Cognitive Bias in Shooting Community

[Maple57]

I thought I'd present an observation regarding what I see as Cognitive Bias in the Shooting Community

A cognitive bias is a systematic error in thinking that affects the decisions and judgments that people make.

I see this all the time... recently in guys challenging me on my 223 load development but I see it in so many other ways.

A friend (very experienced long range shooter) was recently telling me that he found a certain primer to be more accurate than another... He was testing groups on target at 100 yards to make this determination.... the problem with that is that the primer does not cause accuracy... it causes ignition, which affects speed... so measuring bullet dispersion at 100 yards does not confirm how consistent the velocity was. He should have been measuring how consistent the velocity was if he was evaluating primers.

There are lots of examples of this.... What's better for hunting moose... 308 or 30-06?

This is actually a loaded question.... Yes the 30-06 is more powerful at the muzzle, but the real answer depends on the specific bullet and distance to the moose. Use a low BC round nose bullet in one vs a high BC VLD bullet in the other and the results can change very quickly.

Here's another example... what's better a 243 or 6 creed or 6XC? It's really not a cartridge discussion at all... its really about the bullets being offered that most manufacturers are stuffing into the case and rifle makers are chambering for and selecting twist rates for

Back to the 223.... 223 has mostly been offered with 55 grain bullets... but fairly recently guys have been running faster twist barrels and heavier bullets, but the 223 is categorically no good for this or that. Deer hunting for example... Lots of guys will bump chests over using the 223 for deer hunting because its just no good for that.... but if you consider that more objectively... it comes back to the specific configuration.... guys will say its ok to hunt deer with 80 grain bullets with a 6 dasher but not ok with 80s from a 223.

Cheapness is also a factor... manufacturers make 223s for guys who want to use bulk milsurp 55 grain ammo... not 80 SMKs. So they don't get good accuracy with the light bullets from a fast twist... so again the 223 is no good for deer hunting right?

And magazine length is a factor... you just cant run 80 SMKs out long from most 223 magazines... but that is not a problem with the 223... its a problem with the typical 223 rifle configuration.

And then the PRS guys... they don't even say 223 any more... they say 223 trainer rifle... its automatically a trainer rifle. That's Cognitive Bias.

Guys so often attribute goodness to one thing or badness to some other thing when its not the thing... its the typical configuration of the thing, but that does not mean the same bad thing in a different configuration doesn't perform very well.

Take for example the new 308 Hornady 176 grain A Tip... G1 BC .564... That's right up there with most 6mms. That bullet is a game changer that has the ability to change pre conceived notions about how competitive a 308 can be in PRS.

Same with the new A Tip 90 grain bullet for 223... That bullet may well change the game for 223s... so its not the 223 at all... its the choice of available bullets with a high enough BC in combination with rifles configured for it.

When I look at the new bullets coming out, the BC gap is closing to the point that almost any caliber will have a bullet that compares to the best of any other caliber. The case and throat length just decides how fast you will be able to push it.

Any thoughts?

 

[SND]

I think its called "dealing with people".

Its what happens when you have a 1000 variables and any one of them can be the cause of all problems or the solution. The sample size is almost always way too small and/or too unreliable to draw any definite conclusions and even if you did half of them won't believe it anyway and sometimes weird random stuff just happens. There's some fun to experimenting and figuring things out and no amount of advice from anyone is gonna change that. A bit like some of us make small primers work great in 308win, and other's believe they can't ignite that much powder...
This sport is trendier than women's shoes.

So long as we're all having fun that's what matters

 

[FoxAlpha]

I’d say this is one of the primary difference between those that argue a point, and those that converse around one. All the same that there’s people that listen to understand, and then those that only listen to reply. Gather around a place like this, where veteran members here often enjoy crapping on a new member because of a lack of knowledge it should come as no surprise that we have a large group of people merely pretending to know what they claim they know.

That being said, I think we’re all guilty of cognitive bias on some level or another and it’s posts like this that are useful in reminding us of that.
It also reminds me why I stopped debating people a long time ago, especially on the internet.

 

[cycbb486]

A lot of the time the discussions can and are interesting. There is discussions that are meaningful and truthful, and then there is the blow smoke up your ass discussions. Some blow the smoke ones can be outright dangerous.

A little story that was told to me at our local range many years ago.

Guy was sighting and load developing for a 300 WM. Asked what load? Cannot remember the powder or bullet weight. What I remember is he said he was shooting a max load plus 10%. Are you Fing kidding me. I should have called him on it but I do not argue with people. I just take it as stupidity. Hopefully the wrongmperson never heard that.

It is amazing how many newbies/rookies there are on CGN. There is great info and then there is the bad. I will say it like we say in the short range BR world. Your best source of safe and meaningful advice is a mentor. A respected mentor.

JMO

 

[kthomas]

In all fairness, your post is showing cognitive bias itself.

For example the primers. You associate consistent/smallest velocity spread with the best accuracy/precision, which isn't necessarily true. Benchrest shooters that shoot at a set distance (say 600 or 1,000 yard) usually DO NOT use a chrony, nor care about their ES/SD. In fact, the loads with the best ES/SD do not correspond with the tightest shooting groups. This was also tested in the Houston Warehouse - velocity variations up to ~100 fps did not influence group size at 100 yards in their testing.

For what I do - shooting at multiple distances from 100 yards and under to a mile + on steel, I want a small SD/ES for the best ballistics modelling and consistency. If I was to shoot benchrest and wanted the most precision, I would reload in a different manner to accomplish the goals of ultimate precision at a set distance.

It really depends on what is your end goal. But you are assuming that you need best ES/SD for the most precise load, which the benchrest community has disproven. Ask Bart Sauter or Alex Wheeler about what they think, and they will definitely disagree with your thoughts on primers.

 

[kthomas]

Also, people have been shooting .223 in PRS before I ever started in the sport. Neither yourself or mystic are discovering anything new in that arena. It's not fair to say that PRS shooters automatically think that a .223 rifle is a trainer rifle - for a lot it is, but you are coming at it with your bias. Lots of others still shoot it in PRS.

You just need to understand the trade-offs of going with a smaller projectile. Some of them being the ability to spot splash both on and off targets. Higher BC projectiles and target flashers are making centerfire .22's more attractive, but there's still trade-offs with going with that cartridge.

A lot of people think that the 6mm cartridges provide the best balance of ballistics, energy (spotting hits or misses) and recoil out of the other calibers.

A lot of it also depends on where you are shooting as well. Some places it may be more beneficial to shoot a 6.5mm, others a .223 is certainly acceptable. It's about understanding the compromises you make and what best balances out your objectives. There's no ultimate right or wrong cartridge - otherwise we would all be shooting the same cartridge. It's a trade-off either way.

 

[kthomas]

People have experiential bias based on their shooting backgrounds and experiences.

It can get fairly contentious on CGN as their is a very varied background on here, and their seems to be a lot of people coming in from other disciplines telling people how to shoot a different discipline.

Seems to be happening a lot lately with the gaining popularity of PRS type shooting in Canada, with some people coming into it from another discipline like F-class. Rather than trying to learn from the combined experience of the 15+ years it's being going on in the US, they would rather come in with their own experiential bias and tell people how to shoot it from an F-class perspective. A lot of re-learning is happening in Canada, but the learning has already been done - just look south.

A lot of times on CGN it seems like people are trying to smash a square peg in a round hole and re-invent the sport. That's okay, as an individual if you want to learn the hard way and disregard the learnings and evolution of the sport that's already occured then that's fine. I just hate it when these F-class shooters shoot a couple of PRS style Grass Roots matches and have a couple of wins under their belts, and all of a sudden they are the experts and are handing out terrible advice to those trying to get into the sport.

That kind of experiential bias is only setting the sport backwards 5-10 years up in Canada. And it's frustrating to see.

 

[Maple57]

KT, I really don't see how your primer argument disputes cause and effect regarding primer selection.

Canadians are not setting the sport back at all... Its just guys migrating from what they have to what they think they need.

20 years ago F Class was a very different sport than what it is today... I watched the changes closely over the years. 20 years ago we had a 1 minute V Bull now its 1/2 minute because tie breakers started to go on forever.

Even PRS preferences have changed in 15 years... 15 years ago everyone wanted a 6.5... now more and more guys want lower 6mm recoil with increasingly smaller cases.

My 223 story simply shines a light on the bias around 223 that assumes it cannot and will not ever in any configuration become anything other than a PRS training rifle, despite the interesting new bullets that bring new opportunity and work to more closely level the playing field.

Its also not bias and is rather the simple recognition that cartridge selection is not the reason 80 percent of the shooters are in the bottom 80 percent.

I'm not trying to sell the 223, or any other specific thing, everything changes over time.

As other have stated, there are many factors that contribute to overall performance and it is never just one thing.

 

[Mystic Precision]

The shooting sport has never had more access to information.. unfiltered information. Information that can range from being outright wrong/dangerous, to merely opinion, to 'true' but limited in scope, to 'true' in a wide range of application.

And we have never seen a population of new shooters entering at the 'deep end' of the sport. The traditional/historical evolution of skills, knowledge and gear is no longer the norm. Complete newbies now jump into full meal deal rigs, some with very little context of what they are actually purchasing nor how to effectively use it.

Kind of like making your first car a 911 and wondering why it is now wrapped around a telephone pole.

What we have is a community with lots and lots of information and very little experience.... what we have is a simple lack of KNOWLEDGE.

And a byproduct of that is consensus thinking/bias..... in the old days, this was called GROUP THINK.

If you go back to some of the very heated debates over the years, you will find that the same posters now have a more moderate view. Some have even come full circle and support the views they so aggressively challenged. That is what experience does...

In many respects, some simply don't know what they don't know.... and then assume, since my group doesn't like or do XYZ, it simply cannot work or be of benefit. Group think has this nasty habit of quickly discounting what doesn't 'fit' instead of simply going out and testing to prove, in the real world, what works and what doesn't.

Many of the questions asked and often, hotly debated, would be easily resolved in an afternoon at the range putting holes in paper. But it seems, shooters spend far less time at the range then a generation ago.

I get a smile hearing from those that discount this and that simply because it doesn't fit with their lack of experience. I pay little attention to them. The ones I pay attention to discuss in real world terms cause they have actually tested the concepts and products in a process that is both repeatable and factual. Maybe we disagree, but it is always productive cause both parties are expanding their knowledge through shared experiences.

Today, there are far fewer shooters like this.

The cure to this is simple.... EXPERIENCE. And with experience, will come a more moderate view of the sport and its tech. Opinions will certainly change, be more flexible and less vocal.

Jerry

 

[Johnny Boom]

KT, I really don't see how your primer argument disputes cause and effect regarding primer selection.

Canadians are not setting the sport back at all... Its just guys migrating from what they have to what they think they need.

20 years ago F Class was a very different sport than what it is today... I watched the changes closely over the years. 20 years ago we had a 1 minute V Bull now its 1/2 minute because tie breakers started to go on forever.

Even PRS preferences have changed in 15 years... 15 years ago everyone wanted a 6.5... now more and more guys want lower 6mm recoil with increasingly smaller cases.

My 223 story simply shines a light on the bias around 223 that assumes it cannot and will not ever in any configuration become anything other than a PRS training rifle, despite the interesting new bullets that bring new opportunity and work to more closely level the playing field.

Its also not bias and is rather the simple recognition that cartridge selection is not the reason 80 percent of the shooters are in the bottom 80 percent.

I'm not trying to sell the 223, or any other specific thing, everything changes over time.

As other have stated, there are many factors that contribute to overall performance and it is never just one thing.

I have a feeling I am going to regret posting in this thread but here goes.

I'm one of the guys that was posting in the 223 discussion. Mainly we were curious about how you were getting unusually high velocities with a heavy bullet, even in a long throated chamber.

I'm all for innovation. I was shooting 6 Creedmoor when it was still a wildcat. 3 friends of mine are getting 22 BRs to run the heavy 224s in PRS Open next year and one is going Quartermoor.

We are all curious on how your heavy bullet 223 will run in a season in match conditions because if it works, it may be the hot setup.

However, myself and others who shoot matches in the US have seen a few things come and go. For instance, the 6 Dasher was big last season, but the 6 BRA seems to be getting more popular. Maybe we'll see more 22s in the top 100 this year.

Cognitive bias? Healthy skepticism? In the end opinions don't really matter in the game, that's why we keep score.

 

[Johnny Boom]

People have experiential bias based on their shooting backgrounds and experiences.

It can get fairly contentious on CGN as their is a very varied background on here, and their seems to be a lot of people coming in from other disciplines telling people how to shoot a different discipline.

Seems to be happening a lot lately with the gaining popularity of PRS type shooting in Canada, with some people coming into it from another discipline like F-class. Rather than trying to learn from the combined experience of the 15+ years it's being going on in the US, they would rather come in with their own experiential bias and tell people how to shoot it from an F-class perspective. A lot of re-learning is happening in Canada, but the learning has already been done - just look south.

A lot of times on CGN it seems like people are trying to smash a square peg in a round hole and re-invent the sport. That's okay, as an individual if you want to learn the hard way and disregard the learnings and evolution of the sport that's already occured then that's fine. I just hate it when these F-class shooters shoot a couple of PRS style Grass Roots matches and have a couple of wins under their belts, and all of a sudden they are the experts and are handing out terrible advice to those trying to get into the sport.

That kind of experiential bias is only setting the sport backwards 5-10 years up in Canada. And it's frustrating to see.

I hear ya.

 

[rugbydave]

As per usual in these discussions, kthomas has already hit on most of what I was going to post...

Here's the thing, people (myself included) often have a hard time looking at things from outside their own needs/perspective. You (OP) lament that PRS shooters look at .223 as a "trainer" calibre but there's a very good reason that they do: if you load relatively cheap 75/77gr bullets you have an inexpensive way of practicing a lot that is plenty good say inside 600 yards. Can you load heavier bullets/higher BCs? Sure, but then your cost goes up and suddenly shooting more becomes expensive, the closer it gets to the cost of shooting your match caliber, the less the benefit of a trainer rifle period. Which is why a .223 running normal 75/77 gr ammo makes for a great trainer.

Now there are new, higher BC .22 bullets, the issue is running them fast enough (in a .223) to make them competitive with the 6mm offerings. You claim to have done so by running a long throat and heavily modifying mags. To a bunch of us, it seems kind of dubious (as in it has to be a high pressure load) but if it turns out to work well and have no issues, then hey, congrats, good job. You could achieve the same speeds easily by running a 22BR (with widely available mag spacer kits) or a 22 Creed (in regular AICS mags) and have no pressure issues.

What you see as cognitive bias is simply people being skeptical of you doing something that honestly doesn't really seem to be safely/reliably possible (88 ELDMs at 2900 in a .223) when for most people, there is no reason to go that route. You just don't want to get new dies or brass so you figured out some kind of work around.

 

[kthomas]

KT, I really don't see how your primer argument disputes cause and effect regarding primer selection.

Canadians are not setting the sport back at all... Its just guys migrating from what they have to what they think they need.

20 years ago F Class was a very different sport than what it is today... I watched the changes closely over the years. 20 years ago we had a 1 minute V Bull now its 1/2 minute because tie breakers started to go on forever.

Even PRS preferences have changed in 15 years... 15 years ago everyone wanted a 6.5... now more and more guys want lower 6mm recoil with increasingly smaller cases.

My 223 story simply shines a light on the bias around 223 that assumes it cannot and will not ever in any configuration become anything other than a PRS training rifle, despite the interesting new bullets that bring new opportunity and work to more closely level the playing field.

Its also not bias and is rather the simple recognition that cartridge selection is not the reason 80 percent of the shooters are in the bottom 80 percent.

I'm not trying to sell the 223, or any other specific thing, everything changes over time.

As other have stated, there are many factors that contribute to overall performance and it is never just one thing.

Take a look on accurateshooter.com about how they do load developments and what they are seeing with different primers. I think you will learn a few things.

As to .223, people have been shooting it in PRS for years, so you are not inventing anything new there. People have been shooting .223's in open division for longer then I've been shooting PRS with success. It's not just a "trainer cartridge". That's your own bias that makes you think that others think that way. But there are compromises to shooting .22 projectiles and better cartridge hosts to shoot the heavy/high BC .22 projectiles then the .223.

And yes, PRS as evolved A LOT, especially down in the US where it's been going on for 15+ years. That's why I think it's weird that certain prominent individuals up here disregard all the learnings from that evolution and recommend to newbies completely counterintuitive/poor advice.

 

[kthomas]

As to the Porsche 911 comment - you don't need to start with the Porsche 911 of precision rifles off the start. Never been a better time to get in precision rifles on a budget - lots of great more budget friendly "fit for purpose" rifles being built in these last two years. But you also don't need to start with a Yugo and square wheels...

 

[Juster]

No-one is free from cognitive bias, we are all wrong about all sorts of things and the wise man remembers this. Sometimes you have to do a test, and sometimes the result is not what you want to hear. But a practical test beats a day of discussion.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
Richard P. Feynman

 

[Mystic Precision]

No-one is free from cognitive bias, we are all wrong about all sorts of things and the wise man remembers this. Sometimes you have to do a test, and sometimes the result is not what you want to hear. But a practical test beats a day of discussion.

Amen.... targets don't lie.... you just may not like what it is saying.

and if the process anyone chooses allows them to achieve the results they need for the 'game' they want to play, awesome.

however, keeping an open mind and ear can lead to some exciting new discoveries.

Jerry

 

[MartyK2500]

I have been shooting precision rifles for 2 years now, and it's only been 6-7 months where I have solid concepts of what works or not, in limited fields of expertise.
As in I now have 3 Savages shooting damn good with 175 SMKs, Varget and CCI BR2s.
We could say I now have knowledge and tuning tips surrounding Savage actions, bedding them in various stocks, shooting a 308 projectile, with repeatable results.
That's where my knowledge from experience stops. I have lot's of other knowledge, but comes from here (or other forums) and not from experience itself.

Cognitive Bias can be described like a bandwagon effect.
Let's rewind 2 years, I knew nothing of long range shooting, scopes, rifle reloading etc...
Reading up on CGN, I used a process, equipment and components that the bandwagon used, which was very good to some extent.
As a year later I was shooting at 900M with similar results to other guys that had been there for 10 years, but weren't using the internet.
Internet has brought a wealth of knowledge to the new guys like me.
And a wealth of disinformation too, as the bandwagon also has lot's of people commenting and preaching certain knowledge which they did not themselves experience, but only heard of.

We can say technology (kestrel bluetooth, ballistic apps, gun forums, blogs...) have contributed a whole lot in developing a new shooter to learn the precision rifle ropes really quickly compared to let's say 15-20 years ago,
We can also say that a few have lost their way repeating certain advice that the bandwagon suggested and not be able to sort the good info from the bad.

As a forum member, and as a shooter that is slowly accomplishing more and more at the range and in matches, I feel the importance of ''not contributing'' into the collective cognitive bias unless I can speak of firsthand experience.
Trying to limit the noise from the good information in these forums.

My posts may seem repetitive and long winded, especially when typing about precision rifles, I don't try to lie and say that my 10K setup works wonders if it isn't,
At the same time when I do shoot something that works really well I try to share as much information as I can on it.

 

[coleman1495]

I’m not sure what the OP is describing could be called cognitive bias. It sounds to me like it’s simply poor advice. I don’t even think the crappy advice is limited to the Internet. I’ve gotten plenty of stupid advice from people at the range.For instance I had issues with a custom rifle I had recently got built. The advice I received was mostly terrible. Answers included:

-Rifle is too light to be accurate (its a a 10lb 7mm08 and it can’t produce MOA I don’t think weight is the issue duh)
-7mm08 can’t fire heavy projectiles due to small case size ( 7mm08 can definitely fire ~160gr with decent accuracy duh)
-Load development is the issue because there is some good 3 round groups (yeah except 3 round groups don’t mean anything duh)
- Chambering is the issue (really because it has SKS accuracy)

It also doesn’t help that some members on here are only here for promotional purposes. Some members are only interested in selling their crap even if the products aren’t great. Some members are here to promote other businesses.No matter what the question, they will promote a certain builder.

Dishonesty is a major part. People think the one good group they got is indicative of the accuracy of setup. Heck if people were honest about the accuracy of Ruger 10/22’s, they would have stopped selling them years ago.

Having said that, there are some awesome members on this forum. Their input makes it all worth it in the end.

 

[SteveB]

This is an interesting thread.

The big issue I have with recent threads and why I don't bother engaging mostly is that there seems to be the attitude that people who have an opinion and good experience to back that opinion up must be attacked because they don't either fit the defined mold, work for the right companies, have the right ideas or use the right equipment. Any deviation from a certain viewpoint must be attacked and destroyed. I have watched that attitude build in these threads for many years now. You can call that bias either way but it doesn't help the dialogue to improve the sport.

Competitive shooting, like many other activities, is a sport where the equipment we use is a compromise of a variety of factors. You must decide which of the factors to balance to give the best results for you. This calls for experience because what works for one may not work for another although it generally does. Unfortunately, what I have seen is that a huge amount of people in PRS seem to have the idea that you can "buy" your way to success and this attitude has been fostered by shops selling the high priced build-ups. Anybody who has an opinion that you don't need an expensive buildup was pilloried a few years ago. Now that the factories are responding to that need for a lower priced setup and are producing reasonable priced stuff that noise has diminished somewhat. Even one of the people on this thread has modified his viewpoint regarding budget buildups in the last couple years.

I don't compete in PRS for my own reasons but have been to quite a few matches now working as an RO for both big and regional matches and, frankly am not impressed, with the shooter's attitudes, marksmanship, or shooter's understanding of the equipment. There is a real reason that the people have very low scores.

The last years "big" thing was the 6mmBR using a mag kit. It was mentioned that these could cause issues and maybe a different avenue should be investigated. That person who mentioned that was and has been vilified on these threads. Interestingly, in the last big match I RO'ed the biggest issue was mis-feeding with the 6mmBr! In my station, it was the biggest failure point.

Many of the comments about the 223 have been known for a long time as mentioned but was not mentioned was that under certain conditions the 223's do extremely well. I have been to many matches where the 223's were near the top of the board. However, these matches were generally shot in very calm conditions. Let the winds blow and the boomers rule. Without exception! That is not a bias simply a fact!!

The other thing I have seen repeatedly are loads and velocities recommended that are blatantly unsafe. These loads approach and exceed proof pressures but if anyone questioned the wisdom of either using them or publishing them then they were condemned outright. A certain shop in Alberta was notorious for that. It was a miracle someone hasn't been seriously hurt by such stupidity. I know of several blowups resulting from using "internet" loads and one guy lost an eye. A certain brand of popular receiver is prone to detonation using extreme loads and it always fails the same way.

Bias is a result of experience and as you gain experience your bias will change as your viewpoints changes. It doesn't mean that bias is bad, it is just your understanding at that time. As a shooter matures in a discipline they will change. To be at the top you must change or fail.
In my chosen discipline, yes, it is F-Class, I have constantly changed cartridges, rests, barrels, receivers, and particularly scopes, which has cause the biggest issues. I have run everything from 223, 22Br, 6mmBr, 6.5’s, 7mm’s and 30 short mags. All have added to my knowledge base and all can win under certain specific conditions. Some can do well under most conditions.

In the end, the shooter who understands how to shoot in the winds, understands his equipment and can reload to a very high skill level wins. This is no different than PRS.

Unfortunately the PRS group seems to want to repeat the mistakes we made in F-Class many, many, many years ago and certain people on these boards don’t seem to understand that many issues are common to all long range disciplines.
We have more than a few PRS guys in the US coming to our matches and leaving very disappointed when they learn how far behind they are in the knowledge curve.

 

[kthomas]

The people who think that the PRS crowd here says that you need to buy your way into a win are putting their blinders on and not listening. There's never been a better time to get into this sport on a budget, myself and others have repeated this often. There are a lot of great fit for purpose rifles being produced by companies these days for those getting into PRS on a budget. Instead in CGN we have certain crowds pushing guns that aren't fit for purpose for PRS, and have very limited to no factory support.

It's a case of people selectively reading into a post, and ignoring the main point that the poster is trying to portray.

On the other side of the argument, some people here disingenuously promote budget products exclaiming they are every bit as good as their premium counterpart. Budget products have made leaps and bounds in recent years, but it's unfair to expect a $1500 rifle to perform to the same level as a $5000 rifle, or a $1000 scope to perform every bit as good as a $3500 scope. Everything is a trade-off, and the consumer needs to do their research to understand what their dollar buys them and what performance they can expect. An Athlon scope is not going to have the same quality or performance as a Zero Compromise scope, but it's up to the individual consumer to determine whether the premium is worth the addition in quality and performance - for a lot of people it may not be.

We all want to get the best bang for our buck, and it's up to the consumer to do their due diligence to determine what that's going to look like for them. The more you spend, the more diminishing returns you are going to see on that product. Precision rifles are luxury items and it can be hard to justify spending top dollar on every component, especially in this current economy. But let's not pretend a Boyd's stock is every bit as functional and quality as a JAE just because we want it to be so for the sake of our bank accounts. There's a difference and it's good to recognize that.

You can always learn from other disciplines, it's a great way to accelerate the learning curve. But you also need to understand where each discipline is coming from, what the objectives and challenges are in that discipline, so that you know what and how to apply that to your own shooting discipline. It doesn't all directly translate over across the board, but there's always some good nuggets of info if you look for them.