We have all heard the analogy of the indian and the arrow. It is true, a skilled indian - or in this case "archer" - can do amazing things with less than optimal equipment...and we all hope to be that man. But the skilled archer with the best arrow and bow will be able to express his skills to a much higher level than if he was equipped with less optimal gear.

I have a S&W 686 in my safe. It is the epitome of the police service pistol circa 1985. It went with me into harm's way for many years, and if it is what I had in my belt when I faced a trio of terrorists, I would be very thankful for it and go into battle smiling knowing that I would accomplish my mission well and artfully. But if I had a choice, and of course we all do, I would opt for what I am carrying now - a Suarez modified Glock 17 - as it would afford me the ability to express my skills with greater ease, greater safety, and for a longer time than my old 686.

One big failing in American culture today seems to be an all or nothing mentality on things. Life is not that way. So if a guy enrolls in ten classes and brings a Kel-Tec or Ruger LCR with him, I would tell him to only enroll in two classes, sell that Zimm-wannabe gun, and get something that will allow him to fight better. The reverse is often the case...and we see him as well...the dude with a $3000 pistol that could not fight his way out of the morgue.
And it doesn't need to be that way at all guys. A couple of analogies.

When my daughter was on a rowing crew, the school needed a new boat and was waffling on going the cheap route and buying a less than optimal boat thinking the "great indians" crewing it would make up the difference. But that difference was greater resistance in the water, more weight, and thus less speed. We made up the difference to get the better boat and it made all the difference for them.
Great rowers in a low quality boat, no matter how good they were, would NEVER be as good as great rowers in a great boat.

Another analogy...this from pop culture. There was a commercial on Fox Business News (some sort of investment that I do not recall). It went like this. "If an Olympic cyclist on a racing bike raced a ten year old kid on a tricycle who would win? The Olympic cyclist of course. But put the Olympian on the tricycle and the race will be won by the kid on the racing bike".

The indian may be more important than the arrow, but only very slightly so. The quality of the arrow, boat, or pistol either allows the man wielding it to express his skills to his highest level, or it fights him every step of the way, preventing him from being his best. So yes, be a good archer, rower, shooter...but don't cheap out on your gear, mistakenly thinking skill alone will help you hit the cowboy.
So while one man might say the archer is more important than the arrow. We say that at the end of the day, the archer and the arrow are of equal importance.