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

[taliv]

The opposite bothers me more. People say “that gun will outshoot me” a lot more I think. People on gun forums tend to be a lot more sensitive about their purchases than their own skills. They would rather people think they’re a bad shot than that they made a bad purchase.

 

[JFrank]

In the long range Benchrest game that I play, there’s a revolving door of winners, I find that it takes good equipment and plenty of hard work to be part of that rotation and guys that have a good barrel and great bullets that are able to put a tune together and read the conditions have a chance to do something special.
The guys that put in the most work the are ones usually leading the way.

 

[westernrover]

I've got some boys that started playing tennis. I stopped by a thrift shop the other day to look for a terrarium or fish tank to house a reptile refugee that made it into my house when it was freezing outside. Didn't find a tank, but saw some tennis rackets. I picked up some sweet graphite "McEnroe 747A" rackets for $3. There was also an old wooden racket made in Japan in the 1970's. I thought that if McEnroe had that wooden racket, and I had his racket (the one with his name on it), he'd smoke me for sure. Go figure.

 

[mcb]

This image seems thread appropriate even if from a tangentially related sport.

 

[LoonWulf]

This image seems thread appropriate even if from a tangential sport.

View attachment 1180560

Thats pretty accurate......Cept that last ones a Sl-68, and it should at least have a stock class conversion

 

[Riomouse911]

The opposite bothers me more. People say “that gun will outshoot me” a lot more I think. People on gun forums tend to be a lot more sensitive about their purchases than their own skills. They would rather people think they’re a bad shot than that they made a bad purchase.

I hear that on occasion. But I know I have a few guns that are more accurate than I am. For example, my CZ Shadow 2 and 5” Model 14-3 with a 5” barrel and 11 degree crown are genuine one-holers in hands steadier than mine. (I won’t even try to outshoot my Crosman Challenger 2021 PCP air rifle. At 10M it is capable of putting five 4.5mm pellets into a 5.5mm hole.)





I admit that I have a case of anticipation-itis that rears its ugly head far too often, so I have an awful habit of throwing a round when I know better. A couple samples of my oopsies ^.

I”m getting better at recognizing and overcoming my flaws, but I know that these guns will outshoot me.

YMMV.

Stay safe.

 

[CraigC]

The opposite bothers me more. People say “that gun will outshoot me” a lot more I think. People on gun forums tend to be a lot more sensitive about their purchases than their own skills. They would rather people think they’re a bad shot than that they made a bad purchase.

That one grates on my nerves as well. My teenage response is, "duh!". My actual response is a little less PG rated.

 

[Hookeye]

Im older, eyes not as good, and I dont shoot as much as I used to

However, with most things i shoot good enough to notice platform/ ammo variables.

But I also understand the application and what is required. I dont need a half moa rifle for deer or even coyotes.

Am not sensitive to my purchases or abilities, but have been at this for some time. If something doesn't shoot well for me theres a problem, and it aint me. Have had a couple lemons over the years.... Win BB .307, Rem 742 carbine .30-06, and a Springfield Champion .45acp....and one Ruger 3 screw Superblackhawk.

 

[Hookeye]

Am not and have never been a BR shooter. Just a groundhog killer. But am kinda OCD and consistent.
Do OK.
Funny, guys that claim to be as good or better, when its range time they aint.
Not that I care.
But saw a guy shoot groups on a YT video at an inch of maybe hair over and he tells the camera that its .75".

OK buddy. LOL

Think the internet mostly like that

 

[Hookeye]

What really sucks is having the time and money to buy good gear....and losing the ability to use it.

I can buy a BR rig, or shoot IHMSA or do 3 gun, or Trap.

I dont have the visual fine focus anymore and that translated to lack of mental focus.

A has been that never was LOL

Used to be decent. Now know id have to bust azz and spend a chunk ......to be what I was.
To go beyond that to be competitive isnt possible.
No matter what I spent. ive lost the ability.

What used to be easy is work now.

And honestly Im too lazy to beat myself up to try.
Its just reality.

Buy OK gear, get OK groups......am just OK with it.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Paradoxically the less skilled person needs better and more expensive tools just to approach parity.

Actually, that's is not entirely true.

Let us imagine two rifles, one a theoretically perfect rifle that always puts the bullet exactly where you aim, and one that that has a 5 MOA dispersion around the point of aim. Now we also have two shooters, one who is an expert who makes no aiming errors and a tyro that always jerks the trigger, or makes other errors so as to NOT be aiming at the "bullseye" when the gun goes "BANG".

Now, obviously the expert with the perfect rifle will never miss the bullseye, and with the 5 MOA rifle shoot a cloud of holes centered on the bullseye 5 MOA wide. The tyro with the perfect rifle will never hit the bullseye, as his errors and poor techniques always have him aiming somewhere else when the gun goes off. However, with the 5 MOA rifle he has a chance of hitting the bullseye, as sometimes the tyro's aiming errors will be offset by the rifles inaccuracy.

With a standard NRA High Power match target the 8 ring is a little bigger than 5 MOA, and the "X" ring is 1 MOA, the expert with a 5 MOA rifle will always place a bell curve distribution centered on the X ring, so 68% of his shots will fall in the 10 ring, and 27% in the 9 ring, and remaining 5% in the 8 and beyond. With a ten round string that would be a score of about 94 to 97. The tyro with the perfect rifle will score around 80, however, with the less accurate rifle he would average a score of around 85 to 86.

Now we all know that there is no such thing as a perfect rifle, a perfect shooter, or even a shooters that are "perfectly bad", but on average the above is true. That is the funny thing about "inaccuracy" or dispersion, if you have many elements that make up a system's total error, sometimes the individual errors will cancel out.

 

[PapaG]

We use that phrase all the time when a mediocre shot tries to up his trap scores by buying a more expensive shotgun and either stays mediocre or gets worse.
I felt I could say this in the rifle thread because of all the arrow head comments.

 

[gotboostvr]

That saying always rang most true to me at USPSA and IDPA matches. Despite the huge difference in equipment between the Revolver and Single Stack vs Limited and Open at club level matches my Revolver scores if pushed into the Limited or Open division were rarely in last place. A shooters ability to break down a stage and shoot it without misses, no-shoots and mistakes frequently trumps the raw advantage of equipment.

I identify with that especially. My IDPA scores were usually right smack in the middle of the rankings, but I was also the only person shooting a revolver, and even at that, I was using 357mag ammo (usually) and comparatively archaic HKS speed loaders and speed strips, with old leather, instead of the slicker safariland push style loaders and kydex.

But I was having alot more fun than the majority of the field.

 

[WisBorn]

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.

Thanks for the post @LoonWulf. I will now read the responses.

 

[Hellbender Bob]

As a man who went from a Savage, ot a Volq Summit, to a Vudoo, and saw his match scores rise, and then rise to the podium. I can attest to the arrow being critical. If that bullet's POI isn't where the recital was when you broke the shot (on a calm day), you need a better arrow if your shooting demands such things... Nothing is more frustrating than an imprecise rifle.

"The only limitation to skill in marksmanship is that imposed by the rifle and its ammunition. If a rifle and its cartridge are highly accurate, the shooter will take greater pride in the arm, he will shoot it more, his marksmanship will improve, he will get more game, he will win more matches. On the other hand, if the rifle is not accurate, the shooter gets nowhere with it, he does not develop into a good shot, he loses interest, and he soon disposes of it. Only accurate rifles are interesting." Colonel Townsend Whelen, American Rifleman magazine, April 1957, page 46.

 

[Gun-Reck]

Jeff Cooper said "Owning a firearm no more makes you a shooter than owning a musical instrument makes you a musician."

He also said:

Does a soldier need to shoot well? Good question.
I know of three cases in which excellent field marksmanship decided the action.
These were the Boers at Majuba Hill, the US Marines at Chateau Thierry,
and the Volksturm reservists at the Arnhem bridgehead.
There may be other such cases, but if so they are not widely documented.
Chroniclers are rarely interested in battle techniques,
so the fact that something is not reported certainly does not mean that it did not occur.
Nonetheless, good field marksmanship is a rarity − in or out of uniform.

What then is a good field marksman?
In my opinion, a man who can hit a tea cup at 100 meters with his first shot,
from a field position, in a 5 second interval is a good shot.
Try this test on yourself, but do not call for witnesses.
People who talk about good shots are usually terrible liars.​

Vol. 10, No. 6

 

[Nature Boy]

It’s the indian, the bow and the arrow. They’re an integrated system where the parts are mutually dependent on each other.

If you have a rifle and load that shoots “MOA all day” and you let your bench rest Hall of Fame buddy try it and he starts stacking them into one hole, well, it’s the indian.

If you have a rifle that identifies as a shotgun and same said buddy gets behind it and has similar results it’s either the bow or the arrow.

You get the point.

 

[doubleh]

People come with different skill levels and mechanical devises come with different levels of quality. When an indian (human) with the right skills uses an arrow (tool) with the right quality good things happen. I find the term indian and arrow to be just a way to express this. I don't really care for the expression but am not going to stress over it and certainly won't use it.

 

[mcb]

"it's the Indian not the arrow." phase needs constraints to be valid. It can be used too generally and thus looses it validity. There is a minimum expectation with the saying that the "arrow" in question is functional and appropriate to the activity being engaged in. There is also the expectation that the activity is relatively the same for all users.

ie deer hunting in general is not a valid setting for the phrase since for one hunter in very broken and heavily covered terrain has very different demands on his equipment and skills than a hunter in flat terrain with many open fields or similar making sight lines are much much longer.

A better more constrained use: A USPSA Production division shooter that is a D-class shooter when shooting his $500 factory Glock 17 is not suddenly going to become a Grand Master Class shooter by dropping $1900 on a Zev OZ9 (A super high end Glock clone). Using the phase, "its the Indian not the arrow" in that context is very valid. We see many similar examples in other sports, shooting related or not. Sport are great level playing fields.

I remember going to a large mountain bike race back in college and a novice rider set the best lap time of the event on a Huffy he bought at Walmart. There were pro racers there from all the major bike brands and they all got beat by a kid on a Huffy. (I remember him passing me on the biggest climb of the course like I was sitting still. He climbing the hill on his middle ring while I was huffing and puffin in granny gear.) He was not on a Huffy for much longer. Give that good "Indian" a better "arrow" and things get interesting.

 

[LimaCharlie]

An arrow is worthless without a good bow.

 

[mcb]

An arrow is worthless without a good bow.

I was always under the assumption the arrow and bow were together and for simplicity of the phrase it was shortened to the arrow but meant both together...

 

[LimaCharlie]

I was always under the assumption the arrow and bow were together and for simplicity of the phrase it was shortened to the arrow but meant both together...

Or maybe an Indian with an atlatl?

 

[Boattale]

Sometimes it's the arrow. But you still need a good bow and Indian.

MSN

 

[jmorris]

I just chalk it up as another old saying that had limited application.

We all know the arrow makes a difference or they would still be making them out of rocks.

Kind of like, “What doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger.” That is, just as obviously, false.

 

[d2wing]

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.

I don't use that phrase but I have thought it a couple times. Some people shoot better than others, some have better equipment. Otherwise we wouldn't have contests.
I don't have a use for that phrase.