Nice guns dont make better shooters

[ltdmstr]

On 10/13/2019 at 8:45 PM, rock751 said:

All of the mistakes were because of me and I would have shot exactly the same with a different gun.

 

Almost certainly not true.  And pretty much textbook example of a false premise:  An incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism.  Since the premise is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error.

[Hi-Power Jack]

There is a reason that the best shooters (and me) do NOT shoot

stock guns if they can help it.

 

Better trigger, better sights, better weight distribution, etc etc etc.

 

Better guns are easier to shoot, and therefore better.    

[CClassForLife]

You guys have it all wrong.

 

[cas]

There is the old saying....  "Look good, feel good. Feel good, play good." 

[mpeltier]

I just found out that Joey Logano has been following this thread and has decided to trade in his current car for a 2020 bone stock mustang from his local dealer. He feels he has been thinking about this winning thing all wrong...........

[Cliveb]

On 5/29/2020 at 8:56 PM, CClassForLife said:

You guys have it all wrong.

 

Oh come on! The fun factor of a nice 2011 can't be ignored (when it runs, which as you know from shooting with mine, is not all that often)

[CClassForLife]

1 hour ago, Cliveb said:

Oh come on! The fun factor of a nice 2011 can't be ignored (when it runs, which as you know from shooting with mine, is not all that often)

Well if you Europeans could read, it's a very scientific hit factor chart, not a fun chart. It's reserved for guns that actually run.

 

(Thanks for letting me use your gear by the way)

[jim vaughan]

4 pages of "the Indian and the arrow" but no mention of the two most important things: fit and function.

Since when is it acceptable to purchase a top end handgun that has not been fitted for your hands and stature?

The function component is non negotiable.

[Racinready300ex]

3 hours ago, jim vaughan said:

4 pages of "the Indian and the arrow" but no mention of the two most important things: fit and function.

Since when is it acceptable to purchase a top end handgun that has not been fitted for your hands and stature?

The function component is non negotiable.

 

I think if you have repetitively normal size hands you should be able to make most guns work for you. With most guns I have to break my grip to reach the mag release, i could search for a gun that I don't need to, or I could buy aftermarket parts or just train around the problem. Same could be said for the slide stop. Most guns you can now either swap back straps, or grips to make them fit your hand. 

[ltdmstr]

9 hours ago, jim vaughan said:

4 pages of "the Indian and the arrow" but no mention of the two most important things: fit and function.

Since when is it acceptable to purchase a top end handgun that has not been fitted for your hands and stature?

The function component is non negotiable.

 

Far as I know, most people who compete in this sport and buy high-end custom guns have them built to their requirements.  Or they modify a stock gun to fit their needs.  There are dozens choices for just about every interchangeable part to accomplish this.  So who says it's acceptable to purchase a gun that's not fit to the user?  And how often does that happen?  If you go to a match and look at the custom guns there, I can pretty much guarantee every one will be different.

[Cliveb]

On 6/16/2020 at 1:35 AM, CClassForLife said:

Well if you Europeans could read, it's a very scientific hit factor chart, not a fun chart. It's reserved for guns that actually run.

 

(Thanks for letting me use your gear by the way)

What's all this reading nonsense? We can't all be IT geeks you know! 

[rowdyb]

On 10/13/2019 at 8:45 PM, rock751 said:

limited I got 5th place

Gauge your finish off your percent not your numerical finish. If you were 5th buy 50% of the winner then it's not that "good". And what was 1st through 4th in classification?

 

Guns do make a difference. A nicer tool makes the worker's job easier. Notice I didn't say he'd do a better job but it's easier to do the job he's capable of.

[bimmer1980]

15 hours ago, rowdyb said:

Gauge your finish off your percent not your numerical finish. If you were 5th buy 50% of the winner then it's not that "good". And what was 1st through 4th in classification?

 

Guns do make a difference. A nicer tool makes the worker's job easier. Notice I didn't say he'd do a better job but it's easier to do the job he's capable of.

And 99% can be worse than 50%  it depends on the winner´s skill level.

[rowdyb]

6 hours ago, bimmer1980 said:

And 99% can be worse than 50%  it depends on the winner´s skill level.

yep! hahahaha

[CJW3]

I feel that a 2011 will improve most pistol shooters that have the foundations knowledge down already...

[pjb45]

On 10/13/2019 at 7:30 PM, dansedgli said:

Life is too short to shoot guns you don't like. 

 

 

Yeppers

 

I really do not agree with it's the indian......., if you have a s#!tty trigger, unreliable gun, blah blah--you are not going to perform to your best.

Take a look at other sports that require equipment; skiing, car racing, and god forbid even football, etc.  Better equipment can facilitate better performance.

[ChuckS]

16 years ago a wise man said:

 

[MILDOTS]

In the early 90’s I bought all the parts for a Caspian 38 super a fellow shooter put it together for me for $200? I made B class with that gun. It was real loose But it always worked. I had to have it acurailed then it didn’t work. Then I went to Para,STI,SV. I can truthfully say I had the best guns money could buy at that the I’m still a B.Having said that I’m not sorry I bought those guns because I like guns all types and I enjoy owning them but I think I would better off if I would have stayed with the caspian for competition.

[BARRYJ]

As with any sport, I want me to be the limiting factor on how good I can shoot, not my equipment.

[gnappi]

On 10/14/2019 at 7:23 AM, Hi-Power Jack said:

1.  You should be very proud of that - fantastic, and congratulations.     

 

2.  IMHO, you would shoot better if you had improved :   trigger,  sights,  magwell,  grip,   accuracy job, shooting Major.

                 Or, at least they wouldn't hurt any.

 

Improvements on guns are made, at large expense, because they improve performance, IMHO.      

 

Obviously no reason to improve your shooting, since you're having a blast shooting a stock Glock.

 

Have fun with it.

 

Ouch, that last comment could sting the OP,  but it's also spot on. Having fun is part of the game, and I've seen many lose that aspect. 

[Brooke]

On 5/29/2020 at 2:15 PM, Hi-Power Jack said:

There is a reason that the best shooters (and me) do NOT shoot

stock guns if they can help it.

 

Better trigger, better sights, better weight distribution, etc etc etc.

 

Better guns are easier to shoot, and therefore better.    

 

This. There is nothing like a custom gun to give you your best chances and just make you do better because you love the gun. 

[bimmer1980]

I learned for myself, that i don´t want the best gun possible.

I stay much more motivated when i change parts for tuning etc.

[Chutist]

I read a book on "Practical Shooting" a long time ago that I think covered this completely, I'll see if I can remember the quote :

"Why worry about something as trivial as equipment" - In context I took it as shoot whatever you feel will make you perform at YOUR best, why would you do anything else?  ( @Brian EnosHopefully I got it right  )

[Farmer]

While not a handgun, a friend once let me shoot his Browning Citori shotgun one very informal night at our local trap house. It was like I couldn’t miss. That right there taught me the importance of proper fit and that gun fit me like magic. All I had to do was look at the bird, pull the trigger and it was dust. It was like cheating.  Good equipment  helps, and the way it fits you is most certainly at the top of the list. 

[DD78]

If you're talking about a local match, and are looking at place rather what percentage you finished compared to the winner of your division, the placement is meaningless.  For example, let's say you came in 5th in limited.  Awesome right?  Then you look at what percentage you can in compared to the person who won limited and see that you're 40%.  That's the bottom of C class.  A lot of people look at their placement versus the more important metric of percentage of the winner.  If you went to a sectional or area match, that 5th place would likely turn into a 60th or lower.  

 

Don't take my post as criticism, or trolling because it's not.  I use percentage of the winner in my division as a way to gauge whether or not I'm improving.  If I'm consistently improving, that percentage should keep rising when shooting against the same better shooters.  

 

Regarding guns, the gun doesn't make the shooter, but a good shooter with an expensive gun knows how to leverage the gun to shoot better.  A new shooter with a 6K limited gun will not shoot much better than if they were shooting a Glock or some other plastic gun.  They might improve a little bit, but not that much.  There is one local guy who has an expensive 2011, and when he made the switch, his skills or percentage of where he finished in his division didn't change.  He just doesn't have the base fundamentals of shooting down.  If you ask him to shoot a group at a head box at 25 yards, out of 10 rounds one might be in the head box.