The Archer and the Arrow - A Discussion

[RicosRevenge]

Since we clogged the heck out of jbell's "So you think you can shoot" thread; I figured the polite way to continue the great discussion going on in that thread is to start a new one.

We've all heard the adage about the Archer vs. the Arrow. We've all heard of the guy with "inferior" equipment that outdoes the "state of the art." Most people have a soft-spot for the under-dog... heck, I still remember every shot of my first Sporting Clays tourney when I beat all the guys with the $15K Kreighoffs with my old Remington 1100.

We started to get into the conversation of the advancements that come from learning to shoot vs. equipment as well as the merits of certain equipment/action styles. This conversation involved many of the guys here that I would call "the shooters" as well as several fantastic, new members. It is one of those rare times when a civil, interesting dialogue developed and I'd like to keep it going.

To get us started, Frank Green was great enough to bring a great point to the table - (I'm paraphrasing) that if your equipment is beyond reproach; then you "know" that any issues that are present with the results on the target come from the shooter.

My personal thought is that if you can afford the best... then get the best. I've lived my life by that credo and there have been plenty of times when I COULDN'T afford the best. In relating my personal POV to the marksmanship scene; not everyone can afford a 40X, Annie, etc... does this mean that the "Archer" can't hone his skill? In my belief - YES they can. My thought is that every rifle has a level of capability. If your rifle shoots 2-3 MOA then that is just fine as long as it is consistently shooting that 2-3 MOA. You can still derive a level of deviation that would be a result of the shooter. Is this the optimum way? Of course not... but it CAN work.

In my humble experience, NOTHING can overcome the benefits that come from trigger time.

Obviously, if you've read the mentioned thread; this is just the tip of the iceberg of that discussion - but it has to start somewhere. So lets talk about it... and please... refrain from the "all day long" "in the right conditions" "if I do my part" comments! LOL!!

~ Rico

 

[Sledge1]

I think the most important word in your post is " consistency". You can win by doing it wrong, you just have to do it wrong the same way every time. You see it in every type of competition, golf especially. But, I'm a firm believer that you have to believe in your equipment.

 

[Kid_Lefty]

Good idea, Rico! As I've said before, I'm not afraid to spend "smart" money. But I'm still soooo new to firearms in general that I don't want to spend 5k on a precision rig now and end up hating it or never using it because it didn't fit "me".

Looking forward to watching this thread grow... Thanks!

-Kid

 

[skyesdad]

I remember a time not very long ago I was getting upset with myself and my rifle set up had Rico shoot a group with it point made. In the time that has passed I quit worrying about what the next guy has and worked on what I have and it has worked one of the guys I know that shoots a 55 year old rifle that most just shake there head at until they look at a target has said you can not buy a better score know your equipment . Thanks Rico

 

[LRShooter101]

Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but what the hell!

Shooting F-Class (Open) and trying to get ready for the Nationals at Camp Perry this month. Out of a possible 600-60x, I am shooting in the 580 / 25x range, not going to place real well at Camp Perry with those scores, so what do I need to do?

Spend more money on gear!
How about a new joystick front rest? How about a new scope?

Tweak my ammo!
Start turning necks? Start weight sorting every component?

Go out and practice more!
Work on shooting more consistently? Reading the wind more accurately?

Shooting at 500 yards, and getting some vertical and some horizontal? Well obviously the vertical has to be the load, and the horizontal has to be the wind, none of it can be the Indian it has to be the Bow & Arrow!

Being broke pretty much rules out the equipment upgrades. Given a choice of spending time reloading or time shooting, I will take time shooting, so it is off to practice more.

Fortunately I remember what I tell everyone else, if you can't shoot itty-bitty little groups at 100-200 yards, don't bother with anything further out.

So shooting at the 200 yard line, first 4 shots go into a ragged hole, then one slides out to the right. Wind, no it was not the wind. Next 3 shots in a ragged hole, then one slides up. Something with the load, don't want to admit it, but probably not. Drag out the Lead Sled, strap the rifle in, and proceed to drop the next 5 shots into a ragged hole. Uh oh, that would mean that horizontal and vertical might just be me!

Spend the next hour painstakingly working through every Marksmanship Fundamental and sure enough the flyers start to disappear. Still not going to shoot a 600-60x at the next match, but I know where things really stand. Bow & Arrow are good enough, Indian needs work.

Usually easier to look outside, usually need to look inside!

 

[justin amateur]

Not accurate? Is it the ammunition? Is it the stock?
How about the barrel? Might be the trigger...
Has to be the spring loaded bipod, yeah, that's the ticket!
Blame it on the bipod. Can't produce accuracy off a bipod.
Bipod can't shoot like a mechanical rest so it's gotta be the bipod.

Sure daughter of mine, go ahead, try it off the bipod.
Yeah, zeroed it in the test rest this morning.
Here, use some of the CenterX. See what you can do.

Oh crap! It's not the bipod.

I hate being the archer.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I think one needs to have confidence in themselves. I say thus because I often don't, and it shows in my performance. Without said confidence, equipment, good/bad, doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference.

Some of us have a tendency to believe that in a match, if we blow a shot, the ballgame just ended. If I were shooting amongst a pack of automatons, that view might have some merit. But just about all of the competitors I've shared a line with are pretty much human folks; with emotions, skills, quirks, and insecurities just like me and most, some moreso.

You can't win unless you want it bad enough to taste it, bad enough to shrug off an anomaly, bad enough to keep your head down and your emotions in rein. Wanting it bad enough to know you might not win, but you sure as heck aren't going to lose because you gave up.

I have repeatedly suggested that the equipment, however good or bad, won't put you on a podium; in other words, you can't buy your way into the X-Ring.

I have also said that the more basic equipment is completely adequate until you can demonstrate that you actually shoot better with the better gear; consistently. A three inch rifle shooting three inches consistently is good marksmanship, and clearly an indicator that a better gun has a better potential in the hands of this particular shooter.

Until then, no.

Newb's with stars in their eyes and a penchant for spending lavishly are both numerous and soon to be dismal.

Don't be that guy....

Greg

 

[RicosRevenge]

Newb's with stars in their eyes and a penchant for spending lavishly are both numerous and soon to be dismal.

Don't be that guy....

Greg

Love it!!

Great points so far guys. I like LRShooters breakdown. Fundamentals... fundamentals... fundamentals... most of us don't shoot benchrest like LR does; but that doesn't mean the point is invalid. As a matter of fact, the point is validated further just because of who made the quote. You would think that benchrest shooters don't need as much work on the basics due to the hi-tech rests they use. Obviously this is NOT the case.

I played basketball in college - for the first week of practice pre-season there was zero work on screens, sets or playbooks. In the first week we shot more free-throws and did more layup drills than I had ever done. Fundamentals. If your fundamentals are sound and you can complete the mechanics of the most basic marksmanship unconsciously then the battle is half won. Does this mean we are perfect? Heck no... and there is always something to learn.

That is when research, 3rd party training, etc... comes into the picture.

- Breathing exercises - can you shoot between heartbeats?
- Follow through - are you able to keep the recoil consistent? (This is probably my biggest issue)
- Parallax - do you know when your scope is set correctly? This one has frustrated good "natural" shooters and is one of the easiest corrections to make!
- Natural Point of Aim - do you know what it is? Do you set up your position/rifle to optimize the advantage it can give you?

Keep it rolling guys!

~ Rico

Oh, and DF... I suck at archery too

 

[steve123]

I've have some funny stories to share as of late and IMO's a little later.

A couple weeks ago I got invited to go on a Potgut hunting trip. One of the rifles I used was my Anschutz 1827F and ammo was Lapua Polar Biathlon. The rifle was amazing, head shots inside 70Y were quite easy and we connected body shots on out to 248Y with it often, it was a slaughter. After the trip when I got the rifle out to clean it the main action screw fell into my hands from the stock and the other screw was a bit loose. Ha, I'm thinking to myself, wow, how on earth did we do so well with the screws so loose and .. well I was "extremely"!!! thankfull I didn't loose that darn screw??? The last time I shot the rifle before this it was putting em through the same hole at 50Y. I don't think the screws were as tight as they should have been even then. Kind of hard to wrap my head around this.

Last weekend we had our monthly 22 tactical match. A custom 40x, my 1827 and a modified 10-22 were our rifles. We had a speed stage on 5 blow pops at 50y. I'll give you one guess who won. If you thought the 10-22 won you'd be wrong, nope the fast cycling 1827 didn't win either, the 40x single shot took the stage. Why? The 10-22 got a round stuck in the chamber, I only put 4 shots in the 1827 and had to reload - haha, so the moral of this story is that situations don't always sway to the logical.

A month ago I went to a Field Target air rifle match. I'm almost ashamed to state how much money I have into my equipment, it's a lot. I won the shootoff for open against a similar outfit but I lost the same shootoff (3 way shootoff) for match winner against a guy with a entry level rifle and $100 scope, LOL!!!


IMO's

The guy with the 10-22 has been coming out to this match for the past 6 months or so. When he started all he had was inexpensive ammo and basic scope. He'd get frustrated trying to be competitive with the other guys mostly because the ammo wasn't accurate enough for our difficulty level. Good news though..In the last few months he upgraded his scope to a FFP 4-14 mil/mil scope and at this match showed up with match ammo. He shot a respectable .6" group at 50Y off the bipod and cleaned a steel stage, in fact he was very competitive on all stages.

Success generally equates to...THE BOW --- has a rifle that is "accurate enough", has a scope that tracks decent and appropriate to the job at hand, THE ARROW --- adequately accurate ammo, THE ARCHER --- has some skills combined with a measure of good luck.

"all day long" Except for that CCB or CB shot right? or...Hmm, that one didn't sound like the rest or... I won't count that one since it went off before I was ready, LOL.


"in the right conditions" ? Even when the conditions are right refer to the above.


"if I do my part" LOL, How come I'm doing my part but I still lost.

 

[bobtodrick]

Okay...another analogy.
I used to race Formula Ford and Production sports cars.
There was always the wunderkin who would show up to race on a limited budget and blow a lot of much better machinery into the weeds.
But there were always the guys who had just as much skill, plus better equipment...the wunderkin always finished behind them.
Buy the best you can afford.

 

[yoteman]

ok i play
my youngest son, who just started shooting any thing, lasy year.
wanted a bull barrel 10/22, so off to the range we go
now the rifle has a cheap 4xpower scope, a good trigger,
had him take a few shots at 50yd, to get sighted in an work on fudimetals.
had him hit a 10" plate at 211yd with boreing regular
now i have bulit him a custom CZ 455 with all the mods, lot better scope, of 18x power
that i have shot, an does great out to 211yd.
but he started missing as much as hitting the same plate, as before
guess what, he was not useing the skills he learned with the 10/22
he's thinking was (an this is what he told me) will the gun shoots better, so i was not working on all the fundimetals you told me. WELL SHIT SON, that dont work in the real world, only in the damm video games you play LOL
when he started shooting last year he had no bad habits, but after his new custom CZ
we now have to start all over,

that is why i will always say learn to shoot what you have now,
after you up grade to a better rifle,scope, trigger ammo, dont forget what you have learned with the lesser rifle
are you have spent a shit load of money, just to start all over learning how to shoot.


hell i was 50yr old before i got my 1st custom built rifle.
now it must be the norm to buy your way in, YEA RIGHT

be careful of the old man that has but one rifle, because i bet he knows how to shoot it quote/ my father un quote

 

[clmayfield]

I win all of our local 22 matches. I have literally never lost one. I shoot the nicest gear and ammo of anyone at my local matches. Do I win because I shoot the nicest gear or do I buy the nicest gear because I am obsessive about winning? I have always wanted to swap rigs with the next best competitor in one of the matches I shoot just to see whether I am truly better or if all the money and work I put into my setup is netting me wins. When I win a pistol match, I am more confident that it is the Indian and not the arrow.

With a 22, the two most important things are the barrel and the ammo... and of course the interaction between those two things. The fun thing about the 22 is that when I am trying to find that perfect lot of ammo, I am pulling the trigger a lot. I will shoot more testing different lots of ammo than when I am just shooting for practice. With centerfire, load development is the reverse. A lot of time is spent in the reloading room, setting up chronies at the range, etc., etc. Load development in centerfire actually takes away from trigger time... so at the end of the day, have I found the perfect lot of ammo, or have I been working so hard to make flawless shots to test the ammo, that I just end up being that much better, and the lot that I choose is based on a few groups that were dumb luck?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions. What I do know is that I enjoy the pursuit of perfection, so I guess it doesn't really matter at the end of the day whether it is the stuff that I am buying or the practice that gets me there. The point is that I enjoy getting there and as long as I see progress, I am happy.

 

[TimK]

Specifically in relation to .22's, there does seem to me a minimum accuracy level required of your equipment to learn much of anything from your practice. Depending on the game you're playing, the minimum requirements might be higher or lower.

I'll give an example to illustrate my point. I shoot down at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs on most Tuesday afternoons. We shoot .22's prone indoors at 50m. I know from long experience with centerfire that I'm an all-day 3/4 moa shooter. Most days 1/2 moa, good days 1/4 moa or better. I shoot a 40X with the original barrel down at the otc, and even with Tenex, the gun just barely shoots 1 moa. Now, I could continue to practice with a gun that is not capable of the accuracy that I am, but I'm not learning all that much. I had the opportunity to shoot a friend's 40X there a few months ago. His is fitted with a Lilja barrel. Without making a single adjustment to the gun and basically shooting with a chin weld, the first five shots from it went into 1/2 moa or so. I was so excited by the performance of his barrel that my 40X is not at the smith getting a Lilja screwed onto it, too.

I think .22's are superb tools for learning position and proper technique, but their usefulness for that purpose decreases as skill improves unless you spend quite a lot of money. I think they are even better for learning to shoot in the wind, since wind uncertainty many times overshadows accuracy uncertainty. If you have a 1 moa .22 (my cheapo Savage does that), you can shoot and learn in the wind basically forever as long as you size your targets appropriately.

I'm not for one second taking anything away from the importance of training and practice. In fact, I'm a bit of a cheerleader on the subject here locally. I just want to make the point that a certain level of accuracy (and hence cost) is required for many forms of practice to be meaningful.

 

[justin amateur]

Seems to be a concurrence of opinion here.
That being: Accuracy is expensive, and extreme accuracy is extremely expensive.
It's expensive due to the need for continuous practice of the basics, (there goes the ammo budget)
and it's even more expensive over time as the quality of the equipment needed
increases as the level of skill of the shooter improves, to where he can discern
that it's his equipment that is limiting his accuracy, not his ability.

 

[msalm]

In a nutshell that's how I got into gunsmithing. In my early years when I started hunting deer at age 12 I was given a Rem 870 20ga with a slug barrel. Sighted it in and killed my first deer with it...aimed for the chest and hit it in the ass. Also missed a very nice 8 pt at 100 yards or so. Next year I put a scope on it, thought it would do better. Missed another very nice 8pt at about 80 yards when the only thing to shoot at was the forward shoulder and neck...clean miss. I thought...to hell with this, and saved my money for a Rem 7600 30-06, had to have my dad buy it at a gun show as I was only 15 or 16. Damnded thing was accurate but had a shitty, gritty, heavy as hell trigger. Missed another dandy 8pt that year at only 60 yards. Partially marksmanship fundamentals, partially shitty trigger, I can still see the crosshairs just over the back when the gun went off. So I took the trigger mech apart and wore a groove in my dad's good knife stone honing that SOB and somehow got lucky as shit by making a damnded fine, crisp trigger out of the thing. Killed a few deer with it after that but by then the accuracy bug hit and I sold that rifle @ 18 and bought a brand new Win 70 XTR sporter in 30-06 and started handloading.
At that point I knew while limited by your own skill, you can only be as good as your equipment and if I didn't make the shot I wanted to know it was me and not the rifle. That Win 70 actually shot worse than the 7600 so I had the rifle pillar bedded, installed a timney trigger (should have kept the original) and had a titanium FP and Blitzkrieg spring installed...still didn't shoot better than 1 3/4 MOA. Finally had the muzzle recrowned and messed around with handloading and damnded if I didn't get that rifle to shoot an honest 3/4 MOA or better for 5 shots.... Bullet was the 165gr Ballistic Tip and IMR 4064 powder. Try as I might I could not get the 4350 to shoot worth a shit...still don't like that powder even though it's a fine product.

Anyway, over 20 years later I still strive for accuracy and since I'm a cheap ass I bought a good lathe, mill, surface grinder, etc... and build all sorts of shit to play with. Everything has a niche, close cover whitetail rifle, coyote calling rifle, western walkabout rifle, long range western rifle, etc.... Played around with everything from a few 17 Ackley Bee's up to 338-408 Chey Tac. All my rifles have a few things in common...quality optics (not necessarily the most expensive), custom barrel, bedded and tuned/custom triggers. From light to heavy, they all fill some sort of 'ideal' rifle for a specific type of game I might play from hunting to target shooting.

I do tell people interested that I could put them behind my 300 Ultramag (ss Nesika Action, 30" Rock bll, McMillan HTG Adj stock, and Nightforce 5.5-22 scope), dial in the dope, and just about anyone could kill a deer at 600 with it. It's really a chip shot with the right knowledge of the trajectory and conditions.

To me it boils down to how far someone wants to get into it. If they're going to practice and put forth the effort to really know their equipment, they'll perform very well with it if it's capable. That said, if someone puts that much effort into it, they'll learn the shortcomings of their shit and probably fix it.

 

[TOP PREDATOR]

in some instances i think some shooters are limited by their equipment. in other words, one may borrow a more considered "higher quality" setup, and find that they are performing better, just by the addition of better consistent quality gear.

on the other hand, i've seen a lot of shooters that do very well with what they got using equipment that's considered to be less than top shelf.

then on the "third hand" i've seen alot of folks that have relied on the forgiveness - so to speak - that better equipment provide and when put behind "lesser equipment", they are not so good vs. the usual operator.

somewhere in the middle, lays the answer - if possible try someone's "better stuff" which usually leads to a great result. but then one has to come to terms with the fact that in their present configuration with their present gear, that it may be as good as its going to get, and if staying consistent with it, is more or less just as good as the "sub moa-er". perhaps at that time, it's best to move out to further distances or start positional shooting as to get the "honing juices" flowing.

i've never really have had the "best" as budget and other priorities in life has delegated me to do the best i can with what i have. only recently have i had the pleasure to get better than average stuff, but not quite the upper tier. so i have to come to terms with that i may not shoot sub moa or even moa at 100Y, but satisfied with 1.5 to 2 moa as i know at this point with what i use both rifle and ammo that's the max i'm going to get.

switching over to someone's annie, or on the rare occasion getting behind a 40X, i do realize that i'm limited by what i'm using, or have reached the potential of what i'm using. as my gear is not as forgiving, i have to step the game up more with each shot, which in the end i think actually helps more than hurts as each shot is not taken for granted.

it comes down to, i believe, to the combination of the archer that knows how to use his bow and what it's capable of, a bow that is somewhat consistent from the start without twisted limbs, AND that the arrow is straight and proper for use in that bow.

i also believe that anyone that shoots more than just casually a handful of times a year and takes every range session seriously, has more ability than the equipment they actually use. they guy or gal that can call his or her miss and be spot on when viewing the target, even if a big group but at least a consistent one, is IMO a better "archer" than a shooter that can't call their miss out of their usual moa or sub moa group.

then there are those days one is simply "off" which make you want to take up bowling.

 

[ivanthesane]

As long as the arrow is reasonably good/accurate and consistent then it comes down to the archer.

If a perfect marksman is shooting a box-stock 10/22 at 100 yards wtih Rem Thunderbolts, and getting consistent 3" groups, he or she will know that he or she isn't shooting to their potential if the groups start hitting 5" instead. But what if they are 3.25" ? May be the arrow, may be the archer having a bad day.

On the flip side, if an archer is using a laser that has its own aiming laser and can shoot a 100 shot group at 100 yards that measures 0.00001 center to center all day long, any deficiencies in the archer show up pretty quick.


Lets take me for example. I shoot a few hundred rounds off a bench per month - between time, money for travel to the range, money for ammo, adn finding ammo, this is good for me. Of course, half that will be shot during our informal monthly match. I shoot a Savage with a Simmons WTC scope on top - I have less than $400 in the whole package, including an extra magazine. I can consistently hit MOA at 50 and 100 yards using SK Magazine, CCI SV, and several flavors of sub sonic labeled hollow points - when my groups open up more than that, I know I need to either clean my barrel or tighten down on the nut behind the trigger.

I've shot friends' setups at the range - Suhl 150s, H&R 12s, Rem 40x all with high end 36x scopes, using Center-X or various flavors of Ely. Yes, the super expensive setups do make it much easier to shoot little tiny groups, or split playing cards at 50 yards, or hit paintballs at 100 yards... but I don't have the skill to do it consistently. The $1000+ price difference in my rig and one of their setups is much better spent on ammo for me, working on my skills. When I feel that my equipment is my limiting factor, I'll start thinking about upgrading.

 

[alpine44]

As long as the arrow is reasonably good/accurate and consistent then it comes down to the archer.

If a perfect marksman is shooting a box-stock 10/22 at 100 yards wtih Rem Thunderbolts, and getting consistent 3" groups, he or she will know that he or she isn't shooting to their potential if the groups start hitting 5" instead. But what if they are 3.25" ? May be the arrow, may be the archer having a bad day.

On the flip side, if an archer is using a laser that has its own aiming laser and can shoot a 100 shot group at 100 yards that measures 0.00001 center to center all day long, any deficiencies in the archer show up pretty quick.


Lets take me for example. I shoot a few hundred rounds off a bench per month - between time, money for travel to the range, money for ammo, adn finding ammo, this is good for me. Of course, half that will be shot during our informal monthly match. I shoot a Savage with a Simmons WTC scope on top - I have less than $400 in the whole package, including an extra magazine. I can consistently hit MOA at 50 and 100 yards using SK Magazine, CCI SV, and several flavors of sub sonic labeled hollow points - when my groups open up more than that, I know I need to either clean my barrel or tighten down on the nut behind the trigger.

I've shot friends' setups at the range - Suhl 150s, H&R 12s, Rem 40x all with high end 36x scopes, using Center-X or various flavors of Ely. Yes, the super expensive setups do make it much easier to shoot little tiny groups, or split playing cards at 50 yards, or hit paintballs at 100 yards... but I don't have the skill to do it consistently. The $1000+ price difference in my rig and one of their setups is much better spent on ammo for me, working on my skills. When I feel that my equipment is my limiting factor, I'll start thinking about upgrading.

Even the best cannot shoot any better than their gun/ammo allows.

However, the winning formula is not the Archer OR the Arrow , it is the Archer AND the Arrow.

I just finished reading an article about Brian Litz's venture into F-TR and his impressive 1st place on his first match this year. When you look at his rifle, you realize that there is quite a bit of disposable income tied up in the 'Arrow'. But even more depressing is when he casually mentions having spend 500 rounds just to get the feel for his new rifle. This is at least SIXTEEN hours on the range unless you want to melt down that new barrel. There are very few non-retired 'Archers' who have the money AND the time for this.

Edit: I just realized that this thread is the rimfire section. So, shooting 500 rounds may take a little less but finding these rounds on a weekly basis will take up the time savings and then some.

 

[Geno C.]

No fun analogy from me.

It's the archer+arrow in my book. The best shooter with a 2 Moa rifle is 2 Moa. The best rifle shot by a 2 Moa shooter is still 2 moa. Now you take a 1/2 Moa shooter and a 1/2 Moa rifle and your looking at 3/4 moa... Sad but usually true.

I'm with the crowd of wanting to know its me and not my equipment missing.

Now I have Mo-deer heart guns and I have MO- knats ass guns. When I miss either with the appropriate gun I know it's time for more practice

 

[Pinecone]

In most sports, it comes down to a 90/10 ratio.

90% the person and 10% the equipment. Yes, there is a deminimus level of equipment to compete, but beyond that, spending more on equipment will not show large performance gains.

When I shot USPSA, I saw this actually happen. I took a 3 day course with Ron Avery, whose was in the top 5 shooters in the US at the time. I jumped from being an also ran C shooter to a winning B shooter. People I shot with would ask how I got so much better, and I told them. They would ask how much the course was, and I told them $450. EVERY one of them commented that it was a lot of money, then wanted to show me the latest, custom, super wow gizmo they bought that would make them shoot better. It never did.

 

[bobtodrick]

Another thing to consider is why one competes.
Back to my auto racing analogy.
Lots of drivers (some of whom are very good) happily compete with inexpensive equipment because they are there to have fun.
If you're shooting/driving/whatever for fun then competing in the middle of the pack can be just as much fun as for 1st place.
But again, no matter what the sport, if you are highly competitive by nature...or you paycheque comes from a 1st place finish you, or hopefully your sponsors are willing to pay that extra 50% to get the 10% edge in competitiveness.
Again, the car analogy ('cause it's the one sport I have had direct involvement in)...Formula 1...arguable the best 22 drivers in the world on the track at a given time. And usually the overall winner at the end of the year is driving for the team that just happens to have the best car that year (and all those cars are worth millions of $$ each).
That being said...I'd give my left nut to have a one year ride in one of the 'also-rans'

 

[clmayfield]

In most sports, it comes down to a 90/10 ratio.

90% the person and 10% the equipment. Yes, there is a deminimus level of equipment to compete, but beyond that, spending more on equipment will not show large performance gains.

When I shot USPSA, I saw this actually happen. I took a 3 day course with Ron Avery, whose was in the top 5 shooters in the US at the time. I jumped from being an also ran C shooter to a winning B shooter. People I shot with would ask how I got so much better, and I told them. They would ask how much the course was, and I told them $450. EVERY one of them commented that it was a lot of money, then wanted to show me the latest, custom, super wow gizmo they bought that would make them shoot better. It never did.

I think it depends on the sport. In USPSA, it is almost all shooter. In benchrest, it is 50% and maybe more the gun and the ammo. Varying shooting sports lean more or less on the shooter. Off-hand shooting, for instance, is all technique. Take that same gun and put it on the bench and you will shoot well inside what you shoot offhand. In sports like benchrest, where you are shooting in basically ideal conditions, you are testing the gun as much as the shooter.

I shot a smallbore prone match recently f-class style (bipod and scope) next to nationally ranked prone shooters (sling and aperture sights). I was shooting well inside their groups. I don't know why they were bothering to shoot the ultra expensive ammo they were shooting. They were mostly technique. On the other hand, I needed a gun and ammo that shot tight to remain competitive. It was the perfect example of Indian vs Arrow.

 

[jbell]

Good thread...

Like I said in the other thread I want to be the limiting factor when shooting. If I am not then there is very little knowledge gained from a shooting session. When I shoot I try and break apart every shot and determine what was done correctly and what was done incorrectly. This dissecting of my shooting is or at least needs to be all about me and not about my equipment. I can with relative ease determine what I did wrong when a shot is off, but it is purely speculation if I think it is the equipment. By this I mean I know what my hold was like, if my breathing was correct or not, my sight alignment was dead on, if I rushed or pushed a shot, if I was mentally distracted, ect. However if I have 90% of my shots where I call them and 10% not but don't think it was me, how can I determine what went wrong with my equipment for only a 10th of the shots. Equipment "usually" will not change from shot to shot, if you have the most consistent equipment you can afford, if not then you will be guessing. IMO guessing will not lead to productive learning. Please don't get me wrong and think that I am saying you MUST ONLY have the top tier equipment. That's not it at all, I am just trying to eliminate as many variables as I possibly can before I start learning about my personal shooting.

I am a firm believer that shooting is mainly mental and you must train as such. Here is a great book that every shooter (or competitor of any kind) should read:

The most authoritative book available on mental training for sport.

Lanny Bassham is a VERY accomplished shooter and instructor. If there was ever a way to buy your way into the 10 ring then this is the first purchase you should make. Also I am by no means connected to Lanny or this book, I just believe in what it says.

Enough of my blabber carry on with the great information guys...

 

[Bill Larson]

a good example of this phenom..... is metallic silhouette shooting.....centerfire...200-500M...... 75% man...25% equipment

 

[Captain Kirk]

The most important thing is to know your rifle, ammo and equipment, know it inside and out and be confident in it. I have walked into comps with new or inferior gear, sometimes you can work through it and other times you can't. Taking a great shooter with moderate gear he knows and putting him against a newcomer with top shelf equipment will almost always result in the same outcome. I like to look at the use of top shelf equipment as a way of reducing as many variables as possible. To me, the rifle/ammo combination is the most important factor, quality of the optic is in a distant second, but it needs to track. All the other ancillary equipment in your pack becomes less important to make the shot, but you need to be proficient and confident in what you use, whatever the quality or cost.

Training which hones your skillset will get you further than gear alone will, every time. As jbell mentioned, you can gain a lot more from a shooting session if you have effectively removed as many variables as possible, and the best way to do this is know your gear.

Kirk Roberts

 

[bm11]

Standing, kneeling, or sitting, it's the Indian. Otherwise, it's the bow and the arrow. Anyone who is shooting 3 moa at 50y prone off a bipod and blaming their ability and not their gear should quit and take up golf.

 

[justin amateur]

I think I finally came up with an analogy that fits.

Attempting to obtain accuracy with second rate equipment,
is like trying to shave using the back edge of a butter knife.

Sure, ya' look like y'er doing something, but it ain't accomplishing much.

 

[Kid_Lefty]

I think I finally came up with an analogy that fits.

Attempting to obtain accuracy with second rate equipment,
is like trying to shave using the back edge of a butter knife.

Sure, ya' look like y'er doing something, but it ain't accomplishing much.

LOL This one sums it up nicely... Well said!

 

[hatidua]

I think I finally came up with an analogy that fits.

Attempting to obtain accuracy with second rate equipment,
is like trying to shave using the back edge of a butter knife.

Sure, ya' look like y'er doing something, but it ain't accomplishing much.

For the budget-impaired, it presents an enjoyable challenge in many cases. While I'm sure shooting nothing but cases of Tenex through an Annie would no doubt allow for significantly more valuable feedback, I'm not sure that running WMT through a CZ constitutes 'ain't accomplishing much'.

 

[Sledge1]

For the budget-impaired, it presents an enjoyable challenge in many cases. While I'm sure shooting nothing but cases of Tenex through an Annie would no doubt allow for significantly more valuable feedback, I'm not sure that running WMT through a CZ constitutes 'ain't accomplishing much'.

I agree. In certain circles, Yotemans' 64 MPR would be considered " inferior equipment" , but the groups speak for themselves. That's just one example and didn't have to look hard to find it. I'm constantly upgrading my stuff even though I know I'll get my ass handed to me by a good shooter that knows what they're doing. I just prefer to know that I'm the reason I missed.

 

[jbell]

For the budget-impaired, it presents an enjoyable challenge in many cases. While I'm sure shooting nothing but cases of Tenex through an Annie would no doubt allow for significantly more valuable feedback, I'm not sure that running WMT through a CZ constitutes 'ain't accomplishing much'.

I think the point is that if you equipment is not capable of "consistently good" accuracy then you are wasting your time. I have owned several 22lr rifles that were sub $500 (mainly CZ 452 Varmints and Americans) rifles that would consistently hold MOA or better at 50yds and this was shooting what I would call entry level match ammo (Wolf MT/ME, SK Standard, RWS Target Rifle, Eley Target, Eley Club) which is well under $10 per box. Some of the old 452's I had were down right impressive with this ammo and some of them needed a little work to get there but all the work I did myself with little expense. You can bet your Anschutz 1913 that I was getting solid feedback when I was shooting these inexpensive rifles with lower priced ammo, I knew when I shanked a shot and usually I knew why I did it.

My point and I think also some others point is you cant take a bone stock entry level semi-auto 22lr (of any variation, and there are many of them) put a 3-9 Chinese whatever scope on it and buy a bulk box of the least expensive ammo you can find and expect to accomplish this. You will get such inconsistency from this combination that IMO you wasted every penny of your $250-$350 investment. You will find that you POI will shift so much in any direction that there will be nothing but second guessing. So in any style of shooting there is a point where equipment quality will make all the difference in the world.

Please note I am not trying to dump on anyones equipment, I am saying this for all the guys just getting into this sport who have no clue what is what. I am also saying this because the subject is precision shooting and bettering yourself. If you look at my example above there is only a $200ish difference in price from no feedback to quality feedback. I am on a pretty strict budget myself, it has taken me MANY years to get the quality of equipment that I have. If your budget is such that the $250 is in your range but the $500 is out of range then you will be best served to hold off and save up more money until you can afford a package that will preform to a level you MUST have to get the quality feedback desired to better yourself. My pricing was just quick beer math to use as an example but I am very confident that I can put a solid shooter together for right around $500.

 

[justin amateur]

There's another factor to add to this discussion.
Your equipment and skill determines your "limit of effective accuracy"
A phrase I've added to my personal lexicon. (luv my word of the day calendar)
One that was defined for me a couple Christmases back.

Family was in town for the holidays.
Lots of good natured ribbin' and joshin' goin' on.
Couple of nephews were talking about squirrel huntin', I eavesdropped.
It went something like this:

"How come ya' always wait until y'er within spittin' distance before you shoot?"

"I ain't that close, I just like to be sure that I'm inside my limit of effective accuracy."

"What the ?"

"Somethin' I read about on line, sounds technical as heck don't it?
It's the distance at which y'er guaranteed to put a round in the kill spot.
Every firearm-ammo-shooter combination has a different limit of effective accuracy.
Ya' test to find the limit by usin' y'er favorite gun and ammo, then shootin' at a target
the size of y'er critter's kill zone. Start at what ya' think y'er limit is and take a shot,
if'n ya miss, take a step closer 'n try again. Keep repeatin' until ya' find the distance
at which every shot hits where it's supposed to. That's y'er limit of effective accuracy."

"Y'er using a fancy term for Gramps' rule of shootin'."

"True. Any rifle can hit a dime every time, if'n ya' get close enough."

 

[BryanLitz]

One thing I'll point out (sorry if it's already been addressed), is that the importance of equipment vs. shooter depends a lot on the objective/application/competition.

If you're competing in XTC (position shooting; standing, sitting, prone) then the result is more heavily weighted on the shooter. Most rifles are capable of cleaning the targets and winning, but the contest is about how well the shooter can point it.

On the other end of the spectrum is Benchrest or F-Open. Here you CANNOT win, no matter how good of a shooter you are, unless your rifle shoots ~1/2 MOA at 1000 yards. This makes this sport very equipment-centric.

Most other rifle shooting sports are somewhere in the middle. The targetry and winning scores will tell you how important the equipment is, and the rest is up to the shooter.

My chosen dicipline; Palma shooting (308 Win with iron sights, slow fire prone/sling support) is, in my opinion, more shooter centric. The 10 ring is 20 inches at 800, 900 and 1000 yards. If you don't miss it, you'll almost certainly win (there's a 10" X-ring to break ties). It's not difficult to acquire a rifle and ammo capable of 2MOA groups at 1000 yards, but developing the skills to shoot the rifle from the 'sling-unsupported' position with iron sights, and read the wind well enough to center a 2 MOA group at 1000 yards is quite difficult and is ALL archer!

As with many things, I think the answer to the OP is: it depends.

-Bryan

 

[MarkinAZ]

There are a number of things that I have been taught over the years, and I, for the most part, have taken them to heart;

Beware of the man who only owns one gun. He probably knows how to use it.

Buy the best that you can, even if you cannot afford it at this time. By the time you can afford it, it will have increased in price.

That being said, I used to shoot archery competition quite a bit. I lived for it. As with everything else, you need to practice, practice, practice, not just so you can hit what you want to hit, but that so you can master what you are attempting to do. This is sorta like Zen. Practice the fundamentals so you can LEARN what the equipment will do. At the same time, you will learn what you can do and strive to improve that.

As stated, I use to shoot archery..... a lot! It was either at a state championship match or the senior Olympics in AZ (I forget which), I was so in the zone that I could not miss. At 60 yards, I shot a Robin Hood in the X-ring, with 3 other X's and only one 10. I had no idea that I did that, as I was only concentrating on form and delivery of projectile. I went on to win with a score of 887 out of 900. The other competitors did not exist. I was only shooting against what I was capable of doing, and then trying to do better.

Because of a shoulder injury, I have not competed in archery in a few years, but I am shooting air rifle as much and as well as I can. It still takes practice. I have shot with Steve123 on numerous occasions and can attest to his ability behind the trigger. He practices consistently. He learns each lesson with each practice session he shoots. In field target air rifle, I have shot two clean scores over the past X number of years. I was in the zone then on each of them. I knew my equipment, and I learned the conditions. I treated each of those 40 shot matches as 40 ONE-shot matches. Concentrate on the shot you are about to take. Nothing else matters. Your last shot is history. You can do nothing to change that. Your next shot hasn't gotten here yet, so don't worry about that. The ONLY thing that matters is the shot that you are addressing at the present time. IF you have done your homework, and IF you have practiced, and IF you and your equipment are performing as ONE, you will succeed.

Forget about those around you. They are not watching you. They don't care about you. You are the only one who cares about you. You have to focus all of your attention on all the conditions and deliver....ONE....PERFECT....SHOT! You know you can do it. You have done it numerous times in practice. Align your sights on your mark and cause the shot to be delivered without disrupting that alignment. Practice, practice, practice.

The topic of this discussion intrigues me. I have read quite a few of the posts herein, but don't feel qualified to respond to any of these. I learn from what I read and I learn from sitting behind the trigger. Due to work situations, I have not been able to practice as much as I would like and it has shown with my less than desirable scores. But keep in mind one thing; IT IS ONLY A GAME for most of us. For others it is a matter of life and death.

There are a number of active operators on this forum whose skills and ability to learn and apply what they have learned will save lives when push comes to shove. For 99% of us, we don't have someone drawing a bead on us, so there is no stress placed except what we do to ourselves. For that 1% who read this, they are in the arena and what they do will affect the lives of others. To prepare for competition, we have to practice. To prepare for the real world, they have to practice.

Don't practice until you can hit your target, practice until you cannot miss your target, then practice some more. Nothing substitutes practice.

Sorry for getting off on a tangent, but we all need to focus on why we do what we do. Lessons we learn during practice, if applied, will enable us to keep coming back to continue to enjoy living, whatever we consider "living" to be.

Best regards.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

A tripod cannot stand on two legs. The marksman, the equipment, and the environment comprise the shooting tripod. All three must combine in concert.

Greg

 

[Pinecone]

It was either at a state championship match or the senior Olympics in AZ (I forget which), I was so in the zone that I could not miss. At 60 yards, I shot a Robin Hood in the X-ring, with 3 other X's and only one 10. I had no idea that I did that, as I was only concentrating on form and delivery of projectile. I went on to win with a score of 887 out of 900. The other competitors did not exist. I was only shooting against what I was capable of doing, and then trying to do better.

I have gotten in that zone a few times shooting USPSA. It is an AMAZING feeling.

I first read about it in Rob Leatham's book.

 

[yoteman]

then there are those days one is simply "off" which make you want to take up bowling.[/QUOTE]



step up toe the line,BE THE BALL, fingers just right, BE THE BALL,
step, back swing; BE THE BALL, make a perfect release, BE THE BALL.
oh crap i suck at bowling too.
thanks TOP for pointing that out.

when i started TSC, i jumped in with a savage, BSA scope,
as i learned and became alittle better, stepped up to CZ452,still learning
then found a used MPR64, that does shoot better then i.
now at my age (eye thing) put better glass atop, the annie,
found the lot # of ammo that works now,
at this point i really think my bow/arrow, is better then this archer.
yes skill set must be there, but you are still limited by equip,
so i will always say, shoot what you have, work on every thing, when you get to the point that your 2moa rig is shooting 2moa every outing, time to step up, move up to better equip.

remimber some days you got it, an some days you dont
i had a friend an good shooter tell me that was BS,,
you go at it as you are the camp. so after a match, an he finished way back, in the standings
i asked him what happen, qoute/ i just had a off day/ uquote

i know there is alot better rig then what i am shooting now,
but i have not got to the point that i am out shooting the rifle.
that is just me talking

Archer, or the bow/arrow. ( depends, at what level is the shooters skill is at,)
( are if the shooter, is perfect,(which never happens), how ture is the bow an arrow)

from what i have read from RICO, an others, we all know this is a tail chasing, debate.
we all have our own reason, but i dont think we can prove it LOL

 

[RicosRevenge]

That's the fun of a good discussion Yote. I don't think ANYONE would discount the wish, desire, passion, etc... to own the perfect rifle. A few on this board have close to it. But the vast majority isn't going to shoot a custom Suhl, 40X, Annie, etc... with the perfect lot of Tenex or Lapua. That is more the point I am trying to get back to.

jbell said that if your equipment is not shooting "consistently good" then you are wasting your time. My point is that if your rifle is shooting consistent... then it is shooting good. If your rifle shoots a consistent 2.5 MOA and then it opens to 4 MOA; you can derive a shooter issue.

My point with this is that too many new shooters get caught up in the chase for the ultimate equipment before they have honed the nut behind the trigger. If you have the jangle in your pocket to do that; then have at it hoss and congrats... but in reading posts here throughout the years, the lions share don't have that option. Does this mean that they have no recourse to become better shooters without a sub-MOA rifle? Not in my opinion.

Love the conversation - hope everyone had a great 4th.

 

[yoteman]

That's the fun of a good discussion Yote. I don't think ANYONE would discount the wish, desire, passion, etc... to own the perfect rifle. A few on this board have close to it. But the vast majority isn't going to shoot a custom Suhl, 40X, Annie, etc... with the perfect lot of Tenex or Lapua. That is more the point I am trying to get back to.

jbell said that if your equipment is not shooting "consistently good" then you are wasting your time. My point is that if your rifle is shooting consistent... then it is shooting good. If your rifle shoots a consistent 2.5 MOA and then it opens to 4 MOA; you can derive a shooter issue.

My point with this is that too many new shooters get caught up in the chase for the ultimate equipment before they have honed the nut behind the trigger. If you have the jangle in your pocket to do that; then have at it hoss and congrats... but in reading posts here throughout the years, the lions share don't have that option. Does this mean that they have no recourse to become better shooters without a sub-MOA rifle? Not in my opinion.

Love the conversation - hope everyone had a great 4th.

yep rico i agree with you ther.
just me puking at the mouth LOL

 

[KevinU]

Specifically in relation to .22's, there does seem to me a minimum accuracy level required of your equipment to learn much of anything from your practice. Depending on the game you're playing, the minimum requirements might be higher or lower.

I'll give an example to illustrate my point. I shoot down at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs on most Tuesday afternoons. We shoot .22's prone indoors at 50m. I know from long experience with centerfire that I'm an all-day 3/4 moa shooter. Most days 1/2 moa, good days 1/4 moa or better. I shoot a 40X with the original barrel down at the otc, and even with Tenex, the gun just barely shoots 1 moa. Now, I could continue to practice with a gun that is not capable of the accuracy that I am, but I'm not learning all that much. I had the opportunity to shoot a friend's 40X there a few months ago. His is fitted with a Lilja barrel. Without making a single adjustment to the gun and basically shooting with a chin weld, the first five shots from it went into 1/2 moa or so. I was so excited by the performance of his barrel that my 40X is not at the smith getting a Lilja screwed onto it, too.

I think .22's are superb tools for learning position and proper technique, but their usefulness for that purpose decreases as skill improves unless you spend quite a lot of money. I think they are even better for learning to shoot in the wind, since wind uncertainty many times overshadows accuracy uncertainty. If you have a 1 moa .22 (my cheapo Savage does that), you can shoot and learn in the wind basically forever as long as you size your targets appropriately.

I'm not for one second taking anything away from the importance of training and practice. In fact, I'm a bit of a cheerleader on the subject here locally. I just want to make the point that a certain level of accuracy (and hence cost) is required for many forms of practice to be meaningful.

When putting a 22 together (40X/Rock Creek barrel) I certainly had a minim level of accuracy in mind. With my 22 I shoot two different ammo based on how I'm practicing. Positional stuff, kneeling, off of sticks... SKS Plus shoots well enough in my barrel to give me feedback. When shooting prone in a local 22 steel match, Eley Match.

Look forward to seeing how your Lilja barrel shoots. If it's anything like Hoser's...

If I happen to be working in Colorado Springs on a Tuesday, would like to give the match at the Olympic training center a try. Do I have to be member?

 

[peaceatwar]

There is a lot to be learned from perspective about this but I will give you my real life example.

3 of my close friends all adore .22

Guess whose .22 shoots the best day-in and day-out....

The guy with the Sako Quad, Schmidt and Bender Scope and SK Ammo.

A good barrel and good ammo is REQUIRED to compete at the top tiers of rimfire shooting

My savage mark II TR with Nikon 3-9 Prostaff Rimfire shoots outstanding at 50 yards. I have shot Sub MOA 3/5/10 shot groups at 50 Yards with Gemtech 42gr Subsonic but I can't do it as consistently as R.Walters with his Sako quad. When i got my savage threaded for a can it has never shot the same. I now deal with over-pressure issues and the thing collects dust.


In shooting it is both the Indian and the Arrow but the difference in Arrows is more easily measured in rimfire.

 

[RicosRevenge]

I find an interesting observation... I see several different view points that come from several different applications. That's what makes this topic so interesting...

There have been posts in this thread with respect to everyday plinking, training and competition.

I think that if you start talking competition - especially bullseye/benchrest - then the equipment factor REALLY takes front stage in the conversation. Generally, the shooters partaking in this type of shooting are already good to great shooters and have the ability to outshoot lesser rifles. Does this lessen the necessity for remembering and utilizing the basics? I'm sure all agree - absolutely not!

Next are the more casual, intermediate level shooters that are not quite as serious... they may have great rifles and decent mechanics, but most generally have mid-level equipment. In my OP, this is the level that I really wanted to get this thread going for. These are the guys that can affirm their training regimen and really have potential to take the next step.

Then there are the "gear queer" n00bs... 'nuff said there...

 

[Pinecone]

The problem is, how you do know if it you or your equipment?

If you go shoot your only rifle and shoot 4 MOA groups, which is the problem?

Virtually everyone will blame the equipment.

 

[RicosRevenge]

Simple enough - does the rifle shoot a consistent 4 MOA with a consistent average POI? If it is consistent then it is the rifle... if it isn't, then the blame is elsewhere.

 

[clmayfield]

At 4 MOA is there a consistent point of impact? At 100 yards, you could barely fit 2 groups on an 8.5"X11" page.

 

[RicosRevenge]

I don't know? Is there?

 

[jbell]

At 4 MOA is there a consistent point of impact? At 100 yards, you could barely fit 2 groups on an 8.5"X11" page.

I agree. I think that at some point in poor accuracy of a weapon system there is little to be learned. I have already stated my views on the equipment potential thing, but I also know that there is a potential to learn with a system that may only shoot MOAish but it must do it consistently.

My thought process goes like this:

If your hold is inside the accuracy potential of the system you are using then you will not be able to get proper feed back about a shot. What I mean by your hold is: if you can get into the position you will be mainly shooting the rifle (prone off a bipod, prone sling supported, kneeling sling supported, offhand unsupported, benchrest, ect) and your POA will stay within at it widest two points 1 MOA then your hold is 1 MOA. If you can hold 1 MOA POA while shooting a 2 + MOA rifle what are you really going to learn, as opposed to holding the same 1 MOA with a 1/2 MOA rifle your mistakes will be much more noticeable. There for providing immediate feed back when the shot is spotted and allowing you to assess the situation while the shot you just took is still fresh in your mind and also allow you to more easily compare that shot with other in the same string. As opposed to having to measure the whole group of shots and look for a slight POI shift or a slightly larger group. By then your exact memory of the sequences that took place during the "bad shot" will be faded or like me forgotten.

But that is just how I look at it...

 

[JG26_Irish]

Archer or the Arrow?

Interesting thread. Lots of good comments. I tend to think the archer is far and away more important than the arrow. Why? Please allow me to share some examples.

1.) USPSA/IPSC handgun competition. I used a 5" 45acp that I built myself. No comp and no optic sights. With my hand loads and careful slow fire, this pistol could shoot 1" groups at 25yds. That was accurate enough for IPSC. At that time a winning race gun was a comped 38 super with a red dot sight on it. Not more accurate, but faster. I insisted on shooting the same gun that sat on my night stand for personal reasons. I was a mid pack shooter. Generally blaming the equipment for not scoring better. We ran a match each year, a State championship that was regularly attended by the US Army Marksmanship team. These guys were the instructors from Ft. Benning and they shot every day, all day. And knew their craft. The leader of the team one year was a Captain Starkey. He stepped up to my stage shooting a un-comped, 5" Colt Gov't model with iron sights. Same gun and ammo as me. He proceeded to shoot my stage of the match (I was Range Officer), setting best time and best score of the day. I read the time and said "Congratulations Sir, that was the best run of the day". His Sargent standing behind us replied, "Captn Starkey eats raw meat for breakfast every day". I could no longer blame my equipment from that day forward.


2.) As a kid, I had one gun. A single shot 22lr Ithaca rifle. It had crude iron sights and was at best able to shoot maybe 1" at 25yds offhand. I sincerely doubt that I could shoot a 4" group at 50yds with it offhand today. But back then, I shot every day, and knew that little rifle inside and out and could make some amazing shots with it out to 200 yds+. The bbl and ammo were far better than the crude sights and so, its main limitation were the aiming device. They were so crude that to shoot at far away tgts, I would place the tgt at the center of the wide front sight or off to one side to allow for wind and would hold over to allow for distance. I could lob the shots into the tgt with amazing consistency. Skill and confidence trumped a rather poor rifle.

3.) A tale of two rilfes. Take two rifles, each identical to the other. Put a 36x benchrest scope on one and no sights on the other. Which will shoot the best? The one with the scope right? But which is the most accurate? Neither, they are the same. Just one is set up to be used by a shooter better. In this case the bow just might be the deciding factor? or is it the archer's ability to utilize the inherent ability of the bow? Hmmmm? If the shooter knew how to aim both equally well the accuracy results should be the same. If he clamped them into a bench rest, the results should be the same. So, the answer may be that both contribute to the final result in this case. I have two Remington rifles. Identical. But one has peep sights and the other has a 36x scope. Which is the most accurate? Neither. They are identical. Which can I shoot the best? The scoped rifle. Because it interfaces with the shooter better.

4.) Bench rest competitions - Some would claim that in such a rarified arena, the rifle/scope/ammo the Bow & Arrow are the determining factor and not the shooter or the archer. Perhaps. But only if all the top shooters are of equal excellent skill levels. Why? Because in the game of Benchrest, just like all shooting, it is a game of managing the variables to eliminate some and minimize others to shrink the groups. I come from the high tech R&D world. Where six sigma and ultra-high quality are king. We learn that to eliminate ALL variables at a finite cost is usually impossible and as quality increases, the cost begins to also increase and soon at an exponential rate. So, the trick is to eliminate enough variables to reach a level of quality (in this case accuracy of the shooting system, including the rifle, ammo, and shooter) that is adequate at an acceptable price point. After that, the remaining variables with still exist. In the case of bench rest, one that seems to always win out is how well each shooter can read the wind and consistently adjust for it. So, all things being equal, or at least accurate enough for the game at hand, I still think the shooter (archer) becomes the deciding factor.

Irish

 

[Greg Langelius *]

How to know if it's the shooter or the gear?

Have a known better marksman try out the gear. Or; try out a known accurate custom. Note that neither of these approaches involves needing to buy anything, except maybe some good ammo.

Blindly investing large sums in the hope that something good will result is kinda like looking for the birthday cake while walking near the edge of a cliff in absolute darkness.

Greg

 

[RicosRevenge]

I agree. I think that at some point in poor accuracy of a weapon system there is little to be learned. I have already stated my views on the equipment potential thing, but I also know that there is a potential to learn with a system that may only shoot MOAish but it must do it consistently.

jbell, how many RIMFIRE rifles are out there that REALLY shoot "MOA-ish?" I would venture to say that MAYBE 10% (you included) of the participating members of the Rimfire section own such a beast.

Again, "consistency" is the key. In order to tell if it is consistent will require knowing the rifle as Irish pointed out. One needs to know POI vs. POA, know the ammo you are shooting, etc... that is part of the shooter's responsibility. A lead sled can help figure out the rifle by taking as much human error out of the equation as possible

I think the 4 MOA comment is a bit to the extreme on this site - I don't think the vast majority would put up with a 4 MOA rifle.

There are no "wrong" answers... just differing points of view!