Boring vs sexy hardware, a rant

[RevolverRob]

I build (primarily) bespoke acoustic guitars that start at $3k.
So I might not be the right person to ask about whether luxury goods are important, or to hear a declaration that a $500 cookie cutter Indonesian-factory-made steel string is all anyone might ever need.
Sure, it'll get the job done...

but like the late Mr Hendrix said "You have to give people something to dream on"

I find instruments to be another example where people don't quite get what they don't get.

It's true that Joshua Bell can easily outplay me on a $500 Chinese-made violin. That doesn't mean that his talents are not further enhanced by playing a 306-year old Stradivarius.

Similarly, I have no doubt Mario Andretti can outdrive me in a Toyota Corolla. Yet, he won his Formula One Championship driving the Lotus 79 and not a Corolla.

I haven't seen Jordan Spieth swinging a entry-level golf clubs on the PGA Tour.

Sure, we can argue that those folks are all supremely talented and dedicated and since, for instance, I'm not that talented or dedicated, I shouldn't bother owning a Stradivarius, a Lotus 79, or a set of pro-grade clubs. There is probably some truth to the should part of the statement. However, even though Bell, Andretti, and Spieth can beat me in each of their respective professions, does not mean I cannot simultaneously enjoy the beauty and performance of professional grade equipment. It also, does not mean that just because I cannot wring out all of the latent potential from a Corolla that I cannot make gains in a Lotus on the track.

A real fallacy is thinking that all performance is earned through work on skills. It isn't. Some of that performance can be purchased. Right out of the cabinet of your local gun dealer or off the showroom floor or whatever. This isn't a uniquely American trait, but it is very common in our country. We'd prefer to think, by virtue of believing that all people are equal, that performance is merely acquired through work, but that's simply not true. Some people have better genetics, more talent, AND more money than others. Unequal performance is both a function of work AND a function of the equipment. If equipment is held equal, then it becomes (mostly) an equation based on skill. But it is absolutely, 100%, entirely fallacious, to believe that all things are created equal, they are not.

And I'll come right out and say it. I know, firmly, that you can purchase a better firearm than the Glock 19. You can purchase firearms that are manufactured to a higher quality, have greater potential, are easier to shoot, etc. You can purchase a better shotgun than a Remington 870. You can purchase a better rifle than a Tikka. And what's more, you can buy those guns and you actually may buy some additional performance and points with them. The mistake is believing you can buy a custom 1911 and turn into Robbie Leatham tomorrow, you can't. But if it happens that a 1911 points better for you, that a 9mm STI is the perfect amount of stupid easy to shoot for you, that the HK USP fits your hands better, you'll pick up performance without thinking. And just because you didn't have to "work for it" doesn't actually make it wrong. In fact, that's what we would call, "Working smarter, not harder."

[psalms144.1]

I can't even start to put a number on my round count through Glocks, most frequently the G19, but it's WELL into the six digit range. I have carried a Glock on duty inside the country and in every major combat zone we've operated in over the last two decades, and they have never disappointed when I needed them to perform.

No more than two months ago, I picked up a Springfield Range Officer - plain jane parkerized 5" .45 ACP slab side. I IMMEDIATELY broke into a huge grin when I held it in my hand. My first time on the range, I shot the best 25 yard group I've shot in, well, since the last time I shot 1911s for real. Running it on the timer, my performance was MARGINALLY slower than the G19, which I attribute more to lack of familiarity and extra recoil (our issue ammo is all full house 230 gr).

Put a "name" 1911 9mm in my hand, and the performance increase (speed and accuracy) is IMMEDIATELY noticeable.

So, WTF does any of this mean? For ME, the 1911 is a better shooting solution than the Glock, hands down. I'm still carrying the Glock on duty, however, mainly due to capacity issues and, frankly, weight savings. Assuming the Staccato C2 "fits" my hands (I have medium size mitts, and the G19 is about all the "bigger" of a grip I can realistically work with), I'm going to be gun poor next year.

[Baldanders]

You’re not full of shit, but if you don’t like revolvers in various shapes and sizes (and, given the thrust of your post, *especially* 5-shot compacts with proven ammo), then you don’t like America. Fact.

Thanks for the new sig.