Posted: 1/28/2004 2:01:03 AM EDT
|
Another thread brought up this question. I know my answer, I'm curious as to yours. 1. A gun is only as good as the sum of its parts 2. A gun is only as good as the shooter behind it |
|
It is #2, reason WW II the Liberator .45 cal pistol was designed for the purpose of close range shooting to kill an opponent and take his "Better" weapon. The Liberator was made from stamped parts by the General Motors Signal Lamp Division for the total cost of about $1.50. The single shot pistol took longer to load and had no rifling. Thus #2 has been proven and field tested.... |
|
...sum of it's parts. Why? A gun is an inanimate object. It's useless without an operator. Therefore, the shooter is a part of the equation, and a part of the 'gun' if you will, for it do it's job. So in essence, the gun is only as good as IT can perform based on mechanical and engineering limitations, AS WELL as the operator behind it and how well he is versed in said firearm. Hope that makes sense, but that's how I see it. E. |
| Tough one. I say number one. Sum of all parts with the shooter being a "part" of the gun. I think there are too many factors involved in making a good shot than just the person, even though I think the larger percentage lies with the shooter. Hmmm, maybe I should have voted #2. Oh well... |
|
I picked #1. The gun itself is as good as the sum of its parts. If a crappy shooter owns a Sig P229, H&K USP, Glock 17, etc. does that mean the gun isn't any good? No. It means that the shooter isn't any good and his/her effectiveness with that weapon will be limited. That has no bearing on how good or bad the gun is. Conversely, if a competition shooter is using a Raven .25 or Sigma .380 at the range, does that make those good guns? No. They're still junk. Now if the poll was worded... 1. A gun is only as effective as the sum of its parts 2. A gun is only as effective as the shooter behind it ...I would vote for #2. As worded by norman74, I stand by my vote for #1. |
|
Quoted: I picked #1. The gun itself is as good as the sum of its parts. If a crappy shooter owns a Sig P229, H&K USP, Glock 17, etc. does that mean the gun isn't any good? No. It means that the shooter isn't any good and his/her effectiveness with that weapon will be limited. That has no bearing on how good or bad the gun is. Conversely, if a competition shooter is using a Raven .25 or Sigma .380 at the range, does that make those good guns? No. They're still junk. Now if the poll was worded... 1. A gun is only as effective as the sum of its parts 2. A gun is only as effective as the shooter behind it ...I would vote for #2. As worded by norman74, I stand by my vote for #1. so now we're going to argue semantics? sheesh It's clear from your alternate wordings you understand the spirit of the question. I only used those phrases because they are exact quotes from another thread. |