The gun always outshoots the owner...

[mrdaputer]

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" .

Not sure if that was in reference to my post. In a earlier post I said.

"Unless you are using a good quality gun vice where the weapon can't move at all. There will be shooter variables. With most good quality guns a few lemons excluded it's the shooter. Even Jerry Miculek says he can't shoot his guns as well as they could be"

In many more cases than not it's the shooter every time

 

[Unclenick]

Well, on the principle that even one exception disproves the rule, I give you this 50-yard group from my scoped Ruger Redhawk with Federal American Eagle shot by myself off sandbags.

What makes it interesting from the standpoint of this discussion is that the flier appears in every 6-shot group fired from that gun with the same ammo under the same conditions. It turned out always to be fired from the same chamber. Later exploration with pin gauges showed that one chamber to have a throat almost 0.001" bigger than the others.

I've never fixed it. I just left the errant chamber empty if I was trying to do precision shooting with it. But the fact I could hold the other five rounds in the central group showed my sandbag hold was better than the gun's precision when that one loose-throated chamber is included, but the question is wide open when I don't include that chamber. Certainly, even with the errant chamber included, it's hard to say that it isn't a good revolver. It's still shooting under 2 inches at 50 yards even with the flier.

Target shooting scores are another thing altogether. I've had two guns that couldn't shoot as well as I can, even off-hand (one-handed bull's-eye target shooting mode). I had a 3" Charter Bulldog that could not stay on a paper plate at 25 yards, regardless of how I shot it. I returned it to the factory who sent it back, reporting that the frame had proven to have been bent during barrel installation, so they destroyed it and reissued the serial number on another gun they had checked for accuracy. This photo is a 25-yard offhand group I fired from the returned gun. I had a Mustang grip panel set on it to extend down to my little finger, but otherwise it was factory with standard frame rears sight notch and factory front sight. The target was taped up from using it previously with two other guns to check sights windage (I didn't have a lot of cash to spare back in the early '80s). It shows the sight timing was off, as I was using a 6:00 hold. But it also shows the mechanical accuracy of the gun was quite good for what it was.

Another was a 6-inch K38. Again, paper-plate-size scatter at 25-yards with commercial 148 grain WC ammo, and that was fired off sandbags. I got it down to 6" by going to the Lee Tumble Lube wadcutter fired as-cast (no sizing). But to shoot, the gun needed a tight frame-caused constriction in the throat lapped out (common revolver issue), and the chambers reamed and their timing corrected. I don't have groups for that gun as I got it in the mid-90's and I had quit collecting targets sometime in the late '80s, and I didn't have a cell phone, much less one with a camera back then. I also didn't think very hard in that decade about the statistical significance of keeping several groups out of a set. When I did collect them, it was usually just the first group after a change or tweak (like adding the scope to the Redhawk or getting the Bulldog back or doing a trigger job or modifying the sights).

 

[TxFlyFish]

Unclenick that’s some great shooting! I would love to have an example with this type of accuracy. Most modern production you’ll be lucky if it prints under 2 at 25.


Also Jerry says that the gun is more accurate than he is, because he won’t bench a S&W revolver and show us a real life grouping. He probably shoots better than all the S&W revolvers in his possession. Imagine if he actually said he shoots better than the guns S&W gives him, he’d be out of sponsorship

 

[mrdaputer]

Jerry does it to be the best that he can be. Maybe that is why people know who he is and not you . If posters want to pretend they are better than their guns that is cool. I just won't hear about them winning the shooting contests or be mention with the great shooters so there is that

 

[Unclenick]

Mrdaputer,

I don't think it's as unusual as you suppose. I was a pretty decent competitive bull's-eye shot back in the '80s, but couldn't afford the time and cost of going to the big matches most of the time (though I earned a few pistol EIC points and was 9th in one national postal match in '89). However, despite posting high master scores on a good day, I wasn't consistently the best shot in our local league, and at least half a dozen of those guys could outshoot every production 1911 pistol I ever saw. I got wrapped up in learning to accurize and fit up 1911's precisely because of that. Short of dropping a large wad on a custom shop gun, getting anything capable of staying in the 10-ring at 50, much less the X-ring, did not come off the shelf.

The best target I kept from back then is the first one fired after fitting up a Goldcup I had that shot 4.5" at 25-yards out of the box. This was off bags using an Aimpoint sight on a grip-panel mount with handloaded 200-grain JSWC's:

The way I could tell I was having a good 2700 match back then was that my .22 and .45 scores would be about the same and occasionally the .45 scores would best my .22 scores. Not counting the less experienced competitors who still had a lot of flinch fliers, most shooters I knew back then had better .22 scores than .45 scores because most had .22's that were more accurate than their .45's. But I didn't. So the precision of the weapon made a definite difference on paper.

Target shooting probably is the best test of the accurate gun's influence because even a poor shot will usually post a higher score with a good gun. I have several times loaned my match-accurized Garand and match ammo to beginning shooters who had been posting scores in the upper 50's to 60 percent range with the loose club loaner guns and ball ammunition at our 100-yard reduced range matches. All gained around 10 points with the good rifle and ammo. On two occassions, personal bests were posted that way. Mind you, still low scores, as the seasoned competitors went, but pretty exciting for the new shooters and it encouraged them.

That sort of marginal score improvement happens for statistical reasons. Even poor shots will usually throw a number of almost-shots during the course of a match, and with a good gun, an improvement of just a couple of percent in their group size will cause some near-scratches to "make". The bottom line is, most people can actually benefit their scores by having an accurate gun. Whether or not it outshoots you is not really the only consideration. It is whether or not poor shooting can be made even a little better with a more precise weapon. It can on scoring rings. On steel plates, it is harder to tell, so some of this is an activity-specific benefit. Nonetheless, if you have a gun of unknown precision, but know someone with a tuned custom gun, see if they will let you try it and see if you do better with it. Then you can decide whether you need one or not.

 

[TXAZ]

I'll throw a small wrench into the machine and statement. The pattern from a gun with a worn out barrel may look more like a shotgun or from a novice shooter beyond their skill level.

 

[TxFlyFish]

Jerry is only capable of shooting 4 inch groups at 50yd, because he states he cannot outshoot an off the rack S&W revolver. S&W, his sponsor, confirms that they make the most accurate guns in the world and that no one can outshoot a S&W revolver.

 

[JohnKSa]

If posters want to pretend they are better than their guns that is cool.

I'm not better than all my handguns, but I am definitely better than some of them.

Not necessarily because I'm such an amazing shot, but more because I have a few handguns that aren't very accurate.

I'm not as accurate as I once was. I've got some groups saved that go under 2" at 25 yards, shot offhand. I even shot one of those groups with witnesses. Back then I was better than more of my handguns than I am now.

 

[mrdaputer]

I'm not better than all my handguns, but I am definitely better than some of them.

Not necessarily because I'm such an amazing shot, but more because I have a few handguns that aren't very accurate.

I'm not as accurate as I once was. I've got some groups saved that go under 2" at 25 yards, shot offhand. I even shot one of those groups with witnesses. Back then I was better than more of my handguns than I am now.

You must have missed my post where I said decent gun

 

[JohnKSa]

Well, besides the fact that the title of the thread isn't "The decent gun always outshoots the owner", based on the accuracy tests I see in magazines, there are lots of decent handguns that won't shoot better than 2" at 25 yards.

Was just reading an article reviewing 3 S&W revolvers. They were all accuracy tested from a rest.

2 out of the three (one of them a Performance center revolver) didn't turn in any 25 yard accuracy figures that were as good as the witnessed group I mentioned shooting in the post above that was 1.63".

I just went through another magazine and out of the 6 handguns reviewed in that issue, all of which would easily be considered "decent" by most handgunner, only ONE of the 6 turned in an accuracy result under 2" at 25 yards.

So yeah, even decent handguns can be outshot by some shooters and not all shooters who claim to be outshooting their guns are pretending.

The bottom line is that while it is often true that the gun is more accurate than the shooter, it is not always more accurate than the shooter. Not even if it is a "decent" gun.

 

[mrdaputer]

Well, besides the fact that the title of the thread isn't "The decent gun always outshoots the owner", based on the accuracy tests I see in magazines, there are lots of decent handguns that won't shoot better than 2" at 25 yards.

Was just reading an article reviewing 3 S&W revolvers. They were all accuracy tested from a rest.

2 out of the three (one of them a Performance center revolver) didn't turn in any 25 yard accuracy figures that were as good as the witnessed group I mentioned shooting in the post above that was 1.63".

I just went through another magazine and out of the 6 handguns reviewed in that issue, all of which would easily be considered "decent" by most handgunner, only ONE of the 6 turned in an accuracy result under 2" at 25 yards.

So yeah, even decent handguns can be outshot by some shooters and not all shooters who claim to be outshooting their guns are pretending.

The bottom line is that while it is often true that the gun is more accurate than the shooter, it is not always more accurate than the shooter. Not even if it is a "decent" gun.

I am not the OP So you can't hang the title of the thread on me so there is that. I will take Jerry's and other pros word over a nobody on a forum so there is that too.

 

[JohnKSa]

I am not the OP So you can't hang the title of the thread on me so there is that.

The comment about the thread topic was just an "aside" comment made as a preface to the meat of my response. The rest of my post was, in fact, a direct response to your comment about what "decent" guns could do, but I see you chose to ignore that and focus exclusively on the prefatory remark.

Even Jerry Miculek says he can't shoot his guns as well as they could be"

That is a true statement, even for a shooter who can outshoot his guns. Unless a shooter is absolutely perfect, and doesn't introduce any error at all into the group size, then it would be accurate to say that he could shoot his guns better--or to say that he's not shooting them as well as he could be.

Example. A shooter contributes 1" of error on target while the gun contributes 2" of error on target. The shooter is clearly outshooting the gun, but the shooter can still shoot the gun better (get smaller groups) by eliminating some of the 1" of error he's contributing.

I will take Jerry's and other pros word over a nobody on a forum so there is that too.

Given that your interpretation of Miculek's remarks clearly clash with the facts;

1. It is foolish to continue to cling to that interpretation.
2. It is disingenuous to pretend that this discussion can be accurately described as nothing more than contrasting a pro-shooter's opinion against that of an anonymous person on the internet. You have been presented with facts--you don't have to blindly take anyone's word--you can look at the facts yourself and draw a sound conclusion from them.

 

[mrdaputer]

Quote:
I am not the OP So you can't hang the title of the thread on me so there is that.

The comment about the thread topic was just an "aside" comment made as a preface to the meat of my response. The rest of my post was, in fact, a direct response to your comment about what "decent" guns could do, but I see you chose to ignore that and focus exclusively on the prefatory remark.
Quote:
Even Jerry Miculek says he can't shoot his guns as well as they could be"

That is a true statement, even for a shooter who can outshoot his guns. Unless a shooter is absolutely perfect, and doesn't introduce any error at all into the group size, then it would be accurate to say that he could shoot his guns better--or to say that he's not shooting them as well as he could be.

Example. A shooter contributes 1" of error on target while the gun contributes 2" of error on target. The shooter is clearly outshooting the gun, but the shooter can still shoot the gun better (get smaller groups) by eliminating some of the 1" of error he's contributing.
Quote:
I will take Jerry's and other pros word over a nobody on a forum so there is that too.

Given that your interpretation of Miculek's remarks clearly clash with the facts;

1. It is foolish to continue to cling to that interpretation.
2. It is disingenuous to pretend that this discussion can be accurately described as nothing more than contrasting a pro-shooter's opinion against that of an anonymous person on the internet. You have been presented with facts--you don't have to blindly take anyone's word--you can look at the facts yourself and draw a sound conclusion from them.

So Jerry is wrong and you are right The best a gun can shoot is in a vice with no movement was my original point and if you think you can shoot better than that

 

[JohnKSa]

So Jerry is wrong and you are right

That's remarkably impressive obtuseness. I hope it's intentional.

No. Your interpretation of Jerry's comments is inaccurate. As I explained above, and as has been explained by others on this thread.

The best a gun can shoot is in a vice with no movement was my original point and if you think you can shoot better than that

Yes, as has been pointed out and supported with facts, some shooters are able to shoot smaller groups than some guns are capable of.

I have a gun that you can put into a vice and shoot it. When you're done, I will take another of my guns and shoot smaller groups with it than any achieved while shooting the other gun in the vice. Demonstrating that I can outshoot that gun in the vice.

HOWEVER, since I am still contributing some error to the group sizes, it would be accurate to say that I could still shoot my guns better than I do.

 

[mrdaputer]

That's remarkably impressive obtuseness. I hope it's intentional.

No. Your interpretation of Jerry's comments is inaccurate.Yes, as has been pointed out and supported with facts, some shooters are able to shoot smaller groups than some guns are capable of.

I have a gun that you can put into a vice and shoot it. When you're done, I will take another of my guns and shoot smaller groups with it than any achieved while shooting the other gun in the vice. Demonstrating that I can outshoot that gun in the vice.

HOWEVER, since I am still contributing some error to the group sizes, it would be accurate to say that I could still shoot my guns better than I do.

You are not out shooting the gun in the vice you are using a different gun that wasn't in a vice. If you can out shoot a decent gun in a vice well
Then you should do it for a living

 

[JohnKSa]

You are not out shooting the gun in the vice you are using a different gun that wasn't in a vice.

That's also been explained in detail and by more than one person on this thread.

1. The idea that a person's skill level is somehow reduced dependent on the gun they are using is incorrect. A gun doesn't become less accurate when an unskilled shooter holds it, neither does a shooter become less skilled when holding an inaccurate gun. Both the shooter and the gun still contribute their share of error to the overall group size in either case, and the one that contributes the least is the one that's outshooting the other.

2. Even if one chooses to reject the idea of being able to demonstrate shooting skill with a separate gun, it can still be shown whether or not a shooter is outshooting a gun. One can shoot the gun in a vice and then have the shooter fire it. If the error contribution of the shooter can be shown to be less than the error contribution of the gun, then, by any reasonable interpretation, the shooter is outshooting the gun.

If you can out shoot a decent gun in a vice well
Then you should do it for a living

I would like to do it for a living. Unfortunately, the ability to outshoot some of the guns I own isn't going to provide enough money to replace my current income.

 

[mrdaputer]

That's also been explained in detail and by more than one person on this thread.

1. The idea that a person's skill level is somehow reduced dependent on the gun they are using is incorrect. A gun doesn't become less accurate when an unskilled shooter holds it, neither does a shooter become less skilled when holding an inaccurate gun. Both the shooter and the gun still contribute their share of error to the overall group size in either case, and the one that contributes the least is the one that's outshooting the other.

2. Even if one chooses to reject the idea of being able to demonstrate shooting skill with a separate gun, it can still be shown whether or not a shooter is outshooting a gun. One can shoot the gun in a vice and then have the shooter fire it. If the error contribution of the shooter can be shown to be less than the error contribution of the gun, then, by any reasonable interpretation, the shooter is outshooting the gun.I would like to do it for a living. Unfortunately, the ability to outshoot some of the guns I own isn't going to provide enough money to replace my current income.

Now that's funny I don't care who you are. Thank you sir.

 

[JohnKSa]

Are you really saying that you read through the entire thread and still don't understand that:

1. The gun and the shooter each contribute errors which result in a combined group size that is made up of both error contributions.

2. That whichever (shooter or the gun) contributes the least error to the group size is outshooting the other.

If one really believes that shooting better or worse isn't the result of less or more error respectively, then there's no reasonable way to define shooting better or worse.

Now that's funny I don't care who you are. Thank you sir.

Well, I'm glad you can laugh about it. It seems more sad than funny to me...

 

[mrdaputer]

Are you really saying that you read through the entire thread and still don't understand that:

1. The gun and the shooter each contribute errors which result in a combined group size that is made up of both error contributions.

2. That whichever (shooter or the gun) contributes the least error to the group size is outshooting the other.

If one really believes that shooting better or worse isn't the result of less or more error respectively, then there's no reasonable way to define shooting better or worse.

Same old same old. Put a decent gun in a vice. Then using the same gun out shoot that. Then it would be out shooting your gun.

 

[JohnKSa]

Same old same old. Put a decent gun in a vice. Then out shoot that. Then it would be out shooting your gun.

No problem. I can put a number of my handguns in a vice and then demonstrate that I can shoot groups smaller than that.

I've already provided the explanation of how I did it.

Unless you're trying to say that my skill level actually changes when I hold different guns.

How well I can shoot is based on my skill, not on which gun I have in my hand at any given time.

What you're trying to say is that a person's skill is defined solely by what gun they have in their hands at the time.

Person A: "Oh look, Norbert can only shoot 5" groups."
Person B: "No, I've seen Norbert shoot 2" groups."
Person A: "But look at his groups."
Person B: "That gun won't shoot 2" groups--but you can't blame that on Norbert. I've seen him demonstrate that he can shoot groups much smaller than 5". He can easily outshoot that gun."
Person A: "Nope, clearly he can only shoot 5" groups."