Rifle Accuracy vs. Shooter Accuracy

[houndog]

A question I've been thinking about lately, particularly given the discussions about a rifle's inherent accuracy is how capable do you think you are as an individual shooter? There are certainly no shortage of threads discussing the accuracy results various posters have obtained with a variety of rifles. Of course missing from the equation is usually the capabilities of the individual shooter who is posting their results. And personally, I'm not sure I've ever put a ton of thought into trying to quantify how good (or bad) a shooter I am. But for me to have any kind of meaningful understanding of precisely how accurate my rifles are, surely I need to do this.

For example, probably the most accurate bolt gun I own is a Sako TRG22. With FGMM I'm probably averaging about .6" five shot groups at 100 yards - at least on a good day. When I move to semi-auto, it doesn't matter which of several guns I shoot, I struggle to average much below 1.25" (although I will usually get at least a couple of sub MOA groups). I suspect in both cases, these results say as much about the "accuracy" of the shooter, as they do about the "accuracy" of the gun.

So what I'm wondering is to what extent is the accuracy of the gun compromised by the limitations of the shooter. For example, suppose I alternated shooting my Sako with the theoretical "perfect shooter". The "perfect shooter" is consistently perfect. He always gets directly behind the scope eliminating even the tinniest parallax. He puts the cross hairs in the exact same place on the target 100% of the time. The gun remains motionless when he pulls the trigger and recoils in exactly the same way. He extracts the maximum amount of accuracy a gun is capable of every time he pulls the trigger.

If each of us shoots 10 five shot groups at a target 100 yards away and we then took the average of our groups, what would that look like? I suspect my group would be something over .6" because I wouldn't have thrown out the one group where I had obvious flyers that resulted in a 1+" inch group. But what would the "perfect shooter's" average look like? I suspect he would be around .4", because even when I don't have obvious flyers my guess is that my own inadequacies as a shooter are resulting in approx. .2" increases in the groups I am producing. In other words, with a bolt gun I'm probably about .2 MOA away from being a "perfect shooter", even when I throw out the 1-2 wild flyers I'm likely to get shooting 50 rounds. And my Sako, which in my hands is a .6 MOA shooter is really closer to a .4 MOA gun.

Moving to a semi-auto, I suspect the divergence between my average and that of the "perfect shooter" would be considerably larger, probably about .4-.5 MOA. So the LaRue that averages about 1.2"-1.3" in my hands is probably a .8 MOA rifle.

Of course, all of these are rough guesstimates, since I don't have access to a "perfect shooter" to compare results with. However, when I think any of us discuss the accuracy of any given rifle, we really should try to include some analysis of our own abilities and how this might impact our results. Plus, I'm curious how others would estimate their results vs. a "perfect shooter". Clearly, some of you are probably sub. .1 MOA, particularly on bolt guns. But I have to believe that even among the most talented of us there's going to be some divergence, particularly across say 50 rounds.

 

[Newbie2020]

Another factor to complicate the algorithm is to add multiple positions like rhe Chris Whey diamond drill.

 

[CerebralDistortion]

Oh, one of those...

You want to know how good you are? Sign up for a competition.

The perfect shooter? Under what conditions? At what range? With what gear?

The variables are too many to answer this question other than in a hypothetical way.

The perfect shooter will always hit his target.
Strive to be him. Practice. Practice more.
No matter, the perfect shooter will always be better than you.

 

[Evintos]

Best way I test my capabilities vs my rifle's capabilities is simply by using a lead sled/rifle sled with properly developed handloads. The lead sled takes a lot of the shooter's inadequacies out of the equation and will give you a general baseline of what your equipment is capable of.

I judge my capabilities based on how close I can match the baseline of that rifle/load combo across as wide of a spectrum of environmental conditions, mental state/physical state, various shooting positions as possible. This is where data books help me immensely. I can look back and go, hey I need to work on my kneeling position while it's snowing, or work on my wind calls while shooting offhand, etc.

I know I'm an ok shooter, but I'm not great or perfect. I consider myself a great shooter only if I cherry pick my results when I was in ideal condition and especially if I compare my marksmanship to the marksmanship of others in a public shooting range (most of them around here are terrible, but at least they're having fun). However, if I look at my data book, I can absolutely see where I'm lacking. I know what I'm capable of under ideal conditions but the inconsistency is what makes me realize that I have much room for improvement.

Thus, the "perfect shooter" to me is one who can consistently get as close to the baseline precision of their equipment AND be accurate with their hits under all conditions.

TLDR: "Perfect shooter" = Accurate AND Precise.

 

[wade2big]

It is better to be a 1” shooter and be good at reading the wind than a .25” shooter that can’t. It seems environmentals, your ability to understand them, and the effect they will have on the shot will result in more first round hits than the difference between a 1/4” or 1” shooter and gear.

 

[DJL2]

Multi-variable system - the shooter - running another multi-variable system - the gun, optic and the ammunition - in a dynamic environment. The error present in these systems can be constructive or destructive for any given shot. If your mean error as a shooter is .25 MOA and the mean error of your delivery system is .25 MOA, you'd have a distribution representing the different possible combinations of those average error values.

A .25 MOA mean error system is a .5 MOA 50% CEP system...you would expect that system to shoot groups anywhere between .25 MOA and .75 MOA with regularity. If you're logging your impacts you can make composite groups over time and develop a pretty good sized data set in short order if that's of interest to you. Don't throw out any shot that wasn't honestly called when you broke it.

 

[houndog]

Oh, one of those...

You want to know how good you are? Sign up for a competition.

Not really because to me being "good" encompasses a lot more than the ability to shoot 100 yards groups from a bench with unlimited time, using a bipod and a rear bag. And I will readily admit that if you move the target back to 800 yards, throw in a blustery wind, ask me to shoot from a barricade in an awkward position and put a time limit on me my .2 MOA completely falls apart. But you're absolutely right, if you want to know how good a shooter you are some kind of PRS competition will quickly help sort things out - and for those of us who don't usually shoot from awkward positions under time pressure will probably be a pretty humbling experience.

Really, I'm more curious about any discussions we have about the inherent accuracy of various rifles/platforms. For anyone's input to be meaningful, they need to have some idea of how accurate they are when they say my Tikka, AI, GAP etc. shoots X. (And of course it helps if they are honest) For example, Molon, who sometimes posts here and has a bunch of posts on ARFCOM appears to be pretty damn close to a "perfect" shooter. If he says XM193 out of x barrel shoots 2.5 MOA, and FGMM shoots .8 MOA out of that same barrel I am confident he has taken most of the shooter error out of the equation.

So, before you post about how accurate X or Y rifle is I think you need to have a handle on how accurate a shooter you are under ideal conditions. That's why I will occasionally post about the kind of accuracy I'm getting out of bolt action rifles - I'm generally pretty consistent, and think I have a decent handle on my capabilities. I also suspect .2 MOA is roughly about average for this forum (although who knows, maybe everyone else is sub .1 MOA) and a small enough variance that my results are at least meaningful. However, I almost never chime in when the discussion is about semi-auto's, simply because I recognize my own limitations prevent me from having a true sense of the accuracy potential of a given rifle. (Although I suppose if I'm consistently adding .5 MOA to a rifle's capabilities I could just deduct that constant from my results.)

And to respond to another poster, yes there are things you can do to take yourself out of the equation as much as possible, although personally, the few times I've used a lead sled didn't seem to make a whole lot of difference ... but then I don't have a whole lot of experience with them and never really felt comfortable behind it.

 

[Newbie2020]

I think I get the gist of why you’re asking but it seems to border on rhetorical.

I could only measure shooter accuracy (probably “shooter precision” is the appropriate word here...) accurately if the shooter was shooting a “perfect” rifle.

I’d love to see the test fire setup at one of the major rifle manufacturers. Maybe they have a system which eliminates shooter input and truly tests intrinsic complete rifle system precision.

Can I redirect the question?

there seems to be merit in isolating and independently measuring shooter precision and and rifle precision. It would be interesting to compare multiple examples of various precision rifle systems operated in a shooter-neutral platform. My guess is there would be small but insignificant differences.

Then, as to OPs point, the shooter precision could be evaluated shooting a rifle system with known intrinsic precision.

Does that make sense?

 

[kthomas]

0.6 MOA? Sounds like you need a tuner bro.

 

[atepointer]

Oh I know this all too well. For whatever reason I do not shoot great on paper most of the time. I do have an ace paper shooter with me most times and periodically I'll have him remind me what my rifle is capable of it's always a funny moment. I know my barrel and load are golden....'hey man come put 5 down on paper for me'. It's typically about .3-.4....sometimes less. I might be .8 or 1" or more. When I'm bad I'm BAD.

 

[Newbie2020]

I was telling a young friend just this afternoon that in my lifetime we were satisfied if a factory rifle would shoot under two moa. Today there’s no reason to be satisfied with anything over 1 moa.

But that’s for a different thread I think.....

 

[rydah]

0.6 MOA? Sounds like you need a tuner bro.

 

[Maggot]

Best way I test my capabilities vs my rifle's capabilities is simply by using a lead sled/rifle sled with properly developed handloads. The lead sled takes a lot of the shooter's inadequacies out of the equation and will give you a general baseline of what your equipment is capable of.

I judge my capabilities based on how close I can match the baseline of that rifle/load combo across as wide of a spectrum of environmental conditions, mental state/physical state, various shooting positions as possible. This is where data books help me immensely. I can look back and go, hey I need to work on my kneeling position while it's snowing, or work on my wind calls while shooting offhand, etc.

I know I'm an ok shooter, but I'm not great or perfect. I consider myself a great shooter only if I cherry pick my results when I was in ideal condition and especially if I compare my marksmanship to the marksmanship of others in a public shooting range (most of them around here are terrible, but at least they're having fun). However, if I look at my data book, I can absolutely see where I'm lacking. I know what I'm capable of under ideal conditions but the inconsistency is what makes me realize that I have much room for improvement.

Thus, the "perfect shooter" to me is one who can consistently get as close to the baseline precision of their equipment AND be accurate with their hits under all conditions.

TLDR: "Perfect shooter" = Accurate AND Precise.

That seems the most accurate (pun intended) way to answer the OP's question. Take the shooter out of it, qualify the rifle under a given set of variables...ammo load, wind, temp, etc. Then you know what the rifle is capable of. The rest boils down to you the shooter.

 

[hereinaz]

In field positions, which is what matters for practical precision rifle shooters, the gun is not going to be the weak link.

My motto is get off the bench and start shooting practical positions.

 

[houndog]

Newbie - interesting way of looking at things. I was focused on the gun and making the point that drawing conclusions about a particular rifle based on anecdotal comments by shooters can be misleading because you can't really take the shooter out of the equation. We can only know what a rifle is truly capable of when it is in the hands of the mythical "perfect shooter". (Although I suppose using a lead sled, a very good quality high power scope, carefully hand loaded ammo, etc. helps reduce each of the factors that can effect accuracy/precision.)

But your point is equally valid - you can only know how good a shooter you are if you are shooting the "perfect rifle". In that case, if you are shooting .5 MOA groups you are a .5 MOA shooter because the rifle is "perfect" and any lack of precision is attributable 100% to you.

Of course, in the real world nothing is perfect. Not you. Not your rifle. Not the ammo you are using. Not the weather. And all of those imperfections are cumulative and contribute to a lack of precision. All we can do is to try to control/reduce each element in the precision equation ... with the understanding that frequently you are the element that has the greatest potential for improvement.

And I agree, this is ultimately a gun focused discussion and as a practical matter we do need to "get off the bench". While it is certainly satisfying to shoot nice little groups from the bench at 100 yards, in the real world that skill doesn't have a whole lot of utility. Much rather be a 1 or even a 2 MOA shooter who is able to maintain that level of accuracy from multiple positions, under time pressure and having to engage targets at distances between 100 and 1000 yards in variable wind conditions.

 

[GrumpyOleFart]

I'm happy with the notion that the greatest variable in my accuracy, is myself.
It keeps me humble, and critical of my technique.
My rifles and ammo are tweaked to the best performance I can get from them.
If I drop a shot, it's because I've made a mistake.
In no way, shape, or form, am I the perfect shooter, but having a lot of fun trying.

 

[ElectricFuneral]

IMO, it's not possible to complitely separate the precision of the shooter from the equipment he is using.

 

[larryh128]

A question I've been thinking about lately, particularly given the discussions about a rifle's inherent accuracy is how capable do you think you are as an individual shooter? There are certainly no shortage of threads discussing the accuracy results various posters have obtained with a variety of rifles. Of course missing from the equation is usually the capabilities of the individual shooter who is posting their results. And personally, I'm not sure I've ever put a ton of thought into trying to quantify how good (or bad) a shooter I am. But for me to have any kind of meaningful understanding of precisely how accurate my rifles are, surely I need to do this.

For example, probably the most accurate bolt gun I own is a Sako TRG22. With FGMM I'm probably averaging about .6" five shot groups at 100 yards - at least on a good day. When I move to semi-auto, it doesn't matter which of several guns I shoot, I struggle to average much below 1.25" (although I will usually get at least a couple of sub MOA groups). I suspect in both cases, these results say as much about the "accuracy" of the shooter, as they do about the "accuracy" of the gun.

So what I'm wondering is to what extent is the accuracy of the gun compromised by the limitations of the shooter. For example, suppose I alternated shooting my Sako with the theoretical "perfect shooter". The "perfect shooter" is consistently perfect. He always gets directly behind the scope eliminating even the tinniest parallax. He puts the cross hairs in the exact same place on the target 100% of the time. The gun remains motionless when he pulls the trigger and recoils in exactly the same way. He extracts the maximum amount of accuracy a gun is capable of every time he pulls the trigger.

If each of us shoots 10 five shot groups at a target 100 yards away and we then took the average of our groups, what would that look like? I suspect my group would be something over .6" because I wouldn't have thrown out the one group where I had obvious flyers that resulted in a 1+" inch group. But what would the "perfect shooter's" average look like? I suspect he would be around .4", because even when I don't have obvious flyers my guess is that my own inadequacies as a shooter are resulting in approx. .2" increases in the groups I am producing. In other words, with a bolt gun I'm probably about .2 MOA away from being a "perfect shooter", even when I throw out the 1-2 wild flyers I'm likely to get shooting 50 rounds. And my Sako, which in my hands is a .6 MOA shooter is really closer to a .4 MOA gun.

Moving to a semi-auto, I suspect the divergence between my average and that of the "perfect shooter" would be considerably larger, probably about .4-.5 MOA. So the LaRue that averages about 1.2"-1.3" in my hands is probably a .8 MOA rifle.

Of course, all of these are rough guesstimates, since I don't have access to a "perfect shooter" to compare results with. However, when I think any of us discuss the accuracy of any given rifle, we really should try to include some analysis of our own abilities and how this might impact our results. Plus, I'm curious how others would estimate their results vs. a "perfect shooter". Clearly, some of you are probably sub. .1 MOA, particularly on bolt guns. But I have to believe that even among the most talented of us there's going to be some divergence, particularly across say 50 rounds.

The perfect shooter only exists in the movies as far as I'm concerned. The big thing that has helped me is my choice of targets. I never shoot the typical bullseye targets anymore. I shoot either triangles or something with a point on it. Holding spot is the point and you will have up to 4 points or targets on one target. Obviously a good trigger and a stock that orients your hand properly in relationship with the trigger are required as well.

 

[sinister]

You can give anyone who walks on to a range the finest rifle in the world, but it doesn't mean he will win with it.

I believe but cannot remember for sure that at least one Camp Perry champion won the National Pistol Champion award with a stock, out-of-the-box Colt Gold Cup.

I KNOW Marine Reserve Staff Sergeant Harry Harrison won the National Trophy Individual Rifle Championship with a box-stock National Match Armalite AR he had just purchased off Camp Perry's Commercial Row.

It may be a close-to-perfect machine, but the shooter still has to point it.

 

[308pirate]

Not really because to me being "good" encompasses a lot more than the ability to shoot 100 yards groups from a bench with unlimited time, using a bipod and a rear bag. And I will readily admit that if you move the target back to 800 yards, throw in a blustery wind, ask me to shoot from a barricade in an awkward position and put a time limit on me my .2 MOA completely falls apart. But you're absolutely right, if you want to know how good a shooter you are some kind of PRS competition will quickly help sort things out - and for those of us who don't usually shoot from awkward positions under time pressure will probably be a pretty humbling experience.

Really, I'm more curious about any discussions we have about the inherent accuracy of various rifles/platforms. For anyone's input to be meaningful, they need to have some idea of how accurate they are when they say my Tikka, AI, GAP etc. shoots X. (And of course it helps if they are honest) For example, Molon, who sometimes posts here and has a bunch of posts on ARFCOM appears to be pretty damn close to a "perfect" shooter. If he says XM193 out of x barrel shoots 2.5 MOA, and FGMM shoots .8 MOA out of that same barrel I am confident he has taken most of the shooter error out of the equation.

So, before you post about how accurate X or Y rifle is I think you need to have a handle on how accurate a shooter you are under ideal conditions. That's why I will occasionally post about the kind of accuracy I'm getting out of bolt action rifles - I'm generally pretty consistent, and think I have a decent handle on my capabilities. I also suspect .2 MOA is roughly about average for this forum (although who knows, maybe everyone else is sub .1 MOA) and a small enough variance that my results are at least meaningful. However, I almost never chime in when the discussion is about semi-auto's, simply because I recognize my own limitations prevent me from having a true sense of the accuracy potential of a given rifle. (Although I suppose if I'm consistently adding .5 MOA to a rifle's capabilities I could just deduct that constant from my results.)

And to respond to another poster, yes there are things you can do to take yourself out of the equation as much as possible, although personally, the few times I've used a lead sled didn't seem to make a whole lot of difference ... but then I don't have a whole lot of experience with them and never really felt comfortable behind it.

Nobody is going to be able to answer this question unless they have a return to zero test fixture. A cheap ass Caldwell (redundant) lead sled or similar is not even close to being adequate to truly characterize the accuracy and precision of a rifle with no human input.

I stopped giving a shit about rhetorical questions like this quite a while back because they are not relevant to the practical application of handguns or rifles.

The time spent investigating the answer is better spent becoming a better rifle/shooter system.

 

[Steel head]

Nobody is going to be able to answer this question unless they have a return to zero test fixture. A cheap ass Caldwell (redundant) lead sled or similar is not even close to being adequate to truly characterize the accuracy and precision of a rifle with no human input.

I stopped giving a shit about rhetorical questions like this quite a while back because they are not relevant to the practical application of handguns or rifles.

The time spent investigating the answer is better spent becoming a better rifle/shooter system.

I’m going to have to agree with

On this one.

 

[Fig]

Just a point of nomenclature and distinction:

The Difference Between Accuracy and Precision

"Precision", is the preferred term to describe the rifle's inherent ability to put a bullet near the same point (repeatable). Precision applies to the tool.

"Accuracy", is the ability of the marksman to utilize the rifle to hit his/her target, or actually utilize the precision of the tool to get out of it what it is capable of doing (marksmanship).

Litz, and some other cannon authors, make these clear distinctions in their books, and it tracks with general usage and the scientific community. While certainly there is some nuance, and I know exactly what you mean, I look at it kind of like when someone on my boat asks about "The Map".
I'm going to correct them only once. I'll tell them that when it is a map of water it's called a "chart", but if they keep calling it a map I won't keep correcting them unless they claim they want to become a navigator.

 

[308pirate]

For example, Molon, who sometimes posts here and has a bunch of posts on ARFCOM appears to be pretty damn close to a "perfect" shooter. If he says XM193 out of x barrel shoots 2.5 MOA, and FGMM shoots .8 MOA out of that same barrel I am confident he has taken most of the shooter error out of the equation.

How do you know that he has taken most of the shooter error out of the equation?

All you see is a picture of his end result. You see nothing of the process used to get there.

 

[houndog]

How do you know that he has taken most of the shooter error out of the equation?

All you see is a picture of his end result. You see nothing of the process used to get there.

Well, he gives a pretty detailed explanation of his set up, with pictures. He shoots 10 shot groups, none of which seem to have the usual flyer(s) so many of us are plagued with. And across multiple AR's with multiple brands of ammo he seems to get some pretty outstanding results. Like .7-8 MOA ten shot groups.

I don't know if you shoot trap or know anything about it, but it's kind of like saying that Leo Harrison is close to a perfect trap shooter. How do I know? The guy had 35 state trophies, 110 grand american trophies, he has shot 200 out of 200 consecutive targets 157 separate times in ATA tournaments and has won just about everything there is to win in the sport multiple times. I could go on. His results are the proof. Same could be said for Michael Jordan, Jack Nicklaus, etc. (Not saying that Molon is the Michael Jordan of shooting, but you get the idea).

Of course, maybe he's just the luckiest b*st*rd on the planet, every rifle he owns is a .1 MOA shooter and the other .6 MOA are all him, so he actually sucks.

 

[Maggot]

The perfect shooter only exists in the movies as far as I'm concerned.

Are you thinking Mark Wahlberg or Tom Behringer?

 

[MikeRTacOps]

A question I've been thinking about lately, particularly given the discussions about a rifle's inherent accuracy is how capable do you think you are as an individual shooter? There are certainly no shortage of threads discussing the accuracy results various posters have obtained with a variety of rifles. Of course missing from the equation is usually the capabilities of the individual shooter who is posting their results. And personally, I'm not sure I've ever put a ton of thought into trying to quantify how good (or bad) a shooter I am. But for me to have any kind of meaningful understanding of precisely how accurate my rifles are, surely I need to do this.

For example, probably the most accurate bolt gun I own is a Sako TRG22. With FGMM I'm probably averaging about .6" five shot groups at 100 yards - at least on a good day. When I move to semi-auto, it doesn't matter which of several guns I shoot, I struggle to average much below 1.25" (although I will usually get at least a couple of sub MOA groups). I suspect in both cases, these results say as much about the "accuracy" of the shooter, as they do about the "accuracy" of the gun.

So what I'm wondering is to what extent is the accuracy of the gun compromised by the limitations of the shooter. For example, suppose I alternated shooting my Sako with the theoretical "perfect shooter". The "perfect shooter" is consistently perfect. He always gets directly behind the scope eliminating even the tinniest parallax. He puts the cross hairs in the exact same place on the target 100% of the time. The gun remains motionless when he pulls the trigger and recoils in exactly the same way. He extracts the maximum amount of accuracy a gun is capable of every time he pulls the trigger.

If each of us shoots 10 five shot groups at a target 100 yards away and we then took the average of our groups, what would that look like? I suspect my group would be something over .6" because I wouldn't have thrown out the one group where I had obvious flyers that resulted in a 1+" inch group. But what would the "perfect shooter's" average look like? I suspect he would be around .4", because even when I don't have obvious flyers my guess is that my own inadequacies as a shooter are resulting in approx. .2" increases in the groups I am producing. In other words, with a bolt gun I'm probably about .2 MOA away from being a "perfect shooter", even when I throw out the 1-2 wild flyers I'm likely to get shooting 50 rounds. And my Sako, which in my hands is a .6 MOA shooter is really closer to a .4 MOA gun.

Moving to a semi-auto, I suspect the divergence between my average and that of the "perfect shooter" would be considerably larger, probably about .4-.5 MOA. So the LaRue that averages about 1.2"-1.3" in my hands is probably a .8 MOA rifle.

Of course, all of these are rough guesstimates, since I don't have access to a "perfect shooter" to compare results with. However, when I think any of us discuss the accuracy of any given rifle, we really should try to include some analysis of our own abilities and how this might impact our results. Plus, I'm curious how others would estimate their results vs. a "perfect shooter". Clearly, some of you are probably sub. .1 MOA, particularly on bolt guns. But I have to believe that even among the most talented of us there's going to be some divergence, particularly across say 50 rounds.

Send me your rifle I'll tell you what it can do


Mike R.

 

[addertooth]

In air rifle shooting, we have a simple metric for how good a shooter is. We put a factory $150 break-barrel spring-air gun in their hands and have them shoot at a 25 yard target. This category of air rifle has all kinds of bad things going on which can only be corrected by having all your basics spot on. They have heavy triggers, which require a proper squeeze, they have forward AND reverse recoil, they are super hold sensitive, and almost always have cheap optics with horrible parallax if your cheek weld is not entirely repeatable. Even worse, you must break cheek weld to load and cock each round. If the shooter can produce a sub-dime sized one ragged hole with ten rounds... they are a shooter. If they require a well-sorted nearly recoilless PCP air rifle to achieve the same goal.. they are NOT a shooter. It is how we separate the "plinkers" from the shooters. These skills transfer nicely to a regular powder burner as well.

 

[308pirate]

Well, he gives a pretty detailed explanation of his set up, with pictures. He shoots 10 shot groups, none of which seem to have the usual flyer(s) so many of us are plagued with. And across multiple AR's with multiple brands of ammo he seems to get some pretty outstanding results. Like .7-8 MOA ten shot groups.

I don't know if you shoot trap or know anything about it, but it's kind of like saying that Leo Harrison is close to a perfect trap shooter. How do I know? The guy had 35 state trophies, 110 grand american trophies, he has shot 200 out of 200 consecutive targets 157 separate times in ATA tournaments and has won just about everything there is to win in the sport multiple times. I could go on. His results are the proof. Same could be said for Michael Jordan, Jack Nicklaus, etc. (Not saying that Molon is the Michael Jordan of shooting, but you get the idea).

Of course, maybe he's just the luckiest b*st*rd on the planet, every rifle he owns is a .1 MOA shooter and the other .6 MOA are all him, so he actually sucks.

So I take that as a "no"

If I were you I'd take Mike's offer.

 

[Triple D]

How do you know that he has taken most of the shooter error out of the equation?

All you see is a picture of his end result. You see nothing of the process used to get there.

I think he’s taken quite a bit out with the front rest, forearm fixture and V style rear bags.

That’s a really good setup, but I don’t think that really shows how good of a shooter someone is, but I also don’t think that’s what Molon is going for.

 

[houndog]

Send me your rifle I'll tell you what it can do


Mike R.

Mike, are you affiliated with Tac Ops? If so, I'll send you one of my rifles if you send me one of yours.

 

[MikeRTacOps]

Mike, are you affiliated with Tac Ops? If so, I'll send you one of my rifles if you send me one of yours.

I know him a little bit and that would depend on what your sending ? LOL

Mike R.

 

[jakelly]

It is better to be a 1” shooter and be good at reading the wind than a .25” shooter that can’t. It seems environmentals, your ability to understand them, and the effect they will have on the shot will result in more first round hits than the difference between a 1/4” or 1” shooter and gear.

I agree. But only to a point.

A shooter will learn more quickly and more completely when using an extremely accurate rifle. There is a big difference between a 3/4 MOA rifle and a 1/4 MOA rifle when it comes to riflemanship.

 

[jakelly]

Mike, are you affiliated with Tac Ops? If so, I'll send you one of my rifles if you send me one of yours.

Mike:Tac Ops::Lowlight:Snipershide

 

[Longshot231]

In air rifle shooting, we have a simple metric for how good a shooter is. We put a factory $150 break-barrel spring-air gun in their hands and have them shoot at a 25 yard target. This category of air rifle has all kinds of bad things going on which can only be corrected by having all your basics spot on. They have heavy triggers, which require a proper squeeze, they have forward AND reverse recoil, they are super hold sensitive, and almost always have cheap optics with horrible parallax if your cheek weld is not entirely repeatable. Even worse, you must break cheek weld to load and cock each round. If the shooter can produce a sub-dime sized one ragged hole with ten rounds... they are a shooter. If they require a well-sorted nearly recoilless PCP air rifle to achieve the same goal.. they are NOT a shooter. It is how we separate the "plinkers" from the shooters. These skills transfer nicely to a regular powder burner as well.

I have a lot of spring-powered air rifles and you could not be more correct. I'm not going to say that I'm really good with springers but will admit to tuning and working on the triggers to mitigate the aforementioned problems that you listed.

I must confess that I am an air rifle snob when it comes to quality European made springers. Even worse, I will not be caught dead shooting a springer with more than a 12 ounce trigger pull.

The reason that I'm such a snob is that I don't want anyone else to see my shortcomings as a marksman. So let that be our secret. I know that I can trust everyone on this forum not to share that information with my friends

Regarding the OP's original post, I share his frustration with the gas guns. I don't eschew them but just prefer bolt action rifles.

 

[larryh128]

Are you thinking Mark Wahlberg or Tom Behringer?

Either would work, but more like the guy that picks off a guy on a roof top with a pistol while an unsub unloads 30 rounds out of a sub gun at 30 ft and totally misses the hero. My movie great shot hero is Quigley.

 

[Klemm]

That’s why I bought a Tac Ops. Because deep down I knew it was always me.

 

[sarcasmn]

I buy quality equipment and am meticulous as o know how to be in setting it up. When I first got my center fire rifle, a retired marine sniper instructor shot a group from it and declared it was at least a 1/2 moa rifle or better.
I also shoot 22LR out to 500 yards. I sent my barreled action to Lapua who locked it down in their testing facility and I ended up with a case of ammo that shot .3 moa.
When I miss I figure it’s me. But are we talking shooter accuracy at the practice range from prone? From a makeshift hide on a police call out for a hostage situation? Steel targets at a PRS match or what they are doing in Ukraine right now. Lots of different skills come in to play here.
I know my rifles shoot well and concentrate on making myself better. All I have ever really considered is do I have the skills to complete the mission.

 

[sarcasmn]

"A shooter will learn more quickly and more completely when using an extremely accurate rifle." I could not agree more JAKELLY.

The first class I took when I was a police officer, the instructor took my rifle and adjusted the rifle to fit him. I was quietly freaking out because I had spent a lot of time setting that rifle up the best I knew how from books to fit me. He then proceeded to shoot two five shot groups, both were under 1/2 moa. He told me I now had a good idea of what my rifle was capable of. He did this for all 6 students in the class. (It was the 90's so there were not big classes for "precision shooting" like there are now. Civilian options for classes were NRA courses. Only through the military or police departments could you take an actual "sniper" course.) We then spent the rest of the first day setting up our rifles correctly and making sure the scopes tracked well etc.

That was huge in my learning process. I now knew I had an accurate rifle and scope. I knew it was all set up correctly. I knew as I practiced that anything more than 1/2 moa was me and not the rifle. I trusted the rifle, so when I missed I analyzed myself to look for the problem.

 

[larryh128]

Good Info.

 

[addertooth]

I don't know, I kind of enjoy watching a newbie crank down the bolts on their walmart scope mounts until they put dimples in the scope body.
(Because they are SURE it has to be the scope moving in the mounts.)