The gun always outshoots the owner...

MrBorland said:
It's a math-based example.



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. ;)
May2012Postal686.jpg


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. ;)
SW617B-16Freestyle.jpg
Click to expand...

Not a tough crowd at all. Every one has a right to their opinion I will go with what Jerry Miculek and the other top shooters say over a internet poster is all;)
 
Last edited:
Seven, ten, fifteen yards, etc is pretty meaningless. Go back to fifty yards and try again. you'll quickly find out the difference between the gun and the shooter.
 
You can extrapolate just fine. If you place a 25yd target behind the 15yd target you automatically extrapolate.

Jerry Miculek is wrong. You can outshoot revolver. How often can an off the rack revolver hold sub moa at 100yd?
 
Rare though it may be, a shooter that shoots a 2.5" group with a gun capable of 2" is outshooting the gun.
Click to expand...
Correct.

If the gun is capable of shooting 2" groups with shooter error eliminated (shot from a machine rest) and a shooter can fire a 2.5" offhand group at the same distance using that gun, that implies that the shooter is capable of shooting a 1.5" group with a perfectly accurate gun (one that introduces no error at all into the equation.

The shooter would, in that case, be capable of shooting better than the gun is.

Accuracy errors do not combine directly with simple addition.

The error of the shooter is random. It will be in a more or less random direction from the point of aim and it will be at some random distance from the point of aim.

The error of the gun is the same. It will have a random direction and random distance from the point of aim.

When combining two random errors like that, simply adding group sizes dramatically overestimates the resulting group size. You can only get close to the maximum group size (adding the two errors directly) when there are two shots in the combined group that meet the following criteria:
  • On one shot the random direction errors for both the shooter and the gun align almost exactly and the distance errors for both the shooter and gun are near the maximum.
  • On another shot in the same group, the random direction errors for both the shooter and the gun align almost exactly again and the distance errors for both the shooter and the gun are near the maximum.
  • On both of those shots, the direction errors are in very nearly opposite directions.
The chances of that happening in a group of a reasonable number of shots are very small--very, very small. If you assume that the magnitudes need to within 95% of "maximum" and the angles need to align to within about 18 degrees then you would need to shoot a group of maybe 100,000 shots to have a good chance of seeing that kind of alignment. (The odds are 1 in 160,000)

A good way to estimate the combined group size is to take the square of both group sizes, add the squares and then take the square root of the sum of the squares.
 
I always found one thing kind of funny. My brother couldn't hit a brick sidewalk by falling on it. Eventually every ape finds a banana. When he would hit the can with his BB gun he would crow like a hormonal rooster and quite often he would blame the gun for its inaccuracy the rest of the time.

I have noticed that whenever someone is watching, all errors seem to combine to create a twelve inch flyer.
 
Just because you shoot say a 3" group at 10 yards does that necesarrily translate to a 6 inch group at 20 yards. You might come out with a 9 inch group or even possibly a 4 inch group.

Many people do not understand that difference between a triangular error and a parallel error. Triangular is in perfect sight picture, but error in sight alignment. Parallel error as in perfect sight alignment but error in sight picture.

This is exactly why all masters know the mantra of sight alignment. A parallel error at ten yards might yield exactly the same error at twenty yards.
 
There is another thing to consider, at closer range or with larger targets people tend to slouch. put a six inch target at fifty feet and a two inch one at another station.

Most people will group better on the smaller target, as I have observed. The ones with the larger target are only working hard enough to get inside the rings, the ones on the smaller target are focusing on getting it even closer.

Move those targets out and have them shooting the same sized target at fifty and 100 yards, at least most of the people who I know would work harder at the 100 yard target and actually get better relative results.
 
If the gun was shooting 1" groups at 25 yards out of a machine rest, in order for you to out shoot it you'd have to shoot a smaller than 1" group while holding the gun. Why is this so hard to understand? If you're shooting 1.5" groups while holding the gun you're not shooting .5" groups, you're shooting 1.5" groups.
 
If the gun was shooting 1" groups at 25 yards out of a machine rest, in order for you to out shoot it you'd have to shoot a smaller than 1" group while holding the gun. Why is this so hard to understand?
Click to expand...
Because a shooter's skill level is independent of the gun being used. Just as the gun's inherent accuracy is independent of the shooter's skill.

Why should a particular gun define a shooter's skill level? If I can shoot 3" groups at 25 yards and I buy a gun that will only shoot 5" groups at 25 yards from a machine rest, I don't lose skill when I complete the purchase. Even when I'm holding that gun, I still have the same skill level, I just can't demonstrate it as easily with that particular firearm.

You can't grade a gun based purely on the shooter's skill--a gun that shoots 1" groups at 50 yards doesn't magically become less accurate because it's in the hands of a person who has trouble keeping them all on the paper at 10 feet. The gun itself is still capable of making 2MOA groups even though it's being shot by someone with no skill.

In the same way, you can't grade a shooter based on the accuracy of the gun. Max Michel Jr. doesn't suddenly become an amateur shooter with no skill just because someone hands him a rattletrap autopistol with a bore that's been shot until there's no more rifling in it. His shooting skills that allow him to shoot fast and accurately are still there even when he's shooting a gun that is too inaccurate for him to be able to display that skill.

If Gun A shoots 1" groups at 25 yards out of a machine rest, then if the shooter can shoot groups smaller than 1" at 25 yards with Gun B which is much more accurate than Gun A, then the shooter can outshoot Gun A.

In fact, if a particular gun shoots 1" groups at 25 yards out of a machine rest, then if the shooter can shoot groups of less than 1.4" at 25 yards using that gun, it is possible to demonstrate with mathematics that the shooter is capable of shooting groups smaller than 1" with a "theoretical" perfectly accurate gun. The shooter is contributing less error than the gun to the group size--or, said another way, the shooter is outshooting the gun.

Going back to my example with my 5" gun at 25 yards. If I can shoot groups <with that gun> at 25 yards that are 7" or smaller, that's a demonstration that my contribution to the overall group size is smaller than the gun's. I would be outshooting the gun (contributing less error to the group size than the gun is) even though the overall groups are larger than what the gun is capable of by itself.
 
Last edited:
For the sake of being correct, I'd say that a quality revolver in good condition shooting ammo that it likes will shoot as well or better than the shooter.

A crappy revolver is a crappy revolver. A good shooter very well might be better than it.
A good revolver in poor condition won't shoot well. A good shooter very well might be better than it.
A good revolver in good condition might not shoot well if it is being fed ammo it doesn't like. A good shooter might very well shoot better than this.

An illustration of this is for a good shooter to shoot a group with a good revolver in good condition with ammo it likes. Nice tight group. The shooter's skill is thus established. Now, have that same shooter shoot the same revolver with ammo it doesn't like. The group opens up, has fliers, etc. The shooter is thus proven to shoot better than that revolver/ammo combination.

Of course, a shooter who can't make a group can't make a group no matter how good the revolver, how good the condition of the revolver, or what kind of ammo is being used.
 
Last edited:
Briandg: I attribute this to "Aim small, Miss small". You get a tighter group with the smaller target because you have a smaller, better defined aiming point. You can get a better, more precise sight picture with it.
 
how many rifles are capable of 1 inch groups at 100? How many shooters are capable of holding sub moa groups, third moa, quarter moa? Do you say just because you usually don’t benchrest a rifle in the field the rifle shoots more accurately than you’re capable of?

Is a rifles accuracy determined whether you can shoot it accurately in a field position?

A rested revolver with scope should be able to hold tight groups at 25 easily. If it’s not then most likely not the shooters capability.
 
Last edited:
TxFlyFish said:
You can extrapolate just fine. If you place a 25yd target behind the 15yd target you automatically extrapolate.

Jerry Miculek is wrong. You can outshoot revolver. How often can an off the rack revolver hold sub moa at 100yd?
Click to expand...
Jerry is wrong so says a anonymous poster on the internet lol
 
This is a silly argument as the firearm will always be more accurate than the firearm being held by the shooter because it's a matter of mechanical accuracy vs practical accuracy.

So, you ask, what's the difference?

Mechanical accuracy is the physical ability of the parts that make up the firearm to produce groups when held in a fixture; i.e. no variable input from a human. The physical tolerances of the parts together allow a given type of ammo a certain repeatability; it's accuracy. This is purely the result of the physical interaction of the parts that make up the firearm, not anyone's ability to hold it solidly, aim it precisely, or fire it with no movement.

Now, when you hand the firearm to a human and ask them to shoot it, they induce another level of variability as they are not rigid fixtures but flesh and bone, so the mechanical accuracy of the firearm itself is then degraded by the shooter's ability to employ it in a repeatable manner. As flesh and bone beings, they are not as repeatable as an iron vice holding the firearm in place so they further degrade the accuracy by their own ability to hold it solidly, aim it precisely, and fire it with no movement

Practical accuracy then is the sum of the variables of the mechanical elements of the firearm (it's mechanical accuracy) plus the additional variability of the less than perfect shooting ability of the person employing it. It can and is affected by the ergonomics, aiming method, and trigger of the firearm as each of these can induce variability into the shooter's ability to accurately employ the firearm.

This isn't a debatable issue, it's simply a mechanical fact.
 
We’re not debating whether one can shoot an inherently inaccurate gun more accurately than its mechanical accuracy.

There are guns that are limiting the shooter’s capability. If a person is capable of holding good groups with quality revolvers, and you give him a revolver that can’t hold decent group, that revolver is limiting the shooter’s capability. In that case the shooter can outshoot the gun. The shooter’s capability exceeds the mechanical accuracy of the gun.
 
There are lots of inacurate revolvers on the market. Nobody is going to shoot them well because they won't group. There are always exceptions even in top shelf guns. Ant item that is made on assembly line is going to produce a few cherries & lemons. The bulk will be
somewhere in between. The exception also works on low end guns too. It took me awhile to realize that if you get one of these cherries put it in keeper pile. I have a couple S&Ws that
I don't like because they are newer production than I would generally keep. I won't get rid of them because they are flukes and shoot better than would be expected.
 
About this:
so they further degrade the accuracy by their own ability to hold it solidly, aim it precisely, and fire it with no movement
Click to expand...
This is a factoid. It's sort of true, but not really. You only prove it's true when you and everybody you know can't shoot worth beans from an off-hand position. And when you don't, it becomes self fulfilling. Case in point: My buddy said he can't hit anything off-hand, so he quits trying, sets up the bench, and never will shoot well off-hand, unless, by a sheer force of will and determination, insists on shooting off-hand a whole lot more than the blasted bench.
I shoot pretty well off-hand even though I can't hold the firearm very steady at all, with the sights waving all over the real estate. I can't for the life of me, keep the gun on target. But I manage to get the gun to discharge at the right moment and hit the target in spite of my instability. And the more I do it, the better I get at it, even though my lack of stability never improves. The bench is useful for some things but readily becomes an addiction to make up for a lack of marksmanship. If you want to shoot well, shun the bench; it's not your friend.
 
TxFlyFish nailed it. I was trying to say the same thing.

*********************************************************************
There are guns that are limiting the shooter’s capability. If a person is capable of holding good groups with quality revolvers, and you give him a revolver that can’t hold decent group, that revolver is limiting the shooter’s capability. In that case the shooter can outshoot the gun. The shooter’s capability exceeds the mechanical accuracy of the gun.
**********************************************************************


I hear folks say "It shoots better than I can" a lot. I think they are justifying using a lousy gun or their lousy marksmanship.

Kind of like I see some hunters come to the range once a year. They shoot 3 shots off the bench and say "good enough" .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top