Baltimore_900
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 45
On one side of the globe, a man lines up on a rat at 25 yards. It was a quiet Saturday afternoon and this particular rat had made the mistake of climbing out from behind a rubbish pile to grab a tossed aside banana. Seven pumps and one Crosman pellet later, the rat in question took a head shot and never made it to the banana.
On the other side of the globe, the owner of a large farm saw a rat in the shed he used to store hay for his live stock. The rat had emerged from a dark corner of the shed at the wrong time. It was the day the farm owner had chosen to test out his new air rifle rig on something other than paper targets. The range was approximately thirty yards and the rifle was already set up on a rest just outside the shed door. The rat took three quick steps before the high speed pellet caught him just below the right eye. The unsuspecting rodent dropped in his tracks.
Since the objective in both cases was met, what's the difference?
The first rat was shot with a lowcost multi-pump .177 air rifle and the second was nailed with a rig that cost the owner over $1,000 USD.
Not all of us are in the same financial bracket. In today's economy, many of us have to take what we can get and make it work for us. We can all be extremely dedicated to the sport. There are those who are highly dedicated and have the financial wherewithal to reach out for what may be considered top of the line. Others whom are equally as dedicated may have to seriously consider the purpose for their purchase and from there decide what will work for them. I personally fall into the latter category.
There are those whom are jealous of others who can afford top of the line products. Then, there are others who are happy for those who can afford such things. There are also those who have proven themselves and receive sponsorship which usually includes a firearm of their choice and all necessary accessories, ammunition and whatever else that ends up in the sponsorship agreement. Where do you fall in?
Are we taking an elitist position when we categorically denounce an air rifle or category of air rifles simply because of where they fall in the cost bracket? Use this example; two individuals have the same problem. They need to eradicate a building rat population wherein the majority of the shots taken will be under 30 yards. Since both have the same need to neutralize a given problem, what causes one individual to solve said problem with an air rifle that costs over $1,000 USD while the other successfully resolves the same problem with a .177 multi-pump pellet rifle that may have cost the owner less than $100 when you consider both .177 air rifles were purchased for the same purpose? What about some of those in the springer or break barrel class under $200 USD that have the power and accuracy to consistently print four shot groups under 1/2" at 40 yards? I personally own such a rifle and have beat others in four position matches where their rifles cost somebody well over $800 USD.
Is there a tradeoff between proper training and high dollar equipment? Does proper training further enhance the benefits that may be found in the higher cost options or is it that proper training showcases the real potential of certain lowcost options?
As an example, at age 11, I desperately wanted to begin high power rifle competition. What I had available to me was an old WWII Springfield 03.A3 30.06 bolt action rifle. It was scratched up and the stock was well-worn but the bore was clear and clean. Very little wear. My father gave me an old but well worn in sling for it. The ammunition I had was standard FMJ hardball rounds. Standard US military grade.
I learned everything possible about this old rifle. Thanks to a former USMC Gunny, I could both field and detail strip it. I had to learn the names of each part and what it did. Then, re-assemble. I had to be able to demonstrate proper and safe weapons handling with it and if you have ever worked under the tough scrutiny of a hardcore USMC Gunny, you know the drill. After a month or so of Sundays on the 200 yard line, I was deemed ready. Positions were tight, sling technique was tight and I learned how to develop and maintain a shooter's journal. The sum total was I was beating those with Springfield Armory Super National Match rifles and others. Many of them were close to being new and in the four figure bracket.
So, given the fact we all had the same objective, proper training and technique made me just as competitive as the guy next to me with a highly built up M1A. If everyone on the line in those days had the same level of training, things may have been different. Does one in some cases compensate for the other or is it true that in the end, we overlook and bypass that which we can use simply because of its pricetag?
On the other side of the globe, the owner of a large farm saw a rat in the shed he used to store hay for his live stock. The rat had emerged from a dark corner of the shed at the wrong time. It was the day the farm owner had chosen to test out his new air rifle rig on something other than paper targets. The range was approximately thirty yards and the rifle was already set up on a rest just outside the shed door. The rat took three quick steps before the high speed pellet caught him just below the right eye. The unsuspecting rodent dropped in his tracks.
Since the objective in both cases was met, what's the difference?
The first rat was shot with a lowcost multi-pump .177 air rifle and the second was nailed with a rig that cost the owner over $1,000 USD.
Not all of us are in the same financial bracket. In today's economy, many of us have to take what we can get and make it work for us. We can all be extremely dedicated to the sport. There are those who are highly dedicated and have the financial wherewithal to reach out for what may be considered top of the line. Others whom are equally as dedicated may have to seriously consider the purpose for their purchase and from there decide what will work for them. I personally fall into the latter category.
There are those whom are jealous of others who can afford top of the line products. Then, there are others who are happy for those who can afford such things. There are also those who have proven themselves and receive sponsorship which usually includes a firearm of their choice and all necessary accessories, ammunition and whatever else that ends up in the sponsorship agreement. Where do you fall in?
Are we taking an elitist position when we categorically denounce an air rifle or category of air rifles simply because of where they fall in the cost bracket? Use this example; two individuals have the same problem. They need to eradicate a building rat population wherein the majority of the shots taken will be under 30 yards. Since both have the same need to neutralize a given problem, what causes one individual to solve said problem with an air rifle that costs over $1,000 USD while the other successfully resolves the same problem with a .177 multi-pump pellet rifle that may have cost the owner less than $100 when you consider both .177 air rifles were purchased for the same purpose? What about some of those in the springer or break barrel class under $200 USD that have the power and accuracy to consistently print four shot groups under 1/2" at 40 yards? I personally own such a rifle and have beat others in four position matches where their rifles cost somebody well over $800 USD.
Is there a tradeoff between proper training and high dollar equipment? Does proper training further enhance the benefits that may be found in the higher cost options or is it that proper training showcases the real potential of certain lowcost options?
As an example, at age 11, I desperately wanted to begin high power rifle competition. What I had available to me was an old WWII Springfield 03.A3 30.06 bolt action rifle. It was scratched up and the stock was well-worn but the bore was clear and clean. Very little wear. My father gave me an old but well worn in sling for it. The ammunition I had was standard FMJ hardball rounds. Standard US military grade.
I learned everything possible about this old rifle. Thanks to a former USMC Gunny, I could both field and detail strip it. I had to learn the names of each part and what it did. Then, re-assemble. I had to be able to demonstrate proper and safe weapons handling with it and if you have ever worked under the tough scrutiny of a hardcore USMC Gunny, you know the drill. After a month or so of Sundays on the 200 yard line, I was deemed ready. Positions were tight, sling technique was tight and I learned how to develop and maintain a shooter's journal. The sum total was I was beating those with Springfield Armory Super National Match rifles and others. Many of them were close to being new and in the four figure bracket.
So, given the fact we all had the same objective, proper training and technique made me just as competitive as the guy next to me with a highly built up M1A. If everyone on the line in those days had the same level of training, things may have been different. Does one in some cases compensate for the other or is it true that in the end, we overlook and bypass that which we can use simply because of its pricetag?
Last edited:
