Like the rest of the gunblogosphere, TTAG spends a lot of time and effort exploring relatively minute differences between weapon systems. We do so for fun and (eventually) profit. But is it important? Given that most modern firearms go bang when you pull the trigger, sending a piece of lead downrange with more than reasonable accuracy, isn’t the shooter’s skill the most important factor when considering the effectiveness of any given gun? FNH “gets it.” In a masterstroke of marketing, they recently held the Fall 2010 Alleghany Sniper Challenge, wherein every competitors used the exact same . . .
FN SPR A5 .308 long range precision rifles with standard 20-inch fluted barrels, McMillan stocks, and a MIL-STD optical rail with 20 MOA forward cant. Competitors were also issued identical scopes, rings, slings, and ammunition provided for by other manufacturers. Competitors were not allowed any other equipment including electronics or range finders (bipods were allowed) . . .
This event is the only one of its kind that offers all steel targets at distances up to 1,200 yards and at varying angles across mountain valleys . . . Shooters engage almost 50 targets and are allowed to fire up to 125 shots, but they only count misses, not hits. The shooter with the lowest score wins.
Time and time again, I’ve seen Wayne Buettner from The American Firearms School pick up a weapon he’s never fired before and shoot a group wherein three out of five bullet holes overlap. “This gun is more accurate than I am,” he often pronounces.
Perhaps we as shooters should concentrate more on our shooting skills than the weapons we use. Rivet counting and stat wars are an excellent way to pass the time, but when it’s hammer time it’s what’s between the ears that makes all the difference. Your thoughts?