It's not the gun - it's you

[d31tc]

Back in the day, every so often our platoon would be tasked with running the pistol qualification range for the battalion. Our sidearm for most tankers at the time were old(ish) 1911A1's, which had seen some use. The slides would rattle a little. Anyway, invariably we would have newer shooters who would shoot and shot gun 45 Cal at the target, coming no where near qualifying expert. Invariably, they would blame the gun. "How can they expect us to hit anything with these pieces of junk?". My platoon sergeant would grab a magazine, lock and load, and proceed to put them all in the black in rapid fire, and hand the pistol back to the private, with the only comment - "It's you."

With that in mind, how do we know if we are shooting the mechanical limits of our guns or we just plain suck. The answer - a competition where everyone brings their gun with enough ammo for everyone else to shoot a shot group with that gun. I did this with a group of like minded gun nuts, built a little trophy (a broad side of a barn) for the "winner" who shoots the worst average shot groups with all guns. I thankfully can say I did not win the trophy. I did shoot the best out of the all competitors with a 0.18" shot group on the last gun to pull from 2nd and finish 1st.

Interestingly, nobody shot their own gun the best. Also interestingly, 60% of the shooters shot their own gun the worst (that includes me). Ammo being expensive, we only shot 3 round shot groups, so one can argue this is statistically insignificant out of 6 competitors.

It was a fun day at the range.

 

[Reinz]

Hilarious, I love it!

 

[Phydeaux642]

This is pretty cool. Love the trophy.

 

[NorthBorder]

I think its psychological they would shoot theirs the worst as they had been conditioned to do.
I was a medic in the Army way back when and our issue sidearms for an FTX was a 1911 45. The first and only time I ever fired one was for a qualification. I had zero prior training or experience with one. Was just taken to the range, handed a gun and told to shoot for qualification. I have no idea how I did.
So, yea I'd say it was me.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I agree a good and experienced shooter can do well with a so so gun but I suspect a lot of those young tankers hadn't handled an an M1911A1 since AIT-if then. Charlie Askins wrote that he was tasked with a cram course for officers to "familiarize" them with the 1911A1, he wondered about how much confidence he could instill.
In 1975 at ROTC Advanced Camp I was a "prior service" cadet, on the pistol range I pointed out to the Green Beret sergeant that the M1911A1 on my lane had no rear sight. He switched pistols, told me I better put them all in the black-a silhouette at 15(?) yards. Used the base of the throat as an aiming point, got a nice tight group.

 

[d31tc]

I think its psychological they would shoot theirs the worst as they had been conditioned to do.
I was a medic in the Army way back when and our issue sidearms for an FTX was a 1911 45. The first and only time I ever fired one was for a qualification. I had zero prior training or experience with one. Was just taken to the range, handed a gun and told to shoot for qualification. I have no idea how I did.
So, yea I'd say it was me.

We did give them a little more training in our unit. When tasked with running the range, we always asked the companies how many people they would be sending through, and they always estimated high. The result was lots of extra ammo to shoot because it was a pain to turn in and account for unfired ammo. Much easier to sign off on "All ammo expended". Usually, just shooting and not having to worry about score, got them used to the pistol, and lots of extra shooting. And then, being the Army way, they just kept getting to attempt qualification after remedial training until they qualified "expert". If they didn't qualify expert, I think the only thing we could have done to help would have been to send them to get their eyes checked.

 

[Spats McGee]

....I did this with a group of like minded gun nuts, built a little trophy (a broad side of a barn) for the "winner" who shoots the worst average shot groups with all guns.....

View attachment 1008192

This is awesome. Unless you really scream and shout about it, I may steal this idea for a Bragging Rights Shoot-Off in which I expect to be involved soon.

 

[Skeptic13]

Fun experiment. Interesting results. Nice trophy that no one wants.

 

[Hooda Thunkit]

That is funny ! Love the trophy !

I suggest making it a semi-annual shoot, and a traveling trophy.

 

[JFrank]

Super !

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

That's awesome

 

[d31tc]

That is funny ! Love the trophy !

I suggest making it a semi-annual shoot, and a traveling trophy.

Yep, it's a traveling trophy and we definitely plan on doing this again. The scoring was a little rough, as the difference in shot groups from a pistol, rifle with iron sights, scoped rifle etc. weights the competition toward the gun with the greatest spread. We all accepted the results this time since the guy who "won" the trophy pretty much sucked on every firearm. He is a very good sport, though, so no worries. Next time, we will probably normalize the shot groups based on the smallest shot group in the competition.

To add, it was "Your gun, your rules." Offhand, prone, kneeling, bench, your targets, etc. One of the guys, who happens to be a good shot and tough competition, is color blind. As a joke, I brought these targets and told him I was going to use these as a target for my rifle stage. I did not, as who wants to win by cheating? Maybe to not lose by cheating, but not win by cheating...

 

[WheelGunMan]

That's a great trophy and sounds like a fun competition. Grip, sight alignment and trigger press really does matter. I think sometimes we get so comfortable with our firearm that we let the fundamentals slip a little but apply them when shooting a foreign gun.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Sounds fun!

How someone shoots is also dependent upon the mechanics of the gun, itself. Not, mind you, that this means the gun is at fault. Rather that how well a person shoots any particular gun may legitimately depend on how that particular gun is designed.

Personal case-in-point:

When I bought my Beretta 92FS about 30 years ago, I gleefully went to the range with several hundred rounds anticipating a few hours of fun target shooting.

Well, while shooting IS fun, I found out that not being able to hit the target worth squat was frustrating and not fun at all.

I could nail the target consistently at point of aim with my AMT II and my Colt 1991A1 no problem. My Beretta? Nada. Looked more like I shot the targets with a shotgun when I was done, as I was all over the place. I was honestly wondering if there was something wrong with my Beretta.

Finally, I pulled up a stool, knuckled down at the bench, set up an impromptu bench rest, and carefully, slowly, and patiently did some bench rest shooting. I concentrated on keeping my sight picture as perfect as possible while ever so slowly squeezing the trigger.

And I started nailing my target dead center with groupings tight enough to touch each other.

So...it wasn't really my brand new pistol...it was me. But WHY?

Obviously it wasn't because I couldn't shoot a pistol. I did quite well with my AMT and Colt.

So I took careful stock of my new pistol to see what was mechanically different that would account for this.

And it was the trigger.

My AMT and Colt have triggers that pull straight back, parallel with the slide. The Beretta's trigger, however, pivoted instead of sliding straight back.

To the novice, this may sound like something silly. But everybody who does any kind of shooting (at least, those who have learned to hit the target) knows that trigger control is essential to shooting well. You don't "jerk" the trigger, you "squeeze" it. You don't "anticipate" the shot, the shot comes as a "surprise".

What this meant was I needed to learn better trigger control/discipline. Once I realized this, I was, quite literally, "back on target" with my shooting.

So I've come to believe that there are three major reasons why people don't shoot well:

1. They haven't learned to shoot properly.
2. They're shooting something different and haven't quite accounted for the difference(s).
3. The gun has a problem.

These are in order of most to least problems, with number 1 leading the others by a wide margin, and number 3 lagging the others by just as wide a margin.

 

[MechAg94]

I have heard that trigger control is more important than site picture. That probably has caused me more misses than I am willing to admit.

 

[MechAg94]

As a teenager, I was a decent rifle shoot, but had little experience shooting pistols. A 1911 was my first centerfire handgun I owned. I shot a lot of rounds trying to improve and get where I could move the target to the back of the range and still hit it consistently. It may have helped if I actually got some training at the time.

I like the idea of shooting other's guns. Minor changes to grip and trigger can make a lot of difference assuming the shooter does everything the same.

 

[herrwalther]

I had similar instances in the Army of someone complaining about a firearm to be "shown up" by another shooter with the supposedly faulty weapon. In only one instance I saw it was the weapon. Saw an M4 barrel with a slight bend to the right that I needed a ruler to see.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

"Back in the day" story for some giggles.

Once upon a time, back in the Dark Ages, the 1911 was the service pistol and the M9 not even on the board as a choice.

Back then, aboard submarines, qualifying pistols for Reaction Force for the crew was..."cheesy". 20 out of 30 holes in a man-sized silhouette target at some ridiculously close range (7 yards). Yeah, yeah, yeah...it was "timed" and you shot both strong and weak hand. But still..."cheesy" is a good description for how difficult qualifying Reaction Force was for the pistol.

One guy in my division was HORRIBLE at it. Several of us took him to the range on our own time and dime and tried to get him to shoot better, but getting 20 holes in a target wasn't even close to being a possibility for him.

Soooo...come range day, we "sandwiched" this guy in a lane between two of us on the range, me being one of them. The people on the lanes to either side of him would put 10 rounds each into his target, ensuring he had the required 20 minimum while we would also have enough to qualify.

His score? 21. He managed to hit the target ONE TIME.

The score of the two of us on either side of him? 30. Because our groups were so tight you couldn't count all the individual holes, so the range master scored them as "30/30".

Yep. "It's not the gun, it's you."

 

[d31tc]

"Back in the day" story for some giggles.

Once upon a time, back in the Dark Ages, the 1911 was the service pistol and the M9 not even on the board as a choice.

Back then, aboard submarines, qualifying pistols for Reaction Force for the crew was..."cheesy". 20 out of 30 holes in a man-sized silhouette target at some ridiculously close range (7 yards). Yeah, yeah, yeah...it was "timed" and you shot both strong and weak hand. But still..."cheesy" is a good description for how difficult qualifying Reaction Force was for the pistol.

One guy in my division was HORRIBLE at it. Several of us took him to the range on our own time and dime and tried to get him to shoot better, but getting 20 holes in a target wasn't even close to being a possibility for him.

Soooo...come range day, we "sandwiched" this guy in a lane between two of us on the range, me being one of them. The people on the lanes to either side of him would put 10 rounds each into his target, ensuring he had the required 20 minimum while we would also have enough to qualify.

His score? 21. He managed to hit the target ONE TIME.

The score of the two of us on either side of him? 30. Because our groups were so tight you couldn't count all the individual holes, so the range master scored them as "30/30".

Yep. "It's not the gun, it's you."

Love the concept of team work. Just thank your lucky stars you never needed to have him react quickly with you standing near his intended target in real life . But then, you knew in order to be safe, all you had to do was just stand between him and his target .

 

[SundownRider]

This is a great idea for reverse challenge coins. Just put a barn on it. The fewer you have, the better.

 

[Waveski]

Another personal anecdote:

I have a surplus High Power that has had sight and trigger improvements by Novak. It is usually my best semi-auto in terms of ease of putting rounds on target. One day last winter the rear sight became loose. I took a guess at centering the sight and tightened the set screw , then didn't get around to shooting that venerable 9mm until a week ago at a club steel target fun match.
Missed 3 out of the first 5 , all left.
Told the timer guy to stop the clock , slowed my shooting , kept missing left. At that point I dropped out of the event , figuring I needed to sit at a bench and sight in. 2 days later I set up the sand bags , sat down , and made a 10 round 1 1/2" group at 15 rounds , nicely centered. Never adjusted the sight , didn't need to. It was me.

 

[12Bravo20]

I was issued and used the old "battle rattle" 1911A1's when I was in the Army. They sounded like they would fall apart when shaken but the barrel to slide fit was always good. I never had a problem qualifying expert with them. AS a NCO, I would shoot other peoples weapons when they couldn't qualify and tried blaming the gun. It was usually the shooter that was the problem.

 

[hps1]

Gotta love it, @d31tc. Betcha next match they come better prepared .

Some years ago, our rifle club would field three 4 man teams at the state HP matches. I kept the individual scores for all of our competitors and state team members were squaded based on their average scores in the most recent 3 or 4 matches. Gold team top four shooters, Silver next and Bronze lowest average score.

I mounted a Mark II dummy hand grenade on a maple plaque with a large pitching horse shoe forming an arch over the grenade and an engraved plaque which read, "Close only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes". The first year after the 600 yard stage, I got the three teams together, explained the "rules" and presented the rotating trophy to the shooter whose match score showed the least improvement over his average, or, heaven forbid the poor sole who dropped the farthest below his average. The only saving grace was that the winner got the honor of presenting the trophy to another shooter next year. Scores showed a marked improvement, and no one ever "won" the trophy two years in a row.

Regards,
hps

 

[Archie]

Two thoughts:
One is that every shooter obtaining a new to him or her firearm, should first of all (in terms of shooting) 'sight it in'. Get a decent sample amount (fat chance this week) of the ammunition to be used. (And at least one magazine, if a self-defense gun all the magazines that will be carried).
Shoot a three to five shot group watching only the sights. Ignore hits on the target. (Shoot as close as needed to get shots on paper. Move back as warranted.) Once all the group shots are fired, THEN look at the impacts to see if they are about where you expected. Adjust sights as needed. Repeat until the shots hit where the sights promise.

Two is that every type of firearm needs practice to use properly. And maintenance. (Make sure the sights and all other parts are correctly attached.) No one is a proper shot due to seeing a lot of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood or Superfly movies. Or watching war movies or TV shows.

 

[MOPanfisher]

I am 100% sure that I have never fired a handgun at any where near its limit for accuracy.