rifle vs user: limfac

[taliv]

over the years I have seen many posters claim something to the effect that "most rifles are more accurate than the shooters". And I have seen this repeated several times in the past week.

Honestly, I don't know why people think this, but it certainly doesn't match my experience.

Without getting into the impossible job of defining "most"... i will say the main reason I think differently is that I routinely bring new shooters to the range with me. Often they are kids, or in college. None have experience with long-range rifles, though most have shot a round of skeet or two, or have parents who own a handgun.

Invariably, anyone age 10-20 can get behind my rifles and with 2-3 min instruction (mostly safety related) be ringing steel at 800+ yrds or shooting 2-3"-wide balloons of tannerite from 300-400 yrds. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone I've brought to the range who wasn't able to do this.


Otoh, I have seen many, many rifles that won't shoot better than 1.25 MOA by any shooter with any ammo.

Granted, shooting is a head-game and many group-shooters screw themselves by pulling the 4th or 5th shot due to mental errors. But mental errors aside, no amount of training or skill will make a 1.5MOA gun shoot .5 MOA groups. Worse, a 1.5 MOA gun WILL prevent a shooter from learning proper form or diagnosing technical errors.


The point of this is not to be contentious but i believe there are a lot of new shooters out there that are unable to reproduce the groups they see posted on the internet, and think: "i have a $300 .25 MOA gun, but I'm a bad shooter". The far more likely explanation is "you're never going to get better until you get fix that gun". I just hate to see these new shooters get discouraged and miss out on a lot of fun.

That's not to say skill isn't important (it is) or that you need to spend more money (you might not). But if you're frustrated with your results, try something different. Do NOT assume the rifle is good-to-go, or that you are the limiting factor, even if you're a brand new shooter


And before I get flamed, I also want to clarify a couple things:
First,
Shooting accurately offhand, sitting, kneeling or prone with a sling does require a lot of skill and practice.
Shooting from a bipod requires some skill and practice.
Shooting benchrest competitively requires lots of skill and practice.
But dang near anybody you pull off the street can shoot 1 MOA or better with front and rear rests from a bench. (with properly set up rifle/ammo)

And Second,
Though dull reamers, shoddy workmanship, lack of bedding, bad barrels etc are often problems, especially in factory rifles, I actually don't think things like this are the real cause of most shooters' bad groups.
Rather, I think the problem is the way the guns are set up. e.g. scope mounted wrong, wrong height, cheek piece in wrong spot, stock length wrong, etc. and improperly using bags, rests, bipods, etc.

 

[451 Detonics]

I think when that saying became commonplace shooting off benches using sandbags and rest was the exception rather than the rules. As you noted learning the proper shooting positions does take work and practice. I would say 98% of the rifles shot at the Appleseed events are capable of shooting perfect score...it is the shooter that fails.

 

[boricua9mm]

All too often, here and on other boards, people throw out claims of accuracy stating a particular value of MOA with absolutely no other information.

How many shots are you using to measure the MOA of the rifle in question? Three shots? Five? Ten? How many properly measured groups are we taking into account before we start tossing out numbers? What type of rifle are we talking about in the first place? From my own perspective, I am not at all comfortable making any claims about a rifle's (or my own) accuracy unless I am talking about ten shot groups that are repeatable. That means several ten shot groups over the course of at least two different range trips. The reasons for this conservatism are many.

I've seen people shoot three-shot groups at 100 yards with Wolf ammo through a POS Romanian AK that would measure 1 MOA. While many here would be quick to call this a 1 MOA rifle, it almost always turns out to be a freak occurrence, and NEVER are these results regularly repeatable with this ammunition, and the numbers never hold true when the number of shots increases. Some blame themselves, some blame the rest, some blame the ammo (which is the most realistic explanation most of the time).

Info matters. How many shots, what ammo, what distance, how many groups are we talking about that are taken into account? All to often this stuff is absent from accuracy claims. I personally make sure that I don't make accuracy claims unless I account for all of these factors and report them as such.

Mileage clearly varies here...and the internet is full of 1 MOA rifles and world class shooters. What we actually see on the range under real world conditions seems to be completely different.

In a few hours, I can teach a person to make hits on a man-sized target at 500-600 yards, either from the bench or prone, using the AR15 or M1A family. I'm nowhere near prepared to say that these people can shoot 1 MOA ten-shot groups at 100 yards using either rifle, no matter what the means of support.

 

[WNTFW]

Taliv,
I think most people are admitting they are the weak link and know they need to work at it more. I also believe many are also admitting it just is not worth it to them to work more to shoot better. If they are happy with that then they are happy. I also hear a lot of excuses but you could probably tell me what they are.
I also see a lot of guys jump straight to equating money spent with getting results.

While one could argue with some of your post I find the following might as well be etched in stone.

"And before I get flamed, I also want to clarify a couple things:
First,
Shooting accurately offhand, sitting, kneeling or prone with a sling does require a lot of skill and practice.
Shooting from a bipod requires some skill and practice.
Shooting benchrest competitively requires lots of skill and practice.
But dang near anybody you pull off the street can shoot 1 MOA or better with front and rear rests from a bench. (with properly set up rifle/ammo)

And Second,
Though dull reamers, shoddy workmanship, lack of bedding, bad barrels etc are often problems, especially in factory rifles, I actually don't think things like this are the real cause of most shooters' bad groups.
Rather, I think the problem is the way the guns are set up. e.g. scope mounted wrong, wrong height, cheek piece in wrong spot, stock length wrong, etc. and improperly using bags, rests, bipods, etc."

 

[Aiko492]

A) What calibre are these kids shooting @ those distances B) I think I need some instruction from you

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I see a lot of young photographers (it's comparable, so bear with me) get seriously into the hobby and start to look at what they can do to improve their work. Probably 99% of them decide the main problem with their work is gear -- if only they could use the same gear that _insert_great_photographer_here uses, then they'd be making better photos. Advertisements play to this as well, and if you start buying photo magazines then God help you.

I think it's the same way with shooting. For the vast majority of shooters the way to get better is to focus on the shooter, rather than the gun. More attention to detail and emphasis of fundamentals, and less money and doo-dads needed. The sooner the shooter realizes that, the better.

So I like that this seems to be the mantra. In most cases, it's likely a good thing. At least it says "shoot more to get better," rather than "what you really need is a $3,000 rifle and $2,000 scope."

In some cases it's not true, but this can be resolved by going to the range, find someone that know's what he's doing, and saying "I'm sorry, Sir, but could you shoot 3-5 rounds out of my rifle and using my ammo for me? I'm not shooting well with it, and I want to rule out my equipment as a source of the problem." The novice might even get some tips.

(And for reference, until I was shooting with expensive German optics I didn't learn the lesson. Once learned and I focused on my photography, suddenly I could get results I was proud of, even with obsolete equipment.)

 

[Chris Rhines]

This is a particular annoyance of mine. People like to say, "It's the Indian, not the arrow." Not true. It's the Indian, and the arrow, and the bow, and a bunch of other things besides.

Accuracy is additive.

This is a seemingly simple concept, but a lot of people seem to have trouble with it.

If you can hold a 3MOA group, and you're shooting 2MOA ammunition in a 2MOA rifle, then your average group size will be 7MOA. Switch to a 0.5MOA rifle with 0.5MOA ammunition, and you've cut your average group size nearly in half.

-C

 

[WNTFW]

boricua9mm,
first off I agree with you.
But a lot of what I have seen is a shooter posting a target pic of a milestone they reached. It could be 1moa, 1/2 or 1/4 and any# of rounds.
So basically it is a statement. "Wow! I finally shot sub moa with my handloads and my XYZ rifle" Then 5 guys jump his case and cite statistical analysis and explain what his perception problems are and such. So often it is words being put into someones mouth or someone reading way more into a statement than taking it at face value. Bottom line is a guy happy with what he just did & some killjoy has to come along and explain the number of shots and such make his achievement a fluke.
I got a Kimber 82G which is a great rifle for $400 & change. Most of us that get one are just thrilled. Most of have also had to hear that is just not on the same level as what the best in the world is. For me there was nothing out there that could touch it for the money.

Sometimes the explanations are just misguided & not at all appropriate for the situation.

I have also seen some marked improvement in one AK just from an ammo switch.
I have shot 1/4moa groups from a rifle but don't claim it as a 1/4moa rifle. Trust me I wasted no time in screwing up the average on that. I am totally with you on knowing the whole story.

Derek,
I have on many occasion changed the shooter. To me it shows a lot in a short time with little expense.

On the it relates theme, 2 things:
I was into motorsports and one thing I found was a novice can't appreciate what he is seeing & doesn't always get what he should. The better a driver was the more he could learn from a ride along of other event.
I have always found anyone that can manage a sight picture and then perform an action is usually a good shot. Photographers being in that group.

 

[taliv]

derek, i don't think error in one direction is better than error in the other. both result in missing the target. I think the pendulum has swung way too far to the "if i do my part" side.

aiko, mostly 308 and 260 and 6XC

I'm nowhere near prepared to say that these people can shoot 1 MOA ten-shot groups at 100 yards using either rifle, no matter what the means of support.

boricua, an example: last year i took my daughter (age 12 at the time) out to get her started in this type of shooting. these are her first 10 rounds ever through a centerfire bolt-action rifle, shot at 200m on a 10" square plate, shooting into the sun. she shot a total of 20 rounds that day (all hits) and a few weeks later I took her to shoot a 600 yrd mid-range f-class match. She shot a "master" class score her first match. (though got tired and annoyed by muzzle blast from other shooters and dropped to "expert" class score her second match)

The point is certainly not that she's a good shooter. (as of this date, she is still in double digit lifetime centerfire round count). The point is that anybody can do this if their rifle is set up properly and halfway decent. It remains my contention that "MOST" of the bad shooting (from a rest) out there is the fault of the rifle, not the shooter. And we are doing them a disservice by assuming the problem is the shooter.

here's another example http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=562724
The boys in this thread, age 10 and 12, got first round hits on 12" plate at 500 yrds in snow and high wind. (same gun) Check out the pics and youtube videos in that thread.

 

[Art Eatman]

Most of my hunting rifles are one MOA or a tad better when shooting from my benchrest.

Out in the field? I sorta doubt I'd be able to hold sub-MOA offhand or with a hasty rest. So, it could be that the saying about relative performance comes from that comparison--even if not so stated.

 

[CraigC]

I have seen many posters claim something to the effect that "most rifles are more accurate than the shooters". And I have seen this repeated several times in the past week.

What I also see very, very often and think is utterly silly is applying this logic to conclude that more accurate firearms will not yield better results. This is completely hogwash. You will ALWAYS shoot more accurately with a more accurate rifle. So the fact that you can only shoot 5MOA on your hind legs with a 2MOA rifle does not mean that you will shoot 5MOA with a 1MOA rifle.

 

[jerkface11]

The point is certainly not that she's a good shooter. (as of this date, she is still in double digit lifetime centerfire round count).

Keep in mind that with no experience she also had no bad habits.

 

[taliv]

jerk, good point

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

Taliv: i agree with you to a point, but i think you are forgetting that the shooter is responsible for the state of his equipment.

If a shooter is knowledgeable, he will use good equipment, and set it up for the task at hand. if he is not, he will use improper equipment, or set up his equipment in a sub optimal fashion.

your experience is with new shooters using equipment set up by an expert.

 

[BoilerUP]

A few years ago, I worked in the training center for a major airline.

Part of my job duties were to give tours of the training center to guests & large clients of the company. As part of the tour, folks would have the opportunity to fly an FAA Level D full flight simulator that 100% replicated the cockpit of a Boeing airliner. The specific simulator I used for 90% of these tours was equipped with a Heads-up Guidance System, better known as a HUD, that looked kind of like this:



I could take folks who had only ever flown a paper airplane, put them in the left/command seat of the simulator, freeze the airplane on a 5-mile final, set the weather to 200' ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility (standard FAA Category I ILS minimums), and tell the person in the seat to keep the big circle with bent wings over the little circle and it would take them to the runway.

Once the runway was in sight, I would coach them through bringing the power levers to idle and raising the nose for a landing flare.

Without fail, every person I did this with (literally hundreds) was able to land the simulator, which 100% replicates the characteristics of a 150,000lb+ airliner, safely on the runway in a manner which would not have damaged the real airplane.

What's my point?

When somebody with no experience has good equipment and good instruction, they can do great things. When left to their own devices....the result is often not close. Holds true in flying airplanes, and holds true in marksmanship.

 

[sansone]

Most of my hunting rifles are one MOA or a tad better when shooting from my benchrest.

Out in the field? I sorta doubt I'd be able to hold sub-MOA offhand or with a hasty rest. So, it could be that the saying about relative performance comes from that comparison--even if not so stated.

I'm goin' with this opinion.

The rifles I bother to sandbag and work-up a load for will do MOA..
When engaged in pest control, I'm MAYBE leaning against a tree, but usually rushing the shot matching the opportunity.
So.. "If I do my part" fits this scenario

 

[taliv]

Art and sansone, yes as I made clear at the bottom of the op.

Boiler interesting comparison

 

[ms6852]

There is a lot of truth to what you say. A while back there was an article written on MOA RIFLES out of the box and tests were done with several models from cheap to expensive. In the readers digest version it is now believed due to advances in technology and manufacturing that most rifles are MOA out of the box, it is just the shooter that is not an MOA shooter. But in certain instances as you stated, sometimes it is the rifle that needs fixing, starting with floating the barrel, trigger pull, scope mounts, and matching the bullet to the rifle twist and harmonics.

 

[mrbro]

It's a complex equation where the primary variables are equipment and form. If either of those is bad, the results will be bad. Equipment improvement is beaten to death in the forums, but form improvement is rarely discussed. In fact, many compensate for form by introducing more equipment, all these various rifle bench vises that are popular today. In these cases, it is all equipment. Don't get me wrong, this equipment can be invaluable for someone that has not developed proper form to establish the potential of his equipment.

Without a coach, achieving good form can take years, I know this from my own experience. Without a coach and good equipment, the shooter has almost no hope of reaching the accuracy that is often flaunted on the forums. What Taliv has done is to provide good, high quality coaching to a new shooter using proven good equipment. Bravo.

 

[taliv]

thanks mrbro, and i agree with what you're saying, but my point is slightly different:

form isn't very important when you have a rifle on a bench with front and rear supports, which is what so many people are doing. i mean, form is very important if you're chasing .1 and .2 sized groups, but you can have very poor form and still get 1 MOA groups or better.

what i see is people going and buying their first rifle at walmart/dicks/gander and heading for a bench and printing 1.5-2" groups, then blaming themselves. yeah, i'm sure they're not helping much... but my suspicion is that from a rest, they're contributing .5 moa and the gun/ammo is contributing 1-1.5moa of that.

obviously room for improvement in both form and equipment. but the most important part of this is... how can they improve their form when any feedback they get is masked by the gun/ammo?

 

[BrocLuno]

I agree totally. It's field conditions that count. Not bench conditions when you have all day, etc.

 

[Cosmoline]

I don't count anything off a bench or solid rest as "me." If the rifle shoots good there, it's the rifle's credit. I only get credit in the stances with no artificial rest.

 

[Stavrogin]

Perhaps a simple way to look at it would be this: taliv qualifies that a new shooter can do very well with a rifle that is "properly set up", with both front and rear rests, etc.

This seems reasonable in those circumstances. In position shooting (offhand, sitting, prone), the shooter IS the setup. To assume that one has a "proper" setup in position shooting is to assume that the shooter already has a considerable amount of skill, or very good instruction and few bad habits.

I think many people probably talk about what "significant" difference the gear can make, and how much of a difference is "significant" greatly depends on the circumstances. I seldom shoot at less than 100M, and I shoot only with irons, so .5MOA isn't actually noticeable to me (at best, I can shoot a 4" group at that distance, wrapped into the sling with my elbows on a table, but no actual rests). For my purposes, I assume group size to be pretty much all about me and my technique; improving technique has, for me, made the difference between a 4" group and staying on the 11x17 sheet of paper. It is that dramatic.

Do you think it would be fair to say, then, that most rifles can shoot better than most shooters can shoot under field conditions? Or without sophisticated rests? Without a scope?

 

[taliv]

stavrogin, i certainly hope most rifles could stay on a 11x17 sheet of paper
but for the 3rd time, i'm [edit: meant to say] NOT talking about field positions.

i'm talking about the threads where some new shooter posts their groups that they shot off a bench, and everybody assumes the problem is the shooter, not the rifle

 

[Stavrogin]

Sorry, Taliv, just went back and read some more... was drifting in and out of the conversation a bit and missed a bit of what you were saying.

In my case, when the bullets couldn't stay on the paper, I figured that it was pretty safe to assume that the problem was me, even if the rifle was 80 years old.

Fully agree with you.