The “gun shoots better than I do” nonsense!

[Legionnaire]

You've never heard someone say, "Stupid rifle! I shoot better than this!"?

 

[Wisco]

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

No joke. I’m dumber for having read this far and even typing this...

 

[warnerwh]

In the end when I see someone say the gun is more accurate than them my first thought is that all guns are more accurate than you whoever you are. In other words what was said essentially tells me nothing but the obvious. If someone says the gun can shoot 2" groups at twenty five yards from a Ransom rest and offhand I shoot 6" groups I have a reference point so I can understand what someone is saying. Just to say a gun is more accurate than you to me is kind of a cop out.

 

[taliv]

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/rifle-vs-user-limfac.613001/#post-7562845

it's been a few years since we had this discussion, but my opinion hasn't changed. for supported group shooting with rifles, it's usually the rifle, not the shooter

 

[rpenmanparker]

In the end when I see someone say the gun is more accurate than them my first thought is that all guns are more accurate than you whoever you are. In other words what was said essentially tells me nothing but the obvious. If someone says the gun can shoot 2" groups at twenty five yards from a Ransom rest and offhand I shoot 6" groups I have a reference point so I can understand what someone is saying. Just to say a gun is more accurate than you to me is kind of a cop out.

Hey! Someone gets it.

 

[Theohazard]

OP, I understand your point. I agree that if you increase the mechanical accuracy potential of a firearm you’re going to increase the accuracy potential of the shooter, no matter what the shooter’s skill level. The question is, “By how much?”

I’ve worked at two different public ranges, and I can tell you that — for the average shooter — skill matters WAY more than the accuracy potential of any given firearm. So many shooters complain about their gun’s accuracy when the problem is them and not the gun. Especially with handguns; in my observation of the average shooter, I’d say that 99.9% of a handgun’s accuracy is due to the shooter and 0.1% is due to the hangun’s accuracy potential.

 

[Steve S.]

Once computing optics/ devices are refined and prevail with the shooting crowd, the human error will be removed and the mechanics of the firearm will dictate accuracy. Then we can argue the merits of a firearm brand, design quality, inherent accuracy, etc without dirty human fingerprints diluting the conversation. Then after reflection, I realize that if all of my firearms and equipment are on autopilot, that I will never miss, that all of my groups will be one hole, then I realize what is the point. Firearms enthusiasm must be about the selfness of the shooter; the firearm is a thing - a tool for that purpose. My firearm must always be no more capable than me or the joy will be gone.

 

[rpenmanparker]

OP, I understand your point. I agree that if you increase the mechanical accuracy potential of a firearm you’re going to increase the accuracy potential of the shooter, no matter what the shooter’s skill level. The question is, “By how much?”

I’ve worked at two different public ranges, and I can tell you that — for the average shooter — skill matters WAY more than the accuracy potential of any given firearm. So many shooters complain about their gun’s accuracy when the problem is them and not the gun. Especially with handguns; in my observation of the average shooter, I’d say that 99.9% of a handgun’s accuracy is due to the shooter and 0.1% is due to the hangun’s accuracy potential.

Your post is a good example of why we need more clarity and distinction between the concepts of accuracy and precision. Even though I tried to avoid using the term, because shooters almost universally misunderstand it, I have to now distinguish between the two ideas. I am talking about precision or variation among several shots. I am not talking about accuracy or how close the POA and POI are. I could be wrong, but I thiink you are talking about accuracy. It is common for new shooters to shoot uniformly wide or high or low and to think that their sights need to be zeroed when, in fact, they need to refine their technique. They need to stop pulling the gun down or up or left or right before every shot. That is not what I am talking about. Forgive me if it is not what you are talking about either.

My point involves the random variation inherent in the gun mechanism which does exist as shown by continually published tests of the gun behavior when shot from a rest. The contribution of such gun error is considerably more than 0.1% of the total imprecision of the 5-shot groups recorded.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Steve S. how can there be “selfness” in the shooting activity when a major large fraction of the imprecision of the results is due to the gun and not the shooter. Having the gun make you miss despite the quality of your input to the process is no better, maybe worse, than having the gun automatically make you hit your target despite your input. Ideally the gun should be totally neutral, without any error of its own so that the shooters technique is the only influence on the results. That would be selfness. Of course such perfection in a machine is impossible, but even getting close makes the contribution of the gun to the total error vanishingly small as shown in a on earlier post in this thread.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Steve S. first of all perfecting the gun does not correct errors by the shooter. It just eliminates errors that are beyond the shooter’s control.

And how can there be “selfness” in the shooting activity when a major large fraction of the imprecision of the results is due to the gun and not the shooter. Having the gun make you miss despite the quality of your input to the process is no better, maybe worse, than having the gun automatically make you hit your target despite your input. Ideally the gun should be totally neutral, without any error of its own so that the shooters technique is the only influence on the results. That would be selfness. Of course such perfection in a machine is impossible, but even getting close makes the contribution of the gun to the total error vanishingly small as shown in a on earlier post in this thread.

 

[Robert]

Rants for the sake of ranting are generally unproductive. Four pages seems to be more than enough for this particular outrage.