"Spend more on glass than the gun"? How 'bout spend more on gun fodder than both of 'em together?
I have heard that you should spend more on the scope than the rifle for years, but never figured out why this was said. It just doesn't make sense as it presupposes that there is some sort of direct and real relationship between what you spend (not value, but actually spend) relative to the performance of the two components and the wants or needs of the shooter. There is no such relationship.