Do most good pre-empters do so within "tight" point ranges?
The choice a partnership makes in this regard will influence their relative strength at Matchpoints vs IMPS. Opening wide-range pre-empts facilitate more frequent interference with the opponent's auctions, but make finding game or slam yourself more difficult. This is a clear Matchpoint strategy (as emphasizing the frequency of a winning result on the hand).

However opening narrow-range pre-empts eases the task of finding a good slam or game, but reduces the frequency of being able to interfere with the opponents auctions. This is both more constructive, which eases partnership harmony, and a clear IMP strategy (which emphasizes weighted value of results).

Most published systems tend to emphasize IMP -oriented systems, because this is also appropriate strategy for Rubber Bridge. Consequently, in their published works most authors recommend narrow-range pre-empts.

It is worth noting that Barry Crane, arguably the ultimate Matchpoint player and an avid proponent of early-in, early-out bidding, recommended in 1st and 2nd seat wide-range pre-empts in the majors, but narrow-range in the minors. 


  "The rule of 1-2-3" means that you should be within one trick
  of making when vulnerable versus nonvulnerable, within two
  tricks at equal vulnerability, and within three tricks at
  favorable vulnerability. ....
  
  Generally, for an opening bid at the three level, you should have a
  seven card suit.  To open 3C or 3D, you must also have the A and two
  of the next three honors in your suit.  This facilitates getting
  to 3NT (and makes an opening bid of 3 in a minor alertable).


The reason given is that this gives opener's partner the most detailed information on how high to raise the pre-empt. It does sacrifice some capability to pre-empt at the three level in the minors, but his is probably the least effective, and most informative for the opponents, pre-empt range. One could do much worse than to follow Crane's guidance.