The indian not the arrow.......

In my experience the two are correlated. I know that I can shoot consistently well enough to hold sub-MOA at 100. So if I can't get a rifle to group sub-moa, it's probably the rifle/ammo combo. But I won't swear to it, because I know there are guys who can shoot better than I. I also know there are rifles that can group better than I can hold.

It's still kind of a dumb expression.
 
Last edited:
I started playing trumpet back in the 80's and my parents bought me a junky one from a used instrument store. Since I was just starting off, I sounded like a dying seal, like every other new brass player. I got marginally better, but the tone still sounded bad. I had my school teacher (who played trombone) try it out, and although he sounded better, he said something was definitely off.

We ditched that trumpet and my parents bought me a top professional Bach trumpet. It sounded much better then, and still sounds good today. I still have it.

I'm not a professional musician, but still play on occasion. Having a good trumpet allowed me to become better, since if something sounds off, I 100% know it's not the instrument. That variable has been removed. In other words, I completely disagree with the original statement. It's the arrow as much as the Indian. How would an Indian know if he was a good or bad shot?
 
theotherwaldo said:
It simply means that an expert is likely to get better results while using a device that he is familiar with than a novice would with that same device, even if he is familiar with it.
Click to expand...

Situations like that where a well rounded/educated person new to an activity, outperforms an “expert”, they use another one, “Beginners luck.”, in an effort to diminish the accomplishment.
 
I have a friend that set several world records one year, he had a great batch of bullets and a great barrel. The bullets ran out, the barrel got older and Superman was back to Clark Kent. Still a great shooter and tuner’ just not quite the same without that winning combination.
 
I find myself using that analogy often. Why? Because lots of shooters weren't taught the fundamentals of shooting.
They think they should be able to pick up any rifle or handgun and get 1 hole groups.

There's more to shooting than just pulling a trigger.
 
drobs said:
I find myself using that analogy often. Why? Because lots of shooters weren't taught the fundamentals of shooting.
They think they should be able to pick up any rifle or handgun and get 1 hole groups.

There's more to shooting than just pulling a trigger.
Click to expand...

Concrete bench and lead-sled not withstanding.
 
valnar said:
I started playing trumpet back in the 80's and my parents bought me a junky one from a used instrument store. Since I was just starting off, I sounded like a dying seal, like every other new brass player. I got marginally better, but the tone still sounded bad.
Click to expand...
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Ha! Ha! I must have more than a few years on you because I started “playing” a trumpet in junior high in the early ‘60s. Nevertheless, I think comparing playing a musical instrument to shooting is a pretty good analogy.

My band teacher in junior high and high school always gave me an “A” on my report card. And believe it or not, my own mom once asked my band teacher, “WHY?” “I’ve got EARS, you know!” she said. :D

My band teacher replied, “Well Mrs. _______, I grade on music appreciation, not talent, and your son loves music - I can see it in his face when he’s doing the best he can to play that trumpet.”

On the other hand, my mom used to brag about me by saying, “I think that kid was born with a rifle in his hands.” And over the years, I too have come to realize that even though I can’t carry a tune in a bucket, I can put venison on the table if given even half a chance. And I can buy all of the recordings by truly talented (musically) people I want - either that or listen to them for free on the internet. :thumbup:
 
Reminds me of a hunt I was preparing for a few years ago. I had just hand loaded some Remington Core-lokt 165 grainers for my Tikka 30-06. I was checking my zero and loads at 200 yards, when this younger fellow set up his rifle next to my table. I asked him to put his target down range as I was already set and ready to go.

Turns out he works as an editor for a shooting magazine and he pulls out the beautiful rifle with a carbon fiber barrel and had a scope more powerful than my spotting scope. I shot 3 rounds and adjusted my windage and elevation and shot 3 more rounds and was done. The other fellow shot 12 rounds and he was done claiming it was his first time shooting the rifle and had to get used to it.

I asked if I could see it as I was admiring it and the scope and he says to me that if I had something similar to his rifle my groups would be smaller like his. Granted his group was smaller than mine almost touching but not quite, but mine were still inside the one inch square of the target used for 100 yards, and the difference was maybe about 2 hundreds of an inch. Good enough for deer.

I asked him how much his setup was and he proudly puffed his chest and said $9000, I proudly puffed my chest and said $900 for my Tikka T3 and Sightron scope. I don't think that for me spending the extra $8100 would have made a difference. I'd rather spent the money on a guided hunt.
 
Last edited:
ms6852 said:
Reminds of a hunt I was preparing for a few years ago. I had just hand loaded some Remington Core-lokt 165 grainers for my Tikka 30-06. I was checking my zero and loads as normal at 200 yards, when this younger fellow set up his rifle next to my table. I asked him to put his target down range as I was already set and ready to go.

Turns out he works as an editor for a shooting magazine and he pulls out the beautiful rifle with a carbon fiber barrel and had a scope more powerful than my spotting scope. I shot 3 rounds and adjusted my windage and elevation and shot 3 more rounds and was done. The other fellow shot 12 rounds and he was done claiming it was his first time shooting the rifle and had to get used to it.

I asked if I could see it as I was admiring it and the scope and he says to me that if I had something similar to his rifle my groups would be smaller like his. Granted his group was smaller than mine almost touching but not quite, but mine were still inside the one inch square and the difference was maybe about 2 hundreds of an inch. Good enough for deer.

I asked him how much his setup was and he proudly puffed his chest and said $9000, I proudly puffed my chest and said $900 for my Tikka T3 and Sightron scope. I don't think that for me spending the extra $8100 would have made a difference. I'd rather spent the money on a guided hunt.
Click to expand...
Untitled.png
 
LoonWulf said:
To be upfront this is a bit of a rant.....its also posted here because i believe it generally gets applied to rifle cartridges or equipment, more than other things.

That phrase has irritated me since the first time i heard it, even though I agree with the sentiment behind it.

"The person (skills, knowledge, experience etc) is more important than the tool"

What irritates me the most is that its usually applied when someone is being critical of ANOTHER persons choice of tool, or when stating that one particular tool SHOULD be as competent and as effective in someone elses hands.

Understanding what a person is capable of is IMO the first and critical step in choosing the right tool....or if a specific job should even be attempted.
If everyone was the same, with the same experience, and same skill sets, then the phrase wouldnt exist...and we would all be able to do everything.
But were not, and choosing the correct tool for the user makes doing a good job far more likely.

Its also bloody inaccurate!
There are dozens of types of arrows and points with which one can top them.
The majority having fairly specific uses, and in many cases being completely incompatible.....

Anyway, if you got this far thanks for bearing with me lol.
Click to expand...
Poor application does not discount proper logic.

A highly competent, physically fit hunter, who understands his game and knows how to stalk, set up, and properly hit the target, will take home more game with their open sight 30-30 than the out of shape, poor shooting, “thinks they know it all” who buys the latest version of the wonder rifle and thinks it will get him the trophy.

No different that the golfer who buys new clubs every year to better his game, who go gets whipped by the guy who still plays his 20 year old Ping clubs.

I’m not against quality gear…better gear will only enhance one’s ability. But it doesn’t fix lazy, out of shape, or poor shooting and stalking.
 
ms6852 said:
I asked him how much his setup was and he proudly puffed his chest and said $9000, I proudly puffed my chest and said $900 for my Tikka T3 and Sightron scope. I don't think that for me spending the extra $8100 would have made a difference. I'd rather spent the money on a guided hunt.
Click to expand...
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
Absolutely! As I've mentioned before, I paid a little over $3,000 for my beloved .308 Norma Mag (my retirement gift to myself) when I turned 62 - 13 years ago. And being a custom-built rifle, built to my specifications, I kind of expected to be able to work up some loads for it that would put 3 bullets in an inch at 100 yards. Which I did. In fact, 2 of the 3 bullet holes will usually be touching.
On the other hand, the old Ruger 77, 30-06 that I bought used for $300 back in the early '80s will put 3 bullets in an inch, to an inch and a quarter at 100 yards. And that's plenty good enough for big game hunting IMO.
As I said though, my custom-built .308 Norma Mag was my retirement gift to myself. I'll only retire once, and I'd been wanting a custom-built .308 Norma Mag since I was 16 years old and my then girlfriend's dad had one. :D
 
There are obviously multiple reasons people say that, but I think one common scenario is that people are trying to justify using a marginal caliber for the task at hand.
I'm not a person who always thinks you need a magnum either. In fact, I don't own a magnum rifle. I just believe in using the best tool for the job.
 
Never heard the phrase...but, being in this forum, I take it to mean a gun is just a tool; it's the user that uses it for good or evil.
 
Deer season is upon us. Seen some targets from folks at work.
100 yards, 2 of em around an inch apart, 3rd is 3 inches from the others.
"pulled it" they say, so discount it. LOL
Want to ask them was that the last of the 3 or the first?

Of course over the next few days that group turns into sub MOA.

People are silly like that.
 
Some folks think just buying top end equipment is enough to guarantee accuracy.

In general, to do well...........one has to spend the time and the money.

Also hear people rationalize using cheap stuff. We call em "just as gooders".
 
Years ago a skeet league my dad was in held a father/son skeet shoot. I had never shot skeet before. I was 18, and even though I could have used dad's gun, I insisted on using a beat up old Model 12 Winchester that I worked and saved up for. Guys were razzing dad for not getting me a proper shotgun. Just before the shoot started, and old man ofnear 80 came up to us and asked my dad if he would change shooting partners. My dad agreed to it with a bit of a sly grin. The old man asked to see my shotgun, cycled the action a few times, and put his obviously expensive O/U away and said we would both use mine. He gave me a few quick pointers about skeet shooting. I only hit 20 out of 50 that day, but the old gentleman ran 50 straight with that beat up old gun. He then proclaimed to everyone that it wasn't the prettiest thing he ever shot, but it was just fine. I later found out, and my dad knew, the old man was club champion and a 5 time state skeet shooting champion. He probably could have hit 50 with a slingshot.
 
A few years back I was going for a high archery ranking and it became apparent that my arrows were a limiting factor. So I bought a dozen each of Easton's best competition carbon shafts in several different spines and headed to the range. Hours of cutting, gluing, and shooting later I was close to perfection, but growing frustrated with the last few percent. One of the coaches walked by and I was secretly hoping for some words of advice, or at least encouragement. So when he leaned in and quietly said "Remember, it's the Indian, not the arrow" I had to refrain from punching him in the nose. :D
 
Last edited:
Chuck R. said:
I get the OP's sentiment.

In addition to; "It's the Indian, not the arrow..."

There's also:

"A real riflemen..." or A true hunter..."

Which is just another way to raise ourselves up, by putting someone else down.

I just figure the guys doing it are experiencing a shortage of kids on their lawn..
Click to expand...
The times that I have heard those phrases were used exactly as you said…to put someone down. Oh, they may have been said in a jesting manner, but the meaning was clear.



lysanderxiii said:
The tyro with the perfect rifle will never hit the bullseye,
Click to expand...
What is a “tyro”?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
AK trigger
Replies
12
Views
998
NC-Mike
N
M
  • Locked
Building AR upper
Replies
6
Views
648
redneckdan
R
amprecon
  • Locked
There Can Be Only One
Replies
1
Views
408
everallm
E
kayak-man
  • Locked
Different saiga conversions
Replies
12
Views
1K
nalioth
N
ArfinGreebly
  • Locked
Skills -- The Ultimate In Portability
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Telesway
T
Back
Top