Hm, interesting. I consider "Chekhov's Gun" to imply that something is introduced in a manner which helps it to potentially stand out (i.e., because of what it typically represents, the context in which it is noted, etc.) then it shouldn't be dangled in the narrative like a carrot you'll never reach or even see again. It seemingly allows for different details to be offered, just ensuring you don't emphasize aspects which will never have some relevance to the actual storyline(s).
Just off the cuff, let me mention that I'm a longtime fan of H. Rider Haggard and Thomas Pynchon. Not only them, but let's see where these choices go, maybe ...
The first is known for olde tyme adventure novels with fantastical elements, painted with enough adjectives per paragraph to give you literary diabetes after a chapter or two. He relies on archetypes more often than not, swirling their roles in a cinematic fantasy tale with loads of melodrama. You know where things are going overall, but he paints the ride in kids' crayons that are melted together and mounded very high, making it enjoyable to those of us who go for such unnatural gushes of over-the-top colourful expressions. Everything he offers supports a feeling of a moment and example of the iconic role(s) involved in the scene, and recognizing which elements are "guns" or not is actually not too difficult. But, there is so much surrounding the "gun" elements and their eventually obvious use that you kind of don't care: you're there for experiencing the ride.
I feel that the second is a modern day fashioner of quixotic prose tales with "guns" of varying importance: it's really best to just see the world from another set of eyes and accept your rationalizations+inner logical weaving as irrelevant to the story, I feel. The unobvious story will happen regardless of how you interpret the otherwise straightforward elements, while many things are presented in ways that force you into a context you don't yet understand. It's sometimes uncomfortable but fascinating storytelling (if you have the temperament) and elements become revealed as "guns" proper, but they don't always add up to something objectively satisfying as either cause/effect or observation/significance elements, I feel.
So, I'm very OK with guns becoming evident that never lead to a satisfying shot, but instead turn out to be blanks. Or, the caliber is far lower, the shot pattern extremely wide, compared to resulting in an expected crisp, single bullet hole. Because learning that your early beliefs of the blanks being evidence of real bullets was wrong or that a particular gun was not as equally significant in impact as others, could be part of entertaining storytelling, as well.
How much do you want to paint or wax colourful, to make the "guns" blend more into a tapestry vs a series of targeted results? Up to you, but I believe in the "guns" as useful storytelling tools, even when they misdirect or misinform.
I had a long day fixing a kitchen appliance install for a friend, so am winding down now and hopefully didn't mangle your point