Yet I've shot with a lot of women. Like a literal army's worth. There was no difference, except perhaps one leaning to men having the advantage, but I don't see a causation other than Finnish dad's preferring to teach their sons over their daughters.

However the differences I did see weren't accounted for by any gender difference and the women certainly weren't that much worse. I'd say the larger difference was city-folk vs people's who grew up rural. Rural people's could shoot, whatever they happened to have between their legs, (as well as use axes without putting their own ears at risk,) and city-folk were, well, less-able. Less trained would probably be the correct choice of words.

As I grew up rural, my dad made me shoot my first shotgun and .308 and an officer's side-arm (which for my great-grandpa was a tiiiiiiny little pistol you couldn't hit jack shit with from >10 yards) at the ripe age of 12 and my I shot my first AR at 13, I was fair bit more trained than most of the people I went to the army with.

But of those I did shoot with, I just wouldn't say women are better marksmen. I know it's a common myth, because the Soviets had female snipers. But that's just it. It's myth. Much like "carrots make you able to see in the dark." It's not straight up untrue, it's just not true either.

No, I didn't ask you specifically, but I asked the internet in general and you're a part of it, so technically yeah I sort of asked you as well. The wider audience.

Thanks for the link.

"At low force levels" could be further specified, because I'd like to note that most weapons actually weigh a bit. Ofc if you're a sniper, you're looking for a spot where you can use something to hold your weapon instead of using muscles for a static hold.

My point is that while that's a difference, yeah, I don't think it's enough to conclude women are better marksmen, as are neither of the studies I linked. Thanks anyway.