Pardon my saying this, but it seems that there is a bit of gun snobbery between those who spend thousands on a custom built gun over those who buy off the shelf. From what I've been reading on this forum, it seems that quite a few who use off the shelf (Pedersoli, CVA, Thompson, etc) have been winning matches against those who favor the custom built guns. But I could be just getting that impression from a smattering of posts.
:bow:
What a gun looks like has almost nothing to do with how well it shoots.
The only thing that matters there is the consistency of the barrel harmonics when the projectile leaves the bore. A gun with a plastic stock can shoot just as well (and probably better) than a gun with a stock made from the one true cross, and blessed by St. Peter himself. Good sights or lousy ones don't matter. Only if the shooter uses them consistently and knows where the projectile will go, and when it will go there.
What you are mistaking here for gun snobbery, is actually intellectual historical curiosity, which is manifested in a quest for knowledge in the form of an historically accurate instrument of the period. Since it goes boom it's even better. :grin:
When you build them, through all the research involved, you acquire a deeper perspective and more thorough knowledge base regarding what got done where, why, and when. The guys with the $10,000 guns feel that way (whether they built them or bought them) because they committed (either the time or the financial resources) to having that sort of a gun. The reason they are snobby about it is the typical male need for a competitive measure against their peers. The smartest ones out there will never tell you that they are though, and don't feel the need or see the point in "keeping score".
