"Beware the man with one rifle."

[JWarren]

We've all heard that axiom.

Let's for a moment accept it as a truism. My morning ponderings brought me to this for some reason.


OK...

The premise of the above statement is that a man with one rifle KNOWS that rifle. He knows its capabilities, its limitations, and its controls to the point where he is exceptionally effective with it. Obviously, this assumes that he has spent time using it.


But here is what I was pondering. Suppose a man has a number of rifles of the same platform. For instance, lets say a guy has:

Saiga 308 21" Barrel
Saiga 308 16" Barrel
Saiga .223 21" Barrel
Saiga .233 16" Barrel
Saiga 7.62x39 21" Barrel
Saiga 7.62x39 16" Barrel

Or

AR M4-gery
AR-10
AR Varmit HB
AR 6.8 SPC

Etc. etc. etc.


Do you think falls within the definition of "one" rifle?


My answer is "Yes" and "No."


Either of the above examples are of persons who learn the function of a particular platform. Usage, controls, maintance, feel, etc. will be essentially the same. I suspect that a person using the same platform on a number of different rifles will be a bit more comfortable and effective with that particular platform. The controls will be an autonomic function of his mind.


However...

By the changes in barrel lengths and calibers, he is not learning the calibers as effectively as he has learned the platform. There will be significant differences in the capabilities of the calibers and some less significant differences in the ballistics/velocities based upon barrel lengths.

It should also be noted that different barrel profiles will throw the weight distribution and balance off in the platforms. A 24" bull barrel on a LR-308 will significantly throw the balance forward over what a M4 16" barrel will on an M4-gery.

In the end, I think there are significant advantages to having firearms on a common platform, but it would be a mistake to believe that proficiency with one platform in one caliber created proficiency in other calibers/profiles on that same platform.

And the advantages of the common platform are not enough to justify a complete abandonment of other platforms more suitable for specific tasks.


Just my morning ramblings. Add your thoughts as well.



-- John

 

[lions]

I'm leaning towards NO. And pretty much for the same reasons you posted. Every rifle, no matter how similar, will shoot differently despite similar controls and functions. I would give the edge to the man that actually only has 1 rifle over then man with several very similar rifles.

 

[vicdotcom]

I always thought that saying should read "beware of the man who OWNS only one rifle" Because who are you comparing this person to? Someone that is carrying two rifles?

Also when I picture this statement, I always invision a person who is living off his/her hunting rifle day in and day out over to where the rifle is part of his body. This over someone who uses it for practice or target shooting or thinks "which should I shoot today?".

Those are my thoughts to add on this. Everything else has pretty much been stated already.

Vic

 

[Maelstrom]

Oddly enough, people I know say things like, "Don't piss off the guy with 50 rifles."

 

[johnmcl]

Hi John,

I have a friend that has a couple of differently configured ARs. He sees his collection as satisfying many more than a couple of requirements. He has no interest in AKs as he considers his needs met.

I think he's an AR Man rather than a guy with a couple of ARs. So in short, I do view him as a one-rifle kinda guy.

Make sense?

 

[Deer Hunter]

I have yet to see this saying in real life. Usually the guy shoots the rifle once a year at 50 yards to make sure he's still hitting close to the target before deer season. (Then he takes a yearling dear at 20 yards a story for another day)

I think that if you own and shoot other rifles you get a feel of how each works and the strengths of each gun.

 

[CBS220]

I always thought "Beware the man with one rifle" meant don't stand near him at the shooting range because he probably doesn't care enough to learn proper safety?

 

[Art Eatman]

The man with one rifle is generally pretty much married up with it. It's sort of an extension of his body, assuming he's done a fair amount of shooting over a lengthy period.

Call it a Zen thing if you will. But it includes a built-in knowlege of trajectory and a feel for the trigger.

I bought my pet '06 in 1970 or 1971, don't remember. I shot it a lot in the early years, getting it all set up to suit me, and work up loads that gave me tight groups. I got to where I'd "throw up and shoot" and some 95% or more of the time I got a one-shot kill. By the time I loaned it to Justin, last year, I had somewhere in the vicinity of 4,000 rounds through it. I doubt it was a lot more; couldn't have been a lot less.

I always zero at 200 yards. When I finally got around to building my 500-yard range, I held Kentucky windage for a couple of shots, just to see what I might do. Either shot would have been a kill on a deer.

Sure, I have other rifles. But the "go to" rifle for serious effort is that one particular "marriage partner". Anything inside of 500 yards, I own it.

 

[Shawnee]

Put me down for a "No".

For the record - I've always heard it as "Beware the man with one shotgun", and that actually makes more sense as people tend to shoot more hunting shots with shotguns - and my own Dad was such an uncanny fellow with his Winchester model 37.

But methinks - with rifles - the "oneness" needs to be with the rifle ( I WILL NOT use that imbecilic weenie "platform" term) AND the caliber, and perhaps even the BULLET.

I also think perhaps it is more likely to be witnessed in people who have one PISTOL than among riflemen, as people tend to shoot their pistols more than their centerfire rifles. Ditto with their rimfire rifles.

Personally, if there is anything that I can shoot with a "natural efficiency" it is the .22 Ruger single-action. My Super Blackhawk and Ithaca .22 lever-action would tie in a close 2nd place. Bought all three of them on my way home from Lincoln's innauguration.

 

[JShirley]

Heh. Good line.

Practice with one tool exclusively long enough, and you'll get good with it.

 

[Z71]

As far as the statement goes. No, I don't think it's valid anymore.

May have been valid at one time, but these days a one gunned person is likely a non shooter or a rarely goes shooting or hunting shooter.

That said, some folks who don't shoot much are uncanny fine shots! No shooting education or bad habits to interfer with being a naturaly good shooter!

I would say that a multi caliber rifle doesn't really qualify as one gun. Although technicaly it may be but one receiver, therefore one gun in the eyes of the law.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

To the original question, no it's not the same. Like Art said, it's a "zen" thing, and the different weights (the way the rifles balance), slightly different trajectories - everything - throws off and prevents the full zen from happening.

The statement is true with respect to gunnies who have simplified and gone down to one centerfire, or someone who never had a lot of guns to begin with

Practice with one tool exclusively long enough, and you'll get good with it.

Lol, can't argue with that. Errrm, no further comment on my level of "practice".

 

[RP88]

I think "beware the man who owns reloading suppplies" is a much more sensible warning, since that is the guy who spends alot more time and money practicing

 

[MCgunner]

I used to get all into exterior ballistics, even wrote a very accurate exterior ballistics program for my Timex Sinclair (remember those?) and later converted to my Tandy Color 3 (remember those?) home computers (aka digital toys) to calculate velocity, energy loss and trajectory when I finally got one of the first "Shooting Chronys" I found in a gander mountain catalog for 60 bucks. Still using that same chronograph, btw. I worked up loads for velocity, paid particular attention to ballistic coefficients, really worried about all this stuff. I was agog at the new world of ballistics I'd discovered for a good while until I realized, even between my 7 mag and my .257 Roberts, out to 400 yards, you're only talking about a few inches difference! Yeah, there's big difference in a .30-30 flat nose and a .264 Win Mag, but among common rifle calibers, out to my self imposed hunting limits of 400 yards for the best, flattest shooting rifles I own, there's not a whole heck of a lot of difference.

Now, if you're shooting at 1000 yards, yeah, the differences get bigger. I'm a hunter and really don't think it'll ever be legal for me to shoot a man at 1000 yards even if I actually WANTED to. Everyone has their priorities, but our range only has up to a 200 yard target. Beyond that, I'm relying on calculated exterior ballistics for hold over in the field. I simply don't get a chance to practice beyond 200 yards so I won't extend ranges to ridiculous levels. I'll get closer or I won't shoot. I'm no sniper and don't even wanna be. I kill things to eat, well, other than coyotes occasionally, and I ain't a cannibal. I'll get more serious about shooting people at ridiculous ranges if I'm ever thrust into that position, but I really don't look for black helicopters on a daily basis.

So, for me, my 7 mag, my .308, and my .257 all shoot pretty similar. All are 1 MOA or less shooters. I have trajectory tables taped to the scope on my .308, but don't often need to worry about it anymore. I've made a 370 yard shot on a coyote once, but all other shots I've ever made, all around here, have been 200 yards are less and I'm pretty deadly with that gun at those ranges since the sight in zero with a 3" point blank range covers me to 275 yards or so, actually a 273 yard PBR IIRC. I can pick up any of the three of my game rifles and they're similarly sighted and have similar ballistics out to maybe 300 yards. The 7 had a few more yards at the extreme end of things, but I'll never use it around here. All my guns' triggers are set at 3 lbs and they all fit similar though the 722 and M7 remmies are lighter and balance a little more rearward than does the Savage 7mm.

So, essentially, I ain't gonna limit my arsenal for a stupid saying. I know I'm not the best rifleman around, but I can get it done in the field. That's really all I care about.

 

[Soybomb]

There at good shooters and bad shooters. The only way to tell is to put them to the test.

 

[telecaster1981]

I'd say the old saying is not too far off in a lot of cases. My grandfather on my dad's side only had one rifle (Stevens Favorite) and one shotgun. He could do amazing things with that .22 and it was really all he needed as there were no deer around this part of the country at that time. As far as I know, he didn't ever practice shooting, but he just learned to make every shot hit his target, which were often the eyes of rabbits...

I know that one problem I run into is I've got guns running out my ears and it becomes difficult to recall how they're zeroed and with what ammunition. Before I had so many firearms, I feel I was a more effective shooter since I spent a lot of time with one particular gun and knew what I could expect from it.

On the other hand, I've noticed that a lot of the guys I shoot with, a lot of whom are in some branch of the military, seem married to the AR/M16. They get some very puzzled looks when I hand them something like a Garand, for instance! So, one thing to consider is that someone who owns a lot of different firearms of varying types, will be more likely to perform well with any weapon he can get his hands on when the S hits the F. Just a thought.

 

[cracked butt]

From my personal experience, the man who owns one rifle:

1. Leaves it stored rusing away in a case in the back of his closet for most of the year.
2.* Takes it to the range or local gravel pit to fire off 3-4 rounds to make sure the sights haven't moved.
3.* Takes it deer hunting for 1 day out fo the year, never fires it, but spends 4. hours in the woods with the rest of the day drinking and playing cards.
5. Couldn't make an unfamiliar rifle work without insruction and often doesn't know how run or feed his one rifle properly.




*optional

 

[Wes Janson]

I dunno. Personally, I'd say "beware of the man with only one howitzer"

 

[cracked butt]

Practice with one tool exclusively long enough, and you'll get good with it.

Doesn't do much good when the only tool you are familiar with is a hammer when you really need a pair of dial calipers for a job.

 

[NotSoFast]

No to the multiple barrels. Too many calibers and barrel lengths means too many variables to learn. Unless you practice with each one regularly and often, you will not be able to remember how that particular setup shoots.

Yes to the axiom. One gun to remember, one to practice with, one to reload for. The man would be practicing with it all the time, and know it's inside and out and it's quirks and habits.

 

[Joe Demko]

All the people I know who own just one gun shoot it very little or not at all. I am wary though, because many many of them hae unsafe handling practices as a result.

 

[Brian Dale]

I think that the original saying was, "Beware the man with one gun. He probably knows how to use it." It admits that the half-a-box-a-year shooters exist, but so do people like Art and MCgunner.

Focus has its rewards. I like John's take on it:

Practice with one tool exclusively long enough, and you'll get good with it.

 

[MT GUNNY]

This thread reminds me of
Quigley Down Under
"didnt say I didnt know how to use it, just never had much use for one"

 

[Tarvis]

I think what the quote is getting at is not necessarily someone that owns one gun is a better shooter than you because you have more. It means, to me anyways, that your super expensive rifle with all the latest mods on it isn't as good as someone that knows their rifle very well. It's more rhetorical than literal.

 

[Browning]

Today it would just mean that the guy wasn't really into shooting

Well personally I've always thought that saying was really kind of stupid.

Usually it's just guys trying to make themselves feel better for only owning one rifle.

It might have been true at one point in time with a poor old timer who shot his one rifle ALOT to where it became an extension of his body because his family literally depended on it if they wanted to eat. However, now days the guy with one rifle usually is more likely to just leave it in the closet and not ever really shoot it because it was given to him when one of his relatives died (probably the old guy I was talking about earlier).

I see what you're saying with the many of the same basic system though and it makes sense because they'd all have the same handling characteristics, so my answer to the question would be yes (IF that saying were actually true). You should have posted a poll, that way you would have gotten more answers.