As for the rest, I hope I didn't convey that I was thinking you were circular. Not at all.
I guess MY usage is that accurate is equivalent to "true" while "precise" is about we might call "exactitude". So by that usage a thing could be precise but inaccurate, and one reason we called it "inaccurate" MIGHT be that it attempted too great a degree of precision. For example: ".22 calibre" is accurately said to be 22/100s of an inch, but calling it, um 220000/1000000s of an inch might be inaccurate because the attempt at precision went too far and a bullet which was 219999/1000000s of an inch would often be found in a box of .22 longs. Also calling .22 calibre 38/hundredths of an inch would be inaccurate. Calling them both "less than 1/2 an inch" would be accurate, but not very precise.
I'm NOT saying I'm right here. I'm just trying to convey what I, possibly mistakenly, mean by the terms.
One reason I'm not perfectly (or precisely) confident in my use of the terms is that this summer I was a "special teacher" for a totally cool class of underprivileged but smart as whips kids doing science. My contribution was to shoot up my falling apart American Heritage Dictionary, the one with the picture of Marilyn Monroe as the illustration for decolletage -- it broke my heart when it started falling apart. It was quite dramatic, even though I had to shoot it up at home, because guns aren't allowed on the university campus in case someone might save a life with them.
I shot 4 Full Metal Jacket and 4 Hollow Points - the ones I used as a deputy. The FMJs ALL went through and through, while the HPs all failed to penetrate the entire dictionary but sho' tore up what they DID penetrate.
We also did the math to show a fast ball packs more energy than my .357 Sig rounds do.
ANyway .... the teacher seemed to go with your usage rather than mine. SO what do I know?
I'm not surprised, since I'm approaching this from an empirical/scientific view. From this view there is such a thing as absolute accuracy and absolute precision, but beyond that, things that don't achieve these ideals might be relatively more or less accurate or precise. Anyway--since you like talking about guns :) --perhaps this analogy might help:
Suppose you're shooting at a target, and you have impeccable aim, so you hit the bullseye every time: This is both accurate and precise. However, perhaps the scope isn't calibrated properly, so you might end up missing the bullseye while still hitting the same point consistently: This is precise but not accurate. On the other hand, if your aim is lousy then you'll be all over the map: This is neither accurate nor precise. Also, with this lack of precision, accuracy is impossible (you might get lucky with a shot, but you won't be able to do it consistently).
Now I'll admit that I'm not sure how well this can be applied to pure philosophy, since this understanding is generally applied to empirical data and not to abstract logic. But I can try! :)
“And was Jerusalem builded here // Among these dark satanic mills.”
I keep searching Youtube for ELP’s Jerusalem.
The Very Reason Why I carry .45 ACP . . . or .455 Webley. Big cross-section, heavy and slow wins out over small and fast, at least on energy delivered to the target. The great advantage to the Webley Mark VI is that if you run out of rounds, the revolver makes a great club (it must weigh 4 pounds empty and it's bigger than a breadbox).
Apropos of firearms stuff . . . we were out doing Cowboy Action Shooting today, only my second match, I was a little faster than the first time (but missed more). I've always been a 1911A1 and Garand and Rem 1100 person, so I had to learn to shoot single action revolvers, a lever action rifle, and a double barrel shotgun with no ejectors . . . which of course necessitated several visits to the gun shop < aw rats! >