"Average" is how good, exactly?

[Mikhail Weiss]

DavidE
Ok, so how good IS "average" as it relates to handgun shooting? … So, what IS the "average ability?"

Here's what I see, on average, at the range. Most shooters use B-27 targets, put them at seven yards, and produce abysmal slow-fire accuracy and abysmal rapid-fire accuracy. What does “abysmal” mean? Shooters ostensibly aiming for the X-ring mostly manage to keep shots in the black (about 80%), throw some into the white, but pretty much use every inch of black space available inside and outside the 7-ring. Few such “average” shooters seem satisfied working much with slow fire, and prefer quicker paces – not machine-gunning, mind you, they just shoot faster than their skill allows. In short, their targets exhibit very wide shotgun-like patterns.

Among this group, I always see a smattering of “minimal familiarity with firearms”: although most folks know how to load them, a surprising number don't know how to unload them and, to a less surprising extent, most don't know how to get them working again when they malfunction.

The reason for all this, I think, is because most of these “average” shooters who visit the range are “occasional” shooters and “recreational” shooters; they do it for fun, but without much concern for honing skills beyond a rudimentary knowledge of how to operate a given handgun, and a general desire to hit the target better than others in their shooting party.

Among the more regular visitors, all of them are much better than the above-mentioned. For one thing, they shoot with more deliberateness, no matter the pace or distance, and produce more regular, and useful, accuracy. Among this second group, their 7-yard targets may exhibit shot patterns around ten inches, max, on average, and they seem more dedicated to producing useful accuracy at useful speeds. These folks seem more intent on honing at least rudimentary defensive shooting skills, and on any given week, the ratio of the former to the latter is maybe eight of ten.

The few serious competitors who show up spend a lot of time blasting quick, fist-sized holes in targets at five yards with .40- or .45-caliber handguns, or taking their time poking .22-sized holes in small dots at 25 yards.

One guy, though, did some hip-shooting with a big-bore revolver, consistently putting holes in a half-dollar-sized group in the target head (slowly), and in a palm-sized group, target's center of mass (a little quicker), at five yards.

 

[tipoc]

I think alot of what Mikhail said sounds right.

Accuracy is related to the task. Combat accuracy is much different than hunting accuracy.

"Average" also varies depending on the size of the crowd you are looking at and the skill set you are looking for. If you get too large a sample of people, "all gun owners" for example, there is no way of telling or measuring that can pretend to be anything but a guess.

On the other hand it's pretty easy to tell if you are an average shot or not. It's also pretty easy to tell if you are a little better than average.

tipoc

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

David E
So, what IS the "average ability?" How do we define it? Strictly by the ability to place hits on a given target at a given range? Should it include reloading? Should it include strong hand/weak hand shooting? Should it include a time frame?

“On average,” I'd like to see gun owners able to handle their guns safely, shoot competently, reload smoothly, correct malfunctions, and maintain their firearms.

But what does that “shoot competently” part mean? For basic defensive shooting, it means being able to put rounds into an 8-inch circle in a target's chest, and an index-card sized spot in the middle of a target's face. They should be able to do this at 3, 5, and 7 yards, going no faster than the speed at which they can consistently do it, with the goal to become incrementally faster. I'd even like to see them able to do these things while starting from concealment, though proceeding from a ready position may be just as well for an “average” starting point.

Certainly there are other skills I'd like to see “on average,” even ones that I think are essential to a well-rounded skill set, but this looks like a pretty simple, basic, rock-bottom starting place that almost anyone could achieve. Other people no doubt have other ideas.

That said, in this theoretical case, “average” defensive shooters would be those who could do the above. No real time limits, no special emphasis on one- or two-handed pistolcraft, just an emphasis upon basic shooting to produce useful results. These “average” shooters would start sorting themselves out as the speed at which they could do those things increased, and as they added greater demand or complexity to their practice.

Such are my thoughts for now, anyway.

 

[David E]

tipoc, Unless we can define "average" then how can we know if we're above that level? (and yes, I recognize that "average" taken across the broad spectrum of gunowners is pitiful.)

Mikhail, I like your post.

 

[NMGonzo]

I have an above average ability to stay out of trouble.

ha!

 

[45Frank]

I have seem to have the opposite problem.

Unread Today, 01:44 AM #30
NMGonzo
Member


Join Date: September 10, 2009
Location: Albuquerque & Santa Fe
Posts: 879

I have an above average ability to stay out of trouble.

ha!
__________________
New Mexico's free shooting sports classifieds

 

[tipoc]

tipoc, Unless we can define "average" then how can we know if we're above that level?

It's a puzzler ain't it?

When I am in a room full of people I am somehow able to tell if I am about average height or not. Compared to those in the room of course. In the NBA it'd be different.

In high school when I ran track I could figure out whether I was an average (or below or above) runner by where I placed in the race and of course by the type race being run. Compared to those in that race of course. In a marathon I could compare my times.

When I am at the range I can see how others there are shooting and place myself roughly in that lineup. In competitive shooting I can see where I place as there are rankings and scoring.

See David it ain't hard at all. You just have to define your parameters. Average of what and average for what. What is the size of the group and what do you have them doing? If a fella can't define the parameters than a fella can't define average. It's that simple.

tipoc

 

[David E]

See David it ain't hard at all. You just have to define your parameters. Average of what and average for what. What is the size of the group and what do you have them doing? If a fella can't define the parameters than a fella can't define average. It's that simple.

Wow.....no kiddin' ?

Maybe that's why I said this in the OP.........

As my Dad said, "Averages are always wrong" because there are better and worse levels out there. As someone has as his tagline, there is a big difference between being a "shooter" and being a "gunowner." However, the "gunowner" needs to be included when determining an average ability.

So, what IS the "average ability?" How do we define it? Strictly by the ability to place hits on a given target at a given range? Should it include reloading? Should it include strong hand/weak hand shooting? Should it include a time frame?

I suggest that the parameters be simply this: How far away can the "average" shooter, starting from low-ready, hit a sheet of typing paper with 5 shots in 5 seconds?

I'm going to say 7 yds. This is incredibly easy for most of you......but what about your neighbor?

Y'see, tipoc, it ain't hard at all. If a fella can't read the OP, then he can't contribute any useful insight.

It's that simple.

 

[tipoc]

But sir, your original question was answered on the first page. I justly assumed you had moved on.

Because there is no way of knowing what the ability of "gun owners" in general, who don't shoot to the parameters you suggest, there is no way for your question to be answered.

You say on the one hand;

I suggest that the parameters be simply this: How far away can the "average" shooter, starting from low-ready, hit a sheet of typing paper with 5 shots in 5 seconds?

Yet on the other hand;

As someone has as his tagline, there is a big difference between being a "shooter" and being a "gunowner." However, the "gunowner" needs to be included when determining an average ability.

So unless the "gunowner" shoots the 5 shots in 5 seconds, etc. parameter you suggest there is no way to know how they match your criteria. Yet your criteria include those who don't shoot. So you create an open ended dilemma which has no answer and can have none. You suggest a test be given to determine shooting ability and then you include all those who do not take the test. There is no logic here. No conclusion can be drawn.

tipoc

 

[David E]

I said "gunowners" need to be included, not that they never shoot their guns, or that they could never take the skill test.

But, also from the OP I wrote:

I'm curious what you folks think about how we could define "average," or if you agree with my suggestion.

Since you don't agree with my suggestion, tipoc, perhaps you could favor us with your defnition of "average."

I will say, upon reflection and reading some of these posts, that my proposed standard IS beyond the ability of the "average" shooter.

 

[Quoheleth]

The problem with defining "average" is that it depends upon the pool which is being sampled. The comment about height of men in a room (say, at work) vs. height of NBA players is right on. The pool being sampled will change what "average" is.

Based on my CHL class, I was an above average pistol shot - I was one of three in the class of 25 who scored perfectly for the Texas CHL requirement. Twenty one passed. One failed. I don't know what the "average" score was overall but obviously, my score was above average as most scores were below mine.

Now, comparing my target to those that have been posted here, those shooters rise to the top of the sampling and I fall well below them. Suddenly, I am - at best - average compared to them.

Perhaps instead of a nebulus, "how do you compare to the average shooter," offer a sample against which one can measure: "How do you compare to the average shooter at your favorite range" or something like this. Your range may be different than mine, but at least there is a specified sampling (your favorite range) given.

A good example of this is in the montly rimfire contests in the rifle sub-forum. those give you a chance to see what others shoot and how you stand against them.

My 2 cents...

Q

 

[KingEdward]

Everyone's "average" is probably different.

I do the same thing at the range indoor or out with the
revolvers that I CCW or keep at home.

I staple a small (6") paper plate to the target.

Then at 3, 7, 10, and 15 yards try to empty the cylinder
double action quickly but steadily keeping all 6 or 7 shots
on the paper plate.

Over time and practice, the groups get tighter and more
consistent.

I still have work left to do this more successfully at 15 yards and
beyond.

I believe most SD situations where I live / work will be within 10 yards or less.

 

[SideArmed]

You guys shooting out the bull on at range of 7-12 yds are above average as most people I see are not consistent.
I would say if you can keep them in the black at 7 yds you are about average for a typical range.

However, if you go to a competition or match, shooting out the bull maybe common....even at further distance. You may actually be below average in those cases

Depends who you are comparing yourselves too.

 

[David E]

The "Sampling" isn't where you happen to be at any given time.

If you're the best or worst shot at a particular venue on a particular day, that doesn't change where you are in the overall scheme of things.

This is really a simple question.

Many folks compare themselves to the "average" shooter, but I submit that no one knows what "average" really is, since, as these posts show, they are simply comparing themselves to who is shooting in the lane next to them on a given day. Therefore, they have no basis on which to assess their own skill.......or lack thereof.

I'd say that the "average" skill level among ALL handgun shooters/gunowners isn't very high.

I think that most folks on THR that call themselves "above average" are, in truth, trying to be modest........or they have no clue!

That's why I was trying to establish a demonstrable definition of "average."

 

[SideArmed]

Everyone online thinks they are a "better shot than average."

Ok, so how good IS "average" as it relates to handgun shooting?

This is something I'd thought about in times past. I believe that a low "C" class shooter in USPSA/IPSC or a "Marksman" in IDPA is "better than average."

As my Dad said, "Averages are always wrong" because there are better and worse levels out there. As someone has as his tagline, there is a big difference between being a "shooter" and being a "gunowner." However, the "gunowner" needs to be included when determining an average ability.

So, what IS the "average ability?" How do we define it? Strictly by the ability to place hits on a given target at a given range? Should it include reloading? Should it include strong hand/weak hand shooting? Should it include a time frame?

I suggest that the parameters be simply this: How far away can the "average" shooter, starting from low-ready, hit a sheet of typing paper with 5 shots in 5 seconds?

I'm going to say 7 yds. This is incredibly easy for most of you......but what about your neighbor?

"Average" isn't a skill level to aspire to, it is one to surpass.

I'm curious what you folks think about how we could define "average," or if you agree with my suggestion.

Simple questions often have complex answers, especially when it is a broad question..

From your 5 shot on a letter size page in 5 seconds is extremely above average IMO.



I justify this by my little shooting range in my neck of the woods and only what I observe at that range.

90% of the people at my shooting range -

1. Do not shoot one round per second
2. Have trouble putting 5 shots on a letter size page at 7yds

So if they were forced to shoot one round a second, the results would change.

I also know a TON of people with 1 or 2 gun considered gun owners that may have never shot a gun or shoot once a year. If you throw the entire population into the mix which it sounds like you are trying to do....I don't see how you could come up with an answer that would satisfy you.

Again even my oberservation is flawed from the start! Im not taking into account:

people may be trying new guns/ new ammo/ a new shooting style/ practicing with both eyes open/ practicing double taps/

There is no way to figure something like this unless you were to setup an experiment on the lines of :
everyone was shooting to the max of their ability for the purpose intended (5shot/7yds/1sec per shot) everyone had same gun/ammo etc

 

[David E]

If your views of "average" are different than mine, then please post your thoughts on what you think "average" is.

This is what I asked for in the OP.

I never said that my suggestion was the only defintion out there. In fact, again, I think the standard I set in the OP is too high.

It's not a question of finding an answer that 'satisifies' me, but wondering what everyone else thinks "average" is, without defining it by who shot next to you yesterday.

 

[SideArmed]

I'm saying your trying to find " a demonstrable definition of "average." is a futile effort.

You may find a Standard of shooting ability on this site - with people agreeing with you but it would not mean anything as the true average will always be unknown...

 

[Ed Ames]

My view: I don't need to know how well the average shooter shoots. I need to know how well I must shoot to accomplish my goals. Average doesn't matter.

If you want to know how well the average person can (as opposed to does) shoot (because you lack any other standard for judging your own shooting), look at the targets designed for that type of shooting. The sizes and shapes aren't arbitrary. A 50' timed rapid fire target (NRA #B3) is about 10.5" by 12" and an average person should be scoreable (not all in the X, but certainly all on the paper) with that target at that range when used as designed. If you want to judge faster/closer in shooting there are targets for that too.

What more do you need? Unless you are trying to sell something, nothing.

 

[cz85cmbt]

I'm not going to comment on what an average shooter is or isn't, but most handgun shooters predominantly buy handguns designed for self defense yet practice shooting at an orange 1" dot at 25 yds away. Not that such practice is without use, but few shooters practice the drawing faze of shooting or moving from one target to another. Also there are few shooters that practice by dry firing their pistols especially with any kind of mental preparation. What I mean by mental preparation is envisioning a situation and walking yourself through that scenario with a winning strategy, as it applies to dry firing, it would be thinking of yourself in a defense situation, then if one ever comes along you are more likely to not panic. Of course if you are a competitor or just a fun target shooter you can still have fun at the 25 yd line slow firing, but don't expect it to pay off on the street.

 

[David E]

I will officially amend my defintion of "average" as being able to hit a sheet of typing paper at 7 yds in TEN seconds, starting from "ready."

Not everyone can do this, of course. They would be the 'less than average' shooters.

Clearly, everyone reading this thread can do that with their eyes closed, from the hip, weak hand, in the rain, at night, during a lunar eclipse.

 

[Ed Ames]

You can officially amend all you want, the word "average" has a meaning and that meaning ain't even close to what you are trying to do with it.

Why don't you coin your own word, instead of trying desperately to redefine a perfectly useful word? Call it "davide"... a davide shooter is one who can hit a sheet of typing paper blah blah.

If you want a simple definition of average that won't get you laughed at, use, "the sum of the scores of all shooters divided by the number of shooters." So if there are three shooters, who score:

7 hits on a sheet blah blah in 10 seconds
3 hits on a blah blah blah
10 hits blah blah blah blah

The average would be 6.66.

Simple AND correct. What's not to like?

(and yeah, simple was the operative word...not trying to teach a math class)

 

[Ankeny]

Many folks compare themselves to the "average" shooter, but I submit that no one knows what "average" really is...

I would tend to agree. I haven't a clue what constitutes an "average" shooter. I would imagine if I put 50 "shooters" in a CCW classroom and asked them how many consider themselves above "average" shooters, over half the hands would probably be raised. Same would be true if you asked them how many are above "average" drivers. It's a guy thing.

 

[David E]

"Average" is a word that people, at least those outside of this thread, easily understand.

I've posted my revised defintion of what "average" means as it pertains to handgun shooting. If you disagree, then please post your defintion. IE; what does 'average' mean to you?

Yet, instead of doing that, some people posting in this thread seem to delight in nitpicking my definition instead of stating their own......curious, ain't it ?

 

[Ed Ames]

Wow. A bunch of people have stated their definition of average. That you don't (can't?) recognize that is...revealing.

Go back and re-read the thread.

 

[David E]

I fully recognize that some people did state their views on the topic and I appreciate their input.

But I'm still waiting for YOURS.........

Since this mumbo jumbo doesn't mean squat: My view: I don't need to know how well the average shooter shoots. I need to know how well I must shoot to accomplish my goals. Average doesn't matter.

I'm curious how well you "must shoot to accomplish your goals." What are your goals? How did you define them? How did you determine how well you must shoot?

Please be as specific as possible.