The “gun shoots better than I do” nonsense!

[jmr40]

I think your concept is more theoretical than practical. In the real world making a firearm more accurate mechanically doesn't translate to improving the odds of hitting the target by an equal amount. And that has been demonstrated numerous times. My experience is more with rifles than handguns, but the principle is the same.

These guys did some real world testing and the results are interesting, but not anything different than I've observed and stated for a long time.

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/04/15/how-much-does-group-size-matter/

In a nutshell they compared rifles that were mechanically capable of shooting 1MOA, .5MOA, .3MOA and .1MOA.

A rifle with .5MOA in theory should be twice as accurate downrange as the 1 MOA rifle and the .1MOA rifle should be 10X more accurate. But downrange they found the .5MOA rifle was only about 8% more likely to hit the target. The .1 MOA rifle almost 11% better.

I've owned firearms that I was capable of shooting better than the firearm. And I've had rifles and handguns that were more accurate than I had the skills to take advantage of.

 

[rpenmanparker]

I think your concept is more theoretical than practical. In the real world making a firearm more accurate mechanically doesn't translate to improving the odds of hitting the target by an equal amount. And that has been demonstrated numerous times. My experience is more with rifles than handguns, but the principle is the same.

These guys did some real world testing and the results are interesting, but not anything different than I've observed and stated for a long time.

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/04/15/how-much-does-group-size-matter/

In a nutshell they compared rifles that were mechanically capable of shooting 1MOA, .5MOA, .3MOA and .1MOA.

A rifle with .5MOA in theory should be twice as accurate downrange as the 1 MOA rifle and the .1MOA rifle should be 10X more accurate. But downrange they found the .5MOA rifle was only about 8% more likely to hit the target. The .1 MOA rifle almost 11% better.

I've owned firearms that I was capable of shooting better than the firearm. And I've had rifles and handguns that were more accurate than I had the skills to take advantage of.


View attachment 813331

I don't understand your post. Are you saying the capability of the rifles were determined from a rest, but the "downrange" tests were done offhand? Or were both parts of the test done on the rest? And what does a simulation mean? It is hard to evaluate the results you posted with so many questions about the methodology. 700 yards is a huge distance for the wind to be blowing at +/- 2.5 mph. Have you calculated the effect of a 5 mph wind range over that distance?

EDIT: I just ran the calculation for wind drift over that distance. The range from -2.5 to +2.5 mph is 16 inches laterally. How can you draw any conclusions about the effect of inherent gun precision on down range target strikes with that level of wind variable? And that is just one flaw in the "experiment".

 

[JohnKSa]

This is a product of the fact that when you combine two accuracy errors, the larger error tends to dominate. As with the example I provided in my post where the inaccurate shooter saw essentially no practical benefit from going to a gun that was more than 5 times more accurate because the shooter error dominated the combined error, in this case, going to a rifle that was 5x more accurate provided very little practical benefit because other larger errors dominated the combined result.

 

[rpenmanparker]

This is a product of the fact that when you combine two accuracy errors, the larger error tends to dominate. As with the example I provided in my post where the inaccurate shooter saw essentially no practical benefit from going to a gun that was more than 5 times more accurate because the shooter error dominated the combined error, in this case, going to a rifle that was 5x more accurate provided very little practical benefit because other larger errors dominated the combined result.

Yes, I agree completely. That's what I thought. I just didn't want to stick my foot in my mouth if there was something about the method I wasn't getting. Thanks.

 

[Citadel99]

All this math and algorithmic equations aside. I'm fine with the line. A guy who on his best day can shoot a 5" group at a hundred yards picks up a Surgeon or GAP rifle. The gun can shoot better than him. Period. He shoots a 5" "best ever" group, hands it to the guy next to him who shoots a .5" group. The rifle is more accurate than the shooter can shoot. Lots of people will spend money on a weapon that has the potential to perform better than they can. That way, if/when they practice and get trigger time with thousands of rounds down range and become a better shot, the rifle is not the limiting factor to improvement. That said, most people do not put in the trigger time needed to get better.

I'm a pretty good shot. I can shoot much better than the potential of a Mini 14 or an AK. I can't shoot better than accuracy potential of a GAP or Surgeon or the like at this point.

By the way, there are much better things in life to get fired up about.

Mark

 

[Slamfire]

I though M. Ayoob was the guy who concluded that one could shoot five shots and disregard the first because it was shot (in an automatic) after hand cycling, the rest from recoil. Then he concluded that if he disregarded the worst shot of the four, he approximated the Ransom Rest. I don't know if it is him - I no longer read many gunzines - but somebody is just shooting five and counting the closest three.

In print gunwriters are always trying to reduce the number of rounds they fire. They are paid a flat fee, so they have an economic incentive to reduce the number of rounds they shoot. And, small sample sizes make the firearm appear more accurate than it is, which is what the maker of that firearm wants. One should be very skeptical of the pseudo science of a shill.

Accuracy comparisons of forty shot groups are getting close to the inherent accuracy of a system. A shooting bud of mine, who was on Larry Moore's long range rifle team, asked Larry, "how many rounds does it take to have confidence in the accuracy of your ammunition". Larry replied: "about 20,000"! The guys who knew Larry, said out of College he worked with John Garand at Springfield Armory. I do know Larry worked at Aberdeen Proving Grounds and shot every potential service rifle prior to the adoption of the M14 He was also a competitive shooter, won the Wimbleton with a 30-06. Most people I know would think 20,000 is excessive, but Larry would have had the resources and access. Maybe he saw something around shot 10,000 that allowed distinguishing between ammunition lots.

On the other hand, I have been told by high end smallbore shooters that their Model 52s and Anschutzes are more accurate from prone than from benchrest. But then one of those guys is a believer in the "sleepy bullet theory" in which bullets converge towards the center of the target as range gets longer.

I have talked to a number of National Champions and outstanding shooters. Some of the very best have reported that bench tested ammunition lots changed their accuracy characteristics when shot prone. This would be very subtle. By and large, if you shoot a brick (500 rounds) and your lot tested ammunition continues to shoot good, then it probably is good. But there will always be a flyer that you cannot account for.

"Sleepy bullet theory" should be in that category of great theories like markets are rationale and always hit an equilibrium. It is just another, all around, general, nut case theory. Unless there is a micro black hole in the center of a target, there is no reason for a badly balanced bullet, of varying velocities, to naturally land in the middle. In fact, inaccuracy increases with range.

 

[rpenmanparker]

All this math and algorithmic equations aside. I'm fine with the line. A guy who on his best day can shoot a 5" group at a hundred yards picks up a Surgeon or GAP rifle. The gun can shoot better than him. Period. He shoots a 5" "best ever" group, hands it to the guy next to him who shoots a .5" group. The rifle is more accurate than the shooter can shoot. Lots of people will spend money on a weapon that has the potential to perform better than they can. That way, if/when they practice and get trigger time with thousands of rounds down range and become a better shot, the rifle is not the limiting factor to improvement. That said, most people do not put in the trigger time needed to get better.

I'm a pretty good shot. I can shoot much better than the potential of a Mini 14 or an AK. I can't shoot better than accuracy potential of a GAP or Surgeon or the like at this point.

By the way, there are much better things in life to get fired up about.

Mark

You just don’t get that all guns shoot better than the people who shoot them. Some by a lot. Some by a little. When you add the gun error to the user error, you get a bigger error than just the gun error alone. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Merle1]

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?

It's obvious you have never compared groups from something like a Ransom Rest to what you can do offhand.

 

[WrongHanded]

You just don’t get that all guns shoot better than the people who shoot them. Some by a lot. Some by a little. When you add the gun error to the user error, you get a bigger error than just the gun error alone. Why is that so hard to understand?

I think everyone here understands that.

 

[rpenmanparker]

I think everyone here understands that.

Not based on their responses.

 

[rpenmanparker]

It's obvious you have never compared groups from something like a Ransom Rest to what you can do offhand.

Say more. What am i missing?

 

[entropy]

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

I saw a 16 year old girl win A State Junior title with a Model 12 Trap that was taller than her, and way less than $2000.

 

[entropy]

Uhhh,we regularly outshoot the machine rests in archery. Both compounds and trad bows. Heck,I think myth busters tried to Robin Hood an arrow out of a machine and never could get one. It would take me maybe 15 minutes...... and I am not as good as some. I thought it was common knowledge that guys could outshoot Ransom rests with bullseye .45's?

You put a bow in a rest, you disturb the harmonics of the limbs and riser. THAT is why a bow will never shoot as good from a rest as from a well-trained hand. BTDT. I had a target bow that I could Robin Hood at will with, as long as you were paying for the arrows. The bow relies on the very light hold the archer has on it, hence bow slings. Putting a rifle in a rest does not disturb the harmonics, or more correctly, does not add to any the stock might be imparting on the barrel. Putting a pistol in a Ransom Rest has no effect on harmonics.

 

[Ironicaintit]

Not based on their responses.

the problem is that you need everyone to acknowledge that your theory is an absolute.

I can say, yes I agree, but how much does it even matter? most of us live in the gray area where to a degree, it just doesnt matter. Not all of us are wringing our hands over the last 1/8" we could shrink our groups by, or by the adages others use in text.

 

[Citadel99]

All I know is that I will be adding this to about every thread post I make.

Have I mentioned I have a bunch of rifles that shoot way better than I do?

Mark

 

[entropy]

You just don’t get that all guns shoot better than the people who shoot them. Some by a lot. Some by a little. When you add the gun error to the user error, you get a bigger error than just the gun error alone. Why is that so hard to understand?

Read my post #18. This points out why you don't always get a bigger error; it indeed may be smaller. Your supposition here

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.

is mathematically incorrect.
I get what you are trying to say; but you fail to see the whole of the situation. There are gun/shooter combinations wherein the gun's inherent inaccuracies are greater than the shooters, but not many. Case in point; I shoot milsurps, I can shoot much better than many of the ones I've shot can group. (I view it as a challenge) The error I introduce into the equation (and it is an equation) is much, much smaller than what the rifle does. I've also had the good fortune to shoot some very good target rifles, and there, almost all of the error was mine. The groups were much smaller than those milsurps' groups, and to be sure some of that error was the rifle, but not much. Trying to reduce the error in the milsurps would be an exercise in futility past a certain point, so I work on my end of the deal.

the problem is that you need everyone to acknowledge that your theory is an absolute.

Whereas it has already been proven in this thread that it is not.

Have I mentioned I have a bunch of rifles that shoot way better than I do?

You too, eh?

 

[Citadel99]

Its just a saying, dude. Easier and better than saying “This rifle has the capacity to shoot and achieve better accuracy and results with a better shooter than myself if said shooter was shooting my firearm. Because the algorithmic equation of the rifle’s inherent inaccuracies in addition to that of the shooter is less with a more skilled shooter than that of the summation of my inaccuracies with that of the firearm.”

 

[rpenmanparker]

Read my post #18. This points out why you don't always get a bigger error; it indeed may be smaller. Your supposition here

is mathematically incorrect.
I get what you are trying to say; but you fail to see the whole of the situation. There are gun/shooter combinations wherein the gun's inherent inaccuracies are greater than the shooters, but not many. Case in point; I shoot milsurps, I can shoot much better than many of the ones I've shot can group. (I view it as a challenge) The error I introduce into the equation (and it is an equation) is much, much smaller than what the rifle does. I've also had the good fortune to shoot some very good target rifles, and there, almost all of the error was mine. The groups were much smaller than those milsurps' groups, and to be sure some of that error was the rifle, but not much. Trying to reduce the error in the milsurps would be an exercise in futility past a certain point, so I work on my end of the deal.



Whereas it has already been proven in this thread that it is not.



You too, eh?

Thanks. You took a lot of trouble with this post. But just to be clear, I do know and understand everything you said. It simply boils down to this: I’m tired of being told to not work on my gun, because it shoots better than I do. The gun isn’t perfect. I’m not perfect. We can both be improved. Every improvement on either side is to the good. That is my whole point. But I must admit I enjoy getting a lot of folks involved in a discussion. I’ve been having fun. I hope you have too.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Its just a saying, dude. Easier and better than saying “This rifle has the capacity to shoot and achieve better accuracy and results with a better shooter than myself if said shooter was shooting my firearm. Because the algorithmic equation of the rifle’s inherent inaccuracies in addition to that of the shooter is less with a more skilled shooter than that of the summation of my inaccuracies with that of the firearm.”

That sounds like the intro of a brilliant thesis.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I think everyone here understands that.

After you send thousands of rounds downrange with dozens of different firearms it's accepted as a fact. The machine is better than the hand and the eye just about every time. Ever hear anyone at the range call a shot off target? I hear it all the time. That wasn't the rifle, that was the shooter.

 

[JohnKSa]

You just don’t get that all guns shoot better than the people who shoot them.

I have a pistol that does not shoot as well as I can. Even under "ideal" conditions, it shoots bigger groups at 15 yards than I can shoot at 25 yards offhand using a more accurate gun.

I’m tired of being told to not work on my gun, because it shoots better than I do. The gun isn’t perfect. I’m not perfect. We can both be improved. Every improvement on either side is to the good.

If you want to make your gun more accurate, there's nothing wrong with that. It is true that improving the accuracy of your gun will improve the overall accuracy combination of you and your gun. However, unless money and time are not issues, it is worth keeping in mind that there is certainly a point of diminishing returns.

Here are some calculations that give an idea of how making a gun more accurate improves overall group sizes.

• If the shooter's error is identical to the gun's, then making the gun PERFECTLY accurate (completely eliminating all error on target due to the gun) will improve the combined groups by about 41%.
• If the shooter's error is double the gun's, then making the gun perfectly accurate will improve the groups by about 12%.
• If the shooter's error is triple the gun's, then making the gun perfectly accurate will improve the groups by about 5%.
  
• If the shooter's error is 4 times the gun's, then making the gun perfectly accurate will improve the groups by about 3%.
• If the shooter's error is 5 times the gun's, then making the gun perfectly accurate will improve the groups by about 2%.
• If the shooter's error is 6, 7, 8 or 9 times the gun's, then making the gun perfectly accurate will improve the groups by about 1%.
• If the shooter's error is 10 times the gun's, then making the gun perfectly accurate will improve the groups by half a percent.

Obviously we can't totally eliminate all of the gun's error, we can just improve it somewhat.

So let's say we have a shooter and gun with identical error contributions--say the gun is capable of groups that are 4" at 25 yards when shot from a Ransom Rest and the shooter can shoot 4" groups at 25 yards with an extremely accurate gun . Now we make the gun twice as accurate--reduce its error by a factor of two so that now it can shoot 2" groups at 25 yards from a Ransom Rest. That reduces the combined group size (shooter and gun together) by 21% on average from 5.7" groups to 4.5" groups. 1.2" at 25 yards is not a bad improvement.

What about if the gun was already twice as accurate as the shooter and now we improve the gun by reducing its error by a factor of two? We start with a 4" shooter and a 2" gun and improve the gun to a 1" gun. That reduces group sizes by only 8% on average. From groups of 4.5" to groups of 4.1". Is 0.4" at 25 yards worth the effort it takes to make a gun twice as accurate as it was before? I guess it depends.

For a gun 3x as accurate as the shooter, improving the gun's accuracy by a factor of two reduces group sizes by 4%. So we started with a 4" shooter and a 1.3" gun and made the gun into a 0.7" gun. The combined improvement at 25 yards goes from 4.2" to 4.1".

In all cases, we've improved the gun's accuracy by the same percentage, but in the last case, the improvement only bought us a 4% improvement, more than 10 times less improvement than in the first case.

If the gun and shooter are pretty evenly matched in terms of accuracy, then improving either the gun or the shooter significantly will make a significant difference on target.

If the gun and the shooter are not very well matched in terms of accuracy, then it makes sense to improve the accuracy of the major contributor. Working on improving the accuracy of the minor contributor won't pay the same dividends. And the bigger the differential between the gun and the shooter, the more true this statement is.

For example, take a shooter/gun combination that is achieving groups of 9" on average at 25 yards. If shooting the gun in a Ransom Rest reveals that it is capable of 4" groups, then improving the gun's accuracy by a factor of 2 will only improve the overall shooter/gun combination average group sizes by about three quarters of an inch at 25 yards. Making a 4" gun into a 2" gun is not a simple task, and yet the return on investment is fairly disappointing when one considers the average reduction in combined shooter/gun group size. This is because we focused on improving the minor contributor in the equation when the two were not well-matched.

What would happen in the same situation if we focused on the major contributor instead? Let's say we improve the shooter's capability from shooting 8" groups to shooting 6" groups. Even though the improvement is only 25%, because we focused on the major contributor, the combined shooter/gun combination will be significantly improved. We go from groups that are about 9" at 25 yards, to groups that are now only about 7.2". An improvement of 19% and almost 2" in group sizes.

 

[Legionnaire]

While I understand the OP's point that error variances attributable to a shooter compound those attributable to a firearm, leading to the assertion that all guns shoot better than the shooter, that is true only for that shooter/firearm pair. And yes, one can work on both shooting skill and firearm precision to improve overall.

But the expression "the rifle shoots better than I do" is based on separating the two variances. Say one had a theoretical firearm that had NO variance; i.e., it was capable of putting a bullet through the same one hole every time. In that case, a shooter's consistent 3 MOA groups with that firearm is an accurate measure of the shooter's ability--the gun doesn't factor in at all. Certainly, if the gun is only capable of 2 MOA, then the shooter shooting that gun can expect significantly larger groups than his personal 3 MOA ability.

But let's say I can consistently shoot sub-MOA with an accurate rifle; that is, the combined variance of the rifle and the shooter is sub-MOA. So I know something about my own personal ability. If I then pick up another rifle and can't do better than 4 MOA, knowing that I can shoot better than that with a more accurate rifle, I conclude that I can shoot better than this rifle. That is, the error attributable to the inaccurate rifle is greater than the error attributable to my excellent technique.

So why can't there be the inverse? If a guy with a bad technique can't shoot better 4 MOA with the same rifle I consistently shoot sub-MOA, it's pretty clear that the majority of the variance here is attributable to his bad technique and a minority of the variance is attributable to the rifle. That is, shooter variance > firearm variance. Thus "The rifle shoots better than I do."

So to make it very personal, I know I can shoot my heavy barreled .260 AI better than 0.5 MOA at 100 consistently. So I can take that as my benchmark. However, my first outing with a new-to-me featherweight Remington 700 Titanium, also in .260 AI, was not very good. I wasn't able to shoot better than 3 MOA. I know I can shoot a heavy-barreled rifle very accurately, so is the problem with me, or with the rifle? Since shooting a lightweight rifle isn't the same as shooting a heavy barrel, it's likely that my technique is contributing to the 3 MOA variance. But how much? Did I just buy a rifle that is inherently less accurate than I anticipated? It will take some experimentation to determine that. But out of the gate, I'm not likely to conclude that the rifle shoots better than I do ... at least not yet.

So when I hear someone say, "This rifle/pistol/shotgun/slingshot shoots better than I do," I interpret that to mean that the shooter believes he or she is responsible for the greater part of the observed variance. And I have sold rifles because I concluded that they contributed more to the observed variance in accuracy than I did.

 

[rpenmanparker]

I have a pistol that does not shoot as well as I can. Even under "ideal" conditions, it shoots bigger groups at 15 yards than I can shoot at 25 yards offhand using a more accurate gun.
I’m tired of being told to not work on my gun, because it shoots better than I do. The gun isn’t perfect. I’m not perfect. We can both be improved. Every improvement on either side is to the good.
Click to expand...

If you want to make your gun more accurate, there's nothing wrong with that. It is true that improving the accuracy of your gun will improve the overall accuracy combination of you and your gun. However, unless money and time are not issues, it is worth keeping in mind that there is certainly a point of diminishing returns.

Here are some calculations that give an idea of how making a gun more accurate improves overall group sizes.

• If the shooter's error is identical to the gun's, then making the gun PERFECTLY accurate (completely eliminating all error on target due to the gun) will improve the combined groups by about 41%.
• If the shooter's error is double the gun's, then making the gun perfectly accurate will improve the groups by about 12%.
• If the shooter's error triple the gun's, then making the gun perfectly accurate will improve the groups by about 5%.
  
• If the shooter's error is 4 times the gun's, then making the gun perfectly accurate will improve the groups by about 3%.
• If the shooter's error is 5 times the gun's, then making the gun perfectly accurate will improve the groups by about 2%.
• If the shooter's error is 6, 7, 8 or 9 times the gun's, then making the gun perfectly accurate will improve the groups by about 1%.
• If the shooter's error is 10 times the gun's, then making the gun perfectly accurate will improve the groups by half a percent.

Obviously we can't totally eliminate all of the gun's error, we can just improve it somewhat.

So let's say we have a shooter and gun with identical error contributions--say the gun is capable of groups that are 4" at 25 yards when shot from a Ransom Rest and the shooter can shoot 4" groups at 25 yards with an extremely accurate gun . Now we make the gun twice as accurate--reduce its error by a factor of two so that now it can shoot 2" groups at 25 yards from a Ransom Rest. That reduces the combined group size (shooter and gun together) by 21% on average from 5.7" groups to 4.5" groups. 1.2" at 25 yards is not a bad improvement.

What about if the gun was already twice as accurate as the shooter and now we improve the gun by reducing its error by a factor of two? We start with a 4" shooter and a 2" gun and improve the gun to a 1" gun. That reduces group sizes by only 8% on average. From groups of 4.5" to groups of 4.1". Is 0.4" at 25 yards worth the effort it takes to make a gun twice as accurate as it was before? I guess it depends.

For a gun 3x as accurate as the shooter, improving the gun's accuracy by a factor of two reduces group sizes by 4%. So we started with a 4" shooter and a 1.3" gun and made the gun into a 0.7" gun. The combined improvement at 25 yards goes from 4.2" to 4.1".

In all cases, we've improved the gun's accuracy by the same percentage, but in the last case, the improvement only bought us a 4% improvement, more than 10 times less improvement than in the first case.

If the gun and shooter are pretty evenly matched in terms of accuracy, then improving either the gun or the shooter significantly will make a significant difference on target.

If the gun and the shooter are not very well matched in terms of accuracy, then it makes sense to improve the accuracy of the major contributor. Working on improving the accuracy of the minor contributor won't pay the same dividends. And the bigger the differential between the gun and the shooter, the more true this statement is.

For example, take a shooter/gun combination that is achieving groups of 9" on average at 25 yards. If shooting the gun in a Ransom Rest reveals that it is capable of 4" groups, then improving the gun's accuracy by a factor of 2 will only improve the overall shooter/gun combination average group sizes by about three quarters of an inch at 25 yards. Making a 4" gun into a 2" gun is not a simple task, and yet the return on investment is fairly disappointing when one considers the average reduction in combined shooter/gun group size. This is because we focused on improving the minor contributor in the equation when the two were not well-matched.

What would happen in the same situation if we focused on the major contributor instead? Let's say we improve the shooter's capability from shooting 8" groups to shooting 6" groups. Even though the improvement is only 25%, because we focused on the major contributor, the combined shooter/gun combination will be significantly improved. We go from groups that are about 9" at 25 yards, to groups that are now only about 7.2". An improvement of 19% and almost 2" in group sizes.

Such a good post. Thanks so much. Really contributes to my understanding.

 

[rpenmanparker]

While I understand the OP's point that error variances attributable to a shooter compound those attributable to a firearm, leading to the assertion that all guns shoot better than the shooter, that is true only for that shooter/firearm pair. And yes, one can work on both shooting skill and firearm precision to improve overall.

But the expression "the rifle shoots better than I do" is based on separating the two variances. Say one had a theoretical firearm that had NO variance; i.e., it was capable of putting a bullet through the same one hole every time. In that case, a shooter's consistent 3 MOA groups with that firearm is an accurate measure of the shooter's ability--the gun doesn't factor in at all. Certainly, if the gun is only capable of 2 MOA, then the shooter shooting that gun can expect significantly larger groups than his personal 3 MOA ability.

But let's say I can consistently shoot sub-MOA with an accurate rifle; that is, the combined variance of the rifle and the shooter is sub-MOA. So I know something about my own personal ability. If I then pick up another rifle and can't do better than 4 MOA, knowing that I can shoot better than that with a more accurate rifle, I conclude that I can shoot better than this rifle. That is, the error attributable to the inaccurate rifle is greater than the error attributable to my excellent technique.

So why can't there be the inverse? If a guy with a bad technique can't shoot better 4 MOA with the same rifle I consistently shoot sub-MOA, it's pretty clear that the majority of the variance here is attributable to his bad technique and a minority of the variance is attributable to the rifle. That is, shooter variance > firearm variance. Thus "The rifle shoots better than I do."

So to make it very personal, I know I can shoot my heavy barreled .260 AI better than 0.5 MOA at 100 consistently. So I can take that as my benchmark. However, my first outing with a new-to-me featherweight Remington 700 Titanium, also in .260 AI, was not very good. I wasn't able to shoot better than 3 MOA. I know I can shoot a heavy-barreled rifle very accurately, so is the problem with me, or with the rifle? Since shooting a lightweight rifle isn't the same as shooting a heavy barrel, it's likely that my technique is contributing to the 3 MOA variance. But how much? Did I just buy a rifle that is inherently less accurate than I anticipated? It will take some experimentation to determine that. But out of the gate, I'm not likely to conclude that the rifle shoots better than I do ... at least not yet.

So when I hear someone say, "This rifle/pistol/shotgun/slingshot shoots better than I do," I interpret that to mean that the shooter believes he or she is responsible for the greater part of the observed variance. And I have sold rifles because I concluded that they contributed more to the observed variance in accuracy than I did.

Well said. My only comment would be that for some reason I never read folks saying they shoot better than the gun. I don’t think most folks have the clear-eyed understanding that you do.

 

[ontarget]

I can't even believe I just wasted part of my life reading every post in this thread.