Gun, and shooting accuracy

[Nikita]

One of the comments in the discussion of high accuracy .22 handguns pointed out that the accuracy of the gun is not the only factor, and often is not the main one.

That comment is very correct.

From the standpoint of both shooters, and weapons designers, to a "first approximation" or good rough estimate, accuracy is the "linear" or simple addition of error in each of these factors:

intrinsic accuracy of the gun,
accuracy of the shooter at the specific time the gun is shot,
consistency and accuracy of the ammunition,
effects of environment (wind, air density, for really long distances Coriolis force)

and the like.

For a better numerical estimate, replace "linear" or sijple addition by square root of the sum of the variances.

The result of this, however, is that each source of error adds together, one on top of the other, as if each one were relatively independent.

The result is that a really inaccurate gun, inconsistent ammunition, high and variable wind, or a really poor shooter can wipe out the gains from improvement in any one of the other factors, or all of them. Conversely, an improvement in any of these factors (the gun, the ammunition, the shooter) still is limited in how much it can improve the overall score or outcome, depending on how bad the other factors might be.

There is one exception, the shooter who can outshoot the gun and ammunition.

This is extremely rare, but there have been true expert marksmen whos shooting was far better than should ever have been possible with the gun and ammunition being used. Annie Oakley was one of these people. Her average accuracy was far better than the average consistence of the ammunition of her day, and far better than what tests of the guns of her era ever produced. This also was true from the beginning of her career as a child. Her accuracy with an old junk rifle was far better than should have been possible with that rifle, or from most anyone else's guns.

I'm still trying to understand the mathematics and method, of how she did this. The movies of her doing this don't give a clue.

 

[bill o]

She held the sights aligned on target until the shot broke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TonyDedo]

Lots of mythology behind people like Annie Oakley.

 

[Nikita]

Annie Oakley and staying on Target

There are tons of myths about nearly everything and everyone, including Annie Oakley. The stories about the card splitting, consistently at 90 feet, however do seem to be accurate.

The "staying on target" with the sights until the shot is completed is a very interesting technique for accuracy that is used widely. From the standpoint of pure physics, it makes no sense, since the path of the bullet is "determined" when the bullet exits the muzzle and is past the area of influence of the muzzle blast. From the standpoint of overall shooting, the basis seems to be in how we aim a gun. Anything we actually do is an assembled group of movements, from a pre-determined program in the brain and spinal cord. The time from initial planning to final action can be as long as 200 milliseconds (0.2 seconds). There also are two overlapping systems the brain uses to activate the muscles, one with a shorter time delay than the other.

As a result, if we loose concentration on a target, or change the point of aim, the brain tells the body to shift things about .2 seconds before we actually make the change. Due to the overlapping systems to carry this one, one faster than the other, that shift of position in the gun can occur before the bullet leaves the barrel, and displace the aim.

If one has the luxury of just one target and doesn't need to shift to the next target before the shot has reached the first target, waiting until the shot is completed before shifting aim is a way to avoid this.

That method, however, won't let the shooter do better than the statistical prediction of combined error from the gun and ammunition. That statistical outcome from ammunition and gun accuracy or "quality" should not be influenced by aiming techniques. Two methods that can be used are to set up interacting harmonic vibration patterns that cancel each other, and to couple two chaotic systems that neutralize one another. Based on some recent experiments, it seems like Annie used the second method, but I'm still far from sure about that.

Her recommendation or opinion that women should not be allowed to vote, but that all women carry concealed handguns could be viewed as linking two chaotic systems, to achieve a stable outcome, as well.

 

[Greg Derr]

Ok now we mix myth and science. You do realize that Annie Oakley, like Houdini was a showman who relied on slight of hand, modified ammunition with multiple projectiles and ghost shooters in many of her tricks. It was an act, just like catching a pistol bullet in ones teeth. I met a trick shot once who clued me in on some of the secrets of trick shooting. Please don't confuse fact with fiction. Accuracy like math is measurable, but the data has to be genuine, not fantasy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeWfDnznHQI

In this video she is maybe 9 feet from clay targets, shooting a rifle, so the muzzle is 5 feet from the target which are about four inches is diameter. Watch her husband take two full strides to get in position to shoot the coins. This is where the multiple shot comes in, she misses most of them even at maybe three feet away. We all want to believe in magic, but deep down we know there is a little slight of hand going on. Her shooting as well as a few others have been debunked.

 

[Nikita]

Ghosts at Wimbleton

Ok now we mix myth and science. You do realize that Annie Oakley, like Houdini was a showman who relied on slight of hand, modified ammunition with multiple projectiles and ghost shooters in many of her tricks. It was an act, just like catching a pistol bullet in ones teeth. I met a trick shot once who clued me in on some of the secrets of trick shooting. Please don't confuse fact with .

There would be no surprise if British Royals usead ghost and second shooters for their wins at Wimbleton. It seems unlikely that Annie Oakley won the rifle matches there, that way.

 

[MisterHappy]

All of my guns shoot better than I do. I miss because of wetware, not hardware.

That said, back in the day, I could consistently split a business card at 15 feet with a relatively inexpensive air pistol, on about every other shot. Now, I need glasses to see the !@#$% front sight.

Are some trick shooters that good? Yes, for their tricks. But how many of them are top of the list at "real" competitions?

 

[Nikita]

Yes. That was why her win at Wimbleton in rifles was worth noting.

However, the real issue isn't Annie, if she even existed at all, whether she won the cup at Wimbleton, and the rest. It's whether there is a method for exceeding the maximum possible accuracy (predicted by standard statistical measures) for a given gun and ammunition combination and shooting setting. Standard scientific and engineering methods say this can not exist, within the statistical measures of confidence defined.

Other approaches (the two mentioned above) indicate it may indeed be possible, without ghost shooters, video dubbing, and other falsification..

 

[Nikita]

For Vermonters and Burlingtonites

Mostly for those in or near VT

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...this-year-advice-please?p=3830929#post3830929

 

[NixieTube]

In competition shooting you can reach a plateau and carry it for a while where you come close to the intrinsic accuracy of the firearm and then you kind of fall away from it. When I competed in high school my "upper plateau" was a string of 8 100 10x targets fired with an Anschütz (I do not recall the model because I didn't buy it, I just used it heh.) using Eley match ammo. During that time I remember being both extremely consistent in terms of preparation and also very clear-minded mentally, just very imperturbable, without lot of worries or concerns. I was in a good mood almost all the time, but not too much in any direction. I shot those targets over a period of about 2 months and was never able to achieve that level of consistent accuracy again. During that period of time I remember everything feeling, somehow, "easier" - but I was really being very consistent with setup, pacing, body, breath and muscle control and follow through.

I lost the string coming up the left side of the 9th target on the 7th bull and my coach was watching me through the spotting scope: we both knew instantly.

"Where did it go?"
...follow through....
"Damn. Lost that one. 6:30."
"Yup."
I exed out the next three - 99 9X

I shot other 100 10x targets after that but never as many consecutively. For that brief period of time, for whatever the reason(s), I came pretty darn close to the intrinsic accuracy of the rifle. In a way it was a relief to break the string.

 

[Nikita]

A website of interest?

One of the forum users asked me for "your website" in the past. Until now, I haven't used that method for advertising and sale. However, yesterday that changed, with an experiment in using a social media website to advertise a specialty gun show in NE IL. Lots of high accuracy guns, pistols first, rifles later. The articles in the "pages" section may be of interest to those focusing on gun accuracy.

For people on this forum, if you are not in the area, the guns NOT sold at the gun show will be available from my NH location in August. I don't know if I'll have enough GSP and P240 upper sections to sell separate from a gun. Magazines will be with gun purchase only.

The website has images in the photo album section. The "pages" section mostly is detailed technical information, but also a full list of about 90% of the guns that will be available. The images are a very small fraction of what will be offered.

My thanks to ATF for finally coming through with import permits for 90% of what was requested.


http://www.meetup.com/Band-in-Highland-Park-High-Precision-Rifles-and-Pistols/

http://www.meetup.com/When-Accuracy-Matters-Guns-Band-in-Highland-Park-II

Remember, some of the guns are one of a kind, others are in very limited quantity. Rifles, late in the summer for the most part.