I'm not certain I'm sure what you mean by that.
All three items doing the same damage? That's great.
All three items having differing ranges and the item that, IRL, fires further NOT being the weapon that fires furthest? That's a bit of an odd duck.
I sympathize with Ceronomus. I think there is a tendency around here to reject any suggestion that the DCC RPG rules are flawed with responses like some posters made in this thread. "You don't like it? House rule it! That's what's great about this game!" Yeah, fine. That's all well and good. But people are usually not asking permission to house rule, they are asking (as Ceronomus did) what, if any, rationale the rule in question has. It is one thing to maintain relatively vague rules to allow for flexibility. That's great. I tend to side with the people who aren't interested in adding, e.g., a great new hand-to-hand combat system or highly specific weapon-by-weapon speed factors to make the game more "realistic."
It's quite another situation, however, where a specific rule actually appears to fail or seems incorrect in some respect. If a rule simply makes no sense, that is not a "feature." It is a problem to be corrected.
I am reminded of an earlier thread where someone pointed out that Lightning bolt (a third level spell) does way less damage than magic missile (first level) and has no greater utility or any other feature. There were nonetheless a ton of responses attempting to rationalize this inconsistency (magic is chaotic, lightning is cooler, etc).
I think we should lose this determined, even joyful, resistance to saying "oh yeah, that's weird and seems wrong. That should probably be changed".