What is "Accurate Enough" for a Brush Gun

[BigNate]

Ok - I get that this is totally subjective but I really would like to see how what I think stacks up with opinions of others. I also understand that when it comes to accuracy, the general rule that "more is better" applies - but that there are both limits of a cartridge and diminishing returns financially. This question is completely specific to the question of a brush gun / short range big game gun (I view the same question differently if I'm building a PRS rifle - or a long range hunting rifle, or a DMR rifle, etc.).

So - I'm building an 8.6blk AR10 SBR that will initially be just a toy - but that I could see replacing the Marlin 1895 Guide Gun as a woods / bear / short range game gun if I come to trust it. I only found two manufacturers of barrels in that caliber for the AR platform - Faxon and one other that I can't remember - but they were more than twice the cost of the Faxon. I bought the Faxon 12" barrel (may eventually get an 8") and then got some pretty strong opinions that they were known to be poor quality and result in inaccurate guns. This led me to the question...

In my mind - I'm building this as a heavy hitting, fast firing, high capacity "bear or other predator in the woods" gun, that I could see getting used as a hunting rifle were I to end up hunting in short range (150 yards and in) environments. For that purpose - my view is that an accuracy target of 2 MOA or so is sufficient and anything better than that is gravy.

My reasoning is:

• Bear Defense - at 25 yards and in ("OH $#!^ - bear charging us" range) as long as the gun is reliable and functional - the pattern will be more a function of my mechanics under that sort of adrenaline dump (3" group at 25 yards equates to like 12MOA)
• Short Range Big Game Gun - At 150 yards, 2 MOA is about 3" - so if I do my part, on the type of game that I'd be shooting at that distance ("kill zone" on a mule deer is about 10" and double that on elk) a 3" dispersion at that range is not likely going to be the determining factor.

Again - I get that "more is better" - I'm trying to get a sense of what others think is an appropriate threshold in a gun for this purpose.

 

[XJThrottle]

I think your logic is sound.

 

[Suck My Glock]

Not only is the logic sound,...but Faxon is known for quality. I would ignore whomever is claiming they are not.

 

[BigNate]

I think your logic is sound.

Thanks much...

Not only is the logic sound,...but Faxon is known for quality. I would ignore whomever is claiming they are not.

Thanks - I did a bit more digging and I think that a lot of the chatter boils down to growing pains early in the lifecycle of the product - with 2 primary threads...
1) I think that they may have had a bad run of 8.6 barrels very early in the production - problems that it seems may be associated with putting the 1:3 twist in the barrel (it reads like their standard machining processes may not have worked consistently on the super fast twist rifling - some tearing / pitting / etc.).
2) A ton of the other "negative press" I think stems from the fact that early on they were part of what got seen as the "sponsors" of the cartridge and the load data - and the early load data included some loads that may have worked in testing, but when folks started using / pushing the load a bit, they started damaging suppressors / muzzle devices / etc. when jacketed or poorly bonded bullets "exploded" (disassembled by centripetal force) as they left the barrel.

I couldn't find my rifle bore scope so I tried the old Ryobi unit that I keep in the garage. The chamber looks good - the rifling looks "weird" almost like it got cut twice once in each direction (as if they cut it clockwise then a second time counter clockwise and out of phase so it creates a "grid"). My eyes are old and I convinced myself that it was a reflection in the shiny bore (one was clearly there - the other much more like a shadow). Anyway - I'm not going to shoot it until I can dig out my "better" scope and take a look down the bore - but my guess is that it's just fine.