- [Voiceover] Diminishing returns and firearms,
how does it apply?
Well, in economics it means that as investment
in a particular area increases, the rate of profit
from that investment after a certain point
cannot continue to increase if other variables
remain at a constant.
So, as investment continues past that point
the return diminishes progressively.
So how does this apply to anything else?
Well, it's something hot rodders are all too familiar with.
For example, getting to 500 or 600 horsepower
is pretty easy and reasonably inexpensive these days.
For a couple of thousand bucks you can get there
on a stock long block.
Most modern transmissions can handle it,
as can rear ends, and modern brakes even provide
enough woe for all that go.
But to step up and get to the next level
it's exponentially more expensive.
You need new pistons and rods, head work,
cams, perhaps even a new block if you go big enough.
Then comes the transmission, diff, cage,
belts, Lexan, and all of a sudden shaving off
another 10th of a quarter means
a second or third mortgage on your home.
So this automotive tangent aside,
if you're still with me then the same applies
most certainly to firearm performance.
Too often I see people with firearms
who for no good reason spend hundreds,
if not thousands, of dollars on brilliantly made
stock handguns to try and turn them into
some kind of half-assed race gun
or tactical monstrosity.
But let's back up.
Yes, for many shooters like the folks who
are competitive in IPSC Open,
then they legitimately need any edge they can get.
That's why race guns look the way they do,
charging handles, electronic sights,
thumb rests, compensators, and jet funnel mag wells
all help the best of the best handgun shooters
shave off precious time and increase hit probability
to hopefully place first.
These guns also cost $5,000 and up,
but are purpose-built race guns with ironically
little to no practicality outside of shooting events
held by the International Practical Shooting Confederation.
Sure they're still deadly, and I guess you could use one
for protection, but when building one of these firearms
nobody asks, "Well yeah, but how viable is it
"as a carry gun?"
But really you see people shooting who wouldn't place
well in production or classify an IDPA above novice
shelling out money for mods instead of ammo and range time,
which I promise will help an amateur shooter
more than any expensive parts you can put on your new Glock.
$1,000 worth of accessories is alluring
to a young, new shooter.
It's fun to work on stuff and make something your own,
but shooting well is more important than looking cool,
and that dollar amount will also buy you about
5,000 rounds of ammunition to practice with.
And I think any trainer or competition shooter
is going to tell you to go that route.
So when should you start modifying your stuff?
Well, that's a tricky question to answer.
First of all, what do you want to accomplish?
If you're nailing the bullseye at all angles
while standing or on the move,
then you may be getting the most out of your pistol,
which is something most shooters do not and cannot do
despite claims made by everyone on the internet
who can send all their rounds through one hole
while back-flipping from the bed of a moving pickup truck.
The fact is that most guns are more capable
than the shooter behind them,
and squeezing every little bit of accuracy out of
a handgun takes time, patience, and dedication.
It's hard to say exactly when a shooter needs more,
but suffice it to say if you are killing it in production
or shoot a classifier and fall into export,
or the coveted master, then you're probably there.
This also goes for rifle shooting.
A stock AR-15 is a lot more capable than people think.
I've seen excellent shooters make stock rifles
dance like a ballerina,
and marginal shooters behind extremely high-end
expensive rifles struggle at 100 yards
to hit a 12 inch plate.
I would argue that if you're shooting five or six inch
group at 100 yards with iron sights
behind a 69-20, you don't need that $300 trigger yet.
The gun is doing its job in this case.
It's the shooter that isn't, as much as
it might pain you to admit.
But say the shooter is shooting very impressive groups
with irons, then I would say, "Yes, you could definitely
"benefit from expensive parts."
So diminishing returns applies here.
Accuracy is expensive.
A new trigger is one of the less expensive upgrades
that has a noticeable effect on accuracy,
but in my experience is one of the greatest things
you can do to tighten up groups.
And getting to one MOA consistently with the right
ammo, trigger, and a decent optic
is a pretty solid goal; however, as a shooter seeks
to tighten up a group beyond this,
the cost grows exponentially for each fraction of a minute.
A new barrel, bolt, incredibly expensive optic,
free float tube, and so on makes the price of getting
down to one MOA look like pocket change.
Then you see old guys with rail guns
for whom accuracy has become an absolute obsession
trucking around monstrosities that would cost
more money and time to build than your car.
So there's definitely a threshold.
The cost of accuracy goes up exponentially,
especially if the shooter's skill level remains constant.
For the overwhelming majority of shooters
there is no substitute for range time,
but for the few who can get the most out of any given
firearm, then the perpetual disappearance
and reappearance of the comma in their bank statement
may be necessary despite the insistence
of their accountant or wife.
Thank you very much for watching,
and a special thank you to Ventura Munitions
for helping us with the ammo for our program.
Also, thank you for sitting through the musings
of an internet gun expert.
We hope to see you next time.