How Much Variability is Skill vs Hardware vs individual performance variation

[Doc_Glock]

I do a lot of comparing pistols in my training journal, and I have some data on how my performance has been with a lot of different guns on a few fairly standardized drills. GJM asked this question:

"So here is a question for this journal, and maybe for all of us. When results are reported, the assumption is they reflect something about hardware. How much of the variability in results is hardware, how much is individual technique, and how much is the variability in individual performance that we all experience on different days?"

My answer:

"That is a great question. Would love to see a separate thread on it as well. I don't think I can completely answer the question scientifically, but I would spitball:

5% or less hardware.
65% individual technique
30% whether I deadlifted that day, aka individual variability.

All of which is kind of ironic because we debate the hell out of hardware, and I am definitely a hardware oriented type of guy."

After shooting many different guns with different action types, I just don't see a huge variation in my ability to perform on specific drills simply based on the hardware. Maybe I am not advanced enough to see/know the difference, or maybe the differences only show up under the stress of the longer stages of competition. But for me, I simply shoot most guns about the same.

[UNM1136]

I find it hard to argue with instructors that will tell you that a competent high 80s low 90s shooter will do better with a match piece than a rack piece.

Some will accuse you of trying to buy performance, and whether or not that is true how stupid would you have to be to not buy performance where you can? Some are born with talent, some are born with the ability and discipline to excel in a different field. Some are born with money. In this instance the ends can justify the means.

I have, my professional career, been of the opinion that a custom gun or custom modiidication, if allowed in the organization, if it keeps all safety mechanisms operational are permissible if they improve reliability, accuracy, or handling. As a poor kid growing up, I came to be of the opinion if you can buy it, why not? Aren't you buying skill if you put 15,000 rounds down range? You usually have to buy the ammo, and spend the time. In a capitalist society, being able to buy incremental improvements is a good thing....

pat

[whomever]

Here are a couple of anecdotes from running a Bullseye league for years (which may or may not tell you much about defensive shooting of service pistols).

The scoring here is 90 shots, 900 points is a perfect score.

The first time I showed up, knowing bupkis about pistol marksmanship, and shooting an iron sighted Single Six (not the hot ticket for Bullseye), I shot maybe 350/900. I missed the paper more than I hit it, mush less hitting the scoring rings :-(. I went home and found an online copy of the Army Marksmanship Guide for Bullseye pistol. It was full of revelations like 'focus on the front sight'. The next week I scored something like 600 (which is pretty much the left side of the Bell curve). I started practicing and after a couple of seasons I was scoring in the 730's, which was maybe the median or a little below. A guy must have had sympathy on me and made me a sweetheart deal on a Model 41 w/ an Ultradot. The next week my scores jumped to the 780's, so that's what a sweet trigger, red dot, and not having to open your grip to cock the hammer can do.

I kept practicing a lot and over a couple of years got up unto the 850's. That's maybe 95th pctile in the local matches, but you're not winning any matches.

The guys who were winning matches were really good. I saw one of them show up with a new gun that wasn't sighted in, and he proceeded to win the match while sighting it in, in between answering several calls on his cell phone and drinking a liter of Mountain Dew.

My sense is that, for 22 pistols anyway, the shooter matters a lot more than the equipment (other than that a red dot makes a big difference once old age torpedoes your eyes). My sense was that the guys who practiced a lot with a stock Ruger MkII beat the people who went from a Pardini to a Hammerli to whatever.

On individual variation - I did the scores. The guys on the left side of the curve were pretty variable - you might see 550, 680, 630, 590, 650 over several matches. On the right side of the curve there was drastically less variation - you'd see 875, 870, 877, 873, 876 over the same set of matches. The guys who are good have figured out what causes the variability and trained themselves out of it.

I'm just wildly speculating here, but a fixed barrel blowback 22 probably has less intrinsic accuracy variation than a service pistol where the tolerances of barrel bushings, etc, etc, might affect things, so what I saw probably emphasized shooter ability over mechanical accuracy, relative to service pistols.

[OlongJohnson]

This varies on an individual basis, for shooters, guns and ammo.

In addition to the variation in shooter skill level and equipment suitability/mechanical accuracy, shooters vary in their ability to adapt to variations in equipment. Some shooters may have physical characteristics that help them work particularly well with certain gun characteristics, or particularly struggle with others. Which guns work best or are problematic will be different for different shooters.

It's possible for a gun to just not be very good, or to have some particular mechanical issue that is not recognized or addressed.

I have demonstrated to myself that in some handguns, ammo being well matched to the gun can make a much greater difference in accuracy than is generally recognized. In others, it makes little difference.

It's quite possible that the gun that works best for a shooter may change as the shooter's skill and technique develop.

The only way to find out is to try it. That's why we measure stuff, and why we compete.

[GardoneVT]

I do a lot of comparing pistols in my training journal, and I have some data on how my performance has been with a lot of different guns on a few fairly standardized drills. GJM asked this question:

"So here is a question for this journal, and maybe for all of us. When results are reported, the assumption is they reflect something about hardware. How much of the variability in results is hardware, how much is individual technique, and how much is the variability in individual performance that we all experience on different days?"

My answer:

"That is a great question. Would love to see a separate thread on it as well. I don't think I can completely answer the question scientifically, but I would spitball:

5% or less hardware.
65% individual technique
30% whether I deadlifted that day, aka individual variability.

All of which is kind of ironic because we debate the hell out of hardware, and I am definitely a hardware oriented type of guy."

After shooting many different guns with different action types, I just don't see a huge variation in my ability to perform on specific drills simply based on the hardware. Maybe I am not advanced enough to see/know the difference, or maybe the differences only show up under the stress of the longer stages of competition. But for me, I simply shoot most guns about the same.

Someone with a lot more money and time then myself will need to establish a scientifically valid exploration of this topic.

That said, to borrow a turn of phrase...a good shooter with a basic gun will do a lot more damage then a crummy shooter with a top drawer firearm.

[Joe in PNG]

There is a difference between the duffer trying to buy skill, and someone who has actually hit the limits of normal firearms, and is actually needing the infinitesimal increases in performance.

[shane45]

I submit the question about the software in conjunction with the hardware. I deep dived into testing a bunch of optics of varying styles and types. My shooting partner and I measured and tested and came away with puzzling results. After speaking with some leading industry professionals, the answer that emerged was "software". The measured differences in time, accuracy and speed and the differences between us was believed to fundamentally be directly related to the differences in what sight picture our brains would readily accept, or not accept. So to cut to the chase of where I'm going with this is that I find certain pistols, my software just wont readily accept. So the hardware may not be flawed for someone else, but it certainly may be flawed for another because his software doesn't really work well with it. Im sure these things could be overcome with some effort and training but I think the software issue may be what makes some systems much harder for some people. LEM comes to mind. My Brain readily accepted the LEM but some of the guys I shoot with, couldnt adjust their software. So what percent could a software/hardware mismatch account for?

If I had to score it:
10% Hardware
50% Individual Technique
10% Individual Variability
30% Software Hardware interoperability

[OlongJohnson]

TLDR: long essay that wasn't quite on point for this thread.

[RevolverRob]

The problem with "variability" is that not all metrics are the same.

Example: Speed -

We can think about speed as:

1) the time it takes to draw and fire a single round
2) Split time between two or more shots.
3) The time it takes the reload

And each of those is a metric that is both hardware and software dependent.

ASSuming you had a robot that could perfectly duplicate each trigger press and had perfect aiming every time the trigger was pressed. Then you could explore the variation between hardware (the closest we get to something like that is a Ransom Rest and even those are not perfect and have a lot of variation in them).

The problem is, I'd hazard to guess that there is almost as much variance in hardware as there is in shooters, but since so few shooters are capable of achieving 80% of the capability of a given piece of hardware, the ability to discern this variation from the shooter is almost nill.

___

So, what do we do? Easy. We each use an individualized performance metric that we believe accurately represents the best of our shooting abilities, we record it carefully, and we track condition changes and hardware changes. With enough data points, you'll eventually separate out hardware vs. software. I don't know how many is "enough", but if I had to spitball a number out...20,000 seems like a good starting point.

FWIW, I use two drills in which I track my performance and use them to benchmark the software and simultaneously, this allows me to separate out potential hardware variation. Those drills are a "precision" ("accuracy") drill and a speed and accuracy drill.

1) Slow-fire, 25-yard, target shooting with a sandbag rest. I shoot at a B-8 and I fire 50-rounds, as slow as necessary to feel confident that I am being as repeatable as necessary. I've been shooting this "drill" for years and I know that my skill with guns that I have 20,000+ rounds through is : 420-440-30-35x (perfect score being 500-50x). If I do my part, any gun should get me somewhere in this 400-30x range. If I can't do that, I have a software problem, a hardware problem, or both (usually a little of both). I'm familiar enough with myself to usually be able to tell you if I'm the problem, or if I suspect the gun is the bigger issue.

2) Bill Drill. I find the Bill Drill is a good testament of my ability to run a gun quickly, fairly accurately. In this case, I'm mostly looking for a software-hardware conflict. Is there something that I have wired up, that does/does not work particularly well. I take my Bill Drill scores and compare them historically with a gun and against all guns and it can tell me something. Identifying outliers here, can help me quantify, "Bad day, bad software, or bad hardware?"

___

When I look at my variation. I've not quantified it like this, but if I just eyeball it, probably 90% of my variation is me. I've had a few outliers that were hardware driven. Like, I don't care how good you are, trying to shoot a Nagant revolver double-action, with its 24-pound, stacking, DA pull, is going to basically make it impossible to shoot a good Bullseye score or a clean Bill Drill. But if I didn't have say, a nice clean spread showing me what "typical" for me was, then I might not be so quick to know that.

[CCT125US]

...... the software issue may be what makes some systems much harder for some people. LEM comes to mind. My Brain readily accepted the LEM but some of the guys I shoot with, couldnt adjust their software. So what percent could a software/hardware mismatch account for?

This is my thinking. Granted I shoot an LEM. We have all seen countless discussions on the LEM, or Glock grip angle, or the perfection of the 1911 and on and on. My first two firearms were a Glock and HK. Therefore the "odd" paddle release of HKs was never a thing. The Glock grip angle never really worked for me. Or perhaps I never put in the effort. I have used many different firearms in my life, but always seem to come back to HK. I have many years of measured performance points on them. I have a pretty good idea of what I can do with one on demand. If I would have stayed with Glock, would the results be the same? Perhaps, but doubtful I will ever know. I just can't see myself dedicating the time to Glock.

Many accomplished shooters choose Glock, and last I checked HK shooters aren't racking up national championships. Does that mean I should dump HK, I think not. Peoples goals and priorities are different, and the gun is just one small aspect of daily choices. Match I shot last week had me .18 behind an open shooter with a comp and 3 lb trigger. I'll take that. I put my money into ammo and range time, he put his into hardware. No one is wrong.

This also brings up recency and constancy. I typically shoot my carry gun weekly. As I have done for the last 2 years and 14,000 rounds. I am around 120k on the P series gun alone. Anything I pick up will not immediately compare performance wise, over a wide range of measured tests. I just don't have the experience. So how should one factor that? New things are of interest to me, but I code them as a distraction. I want to master one, not be a jack of all.

The flipside is the shooter who only has a single frame of reference. For example the striker fired crowd that has never shot a da/sa, or the 1911 shooter with no experience on SF. How does one measure this lack of knowledge, vs lack of skill?

TLDR: Experience a variety, but dig deep with one.

[gtae07]

I pretty much suck uniformly, though sometimes I have “good days” where I’m shooting really well (at least, for me) consistently.


The biggest hardware differences I’ve found relate to size, trigger type, and sights (absent weird issues like my thumb riding a slide release). I’ve shot a few pistols where the grip is small enough that I don’t get proper trigger position and I start doing weird things with my grip—e.g. P3AT, LC9s, or M&P 22 compact. These I tend to pull left.

I mostly shoot Glocks and can do OK with that trigger, but on a long DA revolver or something like my dad’s USP40 compact (it’s sort of DA, maybe the LEM trigger? I”m not sure) it gets me all kinds of messed up and shoot way low.

With sights, the configuration of irons doesn’t make a difference to me. What does, is using an MRDS. My accuracy beyond 5 or so yards improves (and improves dramatically beyond 7 yards), and I can actually track the sight between shots instead of just shooting and waiting for them to reappear in my field of vision like I do on irons. For equal time, I’m more accurate; for equal accuracy, I have better range and/or I’m faster. Pretty much on every measure I improve with an MRDS. I suspect at least part of it is vision issues.

But overall, I still suck compared to the rest of you.

[s0nspark]

New things are of interest to me, but I code them as a distraction. I want to master one, not be a jack of all.

I spent a LOT of money and time distracting myself with the quest to find "the perfect gun for me" and, while I would not call it a total loss - I definitely have a richer base of experience and more informed opinions as a result - I do wish I had that time and money back now! ;-)

Perspective matters IMO. If you focus too much on hardware, then the hardware will matter too much, even if just at the software level.

... and I suspect a better argument could always be made for software capabilities trumping hardware limitations rather than the reverse.

[JHC]

I think I see a fair bit of hardware variance if the pistols are of substantially different design - read that triggers, and the shooting task at hand.

Take that DoW, "How Small a Target in 2 Seconds" for example. Sunday I had great fun comparing two radically different pistols, a 43X and 9mm Operator.


When comparing intramurally between Glock models, not much hardware differences; those days its about how my technique was that day.


When I ran extended 800-2000 round comparison's between a G17 vs an M&P 5" and between a G17 and a 320 full size, I didn't see much performance variance with a few exceptions.


For example the G17 was more precise at 25 yards than the M&P and for pure splitting the 320 spilt faster for me than the 17. But the differences didn't translate into much difference in scoring the common drills.

[mmc45414]

I think the biggest thing that has helped me is sticking with something. I used to flirt around with my Glocks and XDs and M&Ps and my 1911s.
Then I stuck with the 1911 (though three different ones) for almost two years (I only get to shoot about once a week) and really started to shoot better.
Then I got the 2.0 Compact so I took it out for a normal Sunday session and shot it well. It made me wonder if I had been doing well because of the 1911, so I bought a 2.0 5" and have been shooting it almost as well.

So I think back when I was chasing Cinderella's slipper I was just screwing myself.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[s0nspark]

I think the biggest thing that has helped me is sticking with something.

This...

I mean there could always be something "unknown" that might be a better (subjective) fit for a particular individual but, realistically, we all have limits as to what we can focus on and how much time and money we can devote...

I would hazard that FOCUS trumps all else at the individual level.

For better or worse ;-)

[mmc45414]

I mean there could always be something "unknown" that might be a better (subjective) fit for a particular individual but, realistically, we all have limits as to what we can focus on and how much time and money we can devote...
I will admit that, even after selling all of my Glocks and XDs and backfilling with even more M&Ps, I was a bit tempted by the grip interchangeability and trigger of the 320. But I stayed strong, at least up until now, by just buying more 1911s and M&Ps until the urges go away... :)

[Darth_Uno]

I spent a LOT of money and time distracting myself with the quest to find "the perfect gun for me" and, while I would not call it a total loss - I definitely have a richer base of experience and more informed opinions as a result - I do wish I had that time and money back now!

Same, and I’m familiar with most major platforms as a result. Bit of an expensive education, but a fun one also.

I also used to say, “But I shoot 1911’s better”, which was true at the time. After switching to Glocks and shooting them almost exclusively for the last five years or so, I can say that I’m better with a Glock than I ever was with a 1911. Not because I’m using Glocks, I’m just a better shooter now (and I’ve neglected any kind of meaningful practice with 1911’s 😐). Not that I am or was particularly good to begin with.

I see this in other sports I’ve played and coached too. Overall skill trumps everything, but preference and familiarity with certain products/platforms can help. Look at all the baseball bats they make. If you thought a bat was a bat, you’re wrong. Joe Schmoe off the street isn’t going to hit better or worse no matter what you give him. Someone who’s got the experience to make an informed decision might see an improvement based on customizations or preference, but practicing hitting fundamentals is a lot more beneficial than buying cool bats.

[s0nspark]

practicing hitting fundamentals is a lot more beneficial than buying cool bats.

Hmm ... maybe ... ;-)

https://i.imgur.com/SGaee2M.jpg

[Borderland]

It's like playing poker.

It's about 80% skill. The other 20% I have no idea. Some say luck but without skill luck will be diminished.

So I'll say 80/20 skill/equipment.

I've seen some very good shooters with some very inexpensive equipment. I'd like to say I'm one but I'm not. I need all the help I can get.:D