Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


  • Peter

    sp: Rationale, not rational.

  • SpudGun

    1. When it comes to Gun Magazines, everyone knows that ‘average group sizes’ are directly proportional to the amount of advertising space paid for by firearm / ammunition manufacturers in said publications.

    2. If you are a journalist for a Gun Magazine and you bring back targets showing 5+ inch groupings, everyone’s going to think you are a lousy shot, so best to play it safe and mock up some targets showing what a dead eye marksman you are.

    3. Shooting Illustrated’s premise that we should only pay attention to ‘median group sizes’ as opposed to ‘average group sizes’ is an anathema, both are equally inaccurate. If you are juggling the data to support pre-conceived notions of accuracy, why bother with the median, just publish the best group size and be done with it.

  • G
  • Pedro

    I would think that most shooters would accept an “average group size” as nothing more than a ballpark figure.

    Anyone who has been around firearms knows the number of variables that can affect a group size and factors in this information when assessing the “accuracy” of given firearm.

    Target shooters tend to be pedantic when it comes to measuring groups and/or scoring shots, but IMO this tweaking definitions is taking it too far.

    Just average it out; i.e. “we fired six groups of five at 100 metres with a 2.4 inch average”. Joe Sixpack will get a reasonable opinion from that info.