgement are far more important factors regarding landing hits than having the most precise rifle... That being said, having equipment that is accurate enough, consistent enough, repeatable, and reliable does go a long way towards minimizing variables. And yes, I also understand that the maximum ranges presented in these article are 1000 yards, and the video is talking about extreme ranges, but that's kind of my point... If variables increase over distance, then the 3 most important factors become even more so.
I mean commercially available Zeiss optics can run northwards of $4,000, Schmidt Benders can easily double that... Hell, I was looking at a Tangent Theta a couple of years ago because I really liked some of it features only to take a look at it $6,000+ price tag and I decided I'd rather just buy some better reloading equipment...
Anyway, here's a good article from the Precision Rifle Blog from about 10 years ago kinda puts things into perspective as to what is actually important. I'm specifically referencing a graph on that page that shows how decreasing a rifle's group size from 0.5moa to 0.2moa only really increases hit probability on a 10 inch circle by roughly 2% at 700 yards.
https://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/04/1...ze-matter/
In the following article, same source, it goes on to discuss how accurately estimating the range to the target is fundamentally more important than having a laser beam accurate rifle. Pulling a quote directly from the article.... "Hit percentage drops off quick! On that 10” target at 700 yards, if you’re off by just 10 yards your odds of hitting the target drop by almost 10%. If you’re off by 20 yards, you’ve got a 50/50 shot of hitting it."
https://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/05/0...ng-matter/
As note these 2 articles are part of a series that comes to the data driven conclusion that caliber selection, accurate range estimation, and accurate wind judgement are far more important factors regarding landing hits than having the most precise rifle... That being said, having equipment that is accurate enough, consistent enough, repeatable, and reliable does go a long way towards minimizing variables. And yes, I also understand that the maximum ranges presented in these article are 1000 yards, and the video is talking about extreme ranges, but that's kind of my point... If variables increase over distance, then the 3 most important factors become even more so.