Well, the Jet Squelcher has near-perfect accuracy (only bested by the Nozzlenoses), so it's not strange to not be able to beat it in that category. I'd still say that the accuracy on the .96 is pretty decent (especially when it is in the same category as the Aerospray, Jr. and the Sploosh-o-matic); even if it goes wide with that 20%, it's not going to deviate by much, and to me that counts as being accurate
That's not true either, though. The .96 Gal's firing cone is also wider than those of other long-range weapons, enough so that that 20% chance that the shot will go to the edge of the cone is enough to actually cause a miss. Compare that to the Splattershot Pro, which has the same range. The Splattershot Pro also has a chance of a wide shot, at 10%, and this chance is higher than that of some other weapons, such as the Dual Squelcher and the Splattershot (at only 2%). However, despite this, the Splattershot Pro is generally known for being an accurate shooter. Why? Because its firing cone is unusually narrow for a weapon in its range class, which makes it less likely that its wide shots will actually miss.
Now, as far as firing cones go, it is true that long-range weapons will generally have narrower ones than short-range weapons, in order to prevent their shots from missing by a mile at long range. This does mean that their shots cannot deviate as much at shorter ranges, but it simply isn't fair to directly compare them to the short-range weapons this way because it's poor strategy to move closer to an opponent whom you outrange. Sure, at close range, your narrower firing cone might give you 100% accuracy compared to the other guy's 80%, but why would you take those odds when you could stand farther back and have 70% accuracy compared to the opponent's 0%?
The important thing to realize is that at the longer ranges at which you
want to use the .96 Gal, its accuracy is poor compared to other weapons in its range class. So please don't go around telling people that the .96 Gal has "good" accuracy without any further explanation; it is quite misleading.