The gun always outshoots the owner...

[mrdaputer]

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.

ok sure sure Didn't think anything was going to be funnier than that one post but never say never lol



Wait the funny part is that you don't make any mistakes so that you shoot better than your guns you put it on the internet so it must be true

 

[TxFlyFish]

I have a feeling we’re justifying purchases of revolvers incapable of holding decent groups. That’s fine if it doesn’t bother you. To many of us we’re not happy until we achieve a level where our ability is the limiting factor. Also not all guns shoot better off a vise.

In John’s case, in his pursuit for accuracy he has provided valuable advice based on his own experience diagnosing revolver inaccuracies that would benefit revolver shooters...cylinder throat variance, barrel constriction, timing issues just to name a few. John could have simply accepted the K38 paper plate performance, because heck how many people can outshoot a K38?

Judge the facts presented to you, don’t just dismiss it because Jerry says so. I would much appreciate if Jerry shows us the true potential of S&W revolvers by shooting a group. I’m not swayed by how many outtakes it took him to hit a snub at 200yd. The next time he says S&W shoots better than the shooter, I want to see the groups of a sample of factory revolvers. Go ahead put on a ransom.

Jerry won’t bench the S&W revolvers, because they are incapable of consistently holding tight groups. Then proceed to tell us the revolver shoots better than what we’re capable of so don’t worry about contacting S&W CS the next time it only prints paper plate size at 25yd.

 

[mrdaputer]

I have a feeling we’re justifying purchases of revolvers incapable of holding decent groups. That’s fine if it doesn’t bother you. To many of us we’re not happy until we achieve a level where our ability is the limiting factor. Also not all guns shoot better off a vise.

In John’s case, in his pursuit for accuracy he has provided valuable advice based on his own experience diagnosing revolver inaccuracies that would benefit revolver shooters...cylinder throat variance, barrel constriction, timing issues just to name a few. John could have simply accepted the K38 paper plate performance, because heck how many people can outshoot a K38?

Judge the facts presented to you, don’t just dismiss it because Jerry says so. I would much appreciate if Jerry shows us the true potential of S&W revolvers by shooting a group. I’m not swayed by how many outtakes it took him to hit a snub at 200yd. The next time he says S&W shoots better than the shooter, I want to see the groups of a sample of factory revolvers. Go ahead put on a ransom.

Jerry won’t bench the S&W revolvers, because they are incapable of consistently holding tight groups. Then proceed to tell us the revolver shoots better than what we’re capable of so don’t worry about contacting S&W CS the next time it only prints paper plate size at 25yd.

If the gun has issues then it is not a decent gun. It is just a gun that is functional

 

[TxFlyFish]

Too many lemons nowadays labeled as “decent” guns. Manufacturers sponsor people perpetuate the notion that guns perform better than what shooters are capable of. This discourages new shooters from improving their skill thinking that is all they are capable of, instead all along they have been shooting a factory lemon.

Which btw you mention that Jerry states that. But my take from Jerry is that advice for success is practice practice...work harder than everyone else. Such a motto would contradict that statement

 

[mrdaputer]

Too many lemons nowadays labeled as “decent” guns.
Jerry is that advice for success is practice practice...

A lemon is not a decent gun. If the barrel is canted etc... it is not a decent gun etc...

I agree there is no substitute for practicing a lot.

 

[stinkeypete]

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.

I want to get to the range soon, maybe I will look in to this or ask around my math buddies.

@jerry... let’s be clear that when we are talking about a “vice”, we mean a Ransom Rest with the proper insert to mount the frame of that gun. Think of it as a “robot hand.” It has a tiny wobble and a proper insert should simulate the human system but to mechanical perfection.

Boys, “luck” exists. Sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut in the forest. Sometimes you can flip 5 heads in a row.

Even more common than luck is BAD Experimental Design. Let me show you some bad ways to measure group size that I’ve read online:

A. “I shoot at a target until I get a ‘flier’, then I simply move to the next target and continue shooting until I get another flier or I get 10 on paper. Then I measure my group size”

That’s simply like flipping coins until you get 4 in a row then bragging to your friends that you can flip 5 in a row about half the time! You don’t get to cherry pick your data.

B. “I shoot 10 shots then ignore the outlier(s)”... this is 99.9% done wrong and is incorrect.

- Carefully define “outlier”- commonly defined as greater than 1.5 times the interquartile range- I’m a math and physics guy and I will have to think and learn for days to figure out where the center of a group of shots is mathematically.. anyways:

“I think I flinched that one because it’s not close to the center” isn’t an outlier.

“The ammo went “fwoop” instead of “bang”” or “My buddy pushed my elbow just as I was trying to shoot” or “a bird flew cross range and got hit before the paper” are the only data points that can be ignored.

C. “I measure my groups from 3 shots.” Okay then, tell me your measured group size from 4 trials in a row. (It’s easier to flip 3 heads in a row than 12)

D. “I throw out my first shot, then measure the next 10” - This has legitimacy for bench rest shooters where you can warm up before competing. It doesn’t work when shooting Bambi or Wiley... they are not going to let you warm up your barrel before you shoot ‘em.

When I was young I learned about the fallacy of “you are just a beginner, here, use this crap. It’s good enough.” In fact, it’s the opposite.

An EXPERT can use crap gear because they can use their skills to compensate as much as possible. The know when bad results are due to equipment.

When a beginner uses excellent gear (good enough to win a club match, not Camp Perry) they know that every error is on them and with thought and coaching they can improve. If something isn’t working, it’s the shooter. Improve, practice, learn.

When a beginner has crap gear, they don’t know why they are shooting poorly, why they have stovepipes, or even know there is a problem.

The very best advice I have is to join a club, participate in league shooting, find someone that will let you try their gear.

I remember loaning a buddy my izh target .22. At the time, it was about $500 but shot like a Hammerli and had a dot sight on it. He was shooting a stock Ruger with iron sights (good gun but not tuned for our job.) We pulled in his target. He looked at it. He looked again. “This is almost like cheating.” It was his highest score. It wasn’t close to my average score, it wasn’t close to the one ragged hole it could do resting on a sandbag.

As my old Dad used to say “you never know the quality you’ve been missing until you find it.”

 

[JohnKSa]

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.

 

[44 AMP]

I don't really see the point to getting into math formulas and averages, and further overcomplicating and overthinking what, to me is a simple matter.

Maybe you can shoot better with gun B than gun A, but that doesn't matter much when you are shooting gun A.

Shooter "error" and gun "error" are overlapping but not always cumulative. Nor are they consistent with every shot.

Sure, sometimes it is possible for a good shot to shoot a group smaller than the gun does from a machine rest. This isn't the shooter's "skill" overcoming the gun's mechanical ability, though it looks like it.

it is a matter of stacking tolerances, adding up in just the right way. Sometimes the shooter's "error" and the gun's "error" add together, sometimes they cancel each other. The amount of effect can change, even completely reverse, with every shot.

 

[JohnKSa]

Maybe you can shoot better with gun B than gun A, but that doesn't matter much when you are shooting gun A.

Of course it doesn't. But a shooter's skill is not a function of what gun he is using at the time.

We could have a discussion about why the COMBINED shooter's error plus a particular gun's error is always bigger than either of the two errors by itself, but I can't imagine that topic would interest anyone. I think everyone already knows that when you have two positive contributions and combine them, the result has to be bigger than either of the initial contributions.

If we talk about a shooter being able to outshoot another shooter, we're talking about comparing each of the shooter's skill--ability to consistently put shots close to the point of aim. We're not talking about the situation where one shooter has a very accurate gun and the other has one that is much less accurate because then we're not comparing what we want to compare--the shooters.

When we talk about one gun being able to outshoot another, we're talking about comparing the two guns accuracy (the ability to put shots close to each other on target) with shooter error removed to the extent possible. We're not talking about the accuracy of the shooters using them because then we're not comparing what we want to compare--the guns.

Why would we change that around when we're talking about a shooter being able to outshoot a particular gun? It's still the same thing. If the shooter can consistently do a better job of putting shots close together than Gun A can, then the shooter is outshooting Gun A.

So why the formulas?

The easiest way to see which is shooting better (the shooter or the gun) is to take a very accurate gun and see if the shooter can make smaller groups with that very accurate gun than Gun A is capable of doing when it is shot from a rest. If the shooter can shoot smaller groups than Gun A, then the shooter is clearly outshooting Gun A by our normal definition of what it means for one thing to outshoot another. But if there's no more accurate gun readily available to perform the test, we're sort of out of luck.

That's where the formulas come in. It's possible, using the estimate formulas provided, to make a determination using just the rested groups from the gun and the combined groups from the shooter/gun combination. Now all we need is the gun, the shooter, and a calculator. We don't have to go looking for a gun that is a lot more accurate than Gun A and hope we find one. But the point is the same in both cases. It's to determine which of the two variables (the shooter or the gun) is contributing less to the size of the groups on the target.

On the other hand, if we're going to define trying to "outshoot a gun" as being the rough equivalent of trying to go faster than the car you're currently riding in, then none of that is necessary. And no discussion is really necessary either because it's trivial to understand that when you combine a shooter's error and a gun's error, the result has to be bigger than either of the two errors alone.

 

[Unclenick]

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.

That would be outshooting the vice, not the gun.

By the way, a vice doesn't always outshoot you. It depends on the gun. A friend of mine years ago owned a Ransom Rest. With off-the-rack 1911's, we would sometimes outshoot the Ransom Rest from sandbags. The reason is the rest holds onto the grip frame, but accuracy depends the barrel getting back to the same position with respect to the target at the end of each firing cycle. Instead, it typically comes closer to getting back into alignment with the slide, and if that slide sits loosely on the frame, then the frame being in the same position with respect to the target doesn't guarantee the barrel is. The premise of that rest is that it will. But unless the pistol has specifically been fitted to keep the frame and slide snug with one another, the ability of the human to shift the frame when the slide shifts, so the sights are correctly aligned with the target would sometimes allow us to do better than the Ransom Rest.

You would not expect that with revolvers, but I don't recall us ever anteing up for the inserts to run any revolvers through it.

 

[mrdaputer]

That would be outshooting the vice, not the gun.

By the way, a vice doesn't always outshoot you. It depends on the gun. A friend of mine years ago owned a Ransom Rest. With off-the-rack 1911's, we would sometimes outshoot the Ransom Rest from sandbags. The reason is the rest holds onto the grip frame, but accuracy depends the barrel getting back to the same position with respect to the target at the end of each firing cycle. Instead, it typically comes closer to getting back into alignment with the slide, and if that slide sits loosely on the frame, then the frame being in the same position with respect to the target doesn't guarantee the barrel is. The premise of that rest is that it will. But unless the pistol has specifically been fitted to keep the frame and slide snug with one another, the ability of the human to shift the frame when the slide shifts, so the sights are correctly aligned with the target would sometimes allow us to do better than the Ransom Rest.

You would not expect that with revolvers, but I don't recall us ever anteing up for the inserts to run any revolvers through it.

No that would be what the gun is capable of shooting, or figure out how to take all human error out of the equation.

 

[Unclenick]

No. The gun is the same, whether the human or the vicet has hold of it, so the performance of the human and the vice are the two variables being compared.

The Ransom Rest (a shooting vice) is not human. That means it does not introduce human error, but it also means it does not perform human corrections to sight alignment. It only controls the location of the grip frame. It is never aware of whether or not the sights are coming back into the same alignment with that frame after every cycle or not. Many self-loaders do not do that perfectly every time. So, whether or not the human or the rest shoots tighter groups with a particular gun depends on whether those sight alignment errors are bigger than human hold errors or not.

The Ransom Rest does have an adjustable platform you could make sight correction with after every shot, but then you've reintroduced a source of human error (vision limitations).

 

[mrdaputer]

No. The gun is the same, whether the human or the rest has hold of it, so the performance of the human and the rest are the two variables being compared.

The Ransom Rest is not human. That means it does not introduce human error, but it also means it does not perform human corrections to sight alignment. It only controls the location of the grip frame. It is never aware of whether or not the sights are coming back into the same alignment with that frame after every cycle or not. Many self-loaders do not do that perfectly every time. So, whether or not the human or the rest shoots tighter groups with a particular gun depends on whether those alignment errors are bigger than human hold errors or not. Neither the rest nor the human is demonstrating exactly what the gun can do with perfectly aligned sights.

The rest still has human error because a human is holding the gun on the rest.

 

[Unclenick]

By rest, I mean the Ransom Rest, which is a form of mechanical shooting vice, not sandbags with a human holding the gun. I'm sorry if that was unclear. If they had named it the Ransom Vice, the confusion could not occur. But they didn't. I will edit my last post to make it clear.

I have edited it. Please reread.

 

[mrdaputer]

By rest, I mean the Ransom Rest, which is a form of mechanical shooting vice, not sandbags with a human holding the gun. I'm sorry if that was unclear. If they had named it the Ransom Vice, the confusion could not occur. But they didn't. I will edit my last post to make it clear.

I have edited it. Please reread.

I over looked the Ransom part in your post that was totally my fault.

 

[David R]

95 posts. I keep reading a gun in a ransom rest shoots better than some one holding it.

So EVERY GUN shoots better than I can.

What is the point?

I don't think that was the original context.

David

 

[MrBorland]

I keep reading a gun in a ransom rest shoots better than some one holding it.

So EVERY GUN shoots better than I can.

What is the point?

Then you missed the point. Re-read the thread. If you're pressed for time, just read the first parts of posts 18 and 44.

 

[stinkeypete]

@john: thank you for the Excellent explanation of using root mean squared. I had forgotten and I should have known. You rock.

Math and science are very important to me as a hobby marksman, competetor, reloader, and consumer.

By the way, I just outshot my very nice .22 bolt action CZ American 2 days ago! My group sizes slowly were creeping up, scope would not zero, and one brand of match ammunition grouped like a .410.

I stopped, took my targets home and thought. Then looked. My scope was loose because I had used crap rings and not cranked em down and loc-tited because I was waiting for the proper rings (Burris... good company. 22 Signiture rings are my choice) to arrive in the ups truck. Loose scope.

Some guys at the range are shooting stuff that inherently won’t group: short sight radius. Put it in a ransom rest, it will group.

Some guys are shooting stuff that inherently CANT group. Put it in a ransom rest and it sprays.

I hope we all agree.. There is no way, skill or magic that can allow a shooter to shoot a gun better than that guns inherent accuracy. Sometimes there is luck, but that’s not gonna hold for 20 shots.

What I find disheartening is the idea that a new shooter does not need a good gun.

A new shooter with a pos (piece of something) gun will retard their learning. Their errors and the gun error are so entwined they can’t observe their own improvement.

A new shooter also doesn’t need a 1 moa .45 target pistol because math. See #87. There is the ol price vs performance curve where performance is asymptotic and cost is exponential. (Simply put, little improvements start costing more and more the better and better you want.)

Having seen John’s post, the math is there for any way you care to frame the question. When we talk in math, the only disagreements are about interpreting English or the intended question.

Ps- a ransom rest might have errors or flaws in the insert for a particular gun. If so, it’s not properly set up or is used incorrectly. However, when testing handguns, the army had armorers shooting pistols by hand for weeks and weeks, all day, to remove any claim of bias that a mechanical device didn’t properly simulate the human hand/arm/body for combat purposes. My pistolsmith complained he was one of those guys years after the experience but said it sure gave him hand strength!

His ransom rest was mounted in a 4x4x4 foot block of concrete out behind his shop. He checked the aim before each shot and I got a nice big ragged 10 shot hole from 50 yards away (and used his handload data for my own ammo). It was a beat up old hand me down gun passed through many members at our club, it was cheaper than a new factory target gun, even after it’s tune up. I learned a lot.

 

[saleen322]

The gun always outshoots the owner, the gun is more accurate than I am, it is the Indian not the arrow, etc that some people post believing it is profound have as much value to me as a poster stating "My favorite color is blue." Shooting silhouette for years, if you want to be successful, you better have an accurate handgun and load combination. Most people who did well at it spent a lot of time bench testing to be confident they are getting the most accuracy out of their equipment. The last accuracy game I was doing was Free Pistol or 50 meter pistol. The 10 ring is less than 2 inches in diameter, 50 meters away, and you are shooting with one hand. On the rare times I break a shot with sights in the 10 ring, I want the gun to deliver that 10. So I spent a lot of time to find that Lapua Center X shoots better than Eley match or Tenx from my gun; not a big difference, but 3/8" group ammo will beat 1/2" groups over a 60 shot match. We have our own range with a test fixture mounted on 8X8 timbers, set in concrete to test from because of course shooters have error but the object is separating the equipment from the shooter so you can see the performance of each to improve both.

I appreciate the statistics that John posted. I will add this from looking at thousands of targets in the decades of being a firearms instructor, their shots are not entirely random. If you take 10 targets from 10 different shooters, there will be more shots below and to the left of the aiming point on average. I say that because most people are right handed, most tend to not have their finger perpendicular to the trigger and push the barrel left (left handers push right); and they tend to snap/jerk the trigger somewhat pulling shots low. Better shooters have less error but still generally follow the pattern. Good shooters will still often have a larger vertical spread than horizontal as that always seems more difficult to control. If you want to try it, shoot 25 to 50 shots at a target from 15 yards or greater distance. Find the shot the farthest from the center and use it as the radius to draw a circle around the aiming point then draw a vertical line through the center and then a horizontal line through the center forming 4 pie sections. Count the shots in each quadrant and most right-handed shooters will have the most in the low-left quadrant. The take of this is that the error is not completely random making it challenging to predict the resultant error of gun-ammo-shooter combo.

..and I do like blue but I am not sure it is my favorite color

 

[Unclenick]

That pretty much matches my experience (though I think you meant to draw the circle around the center of the mean POI rather than the POA; I use a 6:00 hold offhand and using my point of aim as the center would just put all the shots inside the upper two quadrants of the circle.) As I mentioned earlier, I've loaned better guns and ammo to beginners to try in the past, and they always increased their scores. It doesn't take much group improvement to turn almost-scratch-points into actual scratch points. Sometimes less than a hundredth of an inch.