I think we are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. When I say "guns out shoots me", I know how it shoots from testing the gun with a particular load. I know it is 'accurate' to my standards. We aren't talking about guns that shoot like a shotgun, or loads that are bad. Normally you either find a load that works and stick with it, or if you can't find one, the gun goes down the road. A gun isn't worth having if it doesn't shoot accurately (exception may be a belly gun). As I said above, my normal shooting isn't from the bench or with scopes (that's just for testing), off hand shooting with open sights is 'normal' for revolvers.
The gun always outshoots the owner...
- Thread starter TxFlyFish
- Start date
Stinkeypete, I get where you are coming from. I'm getting older too and find myself grumbling more and more about the younger generations and what they do and how they do it. But, ....always a but, I have and like my semi autos including my GI Joe black rifle. I don't like to mag dump. Blasting off as many rounds as possible as quickly as possible is just a waste and since I enjoy hitting my targets, dumping ammo isn't much fun either. On top of that, I like iron sights and testing my skills out to farther and farther distances...slow and steady for me. Speed will come later...maybe, but I don't want it if I can't hit my target.
I agree the guns can usually outshoot the shooter. Just like anything there are acceptions. Since this is the revolver forum....I only have one, a Heritage RR(commence eyerolls) and I like it's super crude sights. They force me to be better. I'm not going to ransom rest it and it's not designed for optics. I seem to shoot it better free hand than off a sandbag rest, but that is true for all of my pistols.
I agree the guns can usually outshoot the shooter. Just like anything there are acceptions. Since this is the revolver forum....I only have one, a Heritage RR(commence eyerolls) and I like it's super crude sights. They force me to be better. I'm not going to ransom rest it and it's not designed for optics. I seem to shoot it better free hand than off a sandbag rest, but that is true for all of my pistols.
223 shooter
New member
Yep, I tested a lot of different loads from a rest through a scoped 686 revolver over 20 years ago and since that time have never come close to matching what the revolver is capable of when shooting from a standing position even using a low power scope like in the attachment.
Attachments
First, I'd like to point out that using a rest is STILL the shooter as much as anything.
Second, since I don't have a Ransom Rest and shoot all my handguns from my hands, both rested and "freehand" I don't care what a Ransom Rest does. All I care about is what I can do.
the gun doesn't aim and fire itself, every shot good and bad is MY responsibility.
Also my responsibility if I use crap ammo....
Second, since I don't have a Ransom Rest and shoot all my handguns from my hands, both rested and "freehand" I don't care what a Ransom Rest does. All I care about is what I can do.
the gun doesn't aim and fire itself, every shot good and bad is MY responsibility.
Also my responsibility if I use crap ammo....
People need to read the op. This is NOT about whether you can shoot more accurately standing vs rested. This is NOT about self defense situation or how you usually shoot. This is about whether an average Joe can determine whether a particular revolver is accurate or not.
We’re making it seem as if 3 inch group at 25yd is an impossible feat. A well made revolver should be able to do hold that with factory ammo. And this whole ransom rest argument, there is negligible difference between ransom rest and a simple sandbag at this close of a distance. The average Joe can group at 100yd with a hunting rifle, at 25yd should be a ragged hole. And no, a revolver on a sandbag in single action is not that hard to shoot.
A revolver that cannot hold 3in group at 25yd is a poorly made revolver. You don’t need a ransom rest to figure that out. If you find yourself needing to slug your bore, check for barrel constriction, measure chamber throats, timing etc or having to work a pet load just to bring the revolver down to acceptable accuracy, it is a poorly made revolver.
We’re making it seem as if 3 inch group at 25yd is an impossible feat. A well made revolver should be able to do hold that with factory ammo. And this whole ransom rest argument, there is negligible difference between ransom rest and a simple sandbag at this close of a distance. The average Joe can group at 100yd with a hunting rifle, at 25yd should be a ragged hole. And no, a revolver on a sandbag in single action is not that hard to shoot.
A revolver that cannot hold 3in group at 25yd is a poorly made revolver. You don’t need a ransom rest to figure that out. If you find yourself needing to slug your bore, check for barrel constriction, measure chamber throats, timing etc or having to work a pet load just to bring the revolver down to acceptable accuracy, it is a poorly made revolver.
Last edited:
Don't think you'll find many of those.
Nonsense noise.
I can drop a squirrel from a tree with my ruger mk so far away that it couldn't even hear the shot if I missed. Offhand, of course. But that whole part is irrelevant since I have never missed a squirrel since I strangled my first one with my bib strings.
I can't hit a gallon water jug at 50' with my dad's old H&R.
No, that gun can't outshoot me.
I think that this is a complete and proper way of saying "I ain't perfect and unless I'm perfect I am not perfect." Or even simpler, everyone still has a margin of error and a need to improve.
As you said, the only way anyone could ever hope to reach the full potential of a firearm is by not shooting it. Set it in a vise and pull the trigger with a string. I think that "free recoil" bench shooting might be a fair way to eliminate human error. Let the rifle make its own mistakes.
Personally, I think that it would be great if I was capable of pulling the trigger when my sights were dead on that quarter of an inch X ring.
So, here's why I want an extremely accurate rifle. If the best I can do at 75 feet is about 1-1/2 inch offhand with a squirrel gun, my rifle had better be capable of .25 inch groups at that distance. If my rifle can barely make a 1" group and I can only do 1.5", how can I ever be reasonably certain that I can put the bullet into the zombie squirrel's marble sized brain?
I want a computer controlled fire control mechanism. I want my guns to be capable of locating and locking onto a target, and when the wild swinging of my barrel finally touches on the target, then and only then will the computerized firing mechanism fire a cartridge.
NoSecondBest
New member
Capability is what the gun can do under ideal and perfect conditions. Performance is when you add the shooter. As statistical people know, performance is never as good as capability. Performance simply adds all the variables into the outcome. Shooting a hand held gun, or even a hand rested gun, adds some variation into the end result.
NoSecondBest said:
True enough, but the mistake I think some make, germane to this thread, is an assumption that any added variation means the gun outshoots the shooter. Rare though it may be, a shooter that shoots a 2.5" group with a gun capable of 2" is outshooting the gun.
Please explain this
Rare though it may be, a shooter that shoots a 2.5" group with a gun capable of 2" is outshooting the gun.
If a shooter shoots a 2.5" group with a gun capable of 2", it means the component known as "the shooter" is capable of 1.5" *. Ergo, the shooter is capable of outshooting the gun.
* see the earlier post about the root mean squared relationship between the gun, the shooter and the group, where the squares of each are additive. [/SIZE]
* see the earlier post about the root mean squared relationship between the gun, the shooter and the group, where the squares of each are additive. [/SIZE]
I did read that but I see no fact in it only opinion. Please give me a link to anyone out shooting their gun please
Mister daputer.
What he is saying is that the shooter's accuracy potential is greater than the accuracy potential of the gun.
Assume that a gun that is only capable of 2" accuracy with all human influence removed, such as if fired from a machine rest or other device.
If a shooter then took that gun and fired a twenty round group that measured only 2.5" it clearly shows that the shooter's capability is to place his rounds into a group that only measures 1".
Every deviation from a central aiming point is a result of deficiency in one of the variables. The gun can account for a 1" deviation from center from a solidly built rest, in other words, in perfect conditions that rifle can reliably come within the 2" diameter. Mind you, this does not mean that even 1% of those rounds will strike even remotely near the center, they may all be scattered around the edge.
To shoot a group measuring 2.5" with normal human error involved means that the person doing the shooting has only added a radius of error of .25" The shooter, then, is logically able to contain his rounds into a radius of .25 with all other scattering resulting from equipment error.
Does this mean that the shooter would be able to put twenty "shots" on target if he was firing a flawless laser light instead of bullets? Not at all. It only means that his influence resulted in less deviation than the gun itself added. So the shooter is capable of less deviation than his firearm itself will cause. If lower amounts of deviation from a central aiming point is one component of what we call accuracy, then the shooter indeed is capable of more accurate shooting than his gun.
So, I'm darned if I can see any further questions that could be answered that don't require niggling little gripes about the semantics.
What he is saying is that the shooter's accuracy potential is greater than the accuracy potential of the gun.
Assume that a gun that is only capable of 2" accuracy with all human influence removed, such as if fired from a machine rest or other device.
If a shooter then took that gun and fired a twenty round group that measured only 2.5" it clearly shows that the shooter's capability is to place his rounds into a group that only measures 1".
Every deviation from a central aiming point is a result of deficiency in one of the variables. The gun can account for a 1" deviation from center from a solidly built rest, in other words, in perfect conditions that rifle can reliably come within the 2" diameter. Mind you, this does not mean that even 1% of those rounds will strike even remotely near the center, they may all be scattered around the edge.
To shoot a group measuring 2.5" with normal human error involved means that the person doing the shooting has only added a radius of error of .25" The shooter, then, is logically able to contain his rounds into a radius of .25 with all other scattering resulting from equipment error.
Does this mean that the shooter would be able to put twenty "shots" on target if he was firing a flawless laser light instead of bullets? Not at all. It only means that his influence resulted in less deviation than the gun itself added. So the shooter is capable of less deviation than his firearm itself will cause. If lower amounts of deviation from a central aiming point is one component of what we call accuracy, then the shooter indeed is capable of more accurate shooting than his gun.
So, I'm darned if I can see any further questions that could be answered that don't require niggling little gripes about the semantics.
mrdaputer said:
It's a math-based example.
mrdaputer said:
Tough crowd…
We really shouldn't need an example, because the discussion here is gun vs shooter, and when the "gun shoots better than me" schtick is accurate or not, regardless of if & when anyone actually does outshoot their gun. Regardless, since you asked...
It's a limited group, but in this example, the gun (my 686 .357mag) shoots .26" at 10 yards from a rest. It did no worse when I shot it offhand. In this case, I shot better than the gun. You're welcome.
I remarked earlier a good revolver should shoot under an inch at 25 yards. Extrapolating the capability of my 686 to my 617 .22LR below, it ought to shoot under .75" at 25 yards. The group is .89", so by the RMS relationship, and assuming a .75" gun, I added a tad under 0.5". Better than the gun in this case again. And you're welcomed...again.
Last edited:
NoSecondBest
New member
I'm glad you're not an engineer. You're getting it all wrong. It's not that complicated, really.
Pathfinder45
New member
This is why there is equipment of all kind made for the beginner; an entry-level guitar, or spinning-reel, running shoes, Pop Warner footballs, skis or whatever else you can think of. No one can afford a genuine Stradivarius, that I ever met, and no one but a master is allowed to play one.
I would venture to guess that at least several of y'all, have outgrown the limitations of your first firearm. Especially so if you have been involved in formal competition. The best shooters in the world may very well out-shoot better equipped shooters that simply haven't the skills and talent to fully utilize their equipment's refinements. Still, the best shooters will never make first place against their peers if their equipment is inferior.
With a truly accurate firearm, you will hit your target every time, as long as you have it pointed in the right direction when it goes off. On the other hand, if the inside of the barrel looks like the often-mentioned sewer-pipe, one might, on the occasion, actually hit the bullseye, even if it's not pointed in exactly the right direction. In that case, the shooter has wasted his time and money, as he really should have bought a lottery ticket with such luck at his disposal.
So, yes, some shooters are a lot better than some guns. This is what justifies them owning something that is capable of higher precision, even though it costs more than something that is good enough for most others.
I would venture to guess that at least several of y'all, have outgrown the limitations of your first firearm. Especially so if you have been involved in formal competition. The best shooters in the world may very well out-shoot better equipped shooters that simply haven't the skills and talent to fully utilize their equipment's refinements. Still, the best shooters will never make first place against their peers if their equipment is inferior.
With a truly accurate firearm, you will hit your target every time, as long as you have it pointed in the right direction when it goes off. On the other hand, if the inside of the barrel looks like the often-mentioned sewer-pipe, one might, on the occasion, actually hit the bullseye, even if it's not pointed in exactly the right direction. In that case, the shooter has wasted his time and money, as he really should have bought a lottery ticket with such luck at his disposal.
So, yes, some shooters are a lot better than some guns. This is what justifies them owning something that is capable of higher precision, even though it costs more than something that is good enough for most others.