human accuracy and mechanical precision
 

I have summarized some elementary principles of hitting what you aim at in this blog posting, using a famous Luger victory as my background.

http://pics.livejournal.com/larvatus...y7hgq/s640x480

All comments and questions are welcome either in LiveJournal or on this forum.

Michael -

I do not disagree with anything you have written.

I would only add one opinion, and two facts:

Opinion: Most rifled firearms are capable of far greater accuracy than the average marksman is able to achieve. In other words, the inherent accuracy of the weapon is usually always greater than the skill level of the average marksman. One way to verify this is to let two individuals shoot the same weapon with the same ammunition, and compare their results.

Fact #1: Regardless of the quality of the firearm, and the skill of the marksman, if the ammunition used is not of the highest quality in terms of consistently identical bullet weights and consistently identical (or nearly identical) chamber pressures, the results will never be satisfactory. In other words, the ammunition used can and often does greatly affect the accuracy too. There are wide variations in quality in over-the-counter ammunition, and all hand loaders know the importance of precision in loading cartridges.

Fact #2: At longer ranges, there are other circumstances which begin to affect accuracy. These include the effect of wind on the bullet(wind direction and speed of the wind, versus the weight and velocity of the bullet used) and visual distortion due to heat ("mirage"). While we may not think of the pistol as a long range weapon, remember that Ed McGivern used a .357 Magnum revolver to consistently hit targets at a range of 600 yards. And the LP-08 is living proof that someone did not think it unrealistic to take a shot at someone who was 800 meters away with a pistol and actually hit them. G. Gordon Liddy regarded three city blocks as "well within pistol range."

Mauser720 - Ron

While Artillery Luger's rear sight can be cranked up to 800m, it also has a built-in, putative compensation for the Magnus Effect, moving it to the left as it rises. My understanding of the purpose of these devices is that they were meant for area fire, not individual engagement. I think that Charles Askins' Luger exploits at 200 yards more or less define the its practical range limitations. Ed McGivern's prewar .357 Magnum loads had a little bit more oomph behind them.

"putative compensation"


uhhhh, some of us only have a masters degree and can't follow such discussions :D


I do think that even the cheaper ammo made in any developed country is probably more accurate and dependable than I can shoot (or most folks).


ed

As a grad school dropout, I am admittedly overcompensating.One of the main reasons for my writing the referenced article was to disabuse people of this notion. Anyone, regardless of his skill level, will visibly benefit from measurable improvements in the precision of his equipment, such as guns and ammunition.

Massad Ayoub used to write, when revolvers were more often used in police work, of how to hit a man at a hundred yards with a snub .38.

He said to either aim at the nose or chin, I can't remember which, and the 158 gr. bullet would fall into the correct area on the chest.

McGivern used to challenge students to do such things as to hit a fly on a target at 25 yards (accomplished by one student on the third try).

I honestly think inherent accuracy is much greater than we'd expect of most firearms, but a number of factors are necressary to extract it, a good shooter, a good trigger, easily used, precise sights, etc.

It's true that military tactics about a "zone of fire" is different from that which an individual would use, but a good marksman who is welll practiced and careful, can do some marvelous things.

30 years ago, my karate instructor, Shojiro Sugiyama, taught me to split a business card places sideways at 25 feet, with a 158gr wadcutter bullet fired out of an S&W M19.

Unlike a live fly, the business card could be expected to stay put for the follow-up shots.

Guys -

I will tell you a story that I think illustrates several of the points that are being made here.

Years ago I tried out for a Reserve Officers Training Corp (ROTC) small bore rifle team and was selected.

At the time the U.S. Army had a large supply (several million rounds ) of .22 Long Rifle ammunition that had been determined to be unacceptable for some reason. It was all shootable, but for some reason it had not passed the quality control standards and it was going to all be destroyed.

Our team instructors found out about this waste, and pursuaded the Army to simply give it to our team, which they eventually did. Whether they gave us the millions of rounds that were involved, or simply an awful lot of rounds I do not remember. But I do remember that we had one room full of 500 round "bricks" of the ammo.

There were six of us on the varsity team, and as I recall an equal number on the reserve team.

The varsity team shot every day for one hour, five days a week. We took a break in the summer, although even then we still got together just to keep our competive edge.

We were using Winchester Model 52 rifles, with Redfield Olympic sights. (For those who may not be familiar with these, the rear sight was a peep sight, and the front sight was a barrel with various amber plastic inserts. These were not telescopic sights.)

Now at the end of 3 years of this shooting schedule, I think all of us could consistently cut a piece of thread at 50 feet. We had one guy who once shot 40 bulls eyes in a row. My instructor once asked me how many times I had fired, and I told him 7 times. He had to ask because there was only one single bullet hole in the target. All 7 bullets had gone in the same hole.

I am not sharing this story to brag about what a great shot I used to be. (And notice I said "used to be." My eyes were a lot younger then.) In fact, I was actually the worst shot on the team. I was always the "low man on the totem pole" in a manner of speaking.

But the point is that 3 years of practice, for one hour a day, for five days a week had turned all of us into pretty fair marksmen. Once you have a decent firearm, some decent ammo, and some practice, and decent instruction, it is truly amazing what you can accomplish. It is no exaggeration to say that the gun is capable of much greater accuracy than the average person who is using it will ever achieve. And anyone who will take the time to practice can show dramatic improvement.

Mauser720 - Ron

I agree with both of these statements. However, they are consistent with my claim that any shooter can raise his scores instantly by improving the accuracy of his gun and the consistency of his ammunition. For my part, I always recommend novice shooters to start with the best combination of gun and ammo they can afford, if only to encourage their practice by initial results.

Hey Ron, When were you competing in ROTC Rifle ??


About a hundred years ago (or so it seems)...
I was:
-La Salle College ROTC & Varsity Rifle Team 1965-1967 Can you imagine that... a liberal arts college with a RIFLE TEAM!
-and-
-Highest overall score for M-1 Rifle Qualification for the entire ROTC Detachment in 1967( I didn't miss any...the #2 guy was 3 misses behind me)

Hey John -

My competition was public highschool ROTC, and the time frame was 1958 - 1961.

This was all indoor .22 rifles at standard 50 foot targets.

We received varsity letters for this, and we got to keep all the medals we won too. I doubt very much if this school still has a rifle team, much less an ROTC program since these things have become so politically incorrect.

Years later (National Guard) I did use the M-1 in some high power matches. I never shot long enough to be classified higher than NRA sharpshooter with it. But it was a wonderful rifle. I won a first place trophy at a national 600 yard slow fire match and also 300 yard rapid fire first place trophy at a state level match using it. You were probably using something similar. Half-minute clicks on the rear sight hood, metal bedded, National Match rear sight, etc.

(The M-16 was a real disappointment compared to the M-1 in my opinion.)

Those were the days, weren't they, John? There is nothing more fun than having all of your expenses paid for, and all you have to do is just squeeze the trigger.

Today people don't even realize that shooting is an Olympic sport.

Michael, you are absolutely correct about the need for good equipment and good quality ammo to start with. I am amazed at the difference in the quality (consistency) of some over-the-counter small bore ammo.

For pistol shooting, I've had good success with starting someone new out on a pellet pistol to learn the basics. And then moving on to a .22 pistol. And finishing up the training with a center fire pistol.

Mauser720 - Ron