FALLACY: It's more accurate than me

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LHB1

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
873
Location
Houston
I feel the need to spout off about one of the frequent expressions found on forums about "My brandX pistol is more accurate than I am". This statement is usually used to justify their lack of need for more accurate pistols. Well, if you shoot targets formally or informally, "IT AIN'T SO" in my opinion.

Target groups are a COMBINATION of shooter error, gun error, ammo error, and condition error (wind, rain, etc.). If shooter error is 6", gun error is 4", ammo error is 2", and ignoring condition error, you have the capability for an aggregate group of 12". What caused a given shot to miss? No way to know. If you replace the gun with a 1" gun and load or shoot better quality ammo (1"), the max group shrinks to 8" and when you miss it is YOUR fault. You know then that any group size over 2" is due to your error. Gives you some incentive to learn/practice correct shooting skills. I always want my gun and ammo to be as near perfect as possible so I can diagnose and correct misses knowing they are the result of my error.

Just my .02.

Good shooting and be safe.
LB
 
I think of it in terms of this. I put my gun in a Ransom Rest, it'll shoot groups the size of a quarter. I put it in my hands, it'll shoot groups the size of a baseball. Thus, the gun shoots more accurately than I do. I don't need a gun that'll shoot groups the size of a dime from a rest, because it'll probably still shoot groups the size of a baseball in my hands.
 
LHB - when (as I have) you hit 60 years of age - be assured - all but most guns will (and do) shoot better than I do! :p

20 and some years ago - in my competition hayday I'd be on your page more but now - sorry dude - these ol' bones ain't up to the skill level - or maybe in fact it's mostly the eyes - iron sights are a pain any more. :D
 
I'm not wanting to start something here, but I respectfully disagree with LHB1.

I have a 1911 .45 ACP that is quite capable of putting all 7 shots in the same hole at 25 feet. I know, because I've come awful close. It is my belief that this pistol's capabilities exceed my ability to exploit them. Therefore, I can safely state: "This pistol is more accurate than I am".

On the other hand, I have shot a Glock 22 in .40 S&W, and for the life of me could not get that thing to give groups better than 4" at 25 feet, even when using "correct shooting skills". I know as a fact that my skills exceed the ability of this particular pistol to shoot straight.

I'm not going to sit here and blow my own horn about how good of a shot I am...that's not polite; but I will be brave enough to state that some guns just don't have what it takes to give me the excellence and reliability that I expect and demand from my own personal weapons, which, by the way, are more accurate than I am.

P95Carry says it best: "the gun quality will (IMO) determine the outcome "
 
Last edited:
Sir A' . on reflection - indeed you could be right - in some instances.

I guess I should have qualified my comments.

With all my ''quality'' guns - they do indeed shoot better than me, now! My SIG, my BHP, my S&W revo's, my good rifles ... and so on. I am less able to exploit their potential shall we say.... than once, a ways back.,

On other side of the coin might be my HP-22 plinker!! Great fun gun but even now - I do know I can do better than it.

So - this is something that cannot be taken as a ''blanket'' factor - the gun quality will (IMO) determine the outcome :)
 
I have a friend who can shoot 2" groups at 25 yards offhand with my Sig 228.
My best groups are 6", even off of a rest. If he can shoot 2" groups offhand and I consider his shooting perfect, then there is at most 2" of error somewhere in that gun. If you double up that error it's 4" (it really should be less than 4" because we're talking about circles, not lines). That means for me to be as accurate as the gun itself is, I have to be able to shoot 4" (2" on my part, 2" for the gun) or smaller groups. Four inches is smaller than 6". That would mean the gun is more accurate than I am. What's there not to get?

I think maybe you're just trying to say the phrase is overused, much like "dime sized group", "all day long", "as long as I do my part", etc.
If that's what you mean then I'd completely agree.
 
LB, You are missing the point here so I'm sorry to tell you that your thread is actually going to be more accurate than you are. Any firearm fired from a mechanically held position, (i.e. Ransom rest), is going to be more accurate than when it is fired with human intervention. Basically, all guns are more accurate than the shooter. It is all about repeatability and human beings.
 
When I hear the phrase I interpret it as this:
"the gun is more inherently accurate than I am."

I interpret this to mean groups I shoot with it are more than twice as big as the groups it shoots from a machine. If the groups are less than twice, that means the inaccuracy I introduce into it is less than the accuracy of the gun, hence it is possible for the shooter to be more accurate than the gun is.



Side note:
"the gun is more accurate than me" is incorrect.
The correct wording is "the gun is more accurate than I."
That is correct because you're really saying "the gun is more accurate than I am", not "the gun is more accurate than me am."
I know, it's silly to argue that, but it's a very common error people make. (look it up in a grammer book)
 
Actually, the original poster made a Darn Good Point.

You know the old saw that says, "It's a poor workman that blames his tools"? There's some truth in it. I've sometimes stood next to a guy on the range who was turning the air blue around him from cussing at his gun so much. Yet watching him shoot, he had a flinch you could spot from ten feet away -- a poor workman, blaming his tools.

On the other hand, one of the first things I learned on the job site as a carpenter's flunky was to always use the right tool for the job, and make sure it was the best tool you could buy. Because the fact is, no matter how good a workman you are, you do better work with tools that don't add their own errors to your own.

There's something else, too. I've seen women show up at the range with crappy, downright awful guns -- guns with gritty triggers, guns with nasty function failures on every third round, guns with poorly adjusted sights and nonexistent accuracy. To a woman, these people hated shooting. They knew they weren't any good at it and never would become any good at it. When encouraged to dump their poor equipment for stuff that would function well, do you know what they reply? "Well, my husband got this for me and he said once I learn how to shoot he'll get me a different one." Meanwhile, of course, she hates going to the range to practice, and no matter how much she practices she's never going to make that pile of crap act like a gun.

So yeah, there's definitely something to that first post. Read the post again! All he's saying is it makes no sense to struggle along with a cruddy gun. Makes more sense for even a beginner to get a gun that won't add its errors to your own.

pax
 
Here's the fallacy of your premise:
"If shooter error is 6", gun error is 4", ammo error is 2", and ignoring condition error, you have the capability for an aggregate group of 12". "

In your example your gun is capable of a 4" group. However, you the shooter are not. You're only capable of a 6" group, even with the best of guns. If you were shooting a bullseye guy capable of 1" , and you shoot a 7" group with it, it's not the guns fault. The gun is capable of a 1" group and in another shooter's hand it would shoot that 1" group. It's just that you don't have the skill to get that out of the gun. It's no fault of the gun that you can't shoot the 1" group.
Sounds more like a trolling post.
 
I actually like the phrase. I am by no means a great shooter. I hit the target, and my grouping are acceptable, but many here will shoot the same gun and get much better results. So its really not a reflection on the pistol, but the shooter. So he saying fits or it should go "The gun is capable of better accuracy then I can get with it" or umm someting on those lines.
 
Gonna agree with the original post, taken in the context that while guns are almost always more accurate than we are, with a more accuarte pistol we usally shoot more accuately. Course there alre always exceptions. This may not be noticiable at 25 feet, and if your intended purpose is just conerned with with close range, may never notice the difference, or justify paying more for more accurate pistol or more accurate loads.

On the other hand, step back to 25 yds and the difference between an accurate pistol may be alot more noticable. Step on back to 50 yards and the difference may be immediately apparent.

With full size defensive pistols, am preferring one minimally capable of hitting a discernible and aimed at portion of a silouette target, so long as it is reliable.

Course many feel that at that distance ya should be running, but personally prefer more options, as am not smart enough to realize all possible scenarios.
 
Any firearm fired from a mechanically held position, (i.e. Ransom rest), is going to be more accurate than when it is fired with human intervention. Basically, all guns are more accurate than the shooter. It is all about repeatability and human beings.
Click to expand...
Not always.

Its arguably not so with a gun with loose slide to frame fit, but tight barrel to slide fit. There's slop, in that situation, that the Ransom Rest can't accomodate or overcome.

I've always understood, too, that something similar was in play with most polymer-framed guns as well: the slide/frame relationship might NOT always be the same after each shot.

In the case of most polymer-framed guns, a Glock for example, the slide/barrel fit lockup is metal to metal, isn't and the barrel and sights can always light up consistently, if properly fit. (I just checked the Ransom web site and that firm has Glock inserts... so that may not ge the case.)

In both of these examples (and assuming that polymer frames without a metal substructure do allow some flexing that doesn't always return the slide and frame to the same position), a good shooter, using good techniques and actually looking at the sights, might well outperform the same gun from a rest.

I've got several guns that are very accurate. I've seen them shot by others far better than I can shoot them. My friends are clearly more accurate than I am; their better results seems to suggest that the guns in question are also more accurate than I am.

That doesn't mean that I should be happy to accept a less that optimally accurate gun just because its STILL more accurate than I am. Its lack of perfect accuracy doesn't offset MY lack of perfect accuracy -- it just makes it worse.

That may have been the original point.

The statement, "the gun is more accurate than I am," is, in my experience, a compliment to the gun and, in my case, a simple statement of fact. After this discussion, however, I think I'll not use the phrase any more.
 
Last edited:
If you are shooting targets at distance, the accuracy of the pistol is primary.

Two shooters of equal ability, shooting at 50 yards. One with a 2" gun and the other with a 6". Who will win 99% of the time? :)
How can you even call your shots with a gun that has a mechanical "spread of 6"?

I agree with the original poster. Unless you shoot at 10 yards, etc.
 
I find it an irritating little cliche.
It is used either to make excuses for an inaccurate gun or an inaccurate shooter - "This gun will only shoot into 6" at 25 yards from a rest but that is OK because it is still more accurate than me because I can only hold it to a foot."
 
I have a 1911 .45 ACP that is quite capable of putting all 7 shots in the same hole at 25 feet. I know, because I've come awful close. It is my belief that this pistol's capabilities exceed my ability to exploit them. Therefore, I can safely state: "This pistol is more accurate than I am".

I have a camera that I've used to take a couple of marvelous photographs. So I figure all the rest of them are my fault :rolleyes:

My shooting is the same.

With my CZ85, I've put five rounds through the same hole on a number of occassions. But more often than not I have a group the size of my fist. So I know the gun can shoot accurately, and the problem is in my shooting.
 
What is Accuracy?

Accuracy...

Fire the gun from a Ransom Rest, throwing away the first round in an autopistol in order to eliminate the flyer. Fire three 5-shot groups and take an average. That is what the gun and ammo combination is capable of.

If you can match that aggregate group size...without a solid rest...on demand...you can shoot up to the gun. No practice shots... No warm-ups. No alibis. Just stand on your hind legs and shoot.

If you can't do that, then the gun is more accurate than you are.

How many of us can do it? Hell...I'll settle for the WORST group from a ransom rest as a yardstick. Go and see for yourself.

Cheers!
 
I agree with Walt, 100%. On a weapon that exhibits significant (by match grade standards) slide-to-frame play,and whose sights and barrel are both mated to the slide, with a good barrel-to-slide fit, a human shooter may possibly outshoot the Ransom rest, because the human shooter will visually align the sights (and thus the slide, and the barrel) with the target for each shot, while the Ransom rest merely holds the frame stationary, allowing the slide, barrel, and sights to hop around on top, going into battery a little differently each time, as allowable by the inherrent mechanical "slop," with no visual correction via the sights. But obviously a Ransom rest provides superior mechanical consistency over a human rest. Ransom rests don't drink caffeine.

Unlike Walt, though, I have no friends who can shoot better than me. :neener: (as far as I know)
 
This discussion reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

“As it is no more possible to learn to shoot without a rifle as it is to learn to swim without water, the first essential is to buy a rifle, and it must be a good one, for a bad rifle will never teach a man to shoot.â€

I think it applies to handguns as well. Since shooting is to a large degree mental, believing that the equipment is up to the task is important.

Chuck
 
Unlike Walt, though, I have no friends who can shoot better than me. (as far as I know) :neener:
Click to expand...
Couple of possibilities, here:

1) You don't have many friends.

2) You don't have good taste in friends. Or,

3) You have friends who can outshoot you but, unlike me, have the good sense NOT to advertize the fact... :evil:
 
Pax,
Makes more sense for even a beginner to get a gun that won't add its errors to your own.
Click to expand...
I'd move "even". It makes even more sense for a beginner...

I see Chuck R. says pretty much the same thing with his quote: "...a bad rifle will never teach a man to shoot."
 
Hi All,

Clearly some of you disagree with my original post and even more of you misunderstood the point. A small group understood what I was trying to say.

Medmo: I must not have expressed myself clearly because some responders, including you, are missing the point!

Pax: You got the point!

Jim Watson: You got the point also!

Fumbler: Thanks for the English lesson but I do know the correct usage and did indeed use it correctly in the post. Please forgive me for adopting incorrect grammar in an attempt to shorten the title. I knew when doing so that someone would probably jump on it. Congratulations, you win the prize.

P95Carry: Be careful when you try to talk down to someone as being younger than yourself and thus not fully understanding things. Or perhaps you don't think I have learned as much in my 66 years as you have in 60.

OF COURSE THE PISTOL IS MORE ACCURATE THAN THE SHOOTER in almost all cases. That is highly desirable. Point of the post was that a shooter should not attempt to justify use of an inaccurate pistol as okay because it is still more accurate than they can shoot offhand. Any decent shooter will benefit scorewise by shooting a highly accurate pistol rather than a plinker pistol because the net group size is a COMBINATION of their errors AND the pistol/ammo error.

It is not necessary for us all to agree on a point but some of the posts involved cheap shots and a lack of comprehension re original post. I regret if my wording contributed to your misunderstanding.

Good shooting and be safe.
LB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top