Disagree. Everyone benefits from an increase in consistency and quality. It's about eliminating variables. Now, if you want to argue about marginal gains per dollar spent, that's a valid argument.
I think that's a good point. It's exactly what I maintained for many years here.
But I began to suspect that what I was recommending was an argument that only perfection is good enough, and that it was just a case of chasing one's own tail. And perfection can get expensive, too.
So I did a bunch of testing as part of my normal loading and shooting process; swapping out individual components and seeing if there was a performance deficit involved. In some cases there was, but often it wasn't, or it was so small it was outweighed by other, uncontrollable factors, like the environment and other issues where an improvement in one area also required a change in another.
It all just got too complex and unwieldy to clearly demonstrate actual, consistently repeatable advantages. I gave up and attacked the problem from the other end.
I reduced my handloading process to the simplest, most basic components and processes. I put my emphasis into performing the basic reloading steps with the most consistency I could manage. I anticipated a performance drop, based on common sense. Yes, there was a drop, but it was a lot less than I expected. That drop was also somewhat dependent on my adherence to consistency despite no change in components and die settings, etc.
A few relationships merged.
Time is a resource, and has an intrinsic value. Saving it has benefit. Applications have varying priorities, and some don't warrant an all-out approach. Unless you are committed to serious competition, on a frequent basis, your accuracy requirements may not be as rigid and demanding. A good barrel and
a good enough bullet is an adequate combination. I also found that the QC standards that many of us challenge and measure/weigh ad nauseam are actually good enough that many, maybe most of us, cannot see the difference
on the target between carefully measured, sorted, and selected components, and those that are used straight from the box.
I revised my requirements from being based on measurements to being based on whether a hit was meaningful. I adopted the concept of 'defeating the target', which often isn't based on measurements, but instead on effectiveness. The idea is that the deer that just got dropped really doesn't care whether it was shot with a 1/2MOA load or a 2MOA load; dead is dead.
I found that my needs could be met with less 'accuracy', and that being constrained to using only the best and brightest components made more sense for others than for me.
When we offer blanket advisements to the forum in general, we may be missing that not all of us have the same pressures and demands bearing down on us. Perfection, if it is even attainable at all, is not required for many, maybe even most of us, on this forum. There are champions here, but they do not constitute the majority amongst us.
I began to realize that NRA targets were based on a 2MOA accuracy level. I began to realize that depending on premium components can occasionally become an excuse for allowing one's skill to take a back seat. I realized that no matter what the load and equipment's accuracy was, wind skills are every bit as necessary for each and every shooter. There are no shortcuts or fixes that allow one to ease up on that basic process. There is no substitute for skill, as I found out over several years of 1000yd F Open competition.
We have a goodly number of folks who write here for the Upper Levels of the Marksmanship Comp games. I write for those amongst us who are yet to attain those levels.
So where does the Lapua product line sit in my range of priorities? It its up there in the region where I cannot in good faith justify the purchase, based on my applications and skills.
Greg
