Who's worshipping the rifle? You tell me. When you first showed it off, I thought - as probably did many other readers here - it was a fitting tribute to "JOC". But then you used it as a vehicle to convey out-of-context interpretations and it was rather obvious that the rifle's owner was into self-aggrandizement. As if your opinion somehow has more weight because your rifle has his name on it and you can spin something he wrote into something that fits an argument that - get this - you didn't need to bring. That's right - YOU. You could have left it at "look at this nice rifle." No, that wasn't enough for you. If you can't stand the heat...

FWIW - I don't read this stuff on the internet. It's in "Storm Tactical Precision Rifle Data Book." It won't do you any good to read it, because it doesn't come from the printer filled out. Therefore, my copy contains all original data, albeit for one rifle, but for one rifle that appears can shoot circles around yours in spite of costing half as much (not including optics). When you break into 1/4-minute-land at 600 yards after putting over 750 rounds down the tube, you can poke me in the eye.

Although I agree with O'Connor's statement, I don't agree with the manner in which you've interpreted or applied it. If you don't like that - tough. You can be entitled to your opinion, but you can't entitle me to your opinion. And further, I don't think you'd have made that statement at all, were it not for your pretty rifle. Call me "snarky" if you choose - but recognize that it wasn't me who started a thread that didn't need to be started, given O'Connor's original quote that you've twisted to make your point.

Mark me as "unimpressed" from here on out. Don't care how pretty your rifle is, really don't care about 100 yard groups if the truth be known. If Jack O'Connor knew they were selling a rifle with his name on it for as much as you paid for it, he'd probably bring you the scunion for buying one.