Cool wife.
Ransome Rest or held in Hands
- Thread starter daddyflea
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
Cherokee
Single-Sixer
Years ago in Dallas, our club had a RR. I used it to test the ammo accuracy @25 yd in a Super 38. After the RR session, I just shot some from the bench, resting my hands. Got some better groups than with the RR, and some not so different. I was surprised; last time I used an RR.
NixieTube
Blackhawk
The title is exactly right: "Ransom Rest or held in hand."
The former is for measuring the accuracy of the gun and the cartridge -- as a machine, as a system all by itself -- while the latter is measuring your practical accuracy *with* the gun in your hand, with you gripping the gun and sighting the gun and squeezing the trigger. They are different measurements, useful for different purposes.
In other words there are at least two kinds of "accuracy" when we talk about guns in general.
If you want to really truly benchmark your gun from a mechanical perspective, using different loads, with no human factor intereference at various ranges, you want a Ransom Rest because it eliminates almost all of the variables that might result from *you* the shooter. It is a machine that gently cradles and fires your gun, and it fires it repeatedly with a near zero amount of error - so that you can obtain reliable, repeatable information to compare one gun with another or one gun to itself after you make changes to the gun, the cartridge, etc., etc., with no human factors involved (or as few as possible). With that information you can make pleasing charts and graphs using Microsoft Excel and PowerPoint to compare various firearms and loads and make statements about one kind of accuracy.
Think of it like a dynamometer you'd put a car on to measure the power of the engine through the gears and with various modifications. The car is strapped down, there's nobody there behind the wheel, and you're measuring the powertrain.
On the other hand, if you want to zero the gun in your own hands with your own eyes and through the sights that exist on the gun, you want to physically hold the gun and do something like I suggested in another thread here.
Think of that like an SCCA course or a parking lot with cones set up where you *drive* the car that you've already had on the dyno. and tweaked, out there in the real world with the driver behind the wheel and the stopwatch running.
They relate to each other, there is overlap, but they're different measurements designed to measure different things.
It depends on what you're trying to do, in other words. Are you measuring "The Gun" or are you measuring "The Gun+You" ?? Are you trying to establish just how accurate that machine clamped in the rest is, or are you trying to dial the gun in as it will shoot in your own hands?
For practical accuracy I think most people are better off measuring the latter. If you have the money to spend on a Ransom Rest, though, you can surely have a lot of fun with it, testing the absolute accuracy of your pistol all by itself. It's a very good tool when you want to test a firearm itself and compare it with other guns and loads, etc.
Still, you could take the most accurized gun in the world out of a Ransom Rest and put it in someone's hands and guess what? They could still be all over the place with it because they never learned to shoot well *with that gun.* Just as you could take the most perfectly tuned car off a dynamometer and put Joe Schmo into the driver's seat and watch him drop the clutch and stall the engine, or crash the car.
That's the basic difference.
The former is for measuring the accuracy of the gun and the cartridge -- as a machine, as a system all by itself -- while the latter is measuring your practical accuracy *with* the gun in your hand, with you gripping the gun and sighting the gun and squeezing the trigger. They are different measurements, useful for different purposes.
In other words there are at least two kinds of "accuracy" when we talk about guns in general.
If you want to really truly benchmark your gun from a mechanical perspective, using different loads, with no human factor intereference at various ranges, you want a Ransom Rest because it eliminates almost all of the variables that might result from *you* the shooter. It is a machine that gently cradles and fires your gun, and it fires it repeatedly with a near zero amount of error - so that you can obtain reliable, repeatable information to compare one gun with another or one gun to itself after you make changes to the gun, the cartridge, etc., etc., with no human factors involved (or as few as possible). With that information you can make pleasing charts and graphs using Microsoft Excel and PowerPoint to compare various firearms and loads and make statements about one kind of accuracy.
Think of it like a dynamometer you'd put a car on to measure the power of the engine through the gears and with various modifications. The car is strapped down, there's nobody there behind the wheel, and you're measuring the powertrain.
On the other hand, if you want to zero the gun in your own hands with your own eyes and through the sights that exist on the gun, you want to physically hold the gun and do something like I suggested in another thread here.
Think of that like an SCCA course or a parking lot with cones set up where you *drive* the car that you've already had on the dyno. and tweaked, out there in the real world with the driver behind the wheel and the stopwatch running.
They relate to each other, there is overlap, but they're different measurements designed to measure different things.
It depends on what you're trying to do, in other words. Are you measuring "The Gun" or are you measuring "The Gun+You" ?? Are you trying to establish just how accurate that machine clamped in the rest is, or are you trying to dial the gun in as it will shoot in your own hands?
For practical accuracy I think most people are better off measuring the latter. If you have the money to spend on a Ransom Rest, though, you can surely have a lot of fun with it, testing the absolute accuracy of your pistol all by itself. It's a very good tool when you want to test a firearm itself and compare it with other guns and loads, etc.
Still, you could take the most accurized gun in the world out of a Ransom Rest and put it in someone's hands and guess what? They could still be all over the place with it because they never learned to shoot well *with that gun.* Just as you could take the most perfectly tuned car off a dynamometer and put Joe Schmo into the driver's seat and watch him drop the clutch and stall the engine, or crash the car.
That's the basic difference.
I still, without actually using a RR, am not convinced it can repeat the same shot every time. I know it will return to the same spot but it would seem that minute shifts would occur in the mount, or in the attachment of the gun to the machine. I would really like to see a test in a RR with an integral mounted laser, to see if exactly the same aiming point was achieved every shot. Of course REV would not like it, but I would like to see a Range of at least 50yds. The aiming point would be more important to me than the group. That would make me a true believer.
NixieTube
Blackhawk
daddyflea said:
You're right about that. It cannot absolutely reproduce one shot after the next. It can't even get close if you're talking about a certain order of magnitude. In fact, each Ransom Rest differs slightly from one to the other, as do the people who strap the gun in, etc., etc. HOWEVER it's probably as close as you can get without really, really expensive measuring equipment costing thousands or even hundreds of thousands or millions or -- dare I say it -- billions of dollars.
The Ransom Rest is very good at its price point. There's probably more error in most guns than there is in the Ransom Rest by quite a bit.
There's accuracy in measurement and then there's accuracy in measurement.
Cracker-American
Blackhawk
I took an old pair of my corrective lenses and glued a 1.75 reader lense in the center of the right lense.
Now this works slick when my brain does not get involved in the situation. When my brain gets involved it tells me that things are all screwed up and I cannot focus at all.
I have a single contact that is 1.75 my Dr. wants me to try but so far my fear of putting my finger in my eye has kept me from this experiment.
And on the other issue I have never used a RR. I have discovered that I shoot better groups with my forearms on my bags and holding the handgun in the normal mannor as opposed to using the bags to hold the gun steady.
Now this works slick when my brain does not get involved in the situation. When my brain gets involved it tells me that things are all screwed up and I cannot focus at all.
I have a single contact that is 1.75 my Dr. wants me to try but so far my fear of putting my finger in my eye has kept me from this experiment.
And on the other issue I have never used a RR. I have discovered that I shoot better groups with my forearms on my bags and holding the handgun in the normal mannor as opposed to using the bags to hold the gun steady.
daddyflea
Location: Riesel TX
I will start this. I am not sure a Ransom rest very accurately tests the accuracy of a Pistol. I think a pistol held in rested hands is usually more accurate.
--------------------------------------------
IMO, sir, you are mistaken.
The Ransom Rest comes with specific attachment holders for specific handgun types: i.e. 1911, Ruger Redhawk, Smith model 27, etc. The Ransom is an expensive mechanical spring-loaded arrangement which allows for recoil of the weapon and an accurate return to the "starting" position. It is easily capable of recording handgun groups of less than one inch @ 50 yards. Very few semiautos are capable of this, of course, unless the result of a custom gunmaker.
A person with exceptional ability, such as certain gunmakers, can shoot within 1.5" @ 50 yards with a semiauto off of sandbags, but only a high Master Bullseye shooter, or his equal, is likely to equal the consistency of a Ransom Rest. And, of course, with the assumption that the semiauto is "tight enough" with close enough tolerances to be capable of those tight groups.
The only person I've heard of that could shoot OFFHAND with this degree of consistency is Bill Blankenship, a six-time National Pistol Champion and Camp Perry Bullseye champion in the 1960's. In fact, he tested pistols offhand and claimed that he could more easily test the inherent capability of a handgun by shooting offhand than with the same gun being tested in the Ransom Rest or from bags.
So, generally speaking, the Ransom Rest is about as close to perfection for shot-to-shot consistency as is mechanically possible with today's technology, and far exceeds what most great shooters can do off of bags.
Sonnytoo
Location: Riesel TX
I will start this. I am not sure a Ransom rest very accurately tests the accuracy of a Pistol. I think a pistol held in rested hands is usually more accurate.
--------------------------------------------
IMO, sir, you are mistaken.
The Ransom Rest comes with specific attachment holders for specific handgun types: i.e. 1911, Ruger Redhawk, Smith model 27, etc. The Ransom is an expensive mechanical spring-loaded arrangement which allows for recoil of the weapon and an accurate return to the "starting" position. It is easily capable of recording handgun groups of less than one inch @ 50 yards. Very few semiautos are capable of this, of course, unless the result of a custom gunmaker.
A person with exceptional ability, such as certain gunmakers, can shoot within 1.5" @ 50 yards with a semiauto off of sandbags, but only a high Master Bullseye shooter, or his equal, is likely to equal the consistency of a Ransom Rest. And, of course, with the assumption that the semiauto is "tight enough" with close enough tolerances to be capable of those tight groups.
The only person I've heard of that could shoot OFFHAND with this degree of consistency is Bill Blankenship, a six-time National Pistol Champion and Camp Perry Bullseye champion in the 1960's. In fact, he tested pistols offhand and claimed that he could more easily test the inherent capability of a handgun by shooting offhand than with the same gun being tested in the Ransom Rest or from bags.
So, generally speaking, the Ransom Rest is about as close to perfection for shot-to-shot consistency as is mechanically possible with today's technology, and far exceeds what most great shooters can do off of bags.
Sonnytoo
Jeff Quinn
Single-Sixer
I have a lot of experience shooting with several types of rests, hand-held, and the ransom.
Usually, when I am shooting a handgun, my readers want to know what the gun will do, not what Jeff Quinn can do.
On a good day, for a while, I can shoot just as well hand-held over a rest as i can with the ransom. However, the Ransom doesn't have bad days. it doesn't get tired. Fatigue and recoil are not a factor with the Ransom. I have used the Ransom at night.
Now, as with any machine, the operator has to set it up correctly, and clamp the weapon into the rest correctly. It also takes a few shots to settle the gun into the rest. Also, as with most machines, some goober-smoocher can screw it up.
Example: A few years ago, Gun Tests magazine was testing a few revolvers. Among them, a Freedom Arms 22, and a Heritage Rough Rider 22. The idiot running the accuracy tests clamped the FA into the rest too tightly, pushing the inserts into the hammer spring of the fine sixgun, causing misfires. They then declared the Heritage to be a better gun than the Freedom Arms, stating that the FA was not reliable.
The Ransom Rest, properly operated, is a great asset to me, allowing me to see just how accurate a particular handgun/ammo combo can be, even when i am tired, or in poor lighting.
Jeff
Usually, when I am shooting a handgun, my readers want to know what the gun will do, not what Jeff Quinn can do.
On a good day, for a while, I can shoot just as well hand-held over a rest as i can with the ransom. However, the Ransom doesn't have bad days. it doesn't get tired. Fatigue and recoil are not a factor with the Ransom. I have used the Ransom at night.
Now, as with any machine, the operator has to set it up correctly, and clamp the weapon into the rest correctly. It also takes a few shots to settle the gun into the rest. Also, as with most machines, some goober-smoocher can screw it up.
Example: A few years ago, Gun Tests magazine was testing a few revolvers. Among them, a Freedom Arms 22, and a Heritage Rough Rider 22. The idiot running the accuracy tests clamped the FA into the rest too tightly, pushing the inserts into the hammer spring of the fine sixgun, causing misfires. They then declared the Heritage to be a better gun than the Freedom Arms, stating that the FA was not reliable.
The Ransom Rest, properly operated, is a great asset to me, allowing me to see just how accurate a particular handgun/ammo combo can be, even when i am tired, or in poor lighting.
Jeff
OpsMgr
Bearcat
Think Jeff hit the bullseye. Now we have the "Rest" of the story...
NixieTube
Blackhawk
See, Jeff Quinn weighs in and in less than half the number of words says basically what I meant and adds a real life example without being tedious, while also putting the question basically to rest, no pun intended. That's why he's an expert and I'm a student.
Jeff Quinn
Single-Sixer
I am no expert, and am still learning. When I get to the point that I think I am an expert, it is time for me to quit.
Similar threads
