Also in a ryu with a varied curriculum of weapons one could have to deal with some very real psychological and attentional issues appending to patterning various skill sets across different weapon types that might conflict. Today we have seen that problem simply with changing holsters, or changing the style of a pistol (adding a safety, or having a different spot on the gun for the mag release), so it can literally be a life and death issue under critical stress.
I believe that classical bushi understood this, and why early ryu seem so consistent across weapon types and fighting methods. It also makes sense for a school to maybe not use a weapon to its apparent optimum advantage based on another school's analysis: its not that they "don't know how to use the weapon," its that they are using the weapon in their way to keep it consistent. Might not be the optimal use of the weapon based on another ryu's logic, but it is based on that particular ryu's principles.
My shooting instructor is working within one parameter I asked set for my practice: I don't change my drawstroke. I chose this because I have trained it a certain way to maximize its effectiveness for very close situations (which I am more likely to face), and I want to keep one platform versus several different ones based on the distance of the adversary should I need to engage with a firearm. He said "that makes sense. It will slow you down slightly from the purely speed perspective, which is more important for competitive shooting and for shooting situations further away, but I understand the rationale and we'll just have to work with it." It is not hampering me all that much (my actual pure shooting skill is turning out to be more of an obstacle in that sense!!), but the tradeoff makes it consistent with a totally integrated tactical platform.
Which is what I believe the early ryu were trying to achieve.