The “gun shoots better than I do” nonsense!

[rpenmanparker]

Aaargh! I just saw it in print again. As stupid a concept as I have ever known. In a discussion on another forum about improving 1911 pistol accuracy upgrades, multiple posters allowed as how the OP’s gun probably shot better the he did. Where does this foolishness come from?

The accuracy of any gun is the sum of multiple factors; let’s call them errors. Two of the most important are the inherent mechanical accuracy of the gun as determined from a fixed rest and the errors by the shooter. So what if the group from the rest is 2.0 inches at 25 yards and the group offhand is 5.0 inches? Yes the gun is more accurate than the degree to which the shooter can operate it. I hate to tell you but this is true of every gun ever made. That’s what happens when you sum two positive numbers. The sum is greater than either one alone. The offhand number containing both mechanical and shooter error will be greater than the mechanical error alone. Duh!

So repeating something so obvious is silly. But worse yet, it gives a mistaken idea of what improvements can be made to the total accuracy. If you could reduce the mechanical error to a 1 inch group from a rest and the total group offhand to 4 inches instead of 5, wouldn’t that be a valuable improvement? I don’t know about you folks, but I would surely like to have that.

On the other hand working on shooter error is important too. Yes, there is even more room for improvement on the shooter side than the mechanical. But when someone is is properly interested in fixing all the sources of error in shooting a particular gun, it is just plain wrong to tell him the gun is fine; it is all his technique that is the problem. With very few exceptions that just isn’t so.

Shall we discuss?

 

[Walkalong]

Sure.

I have guns that are more accurate than I can shoot. I guess you are a much steadier shot than I am.

Are you sure you don't want to talk about how to hone one's shooting skills?

 

[CoalTrain49]

On the other hand working on shooter error is important too. Yes, there is even more room for improvement on the shooter side than the mechanical. But when someone is is properly interested in fixing all the sources of error in shooting a particular gun, it is just plain wrong to tell him the gun is fine; it is all his technique that is the problem. With very few exceptions that just isn’t so.

With very few exceptions it is so. The shooter may not want to hear that but it's a fact.

From my perspective it's usually the shooter and not the firearm. The shooter and the firearm are not one unit. The firearm is a mechanical unit and the shooter isn't. Because the shooter isn't a mechanical unit there is bound to be more variance on the shooters part than the firearm. A ransom rest or gun vice will prove it. Most people just can't duplicate that precision.

Generally a firearm will be more capable than the shooter. I'm sure there is a point where a shooters skill level enables the shooter to use 99% of the firearms capability but that skill level has to be very high. Not many shooters ever reach that skill level. Not that they aren't capable, it's just that they don't train enough. In some cases the shooter may have a physical handicap but even that can be compensated for in some cases.

All you're doing here is encouraging the shooter to focus on the firearm when they should be focusing on their skill to use it. I used to watch trap shooters spend inordinate amounts of money on expensive shotguns (10-20K) chasing the higher score. Like you, they believed their mediocre scores was a mechanical issue and their scores had very little to do with their skill level.

That's a real bad idea to put into a new shooters head.

 

[rpenmanparker]

With very few exceptions it is so. The shooter may not want to hear that but it's a fact.

From my perspective it's usually the shooter and not the firearm. The shooter and the firearm are not one unit. The firearm is a mechanical unit and the shooter isn't. Because the shooter isn't a mechanical unit there is bound to be more variance on the shooters part than the firearm. A ransom rest or gun vice will prove it. Most people just can't duplicate that precision.

Generally a firearm will be more capable than the shooter. I'm sure there is a point where a shooters skill level enables the shooter to use 99% of the firearms capability but that skill level has to be very high. Not many shooters ever reach that skill level. Not that they aren't capable, it's just that they don't train enough. In some cases the shooter may have a physical handicap but even that came be compensated for in some cases.

All you're doing here is encouraging the shooter to focus on the firearm when they should be focusing on their skill to use it. I used to watch trap shooters spend inordinate amounts of money on expensive shotguns (10-20K) chasing the higher score. Like you, they believed they're mediocre scores was a mechanical issue and their scores had very little to do with their skill level.

That's a real bad idea to put into a new shooters head.

No, there are multiple factors contributing to pistol and rifle group size and both are fair game for improvement. To ignore either is foolish.

Do the math. The example I mentioned is quite representative although I made it up in my head. 2" off the rest. 5" offhand. That means (I think) 2" mechanical error and 3" shooter error. Not the same but not so different that either can be ignored. As I said, I will take a 1" improvement anyday, and I won't care where it came from. Work on your technique AND work on your gun. Why would you not?

 

[entropy]

You ever fired a handgun in a Ransom Rest, then in your own hands (Even from a bench)? Or a rifle from a Lead Sled?
Until you do, you will not understand that statement.
Almost all handguns and rifles shoot better than their owners. I have yet to hear of a case where a handgun fired in a Ransom Rest, or a rifle fired from a fixed bench rest, shot bad groups, then grouped better when fired by a human being.

All you're doing here is encouraging the shooter to focus on the firearm when they should be focusing on their skill to use it. I used to watch trap shooters spend inordinate amounts of money on expensive shotguns (10-20K) chasing the higher score. Like you, they believed they're mediocre scores was a mechanical issue and their scores had very little to do with their skill level.

Perfect example. I've outshot guys with Perazzis and Kreighoffs with a stock 1100 and 870 before.Nothing wrong with wanting either a Perazzi or Kreighoff, they are nice guns (My personal Grail Trap gun is a Ljutic Selka, but a Mono-Gun is a more realistic goal) , but if you are buying it to get to the 27-yard line, you'd be better off spending the money on Trap rounds, lessons, and flats of shells to get there with a Citori or, say an 870.

Work on your technique AND work on your gun. Why would you not?

No disagreement here. But work on your technique until you're sure any inaccuracy is from the gun. Remember the #1 rule if sighting in? Only work on one direction at a time, windage or elevation. Trying to correct too many things at once might fix things, but you'll never know exactly what did what in fixing it. Correcting one at a time, and working until it is corrected is the only way to be sure you've optimized the capabilities of both you and the firearm. A good shooter can still shoot a bad firearm well. A mediocre shooter might improve slightly from a better gun, but only so much.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Sure.

I have guns that are more accurate than I can shoot. I guess you are a much steadier shot than I am.

Are you sure you don't want to talk about how to hone one's shooting skills?

The main reason the gun is more accurate than you can shoot is that your shooting INCLUDES the error inherent in the gun. So subtract the gun out of your results. Now how badly do you shoot? Use my example or even make it worse. 3" is not uncommon for a SD pistol off a rest with so-so ammo. Just read the magazine reviews. 8" is not uncommon for 25 yard groups offhand at the range. I can do that, and I bet you can too. 8-3 is 5. So you are 5 and the gun is 3. Are you really that much worse than the gun? I don't think so. Are you just a small factor worse than the gun? Most likely. Are you 10X worse than the gun. Not hardly. The gun error is large enough to not be ignored.

 

[GBExpat]

The “gun shoots better than I do” nonesense!

Aaargh! I just saw it in print again. As stupid a concept as I have ever known.

Yes the gun is more accurate than the degree to which the shooter can operate it. I hate to tell you but this is true of every gun ever made.

 

[rpenmanparker]

You ever fired a handgun in a Ransom Rest, then in your own hands (Even from a bench)? Or a rifle from a Lead Sled?
Until you do, you will not understand that statement.
Almost all handguns and rifles shoot better than their owners. I have yet to hear of a case where a handgun fired in a Ransom Rest, or a rifle fired from a fixed bench rest, shot bad groups, then grouped better when fired by a human being.



Perfect example. I've outshot guys with Perazzis and Kreighoffs with a stock 1100 and 870 before.Nothing wrong with wanting either a Perazzi or Kreighoff, they are nice guns (My personal Grail Trap gun is a Ljutic Selka, but a Mono-Gun is a more realistic goal) , but if you are buying it to get to the 27-yard line, you'd be better off spending the money on Trap rounds, lessons, and flats of shells to get there with a Citori or, say an 870.



No disagreement here. But work on your technique until you're sure any inaccuracy is from the gun. Remember the #1 rule if sighting in? Only work on one direction at a time, windage or elevation. Trying to correct too many things at once might fix things. but correcting one at a time, and working until it is corrected is the only way to be sure you've optimized the capabilities of both you and the firearm. A good shooter can still shoot a bad firearm well. A mediocre shooter might improve slightly form a better gun, but only so much.

You're making the usual error. You are not realizing that the offhand results INCLUDE the off-the-rest results. The offhand error is the sum of the off-the-rest error and the personal technique error. Once again, how much worse is the personal error than the benchrest error when you consider them separately. Sure the personal error is often larger than the benchrest error, but not by enough to ignore the gun. Look at my examples above. Is 5 inches personal really that much worse than 3 inches mechanical? Not to me.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Not if you take the gun error out of the total for the offhand results. It isn't fair to say that x + y is always greater than x. Of course it is true, but here it is very misleading. Lots of 3" group from a rest guns out there. Don't you know any folks who can shoot those to a 6" group? That would be the gun and the shooter being just as accurate.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Sure.

I have guns that are more accurate than I can shoot. I guess you are a much steadier shot than I am.

Are you sure you don't want to talk about how to hone one's shooting skills?

If you had a gun that was not more accurate than you could shoot, I would give you a $1,000,000. It is a physical impossibility. If you would actually read my posts, you would understand why.

 

[WrongHanded]

I think you're missing the point where the Ransom Rest is concerns.

It holds the gun, the shooter does not. It is used to test mechanical accuracy, separate for shooter error. Even in a bench rest scenario, the shooter touches the gun and therefore effect the results.

So when I shoot a 2" group at 25yds from a sitting position at a bench and using a rest, I'm effecting that group. I'm holding the gun, and I'm pulling the trigger. That 2" group is not representative of the mechanical accuracy of the gun, because I'm in the equation throwing errors into the shooting.

 

[Slamfire]

I still have my original M1a National Match targets, the ones I used to sight in the rifle, just as I got involved in competition shooting. Using a bench as a rest, my groups are all inside the ten ring of the 200 yard reduced target at 100 yards. After some years of shooting the thing, before I rebarreled the action, I could hold most shots within the X ring. And I believe the rifle was more accurate than that.

Shooter error is the greatest error. Recently at the range, as Club Officer's were complaining about all the bullet holes in the target upright stands, I told them they had forgotten the degree to which the occasional shooter is an appalling shot. Recently the Club installed a 15 yard berm. All of the old coots shot Bullseye Pistol, 25 yards and 50 yards and could not figure out how anyone could not keep all their bullets on a standard 25 yard and 50 yard full face target. There are a surprising number of people who, if it was not for gravity, would not hit planet earth no matter how close their target was to their firing point. It took a lot of pointing out all the divots in front of the firing line to convince the old coots that we needed a 15 yard berm, for safety's sake.

Now the good shooters, they can sort out the difference in accuracy in firearms. I have been shooting Bullseye Pistol for a couple of years now, and I take pictures, or get the targets, of the really good shots whom I score. I think it is instructive to see the results of hard work and skill. These guys would notice the difference between brands of pistols, and the accuracy differences between them. I am not at that level, but I do hope to get there.

These were all shot in Bullseye Competition, Offhand, one handed. These guys are good, just try this yourself.








This is the course of fire for a 90 round match. A 2700 tournament has three matches, the first a 22lr, the second a "centerfire" and the third is 45ACP only. I have shot cleans with the 22 lr in timed fire, and everyone shoots the 22 lr better than the 45 ACP. I have scored guys who shot in the upper 80's, lower 90's at fifty yards with a 22 LR, and then shot 60's with the M1911 at the same distance. Recoil is not your friend!

 

[kmw1954]

Not understanding this whole argument. By making the statement I would be admitting that the gun is inherently more mechanically accurate than I am. No where in this statement am I trying to discern how much more accurate one is over the other.

I already know that every gun I own is much more accurate than I am, I also admit that no amount of practice is ever going to make me as accurate as any gun. I inherently move and am not a machine rest. My eyes are old and do not focus as well as they once did and my hands are not as steady and the muscle memory not as consistent.

So as stupid or foolish as this statement may seem to you I am sure I and many others will continue to make it. There are many phrases that are used that make no sense to me but it doesn't make me angry or think it's stupid.

 

[Texas10mm]

Every gun I own is more accurate than I am. I'm the biggest detriment to my accuracy.

 

[CoalTrain49]

If you had a gun that was not more accurate than you could shoot, I would give you a $1,000,000. It is a physical impossibility. If you would actually read my posts, you would understand why.

Sophomoric humor? Reminds me of the I bet you can't eat oysters faster than I can shuck them bravado I used to hear in the Navy.

I now see where this is going and the intent of the post. It was never serious to begin with. Don't waste your time with this guy.

I'm outa here.

 

[earlthegoat2]

I understand your point. The very fact that human shooting error exists means any all guns will shoot better (mechanically and minimized from any external forces) than the user can do shooting the same gun.

So the statement "This gun shoots better than I do", is a logical end result and as such needs not be said. Since the statement has been used around you so often and given its logical obviousness, you are sick of hearing it and are trying to somehow, through this internet medium, get folks who like to use that statement, either on here or out in the general world, to stop.

Also, it would appear that folks who use said statement, may do so as a means of just shrugging off their inadequate shooting when they should be constantly seeking to improve it. Since we have determined the very best shooter (steadiest) will still be inferior to the guns mechanical accuracy, most every one of us all (whether we like to use that statement or not) would benefit more from practice and more ammo.

I think personally like a mechanically accurate gun because it greatly reduces the mechanical variables in the groups I am shooting. That way i can look at a 5" group from a sub-MOA rifle and say that I need improvement. Of course there are a hundred other factors in play as well besides how good a rifle shoots from a machine rest inside of a temperature controlled tunnel. There is ammomselection, weather conditions, scope and its mounting, etc. Then there are things like a trigger that will I,prove a rifles "practical" accuracy (or user friendliness) but unfortunately are still manipulated by the user and as such have potential for less accuracy than the mechanical apex of that particular rifle.

The list goes on ad nauseum but my fingers are tired......

But one more thing. Even though I understand your point, I believe you should probably just shrug it off the next time someone says it.

 

[Mr. Hill]

You guys just need to shoot more crappy loose guns with lots of deviation. Then you’ll understand that phrase better!

 

[entropy]

You're making the usual error. You are not realizing that the offhand results INCLUDE the off-the-rest results. The offhand error is the sum of the off-the-rest error and the personal technique error. Once again, how much worse is the personal error than the benchrest error when you consider them separately. Sure the personal error is often larger than the benchrest error, but not by enough to ignore the gun. Look at my examples above. Is 5 inches personal really that much worse than 3 inches mechanical? Not to me.

I pointed out that they can be separated. And

The offhand error is the sum of the off-the-rest error and the personal technique error.

may be true, but not necessarily. That sum is algebraically added. If I knew how to post a Venn Diagram, it would show this. Say a gun has a barrel that shoots 3" to the right. Say the owner habitually (not in conscious correction of this, mind you) shoots 3" to the left. The sum error is zero, and the shooter seems to 'shoots better that the rifle'. (For the sake of illustration, we'll posit that several of his buddies have shot said rifle and it shoots 3" to the right for them.) Now say the rifle and the shooter both shoot 3" to the right. Now the rifle is hitting 6" to the right, and the guy wants to toss it like a golf club. The correct way to change this would be to shoot the rifle out of a Lead Sled, using a mechanical trigger, and establish that the gun shoots 3" to the right. The shooter realizes he is shooting 3" to the left, and finds out how to correct this. (Trigger engagement angle, address flinching, etc). and corrects it. Fires original rifle, it shoots 3" to the right. Resets sights so POI=POA, done. In essence, that is what we are all doing when sighting in. Setting the gun's sights for our own human proclivities and mistakes. Better shooters try to find those mistakes and eliminate or compensate for them, therefore further increasing their net accuracy.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Perfect example. I've outshot guys with Perazzis and Kreighoffs with a stock 1100 and 870 before.Nothing wrong with wanting either a Perazzi or Kreighoff, they are nice guns (My personal Grail Trap gun is a Ljutic Selka, but a Mono-Gun is a more realistic goal) , but if you are buying it to get to the 27-yard line, you'd be better off spending the money on Trap rounds, lessons, and flats of shells to get there with a Citori or, say an 870.

I've seen some 50X shooters running a <2K Beretta autoloader. That won't get you into the olympics but it always impressed me.

 

[paulsj]

Aaargh! I just saw it in print again. As stupid a concept as I have ever known. In a discussion on another forum about improving 1911 pistol accuracy upgrades, multiple posters allowed as how the OP’s gun probably shot better the he did. Where does this foolishness come from?

The accuracy of any gun is the sum of multiple factors; let’s call them errors. Two of the most important are the inherent mechanical accuracy of the gun as determined from a fixed rest and the errors by the shooter. So what if the group from the rest is 2.0 inches at 25 yards and the group offhand is 5.0 inches? Yes the gun is more accurate than the degree to which the shooter can operate it. I hate to tell you but this is true of every gun ever made. That’s what happens when you sum two positive numbers. The sum is greater than either one alone. The offhand number containing both mechanical and shooter error will be greater than the mechanical error alone. Duh!

So repeating something so obvious is silly. But worse yet, it gives a mistaken idea of what improvements can be made to the total accuracy. If you could reduce the mechanical error to a 1 inch group from a rest and the total group offhand to 4 inches instead of 5, wouldn’t that be a valuable improvement? I don’t know about you folks, but I would surely like to have that.

On the other hand working on shooter error is important too. Yes, there is even more room for improvement on the shooter side than the mechanical. But when someone is is properly interested in fixing all the sources of error in shooting a particular gun, it is just plain wrong to tell him the gun is fine; it is all his technique that is the problem. With very few exceptions that just isn’t so.

Shall we discuss?

From guys that pay thousands for 1911 but can't shoot worth a ....?

 

[Tommygunn]

I never thought the phrase represented anything scientific, or anything reducible to quantifiable examination.... I always believed it was a cliche expressing the belief one had a gun was more than adequate for one's perhaps less than perfect eyesight.
My eyesight, for example, is less than perfect. I'm nearsighted, have had cataracts removed so my eyes cannot really focus like they could in 1975, but it doesn't stop me from shooting and hitting the black dot.



Well, usually hitting it ......

 

[jstert]

actually my 5.5” ruger single six using 22wmr ammo does shoot better than me: offhand, centered, sub 2” groups at 50’. well for me that’s good.

 

[P5 Guy]

Clamp your gun in a RansomRest and fire groups from a solid cast concrete shooting bench. Then remove it from the rest and shoot standing no support.
See a diference?

 

[rpenmanparker]

I pointed out that they can be separated. And may be true, but not necessarily. That sum is algebraically added. If I knew how to post a Venn Diagram, it would show this. Say a gun has a barrel that shoots 3" to the right. Say the owner habitually (not in conscious correction of this, mind you) shoots 3" to the left. The sum error is zero, and the shooter seems to 'shoots better that the rifle'. (For the sake of illustration, we'll posit that several of his buddies have shot said rifle and it shoots 3" to the right for them.) Now say the rifle and the shooter both shoot 3" to the right. Now the rifle is hitting 6" to the right, and the guy wants to toss it like a golf club. The correct way to change this would be to shoot the rifle out of a Lead Sled, using a mechanical trigger, and establish that the gun shoots 3" to the right. The shooter realizes he is shooting 3" to the left, and finds out how to correct this. (Trigger engagement angle, address flinching, etc). and corrects it. Fires original rifle, it shoots 3" to the right. Resets sights so POI=POA, done. In essence, that is what we are all doing when sighting in. Setting the gun's sights for our own human proclivities and mistakes. Better shooters try to find those mistakes and eliminate or compensate for them, therefore further increasing their net accuracy.

You are right about the algebraic discussion, but you are taking advantage of a quirk in the semantics of shooting. Your right and left shooting example is about accuracy. I did use the term accuracy in my opening post, but only because that is all that is acceptable to shooters. I have had this argument too many times to get into it again. Of course I really meant precision to which your logic doesn’t apply. I just know from experience no one wants to hear precision in a shooting discussion. Hence I don't say it anymore...even when that is what I mean. Simple, right?

EDIT: Oh, heck, I guess I will have to go back to talking about precision, not accuracy. Whatever.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Clamp your gun in a RansomRest and fire groups from a solid cast concrete shooting bench. Then remove it from the rest and shoot standing no support.
See a diference?

Surely this is something you can understand if you just try. Subtract the rest result from the offhand result. See a difference? You are supposed to compare the rest result to the difference between the offhand and rest results. Otherwise you are saying that the mechanical imprecision of the gun is the shooter’s fault. How is that helpful?