“This gun & proper ammo are more accurate than 99% of….

[Slamfire]

I totally agree. Mike Venturino is one of the very few gunwriters ever to shoot in competition. I respect that. I shoot Highpower, just shot a match yesterday. When you shoot against the best shots in the nation it is a real eye opener as to what a good man and a good weapon can do. And incidentally, you get an idea that not everyone is capable of MOA. In fact, darn few. You also get a very realistic idea of what out of the box weapons will do. So when I hear of guys getting MOA with Mil Surplus rifles that on the average shoot 3 MOA in my hands, they either got a good one, or they are cherry picking their targets.

Oh yes, most folks shoot off the bench. Guess what, life does place benches behind every tree and bush. In real life, there is a lot of unsupported shooting. That is the real measure of the package of person and firearm. How well do they do off the bench.

I did not shoot this group, but a bud of mine did. He shot this offhand with an iron sighted AR at a 100 yard Highpower Match. This is a 99-7X, best X count I have witnessed offhand. My bud has been in the President's 100 a couple of times, came in second at least once at the Camp Perry Garand Match. This is good shooting. Takes a lot of practice to get this good.

[ATTACH=full]324138[/ATTACH]

 

[bluto]

Obxned summed it up very well for me.

I also believe that most modern production firearms are capable of very good accuracy without any 'smithing. But that may be from a Ransom Rest. Intrinsically accurate, but sometimes not user friendly. It's been my experience that a good trigger can make all the difference between a "POS!" and "this pistol just finds the target by itself".

Second up is making sure that the sights suit your eyes. It is certainly possible to adapt to your gun. I have "adapted/bonded" with several of mine after a thousand rounds or so (I'm not a quitter). But an investment in a good trigger should almost always help a shooter improve no matter what his level of expertise.

 

[jpwilly]

I shot this at 25yrds with the pictured PT1911 weaver stance. There are 100 rnds through it a few are covered up by the pistol. A mix if slow fire and some fast fire. The small 22cal holes are my M4 rapid fire shooting at a mark that has been cropped out of the pic.

 

[Clipper]

It's been my experience that the pistol being more accurate than the shooter is true in most cases. Maybe I'm exceptional, but I know enough guys that shoot as well or better than I do that I doubt I'm anything special, but there are sure a ton of handgun shooters that blow up copious ammounts of ammo and couldn't hit a playing card at 10 yards. OTOH, I might get out to the range 4-5 times over the summer and shoot at most 100 rounds at a time on my friend's 30 yard range. I've never needed to shoot a truckload of ammo to stay a viable shooter, and I've never had a trigger or action job, or for that matter, any custom work done on any of my handguns, and an unsupported 6" group at 50 yards is not a remarkable event.

I think the cause of many problems is that many shooters think too much. They run through this mental checklist of grip, sight picture, trigger pressure, blah, blah, blah until they're shaking and weaving from all the other crap slowing down and muddying up what should be a relatively simple and expeditious process. I also think that many shooters get caught up in the 'tactical' garbage and all the Mosambique drill stuff that they never learn how to shoot well. I believe that until one is able to shoot well off the rest, and really find out how to make do with crummy triggers, factory sights, non-custom grips and all the other whiz-bang gadgets while becoming confident in ones own abilities, the process is incomplete. I once took my .357 Blackhawk on a camping trip so a friend could try it out and see if she wanted to get one. I hadn't fired that pistol in almost 3 years. We set a coffee can on it's side, end-on at 50 yards, and there were many surprised faces when my first round hit, and the next five kept it jumping around too. The lady took a little tutoring, but was doing well quickly, when her cop husband whipped out a Beretta 92 and proceded to unload on that can without touching it. He was making excuses about worn-out service pistols, until his greenhorn wife proceeded to lay at least half a magazine full into that can from that same gun...

 

[JohnKSa]

I think the cause of many problems is that many shooters think too much.

Lining up the sights and squeezing the trigger is EASY. Things go bad when you let your head get too involved...

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

One of the biggest improvements I have seen to my groups was to stiffen my shooting thumb. It prevented my trigger finger from moving my shot group over to the side and equalizing the pressure from trigger finger to thumb.

PRACTICE THE EL PRESIDENTE!

 

[mljdeckard]

There are two different directions to approach the problem from.

I used to sell guitars. I would have guys come in thinking that if they spent $3500 on Eddie Van Halen's signature series guitar, they could play like Eddie Van Halen. I would let them know that if Mr. EVH picked up a $99 Korean knock-off, he would STILL sound like EVH. The extra quality in the better guitar is justified ONLY if the PLAYER has been trained up to it.

HOWEVER, there is also the player (or shooter, for that matter,) who knows that they wren't that good, (yet), but they want to know that their gear is solid, so that if there any tweaks that need to be made, they are in the USER, NOT THE GEAR. This approach is much more reasonable. They are ready for a $500-$1000 guitar. Many will become professionals using the same guitar.

I will absolutely tell anyone to max out the performance of their gear before they start modifying it. You don't need a pistol that shoots 1" at 25 yards if YOU can't shoot 6" at 25 yards.

 

[mainmech48]

Have to agree with Tuner's observation regarding rested vs offhand groups. I've seen too many folks who seem to be under the impression that skill can be purchased over-the-counter, as if buying a MOA rifle or a 2" @ 50 yds pistol will magically endow them with the ability to produce that level of results. Or at least turn their patterns into groups.

Also dittoes to Slamfire. As the late Colonel Cooper observed "Marksmanship isn't what you can do once, it's what you can do on-demand." As another who's heard and read of a whole slough more near-MOA groups coming out of run-of-the-mill surplus rifles than I've actually seen delivered when a demonstration was requested, it does tend to make one a bit cynical.

Mr. Venturino has also written descriptions of a couple of fellas we all know well: "Daniel Boone" and "The Dangerous Man".

Briefly, "Daniel Boone" will tell you that while he might not be able to hit paper for beans, if you 'put hair around it' he'll drill it every time. Usually in the leg, gut or brisket and seldom recovered, but he'll drill it allright.

"The Dangerous Man" is one who carries some type of handgun and declares himself to be ready, able and all-too-willing to 'take care of me and mine'. He doesn't practice, hasn't trained, and couldn't put a magazine or cylinder-full onto a 10" paper plate for you from 15 yds for diamonds. "Dangerous Man" indeed!

IMHO, most of the money spent on 'enhancements' would've been more effectively used on practice ammunition, training and range time. Until I can do that little trick with the rest and offhand well enough to match a Ransom Rest, that's where mine will go first.

 

[RPCVYemen]

I love math--it's even better when someone else does it for me.

And it's better when the math matches reality! That math really matches what I see at the range. If you just watch the targets, I don't think you tell the guy shooting the $1500 pistol from the guy shooting the $500 pistol.

If you were given a set of targets collected during an average week at an active range, could you distinguish targets that had been shot by high dollar customized pistols from those shot by middle of the road out of the box pistols.

My guess is that less than one half of one percent of us can really shoot as well as our stock weapons shoot. If you think that you're in that group, then there's a 99.5% chance that you're wrong.

I read posts from people on THR who buy a decent quality handgun, and immediately specify all kinds of gunsmithing. My own uncharitable evaluation is that there is a heck of a lot more gunsmithing done for bragging rights than gunsmithing that noticeably improves the weapon in the hands of the owner.

Maybe I am just whining because what I could afford is a $400 Blackhawk, and it shoots a heck of a lot better than I do. I have yet to see it shoot anywhere except where I am pointing it. The "pointing it" is the hard part. I almost never send an inaccurate round down range without knowing I screwed up before the bullet left the barrel. The sight picture tells me who's screwing up, and it ain't Bill Ruger.

Mike

 

[MrBorland]

I hear what y'all are saying, but IMO, here's what it comes down to: The best gun in the world is the one that you enjoy shooting the most and gets you out there practicing.

I compete in another sport that can be very equipment-centric as well. Yes, it's true a pro could whoop my butt using most anything - but whether a fellow competitor should spend money on this or that, my feeling is that if it they know what they're paying for, if it gets them out there training more, and they enjoy it, and don't expect it instantly turn them into a pro level competitor (and they can afford it), then sure, why not? 1 of 2 things usually then happens: 1) they'll enjoy it and train more, but also have the epiphanny us old farts had and realize that while good and reliable equipment is important, the training was the real key, or 2) they'll think they didn't spend enough money, in which case, all the lecturing in the world won't change their minds.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

I say let them stimulate the ecomony if they wish and buy whatever they want. Wisdom should prevail first as always. When in the service I have seen some U.S. Army 1911s with slop around slides that shot pretty good and pretty dependable. Hardly any stoppages but they weren't race guns either.. I miss those Colts. Fine shooting pistols, just as they were meant to be.

 

[Rinspeed]

Lining up the sights and squeezing the trigger is EASY.

The sights are always lined up, it is the shooter that is not.

 

[1911Tuner]

The sights are always lined up, it is the shooter that is not.

Ahhhh. Occam's Razor in its most basic form.

To wit:

The simple answer is usually the right answer.

 

[M67]

I think it's a bit more complicated.

Just because you can't "outshoot" a particular gun, it doesn't necessarily follow that you won't benefit from a better gun.

Most of you seem to think that a shooter's ability is fixed. As in being able to shoot say a six inch group at 25 yards. In my experience that is not so. Give that 6 inch shooter a better gun and she may suddenly be able to shoot a 4 inch group. Note: I said may be, not will be. No two people are the same, but I have seen it too often to write it off as coincidence.

"Better" gun doesn't necessarily mean better Ransom rest accuracy. Factors like ergonomics, trigger pull and sights are at least as important. If anything, most shooters will probably get better groups with a "two inch gun" with a trigger job than a "one inch gun" with a bad trigger. Of course, most manufacturers will not make a gun with a $500 trigger and a $20 rusty sewer pipe for a barrel or the other way around, so chances are a "better" gun will have both a better barrel and a better trigger than a "lesser" gun.

If you buy a gun for home defense, have the gun store person help you load it, take it home and put it in the sock drawer without ever learning how to use it - then it probably won't matter one way or the other.

But if you practice, get some training, have any ambition at all for improving your shooting skills - then you will learn much faster with a good gun than with a not-so-good one. And the learning curve will be steeper from the first shot, long before you reach the theoretical "inherent accuracy" of the less accurate gun.

I aggree, you can't buy shooting skills by buying a more expensive gun. But most people can learn how to outshoot an inaccurate gun, given practice and a willingness to learn. And IMO it's better to learn with a good gun than with a crappy one.

 

[TimboKhan]

I am no expert by any imaginable means, but I do practice when I can and I think thats the best training possible. But, then again, I actually enjoy shooting as a recreational activity, where some people don't. If you don't, it's hard to really focus on getting good at something, even if it is as important as using your firearm properly. This is why tons of people can strum a simple tune on the guitar, but there is only on Eddie Van Halen.

I also think that shooters, like any other group of people, are easily swayed by assuming that their gear is at fault. Golfers happily spend thousands on clubs assuming that they are going to pick up a couple strokes, and when they don't, they spend thousands more. The golfers that spend the money on lessons and actually go out and play? They are better. Golf, like shooting, is an activity where money can buy you pretty precision tools, but it can't buy you the expertise to use them.

 

[Deacon Blues]

Golf, like shooting, is an activity where money can buy you pretty precision tools, but it can't buy you the expertise to use them.

Fantastic example. Golfers really do parallel shooters in this manner. I know a golfer who proved your point perfectly; he picked up some really good golf instruction on vacation, and was driving balls ~150 yards with a cheap putting wedge! Had I not witnessed it, I wouldn't have believed it. Handgun designs have been steadily improving for much longer than any of us have been alive; it only stands to reason that they should be well ahead of us and our training.

 

[1911Tuner]

I once knew an old gentleman...now deceased...who pursued the Southeastern Whitetail every year. Back then, the limit was two.
Every year...just before the season opened, he went down to the hardware store..Wilson-Pleasants...and bought two rounds of .30-30 ammunition for his old M94 Winchester rifle. Pre-war '94. Every year, he filled his tags. Two shots...Two deer.

One day, I stopped by and asked him if he'd like to go to the rifle range with me, and he accepted. He brought his deer rifle...the only gun he owned. We had to stop and buy ammo for it. I shot the rifle from the bags at 75 yards. Three 3-shot groups averaged about 5 inches with the ammo that he bought. I think it was Winchester Super-X 170-grain. Hardly more accurate than a good Wrist Rocket...but every year, he fired two shots and killed two deer, and...being a still hunter...he always shot from offhand, and most often at a fast-moving target at ranges from 15 yards out to a hundred...depending on where he happened to be hunting.

So...was that rifle inaccurate? By benchrest standards, it was horribly so. By match standards...it was laughable. By field standards...it was perfectly adequate for the purpose and fully up to the task...obviously. So, it would seem to me that if the gun is accurate enough to hit the target at the ranges and in the time frames involved...it's accurate enough.

 

[JohnKSa]

So, it would seem to me that if the gun is accurate enough to hit the target at the ranges and in the time frames involved...it's accurate enough.

That's a fact that often gets lost in the shuffle.

I recently took a pistol to the range for an informal competition. This was a pretty heavily used gun of a variety I've never found to be impressively accurate. However we weren't shooting for groups, the test was reactive targets at 20 yards or so. In spite of using what I KNEW to be a relatively inaccurate gun and shooting against guns that I KNEW to be much more accurate, I still won the contest.

It was accurate enough.

 

[wideym]

Many people don't like the idea of spending a couple of days, several hundred dollars, and usually traveling several hundred miles to attend shooting classes, only to be told on the first day that its a skill that degrades over time.

I went to a combat pistol class once in Texas. I spend $1800 total only to feel like a chump when it was over. The instructor waxed on and on about his Seal, SF, Delta buddies were the finest instuctors ever and if you did not improve your shooting 1000% you were beyond help. He also ridiculed everybody's equipment that was not exacty like his and praised his companys high dollar tacticool accesories as a must for any serious shooter who wanted to improve their shooting. It turned me and several other student off shooting schools.

Now I tell people to invest their money in ammo and practice.

 

[trueblue1776]

wideym- Thanks for the counter-perspective. I too have a less than stellar opinion of tactical schools.

Toward the end of my gov't career I was sent to a few schools as the general consensus with the brass was: Anything with "Anti-terrorism" in the title is worth it's weight in gold. What I found was many of the instructors focused on style, and few had more actual experience than I did. I actually went to a school where the instructors refused to use M-16/M-4's, the insisted the M-14 was a superior weapon and used that for instruction.

I have a few good stories about the freaks who teach those classes, and in general they were a huge waste of taxpayer money and my time. The classes that are worth money IMO are the ones that emphasize hand-hand combat. Hand-hand combat translates heavily into survival fighting and defense, either with a pistol or without. Also it is fantastic for building confidence, most guys don't realize how fragile other people really are.

I learned how to shoot accurately in the 4-H sharpshooter program when I was 10, everything else is just gravy.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

trueblue1776 Quoted:

[The classes that are worth money IMO are the ones that emphasize hand-hand combat. Hand-hand combat translates heavily into survival fighting and defense, either with a pistol or without. /QUOTE]
You can't hit the nail any better than that. The problem nowadays in the Army is this. Some commands are not following through with combatives and are leaving servicemen with the basics. These servicemen are carrying a false confidence from some of these combative courses because it is only taught in school environments and not followed up on frequently enough. Combatives need not be left at the basic level but need to be carried up to more advanced levels. You are right that people are fragile and the first to know "inculcated is a better word" never let your opponent get into a physical confrontation with you during a combative situation. A man fighting for his life gains the strength of 5 several more than that. Combatives is not a subject that should be taught then pass or fail but trained and trained. Advance that training up a notch and train again. The brass makes the mistake that #1 meet the requirement (combatives at the level 1 stage).
Combatives is a continuing process and not a met requirement.

 

[gandog56]

Placement, placement, placement. All the bells and whistles in the world won't help a poor shot.

 

[givo08]

This gun & proper ammo are more accurate than 99% of the shooters using them.

I understand the idea they are trying to get across here, but I completely disagree with the way this statement is worded and I cringe every time I see it written in a magazine.

Overall accuracy is basically the combination of the standard variation in the accuracy of the shooter and the standard variation in accuracy of the gun. For example, if a shooter would shoot and average of 4" groups by himself without taking into account the variation of the gun, his overall accuracy would be 4". However if you add in the variation of the gun that shoots maybe 3" average groups from a ransom rest, the average group size for the whole "system" would be 7". This is simple statistics. The way these writers make this statement you would think that if the gun shoots 3" groups but the shooter shoots 4" average groups then the combination of both will at worst be 4" average groups.

Of course a gun will shoot more accurately by itself in a ransom rest or other mechanical device than a shooter can possibly shoot, but that doesn't mean that accuracy important. If you have a gun that will group 0.5" groups out of a ransom rest vs. one that will shoot 4" groups, then the difference in average group sizes for the shooter above is 8" vs. 4.5".

Training is important...but there are two ways to reduce the variation in your group size and one is with the equipment you use. You just have to decide what is "good enough" for you.

 

[JohnKSa]

For example, if a shooter would shoot and average of 4" groups by himself without taking into account the variation of the gun, his overall accuracy would be 4". However if you add in the variation of the gun that shoots maybe 3" average groups from a ransom rest, the average group size for the whole "system" would be 7".

This has been covered in the thread. Actually you can't just add the two numbers directly to get the resulting accuracy.