Controversial Question! Good Shooter vs. Bad Shooter

[ms6852]

I consider myself a good shooter and can hit soda pop cans at 50 and paper plate size targets at 100 yards, but I am not even in the same league as the worst competition shooter that competes. I am a practical man, can afford any gun I want but buy what appeals to me like a S&W model 41, or a TRP long slide 10mm from Springfield, I could buy a NightHawk or a Wilson but am content with my Loaded 1911 from Springfield.

As good as a shot as I consider myself if I was going to a gunfight I would be the one hiding behind Jerry Miculek and Bob Vogel.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I am a practical man, can afford any gun I want but buy what appeals to me like a S&W model 41

I consider the S&W M-41 a practical choice. It is superior to an unmodified Ruger (various Marks) or Buckmark and well below the price of a Hammerli or Pardini

I'm a big fan of the High Standard Victor and Citations, but I'm not willing to put up with their magazine issues

 

[MrBorland]

Question : Do you good shooters buy pistol that are good enough for you or buy the BEST of the BEST!

It's not the right question, but if answering it literally, I am (was) somewhere in the middle.

If you're serious about sticking with the discipline and doing well, I recommend doing a little research to find out what the "standard" is for that discipline, then getting that instead of what you think ought be the best. For example, when I decided to shoot Service Rifle, rather than just showing up with any old gimcrack AR15 I could've bought at any LGS, I did my research and had the proper Service Rifle match upper built by someone who knew what they were doing. Did that alone buy me wins? No. But by the time I entered my first match, I had already nearly burned out that first barrel practicing with the proper targets, distance, setup, time cuts, positions, sight adjustments, etc. That bought me wins...but that gimcrack AR15 would've been a serious impediment and a source of a lot of frustration and wasted time and money.

Go Blue Devils

Sing it!

 

[Tallball]

I'm not at all a competitive shooter. Not even a good shooter anymore, really, due to declining hands and eyes. I used to be pretty decent.

FWIW, if a handgun fits my hands reasonably well and has an okay trigger, I can shoot it just fine. Maybe if it fits my hands VERY well and has a great trigger, I can shoot it a little better.

That's it. I have cheap handguns and expensive handguns. Doesn't seem to matter. A nice hand-fit and trigger get me up to whatever my personal best level of shooting is, and I can't shoot any better than that. Spending twice as much money doesn't help and doesn't matter.

Like a few others have said, rather than "training intensively" with a specific handgun, I shoot a variety of them. And predictably, can shoot most of them decently as a result.

 

[Spats McGee]

...Question : Do you good shooters buy pistol that are good enough for you or buy the BEST of the BEST!...

I wouldn't really know. I'm not a competition shooter and even on the internet, I'm not a great shot. Nonetheless, I've always been a good shot, but really only relative to the fact that I don't get to shoot regularly, and certainly not as often as I'd like. IOW, I'm a good shot among guys that never get to shoot very much. Twenty years ago, give or take a half a decade, I was in much better shape than I am now. I've gotten older. (I don't like it, but it beats the alternative.) My eyesight isn't as good, my hands aren't as steady. Twenty years ago, I might have been a good enough shot to "outrun" one of my guns and need to upgrade. These days, I'm the limiting factor. Would I enjoy shooting an Anschutz or a Christensen Arms rifle? Absolutely. Am I still good enough to push one to its potential? No.

 

[jmr40]

I once asked a friend if his $150 tennis racket was really any better than my $15 K-Mart racket. He hesitated then answered. In your hands no. In my hands yes. The same is true with guns.

 

[Jim Watson]

The competition I would like to shoot would be everyone shooting a box stock 100% unmodified firearm of the same model using the same lot of ammo.
Make it actually shooter vs shooter instead of shooter vs dollars.

When I was shooting PPC the Nationals had a match with guns and ammo issued on the firing line. I never made it that far but my Governor's 20 friend told me of it.

Gil Hebard was an ace pistol shooter and dealer in guns, gear, and advice. He said you could make it to NRA Sharpshooter with a stock gun before a custom piece was necessary to advance. And he was selling the guns, he was going against his own profit.

 

[Atavar]

I once asked a friend if his $150 tennis racket was really any better than my $15 K-Mart racket. He hesitated then answered. In your hands no. In my hands yes. The same is true with guns.

I was shooting pool once and blamed my losses on the other guys fancy cue. He proceeded to beat me with a broom handle in the next game. Very humbling.

 

[9mmepiphany]

He hesitated then answered. In your hands no. In my hands yes. The same is true with guns.

I've used similar lines when a client would complain about our comparable results in classes...I try not to as it comes off a bit arrogant.

Once had a client at a class who had emailed me prior to the class about his SIG 229 DAK not grouping. He was going to bring another pistol, DA/SA, to use during the class and asked if I'd be willing to check out his DAK during a lunch. After that morning's instruction (it was a two day class) he came up with his problematic DAK. I inspected it for obvious issues and asked him to fire three rounds into one of the targets we'd been using...without looking at his shots until after the string was completed. Shooting at a pace of about slightly faster than 1 shot a second, he put all three rounds well within a one inch group (7-10 yards). It is seldom the pistol, it really comes down to trigger management.

Unfortunately that fact leads many folks to the 1911, as it covers up a lot of poor trigger management habits

 

[Ethan Verity]

The "best of the best" guns are usually overkill for what I actually want, even if I had a million bucks to spend on a gun I'm just not interested in having it all tricked out with the latest gun fad gadgets, or fancy newfangled finishes... so I get the "good enough for me" model with basic iron sights and standard finish, and just spend the rest on ammo to shoot it a lot. I still buy quality firearms from reputable companies, they just aren't what people would likely consider top tier. A boring all black S&W M&P does everything I want a pistol to do.

 

[Mark_Mark]

I've used similar lines when a client would complain about our comparable results in classes...I try not to as it comes off a bit arrogant.

Once had a client at a class who had emailed me prior to the class about his SIG 229 DAK not grouping. He was going to bring another pistol, DA/SA, to use during the class and asked if I'd be willing to check out his DAK during a lunch. After that morning's instruction (it was a two day class) he came up with his problematic DAK. I inspected it for obvious issues and asked him to fire three rounds into one of the targets we'd been using...without looking at his shots until after the string was completed. Shooting at a pace of about slightly faster than 1 shot a second, he put all three rounds well within a one inch group (7-10 yards). It is seldom the pistol, it really comes down to trigger management.

Unfortunately that fact leads many folks to the 1911, as it covers up a lot of poor trigger management habits

100%! DA revolver would make a great trigger training too.. just my option

 

[doubleh]

These folks can, 1 handed. Great physical shape is the first requirement. Firing 270 rounds for score, sometimes, all in 1 day, requires it.

A 22 & 45 firearm, that shoots into the 10 ring at 50 yards from rest are a good start. Great ammo needed also.

Precision pistol has five different classes to compete in. All skill levels. Some will never make it out of the bottom class. Natural ability comes into play.

Photos show slow fire 50 yard scores, firing 20 shots. Perfect score is 200 -20X
View attachment 1195334View attachment 1195335


At 79, using 2 hands i may be able to "wound" a soda can now.

If is close enough I can too.

I became a fair pistol shot and took many a jackrabbit or prairiedog out to about 50 yards. More hits than misses. Anything farther and I wanted something to prop up on. I had neither the time or money to become any better.

I will say this about equipment. My profession was a skilled trade and better equipment made it easier to do. I once did a job with equipment I had to rent as mine broke and it took a week to get it fixed. I got it done and it looked good although it was frustrating and I uttered an occasional bad word.

An excellent shooter will do better with a top tier gun just like a skilled wood worker will do better with quality tools that hold a sharp edge.
Either not as skilled with not have as good quality work but better than if using lesser quality tools.

 

[JohnKSa]

Combining the accuracy of a gun with the accuracy of a shooter is not as easy as simple addition and the results are not intuitive. The main issue is that either the shooter or the gun can introduce an error that is in any direction from the intended point of impact and with a random distance from the intended point of impact.

People just want to add the two errors, but that's going to give a very poor estimate of the actual situation because it's very unlikely that both the shooter error and the gun error will be in exactly the same direction. They could, for example, be in exactly opposite directions from the intended point of impact on a shot and cancel each other out.

It is, of course, true that a better shooter will shoot better than a bad shooter with the same gun and that, given two shooters of the same level of skill, the one with the more accurate gun will shoot more accurately, but when it comes to figuring out just how much better, people generally do a very bad job of it unless they know how to do the comparison properly.

The bottom line is that if the difference between the shooter's inherent accuracy and the gun's inherent accuracy is large, then the larger number dominates. For example, with a gun that can do 1" groups at 25 yards and a shooter that can do 10" groups at 25 yards, you can essentially ignore the gun's contribution and focus only on the shooter's inherent accuracy. The result on target is going to be way closer to 10 " groups at 25 yards, than to 11" groups.

It's only when the shooter's error contribution and the gun's error contribution are pretty similar that you really need to consider both contributions carefully.

--------------------Edited to add the following--------------------
A reasonable way to estimate the combined accuracy of a shooter and a gun is as follows.

Let's say that a shooter can, with a perfectly accurate gun (one that contributes no errors at all on target) shoot groups that are A in size at a given distance.
Let's say that a gun can, when fired from a rest with no shooter error at all contributing to the result, shoot groups that are B in size at a given distance.

Then the estimated combined accuracy of the gun and the shooter would be:

Square root (AxA + BxB)

In the example I gave where the gun was a 1" gun at 25 yards and the shooter was a 10" shooter at the same distance, we would expect the combined accuracy of the gun and the shooter to be about 10.04" at 25 yards. SquareRoot(10x10 + 1x1) = 10.04. In other words, almost all the on-target error is due to the shooter.

What about if both the gun and the shooter are capable of 4" groups at 25 yards? Then the combined accuracy should result in groups that are about 5.7" at 25 yards.

 

[Riomouse911]

Some guns have better ergonomics, better sights, better triggers, etc. These are the things that, when compatible to me, let me shoot to the best of my ability.

That is regardless of the cost of the gun.

Now I can say my CZ Shadow 2 makes me look good on target. But today, my hands and eyes made my CZ P-01 Omega en fuego; I just couldn’t miss. Today I would have been very happy with these results had I been shooting the S2; which is 2x the cost, has a longer sight radius and better sights.

YMMV

Stay safe.

 

[Show Me]

Alright… Like I was telling everyone, I finally leaned to shoot good in the past 2 years with a pistol. Before, I thought if I bought the BEST OF THE BEST OF THE BEST. It would make me a top tier shooter. NOPE!

Question : Do you good shooters buy pistol that are good enough for you or buy the BEST of the BEST!

question especially goes to top tier Competition shooters. But if you can pop a can at 50 yards, let me know!!

THANKS!

Agent J would start out finding which sights work the best with his eyes. Move up changing one thing at a time. The very best clubs don't help my game without proper repeatable techniques. The high dollar balls don't either. Proper instruction and practice does.
If you want free medical, financial or extended warranty advice just ask.

 

[MarshallDodge]

You'll shoot more if you really enjoy shooting the gun in your hand.

A lot of gun owners have more than one pistol, some of them have dozens. Most of them would be better served by reducing their collection, and using the money to buy ammo for more practice.

I found that I became a better shooter by practicing more often, no matter the pistol.

 

[Stefan A]

Without getting into a big post, I’ll just say that there’s no question that it’s the person that makes a bigger difference than the equipment. But at the top tier, there are definitely subtleties that become obvious when using different top tier equipment.

 

[Wireguided Marine]

I’d say most stock guns are not what is holding back the typical shooter. It’s the experience and training. Switching between pistols, calibers, and trigger types can make it harder to get good at the basics for inexperienced shooters.

The money for new guns would be better spent not only on ammo, but on training, either from a friend with more experience or an instructor at a training course. Good training comes from having someone coach and give you corrections to what you’re doing. But a lot of people shy away from that and just focus on the hardware.

 

[StrawHat]

I’d say most stock guns are not what is holding back the typical shooter. It’s the experience and training. Switching between pistols, calibers, and trigger types can make it harder to get good at the basics for inexperienced shooters.

The money for new guns would be better spent not only on ammo, but on training, either from a friend with more experience or an instructor at a training course. Good training comes from having someone coach and give you corrections to what you’re doing. But a lot of people shy away from that and just focus on the hardware.

Lots of good thoughts in this reply.

I hear of a carry gun “rotation”. I hear that they mix pistols and revolvers, and maybe other handguns. Get one, learn it, and be content. The money spent on different handguns and holsters, would be much better spent on ammunition and range time.

Kevin

 

[Mark_Mark]

Lots of good thoughts in this reply.

I hear of a carry gun “rotation”. I hear that they mix pistols and revolvers, and maybe other handguns. Get one, learn it, and be content. The money spent on different handguns and holsters, would be much better spent on ammunition and range time.

Kevin

Just one gun? how, to be content

 

[Howland937]

Just one gun? how, to be content

Yes. Drive one car, always ride the same bicycle and keep reading the same book over and over. Just hope your first pick is the right pick because you'll otherwise never be able to expand your knowledge or ability.

 

[StrawHat]

Just one gun? how, to be content

Easy, learn all you can about that one and collect all the variations.

If you were to only collect the S&W M&P revolver, you would have a sizable collection and do a lot of research.

Kevin

 

[trackskippy]

Easy, learn all you can about that one and collect all the variations.

And still be ignorant of the rest of the world.

The way it works best is, take the time to learn them one by one as you go, and keep good examples of each, so you can regularly shoot them and reinforce what you've learned. And keep moving forward as new things present themselves.

The "man with one gun thing" only holds up if everyone's gun, is that one gun.

 

[tarosean]

If you were to only collect the S&W M&P revolver, you would have a sizable collection and do a lot of research.

and if I only ate Ramen noodles I would have options too.. No fun in that and I'd end up dying early.

Variety is the spice of life as the old saying goes..

 

[Mark_Mark]

Yes. Drive one car, always ride the same bicycle and keep reading the same book over and over. Just hope your first pick is the right pick because you'll otherwise never be able to expand your knowledge or ability.

One Wife, is the only thing I have one of!

That’s because she a sugar mama!

but seriously One Gun… I rather be a bad shot then