If you're target shooting, accuracy could be the metric by which success is determined.
Tactical shooting is a horse of a different color. Gun magazines have skewed tactical dynamics all to hell. They've come out with cute bromides that their readers parrot like a politician reading a teleprompter. I about wanna puke when I hear neophytes parrot spray and pray, the the best gun is the one you have one you when SHTF, or arguably the worst: accuracy is most important in a gunfight.
Gun magazines are entertainment. The are devoid of scientific relevancy. If you're after science, go with professional journals. Whatever you do, don't parrot spray and pray. It'd be a lot wiser to know cover fire and suppressive fire.
The fact is in tactical shooting, "X" hits ain't the objective. Avoidance is. A bad guy's shooting at you because he wants you at room temperature, which equates to many degrees below ground. If you can't avoid, not getting shot is next most important. A bad guy with his heart shot out will live 8 very long seconds, far long enough to take you with him. Put a round in his shootin' extremity, and I'll take odds he's immediately gonna stop shootin' at you. So what's the better hit, an "X" ring, a shattered shooting arm or a round through his shootin' hand that sends his gun flyin' like a drone without radio signal?
Remember, if you can't avoid, then it's a pretty darn good idea to avoid taking rounds. If you go John Wayne and stand stationary in front of a bad guy and take precise aim, your wives will be completing life insurance forms within hours.
Here's a thought that might just keep you payin' taxes: bad guys train as much if not more than good guys. And many bad guys have military training. I'd go with avoiding a bad guy with military training. After all, he is an authentic trained killer. I ain't yet met a civilian shooter without militrary or law enforcement training who is. I've met many who thought they were, but none that were.