Wait the funny part is that you don't make any mistakes...
You are not so obtuse as to fail to understand that this is a blatant mischaracterization of my comments. In fact, even saying it's a "blatant mischaracterization" is being generous.
The fact that you disagree with and/or don't understand what I have posted doesn't make it ok to make up words and put them in my mouth--especially when you have to directly contradict clear statements I've made in order to achieve that goal.
I was hoping that someone here has a degree in Statistics and would provide the formula for how the wobble diameter of (shooter wobble) .and. (Gun inaccuracy) combine to Total Wobble Diameter.
If a shooter's error can be isolated and stated as group size, and the gun's error can be isolated and stated as group size, then a good estimate for the combined group size can be found by squaring the shooter's group size, squaring the gun's group size, summing the squares, and then taking the square root of the sum.
So if the gun's machine rested group size is 2" and the shooter's group size with a perfectly accurate gun is 3", then the estimate of the combined group size will be:
Square Root of (3 squared + 2 squared) = Square Root (9 + 4) = Square Root (13) = about 3.6"
The formula for the estimate can also be worked backwards to separate out the shooter's estimated contribution if the combined group size is available, along with the size of the gun's rested group size.
Example: Combined group size is 5". The gun, when shot in a machine rest provides 3" groups.
5" = square root (shooters group squared + 3^2) = square root (x^2 + 9)
Square both sides.
25 = x^2 + 9
25-9 = x^2
16 = x^2
Take the square root of both sides.
4 = x
So the estimate of the shooter's group size would be 4".
The formula for estimating the shooter's group size from the machine rested group for the gun and the combined shooter/gun group size is:
Shooter's Group Size = square root( Combined Group squared - Gun Group squared)
The second estimate provides a useful way to separate the shooter's error out of the combined error if rested group sizes for the gun are available. That, in turn, allows one to see if the shooter's error is greater or less than the gun's. This is useful because it can help a shooter determine if it is worthwhile to spend money on more expensive equipment.
Looking back at the example above, switching from a 3" gun to a 2" gun would provide a combined group size of about 4.5" if the shooter's error remains at 4". A 33% improvement in the accuracy of the firearm only provided a 10% benefit in the combined groups. That's because the larger error tends to dominate the combined groups. If the gun is clearly the larger contributor of error, then going to a more accurate gun can make a significant difference. But if the shooter is clearly the larger error contributor, then a more accurate gun may not provide much of a benefit.
I have a feeling we’re justifying purchases of revolvers incapable of holding decent groups.
Again, it comes down to what a decent group is. If the sampling from the magazine I looked through is any evidence, handguns that will reliably print groups under 2" are not super common. 5 out of the 6 handguns reviewed didn't get below that threshold. Looking at revolvers, exclusively, might improve things a bit, but even then, I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that any revolver that won't print groups under 2" at 25 yards is not a decent gun.