HAHAHAHA.
So, a 2.7" tilt-barrel .380? That's possibly the most absurd weapon he could have come up with.
At least my P290 has the benefit of a coned barrel, which makes a solid lockup actually possible:
It's actually a VERY accurate gun. Arguably the best you will get in that size unless the barrel is fixed to the frame ('blowback'). Obviously, I would still make no such claims about shooting quarters.
With the P238, though, there has to be enough slop between the barrel and slide to allow for the barrel to tilt so the breach can unlock. At least the Glock 42 has the benefit of an extra half inch of barrel...and obviously, if you believe whatever mag those benchrest accuracy results came from, it is still FAR from accurate enough to accomplish this feat.
Start naming names.
With a competition-grade 5" 9mm (as in, practical shooting, not a bullseye gun) I can shoot maybe a soccer ball sized group at 25m.
Using the previous description of a 'world class' competitive shooter, like an Eric Grauffel or a Ben Stoeger, I think maybe they could do baseball or softball-sized. Of course, part of their strength is being able to whiz around a corner and do a double tap without even thinking, with the goal of hitting an area that is something like 12"x6"...and there's a reason they use such a 'generous' target, and not something absurd that no amount of training can condition them to hit consistently. Practical handgunning makes the conditions harder, 'cause if it was down to the mechanical accuracy of the gun, they'd either all be tying each other [with groups bigger than a quarter], or it would be a technology race.
What's nice is that it's easy to pick out bullshit when it comes to claims of shooting prowess. Why? 'Cause the people who say this stuff don't realize how entirely outside the realm of possibility their claims actually are. It's not 'ooh, I can hit a watermelon at 300 yards with an iron sighted AR'...that's doable. Fuckin' hard, but it can be done, and it can be repeated. No, it's 'I can hit a tic-tac at 100 yards with a .32 pocket pistol' or some shit.
From which I said I could hit a quarter size target at 50 y at a range. I didn't say I could do it 100% of the time nor any other qualifier beyond that.
It's been shown several times in this thread that the accuracy needed to hit a quarter at that range is basically an order of magnitude more than the most difficult shots done by expert shooters like Miculek. At that point luck is the most significant factor.
Hitting 300m targets with a beater M16 is still pretty goddamn difficult. I could only do it from a foxhole, resting on sandbags.
It's been shown several times in this thread that the accuracy needed to hit a quarter at that range is basically an order of magnitude more than the most difficult shots done by expert shooters like Miculek. At that point luck is the most significant factor.
First off the op is referring still to this old post of mine.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36054010&postcount=3004
From which I said I could hit a quarter size target at 50 y at a range. I didn't say I could do it 100% of the time nor any other qualifier beyond that. I was making a point in that thread that the accuracy of the person's shot in that thread was great considering he was shooting under conditions that were not like a range and that a person shooting at a range that was a good shot would obviously have better accuracy.
I have shot the bullseye out of a paper target at 50y with my p238. I have also landed many hits on the rest of the paper doing so to. Someone basically tried to say that it was completely and totally impossible to shoot with any accuracy a small caliber round at any distance beyond a few yards and rudeguy jumped in with him. To which I had tried to show him many other good shooters who do just that like many of those mentioned already in this thread.
I told him if I get a chance to make a video of me at the shooting range I would just to shut his ass up. He then still wants to do a trollish call out thread like this and still gets shut down by people showing him yet more videos of others shooting long range with handguns at high accuracy. Just because he can't do it, rudeguy assumes no one else can.
"Could" is a mighty big modifier. I "could" date a supermodel. Or build a fusion reactor. Anyone can by chance accomplish some low probability event (think Powerball winners) but repeatability is what takes it from dumb luck to actual skill.
Regardless, I think you can understand how others might question claimed ability to do something barely within the mechanical capabilities of the most accurate tool built under the most favorable conditions possible. You didn't preface your claim saying "given a competition quality pistol with match quality ammunition, a Ransom Rest, and sufficient ammuntion to frame my shot with precision, I could afterwards fire for effect and hit a quarter size target with probabilities distribution generally matching the mechanical precision of my weapon of about 0.56 MOA."
No shit I didn't give specifics like I can hit it 7 out of 10 times or something stupid like that either. It was meant as a illustration as part of the argument of that topic that rudeguy and bshole went absolutely apeshit, and rudeguy is still being a trolling retard about.
I said I could hit it and I have and can again. How often I hit it when I'm blowing through ammo on a weekend at the range I couldn't tell you as I've never tried to sit there a see how often I nail the center of the bullseye when doing so. Do I hit the bullseye often and make pretty nice close groups that are much better than anyone else I know of in real life that I've personally seen shoot or shot with? Yes.
But rudeguy here is trying to make it seem like I claimed I could nail a quarter at 50 yards with my eyes closed and shooting backwards with every shot with an unrifled barrel or some such bullshit. Okay, maybe that last statement is a little bit of an exaggeration, but not by that much.
The point is there are people that can shoot better than you and better than me. I know I shoot better than many others, but I know I'm not the best. Could I be? probably not because I don't practice enough not care to. It's expensive enough as it is to get out to a range in regularity. With enough practice could I be the best or at least one of the best? Maybe. I do have exceptionally good eyesight still with 20/13 vision along with steady hands along with good hand eye coordination. Which is why I'm a pretty good shot still
Which grouping of bullets hit where before the vehicle was moving? Hitting a moving target and doing so from across the card and while sitting down while under stress is going to change accuracy of the shot quit a bit. You know noting of guns if you do not know how accuracy falls off dramatically for a shooter not accustomed to it.
Possible yes. With enough practice, this isn't really THAT hard.
Ever watch top shots or whatever that show is called? They make way harder shots than that consistently.
No shit I didn't give specifics like I can hit it 7 out of 10 times or something stupid like that either. It was meant as a illustration as part of the argument of that topic that rudeguy and bshole went absolutely apeshit, and rudeguy is still being a trolling retard about.
No, you didn't say 7 out of 10 times, you said "damn near every time." http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36054238&postcount=3012
You are apparently one of the elite pistol shooters on the planet, since you are able to shoot a target that is really at the outer edges of your weapon's theoretical maximum possible accuracy "damn near every time," despite admitting not shooting frequently. Must be nice to have such natural skill!
All the time =/= damn near every time
"Damn near every time" > 7/10 times.
I do it all the time.
How can you quote the first part of the paragraph and ignore the last part. In cased you missed it, "But if I take my time, aim, and squeeze I can make that shot damn near every time."
Reasonable people interpret that as something greater than 70%.