Gear Snobbery and the Principle of Diminishing Returns

I have a good friend who goes by “BoltBoy.” Solid guy, he also designs and sells some cool Baofeng accessories. One day BoltBoy went to a precision rifle competition. Active duty and former scout snipers were among the competition, most of them sporting some very expensive weapons. One shooter even had a weather meter that was digitally slaved to an electronic DOPE card. The average shooter in this competition had sunk $3-4000 into their rifle setups.

Meanwhile, BoltBoy shows up with his trusty .308 Remington 783. With factory M80 ball ammo, a cheap .22LR scope and a few other accessories, he had invested $600 into his setup. This drew some friendly banter and jokes from the other competitors, who brushed him off as a first-timer who would eventually learn that he needed better equipment.

BoltBoy placed 2nd overall that day, stunning everyone and forever earning his nickname. He did well because he took his budget rifle and trained like hell with it. He knew the basic principles of bullet drop, wind calls, and he new how to do it with his rifle and optic. If you put in the work to get proficient, your equipment can do a lot more for you than you think.

Realistic “Good Enough” Solutions

The social media “gun community” and “tactical community” are full of people who spend a ton of money on X item and then try to make themselves feel better by shaming everyone else with less expensive gear. This self-indulging trend is counter-productive, and I recommend avoiding these people/groups like the plague. The simple truth is that sometimes the cheaper solution is good enough to get the job done.

That said, it is possible to spend too little. You don’t want something that will break the first time you use it, and the “budget” option may not grant the capability you thought it did. Today I will briefly discuss how to find the balance between cheaping out and over-spending.

The Principle of Diminishing Returns

Too many people think that they need to buy the most expensive gear to become proficient. Unfortunately, this is reinforced by flannel-clad influencers who push whatever products their sponsors tell them to. While it’s true that the expensive gear probably works better than the cheaper options, chasing the unicorn of the “best option” can be counterproductive. This is especially true for people who are new to buying tactical gear.

You see, as you increase the price of any type of item, the returns diminish the higher you go. Eventually you reach a point where the value gained is not worth the added price, even though there is greater value in the more expensive option. This is illustrated by the graph below.

Striving for Capability

I don’t look at gear in terms of what it can “do for me.” Instead, I evaluate gear based on what it can enable me to do. This keeps me from falling into the trap of thinking that I can replace skills with stuff. At the end of the day, I am the operator, and all that matters is my ability to use my stuff to accomplish my mission. The way I purchase gear is I set a goal for a capability that I want to have, and analyze exactly what equipment I need to support that capability.

Let’s take night vision for example. I approached my night vision purchase desiring the capability to see and engage targets at night up to several hundred meters away. My own eyes are not up to the task, so I recognized that I needed a device that enabled this capability.

There are a lot of night vision devices (NVDs) on the market, so I set about weighing the pros and cons of each one. Gen1 NVDs were the cheapest at around $300, but couldn’t see far enough clear enough. Gen2 PVS-14s were next up, providing acceptable clarity for $2800. Gen3 PVS-14s, however, offered an even clearer image for only $200 more. Finally, dual-tube NVGs were the last realistic option, offering the same clarity as the Gen3 PVS-14 but in both eyes for over double the price. My estimate of the value vs. return of each of these devices is reflected on the chart below:

I determined that the Gen3 PVS-14 was the best value for my money while providing the capability I desired. Would dual tubes be better? Yes, but for me the benefits of dual tube NVDs weren’t worth the price increase. My single-tube PVS-14 gives me the capability I wanted, and that choice saved me about $5,000 to spend on other things.

Conclusion

As with all things in life, there is a balance to be had. You don’t want to spend too much for minimal returns, and you don’t want to buy garbage either. The best advice I can give you is twofold. First, ignore the gear queers and the snobs who say you aren’t spending enough money. Most of them don’t even train with their gear beyond the flat range.

Second, ensure that whatever you buy gets rigorously tested. Take your ruck on a backpacking trip. Low crawl 50 yards with your chest rig. Go to a training class. If you intend to trust your life and your families’ lives to it later down the road, you should torture test it now and find its breaking point. I would rather have an expensive item fail during a realistic training event and spend more money on something better than have it fail when I need it most.

You have a finite amount of resources. Be efficient with how you spend your time and your money. Define the capabilities you seek and determine for yourself the best choice for your budget. If you would like more guidance with purchasing your rifleman’s kit, read my guide on the topic.