Dogzapper, you mentioned this gentleman on the Clay Harley thread, and I have never heard of him. I enjoyed the tales of CH, so maybe you can spin a yarn on this fella?
Don't feel like ya have to, though.
I will accept a "No thank you" just fine.

I only met Charles Askins, Jr. once and that was at Kimber. He was quite famous at the time. Basically, his personal behaviour was terrible; he tried to fight with all of the men and seduce all of the ladies.

This was before Viagra and he was no spring chicken, so he must have been really feeling his oats while he was here in Oregon.

Anyway, Greg gave him a rifle or two and I suppose that Askins' articles reflected favorably towards Kimber for a while after that.

Charles Askins, Sr. was, like Nash Buckingham, a "shotgunning man" and he was a gentleman in every respect. Ted Curtis had hunted with the old man and he told me so.

The kid, Charles Askins, Jr., was a bang-up handgun shot in the 1930s or 1940s and (it's rumored) cheated his way to the top. His writing was controversial, but it sold magazines.

Having read it all, I can honestly say that I never learned anything from Charlie Askins, Jr. In meeting him, I have the opinion that he was a butthead.

Steve

I read �Unrepentant Sinner� and came away with the same impression as dogzapper.

Askins, Jr. sure did like to kill people by bushwhacking them. IIRC he wrote a lot about hiding in the bushes along the Rio Grande and killing folks from ambush. I believe I�ve heard from some others, may be Ken Howell but I can�t recall for sure, that one of the colonel�s favorite things to do was kill people.

One anecdote he related really got to me. He was in a tank recovery unit during the war. Anyway, one time he went up to the front lines in a sector that was relatively quiet. The Americans were on one side of a river and the Germans on the other. This one German soldier would go down to the water�s edge to do his business every day (take a dump, to be blunt) in full view of the American lines. Nobody bothered him. Col. Askins finds out about this and decides to kill this guy, so waited about three hundred yards away in a building with an M1 Garand. When the guy appeared and was occupied with his �toilet�, the Col. shot and killed him. The Germans responded with a mortar barrage on the American positions.

What an a**hole! Okay, the guy was an enemy soldier and ostensibly the job in war is to kill the enemy. But for guys who have to live in close contact with the enemy one of the first rules of �real life� in a front line unit is � never stir up trouble if you don�t have to. Here the Col. kills a guy just for the fun of killing him, then he goes away and leaves the poor front line doggies to face the retribution. Who knows how many GI�s were killed or maimed because of the Colonel�s �fun�.

In retrospect, butthead is much too mild.

Jim, I tend to agree with you but I am sure that others with military experience will chme in. What is the difference between what Charlie Jr. did and what a sniper does ?

When I met Charlie Askins, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that he was one of my fans -- so I revised my intense former long-distance dislike of him (based on his writings) and figured This guy can't be all bad.

As I got to know him through later contacts, it turned out that indeed he wasn't all bad.

Just mostly bad. About 90% to 99%, as a rough guess.

His favorite sport was killing people, whether they "had it coming" or not. He hunted on many safaris in Africa, where his favorite professional hunter was a part-time PH whose main occupation as a mercenary usually involved killing black Africans. Charlie gleefully jumped at every opportunity to quit hunting four-footed game and start killing two-footed prey. I'm not sure, but I think it was Charlie or this PH who killed a black baby -- whose parents they'd killed as poachers -- rather than take the baby to a nearby native village where he could be cared-for.

It was "common knowledge" among Charlie's ex-Border Patrol colleagues that he'd gotten another BP officer out from under a murder rap by murdering the only witness.

I liked Charlie but could never admire or respect him. He gave his autobiography the most fittingly descriptive title in all of literature -- Unrepentent Sinner. The man didn't even have the slightest desire to be -- or to be considered -- good.

I'll never forget how one of his editors began the note telling us that Charlie had died: his first line was "Hell just got fuller."

The difference lies in the men themselves. What a sniper does is his job, his duty, an integral part of his "MOS." What Charlie did was his hobby. I see no kind of similarity or comparison.

One of my best friends was a "Carlos Hathcock" in the Pacific during World War Two. In his late 70s, he's still tormented by his many kills when he was a teen-aged Marine on Okinawa and other South Pacific islands. He was captured twice but killed his way (a) out of a prison camp and (b) out of custody on the way to another prison camp. Charlie would envy him.

I understood that Audie Murphy's guilt over the people he killed was what destroyed him. tom

Ray Atkinson gave an account of Askins on AR as he served under him in the Border Patrol. He said Askins was a tough guy and would just as soon shoot you in the face as anything.

I never did enjoy his writing very much and I go along with Ken Howells opinon of the man.

I hope this ripping up of gun writers ends with Askins.

I read Hell I was There and thought, "Damn!"

I read Urepentent Sinner and thought, "Damn!"

They were not the same "damn" thing.

Pumpgun, I never knew that Audie Murphy was "destroyed" by "guilt." He was killed in a light plane crash, in 1971, at the age of 47.



I met him once at King's Gun Shop, in Los Angeles, and talked with him for about an hour. We talked of guns and hunting. Movies and WWII were never mentioned. It was a pleasant conversation and he appeared to be quite "normal" to me, and seemed to be very personable and easy going.



He had married a young starlet named Wanda Hendrix, and from what I heard on the Hollywood "grapevine", they fought verbally like cats and dogs... but that's not too unusual in hundreds of thousands of marriages. He got into a bit of trouble once for beating the crap out of a man who was beating his dog nearly to death... but who could stand by and watch some a$$hole beat his dog to death?



I just never heard he was "destroyed" by guilt for having killed so many Germans in WWII.



FWIW. L.W.

I believe that the firearms writing field is like most others; there are a few bad apples and a great many good guys. When we run into a bad one, we all know who he is and we avoid him. The company of the vast majority of gun scribes is to be treasured

Most of the gun writers I know are fine, honest men who simply love firearms and hunting. It is a pleasure to be with folks like this and to count them as friends.

Most of them are fabulous riflemen and totally devoted to the sporting ethic. That's the truth.

Steve

Steve,

Like you, I believe there are bad apples in every walk of life. The only gun writers I know are on this forum. My experience with them is much the same as yours. They are great people who just happen to love guns and hunting. Much like a whole bunch of the rest of us. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I have been truly blessed to know some of the best, if only thru the wonders of the internet. the9.3guy

Then you'll be pleased to learn that I've been holding back rather than post expos�s of writers whom some of you have expressed admiration for -- whom I know to have been liars and frauds unworthy of your respect.

I much prefer to defend writers whom I knew to be worthy of your admiration but whom so many readers express intense dislike for. Even that -- though much more pleasant than exposing the seamy sides of writers unworthy of admiration -- is not exactly my idea of great fun.

Best of all is confirming the worthiness of writers whom I know to have been worthy of your deep and abiding admiration. But even this brings home the sad fact that so many of my old friends, colleagues, and mentors are dead. That isn't fun either. I appreciate the truth of the comedian's quip -- which has never given me a chuckle -- that "You know you're getting old when your address book starts filling-up with dead guys."

I never knew Francis Sell, but everything of his that I've read had "the ring" to it. A perceptive, judgemental hunter-shooter friend of mine knew Sell -- his neighbor -- well during Sell's last several years and (I'm happy to say) told me that Sell was a great example of the genuine article. I wish I'd known him.

I remember reading an artcle or excerpt by Askins in a monthly magazine some years back, which detailed his being the first to kill a man with the S & W 44 mag. I can't remember which magazine it was but at that time I wondered why they would print it. I realized that Askins came off as an arrogant, pompus bully who would probably throw tantrums if he wasn't quoted verbatum. I never read any of his ramblings after that time.

LW, I understood that he was plaged by nightmares and drank a lot as well as gambling. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. tom

A couple more writers are a source of amusement to me. A few years back I read George Leonard Herter's description of an encounter with a slick young lieutenant who collected a huge number of war trophies from front line boys, taking them on the pretext of need to study them for war intelligence. They ended up in his den back home.
I sure wish I could find that passage again. While unnamed, Sharpe was astutely described, and by one of America's most read writers.
Cheers from Darkest California,
Ross

Ross, I used to live near the writer you've just referred to, but lost all desire to meet him after something that my friend Hank White (owner of the H P White Laboratory) said about him. At the lab one day, Hank told me that he envied my ability to write, that he'd always wished he could. Then he waved his hand over toward the writer's place and said "Our neighbor over here can make the English language roll over and do tricks -- but he'll say anything to finish out a page." (I later heard the same kind of allegation from other stalwarts of American gundom.)

That was before I later lived near Elmer Keith and came to know him well. I'd read a lot of Keith's stuff, of course. So I asked Hank whether he knew Keith. "Oh, yes!" he said. "Very well." Then he told me that Keith (a) knew guns and game better than anyone else he knew, (b) was totally serious about guns and hunting, (c) received as a peer and friend anyone who shared his interest in guns and hunting, (d) was the best shot he knew, and (e) was totally and uncompromisingly honest in every way. In the decades that Elmer and I were friends, I found all this to be true of him -- plus the additional attributes that Truman Fowler told me about Elmer -- his instant recall and accurate memory for fine details. From my long familiarity with Elmer, I don't think anyone ever gave him more respect than he deserved. His editors and publishers (except Fowler and General Hatcher) certainly exploited him brutally and unmercifully.

Incidentally, during the senior Askins' last years, when he was bed-ridden and unable to keep up his commitment to the magazine (Outdoor Life, IIRC), Elmer ghost-wrote his articles and columns for him -- so that Askins, Sr, would continue to receive his stipend. I always got the impression that the older Askins and Elmer had a better, closer "father-son" relationship than Sr & Jr had -- at least as mutually esteemed writers.

I never knew most of the writers that sit in my father's library, and only now realize how many of them he did know through his job. One that always made me wonder however, is a book called "The shotgunner's book" by Colonel Charles Askins. I get him and his father( Major Charles Askins)? mixed up. What struck me as I look at it was the feeling I got when I first read it. I could not keep all his books so prioritiezed Dad's books as "signed" and " good reads"
Askins book was kept only because it has an inscription to Dad - otherwise it would have been tossed, because I did not really enjoy reading it!
To Mr. Ken Howell, did you ever meet a man from Quebec by the name of Bob Snowball? He was a good friend of Dad's and built quite a few wildcats with him, had a real dry sense of humour, also. I think there is a picture in one of the early handloader magazines in Harvey Donalson's columm with him and Mr. Donaldson ( another who was old enough to be my Grandpa!) Sure miss those grand old men....
Catnthehat

I never met Mr Snowball.

Who was your dad? What was "his job" that you mention?

My Father was A.R. "Bob" Todd. He worked for Canadian Indusries Limited - C.I.L. , for 30 years or more, and was technical directer for the Shooting Federation of Canada, worked as a venue coordinator for the Olympics, and a whole bunch of other things too numerous to mention in one post!

He knew the outdoor writers through his travels and shooting competitions. He also freelanced, but there were probably a lot of caveats in his contract with C.I.L.

I'm not too sure how many times he made our Bisley and other national teams but it was more than a couple, and starting int the late '50s, he was gone on every National team as a manager or as a venue coordinater. after C.I.L. sold out to I.V.I., he did ballistics and firearms consulting, and worked more with the I.O.C. He was truly a great man in Canadian shooting sports, and I miss him dearly.

Catnthehat

A gunwriter from the Petersen Group wrote an article on Askins after he died which was pretty succinct. He said Askins either liked you or despised you--there was no middle ground. I think he was probably right. I guess the Col. liked me because we corresponded a lot through the years. He sent me a couple of boxes of 8mm 200g partitions to test before Nosler introduced them to the public. I liked him. I really hurt for him with his unrepentant attitude. He probably wrestled with a lot of personal demons. One thing was for sure---you did not mess with him if you valued your hide.

I met Elmer Keith a very long time ago at an NRA board meeting in Washington, and spoke with him for a while. I have all his books, one of his rifles, and since I have the American Rifleman from its beginning in 1923 I have read a lot of his articles as well. My frank opinion is that the man had a genius IQ. If he had received a first class academic education he could have been anything and done anything he wanted to, in any field of endeavor that interested him, and he would have been famous not just to us but to the broad American public.

Very perceptive and right on.

He was a real [bleep]. I met him a couple of times at my buddies home which was one of his best friends (col evan quiros) I was born and raised in laredo texas and even met skeeter skelton at some of the same parties. I am part mexican and he always had something "cute to say about mexicans.
I now live in san antonio and a few months before he died he was found wandering about the state. His family had a missing posters all over town.
now he has no chanceto repent
screwnhim

I did not know the man, but find that sad. Here's a quote from a story I wrote last year called "A Conversation with Jack O'Connor" It's Jack's response to what he believes we (the general public) should consider when discussing people with colourful backgrounds.

"I can't think of anybody I've met in my lifetime that was perfect, but I'll never hold their faults against them. When the good outweighs the bad, then be happy. Life's too short to be poking around in useless space."

You were one of the witnesses to his fall from being a vital human being to a ravaged soul. Sometimes, it's best to let the world think kinder thoughts.

Safe Shooting! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Steve Redgwell
303british.com

I believe the reference for Herters comment is in his "Professional Reloading". At the time I read it
I thought he was refering to Askins ??. I have the book (somewhere).
Good Luck

Gee, I guess he must have been a sorry bastard. Too bad
we don't have 20,000 just like him on our southern border
today.

If the incident described by Mr. Howell is true, it takes Askins well out of the realm of "flawed" individuals and into the class of the most vicious sociopaths.

Listen, friends, anyone who kills a baby for pleasure and convenience, after having already killed the baby's parents, is more than simply a bad guy. He is evil , don't kid yourselves. That one action alone would get you the death penalty in many parts of the U.S.

How many people out there have any kind of respect whatsoever for Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, Dahmer, etc.? Anyone who takes pleasure in killing people is a blight on our humanity and is certainly not someone that we, as enthusiastic shooters and hunters, want to be associated with.

P17, agreed.

Ditto, in spades !!
Catnthehat

A friend who's a firearms & self-defense instructor once wrote up a list of recommended readings. Among various sections like "How to Shoot", "How to Fight," and "How to Kick A** WW2-style", he had a section entitled "How to Be a Hard-A** Bastard". The books listed were H.W. McBride's "A Rifleman Went to War" and Askins' autobiography.

Askins asked one publisher why they wouldn't handle "Unrepentant Sinner". It was gently pointed out to him that on page 1 he shoots his best friend in the leg -- for borrowing a horse without permission.

I've also been told he was tough to edit, because when given a word count he would write a fairly pure stream of consciousness until the specified count was reached -- then just stop, fold up the paper and mail it in.

John

Ross; the Herter reference you spoke of is on pg's 12 & 13 of "Professional Loading".
Rereading the reference to the "Dapper Captain" it could well have been Sharpe.
Good Luck!

Irv,
Thank you, I enjoyed the re-read.
I need to keep reminding myself of the character of the author as I refer to Sharpe often to recall old loading tool lore.
I enjoy George Leonard Herter as much as I do McManus, and almost as much as Zern.
Cheers from Darkest California,
Ross

All I know about Askins is that he was courtly polite when you ran into him at the NRA meetings. He could really turn a phrase in print and his prose was mildly, entertainly off-color by the standards of the day.

I am 71 years old and got the gun bug prior to my teen-age years, so I have read stuff written by most of the names that get mentioned when the subject of gunwriters comes up. The one guy who is head and shoulders above the rest on the first class bastard list has to be Askins Jr. A couple of his pieces are memorable. He wrote one article explaining the ideal barrel length for a center fire rifle. He claimed that 22" was too short and 24" was too long. He therefore had all his barrels cut to 23". The other article, which really tore it for me, was a character assassination piece he did several months after Jack O'Connor died, in which he sneered at everything O'Connor ever stood for or said. The guy had no class.

I enjoyed Askins' writing very much when I was an uncritical teenager. In retrospect, however, the stories he told on himself proved him to be a felon and a stone killer.

On the other hand, I wouldn't much enjoy living next door to Papa Hemingway either, and he wrote some pretty fair hunting stories.

Old thread but I had to comment after reading his Autobiography.
I would certainly not care to be his buddy. He clearly liked to kill people for fun. He went beyond what a hard core fighter would do. He killed for fun. Sport.
It was interesting he was in Ordinance and not in the Infantry. He easily have gone that route but did not. He was no Rambo.
I was kind of disappointed in the book after reading Ayoob's descriptions of his gun fights. Ayoob writes better.
After reading up on Keith, I benefited. After Askins I wanted to take a shower.

Re: dogzapper's comment that Askin's was rumored to have cheated his way to the top:

Before WWII the main pistol game was NRA bullseye (the only other game was PPC, based on the FBI course). Then, as now, there were three parts to bullseye pistol: .22, centerfire and .45. Centerfire could be any centerfire round. So Askins got the bright idea of adapting a Colt Woodsman Match pistol to the .22 Velo Dog cartridge, which was an obsolescent centerfire cartridge about the size and power of a .22 LR. I don't recall if he had to cut the case down in length or was able to use the cartridges intact. In any event, the obvious advantage was it had the recoil of a .22 LR, significantly less than the .32 and .38 caliber centerfire revolvers that were then favored for that class, clearly a benefit in timed (5 shots in 20 sec) and rapid fire (5 shots in 10 sec), which accounts for 2/3 of the overall score.

He actually shot a few matches with that gun, but IIRC he didn't actually win a championship with it. I believe the next year, the NRA modified its centerfire rules so that a centerfire pistol had to be at least .32 caliber. In his writings, Askins was clearly proud of the way he gamed the system to gain an advantage over his competitors. Whether it would be considered cheating depends on your idea of sportsmanship - it was definitely gamesmanship. But he was a national pistol champ so he clearly was a top notch target shooter.

I also read somewhere (possibly on the 'fire) that he had a dislike of Jack O'Connor because O'Connor replaced his father as Shooting Editor of Outdoor Life when the elder Askins wasn't yet ready to go.

IIRC, the Border Patrol forbade him to flout the obvious intent of the NRA match rules, but he went ahead anyway.

Also IIRC, he did indeed win a championsship match with his modified Woodsman, and as a consequence, the NRA modified its match rules to specify that "centerfire" comprised any handgun that was .32 or larger.

Word was that until Harlon Carter white-washed him, he was also persona non grata with the NRA.

I don't know whether any of the above is factual � and don't lose any sleep over any of it, one way or the other.

Interesting old thread.

I also read Unrepentant Sinner many years ago and finished it feeling like Askins was someone I'd just as soon not know.

I wondered if I was the only one.

It was indeed gamesmanship. Wheater or not it was cheating has nothing to do with ones idea of sportsmanship only if the written rules are broken or nat and it is clear that thye were not

According to Askins if memory serves correctly, he was hunting in Vietnam and he was fired on and he worked his way around and to the aggressor and shot him in the neck withthe S&W M-29 44 mag

Whether you liked Askins or not, there are out-of-control areas of the United States where we could use a platoon of men just like him. I'd like to see a few Charley Askins-types turned loose on some of our present day criminal gangs.

Agreed, Washington, D.C. first.

I have Unrepentant Sinner and have read it a couple of times. There is a consistent theme running throughout: Askins seemed to relish shooting unsuspecting people from ambush. A few of his kills were shootouts, but some of them were pretty cold-blooded. What always struck me as odd is that he tells of shooting a German soldier from behind, deliberately shooting him in the kidney with a Colt .38 Special. Then, seemingly out of character for him, he loads the wounded soldier in his jeep and takes him to an aid station.

I've always admired Askins, Sr. (a Major), who seemed like a decent guy who loved (and lived) to hunt birds. He managed to eke out enough of a living as a writer to support his birdhunting, but was hampered by a bad marriage and I'm sure the pain of having a psychopathic son. You can tell early on in the pages of Unrepentant Sinner that the reason Askins, Sr. pulled some strings and got his son a job in the Forest Service in the wilds of Montana was to try to keep him out of trouble.

Soon after Askins, Jr. died, Massad Ayoob, who has researched and written about gunfights for 40 years, wrote an article about him. He told the good and most of the bad, and strongly hinted that in the modern view of law enforcement, Askins, Jr. would be a criminal.

I'm going to have to read this book, hadn't heard of it before.

I've heard of it and seen it for sale many times, now I have to read it...


Travis

I'll loan you a copy after you buy it.

It was at either the first or second Bianchi Cup, Askins attended as a VIP. Ray Chapman and John Bianchi were courting the NRA (or perhaps the NRA was courting them) to sanction the match and start a "practical shooting event" (the name changed in 83 to "action shooting" at Jeff Cooper's insistance). Anyway, Askins was seated at the head table during the awards dinner, wearing a cowboy hat and looking flamboyant and bored. IIRC, Bill McMillan (ex Olympic pistol shooter, Marine Officer and San Diego Deputy) was giving a short talk. Right in the middle of the talk, Askin stands up, looks out over the crowd and then just walks out, totally disrupting the presentation. He never came back, nor did Ray invite him back IIRC. He also wrote a critical piece for the American Rifleman after the 1978 US IPSC championsip that was egregious enough that the champion, Ross Seyfried wrote a response---this was years before Ross had ever penned an article---maybe in a way, Askin is responsible for Ross' writing career.

Well, it is something we can thank him for.

Sounds about par...


Travis

In addition to titling his autobiography appropriately, Col. Askins prefaced the book with a few lines from the poem, "The Men that Don't Fit In" by Robert Service. This was another apt introduction, since Col. Askins certainly did not fit into the modern era. He was of a type few people today have the stomach to handle.

There's a race of men that don't fit in
a breed that can't stay still.
So they break the hearts of kith and kin
and they roam the world at will.

hmmm..,

I really enjoyed Askins articles about buffalo hunting and his wildcat experiments with various 8mm calibers.

Bought a copy of Unrepenant Sinner and read it several times. My first thought was, 'this guy is a sneak,back shooter who avoided combat'. Second thought was, 'why would anyone document the fact they were a cold blooded backshooter?'

Self doubts lead me to believe I just was missing some great literary insite. Guess not. Askins hated all female relatives, started killing randomly at a young age and felt no compassion for anyone except his father. All signs of a serial killer.

Somehow, I grudingly sympothise with the man. The quote from Robert Serice is on of my favorites.

O

Never met Charlie's dad.
Wish I had.
From all accounts, he was a man to ride the river with.

When he was laid-up too sick, too long, to write his columns, Elmer ghosted 'em for him.
(IIRC, he was JO'C's predecessor at Outdoor Life.)

When Elmer was bed-ridden in the hospital, terribly paralyzed after his stroke, Charlie opined that if Elmer had any guts, he'd kill himself.
Charlie offered to "off" Elmer as a favor, and our colleagues gasped with shock and horror at what they saw as his callousness � but I think that may well have been just Charlie's weird approximation of compassion.

From what I have read, Askins, Jr. had a very deep hatred for JOC. The reason for this was that Askins felt that JOC took Askins, Sr s' job from him at Outdoor Life.

If Elmer wrote Askins Srs. articles for him, because the senior Mr. Askins was too ill to write them himself, that does not seem to be the case, as it appears Mr. Askins, Sr. was not physically able to write, therefore Outdoor Life needed a replacement.

If this is true, then it would appear that Askins, Jr. was wrong about JOC taking his dad's job.

I remember reading an article several years ago, which gave an account of Askins, Jr. actually committing a murder and getting away with it. It has been a long time ago, but it seems like it involved a person crossing the river into Texas.

I believe the article was published after Askins' death.

Didn't he give up the ghost almost the same way as Elmer?

Is this the last word on ol' Charlie?

LINK

I don't want to say anything beyond this.

I suspect that article just scratches the surface.

Very informative article. But I do enjoy Mas Ayoob's writing too.

I'm glad this thread was revived. I had not heard/read about all of this. Glad i know now. Jr sounds like he should have been in prison or a mental ward.

Reading some of these posts does make one examine one�s first impression. Mine was, yes, this guy is just a flat out psycho a�hole, a bushwhacker and a backshooter.

But if truth be known, he was probably just a man out of time. Had his career been in the 1860-1900 era, we�d probably be reading about him alongside Wild Bill Hickock, Wyatt Earp and a few other gunfighters whose exploits outshone their somewhat questionable (or downright criminal) activity that often gets ignored.

Nah, I'm pretty sure that your first impression was more accurate. :-)

Didn't really say that right with my comparison.

What I should have said was that, if truth be known, a lot of celebrated gunfighters from the Old West, while certainly very skilled with guns and possessing steely nerves, were probably flat out psycho a--holes, bushwhackers and backshooters as well.

Very likely. The Col. was cut from a cloth few today are prepared to handle.

Audie Murphy died in a plane crash. He was a teetotler, liked to gamble (IIRC) and from his audobiography, had issues, but guilt wasn't apparent from what he wrote.

I read that Murphy contemplated suicide and toward the end slept alone in his locked garage, for weeks at a time,with a .45 under his pillow. Sure sounds like post dramatic stress syndrome.

I love to see all the guys who talk a good fight about how to handle situations have to face what they are asking for.

For so many the "solution" to the border problem????.....Shoot, shovel,shut up! What they'd do if someone threatened them of their family?????.....Meet Mr. Smith & Wesson!

Yes, Johnny Badass rides well on the internet. "Killing is my business, and business is GOOD!" Everyone wants to act tough and talk about how things "should" be done......until they actually meet an individual who embodies those ideas. Then they piss down their leg and tremble.....because those rare individuals ARE scary.

The impression I get is that Askins Jr. was one of those rare birds who made no excuses and gave no quarter. He did whatever it took to stay alive and accomplish the goals he had set for himself. He was honest and never tried to make excuses for what he did and how he did it.....and that honesty likely carried over to all parts of his life. I'm sure he could be your best friend or your worst nightmare......your choice.

Did he "play fair"??? Of course not and anyone who does "play fair" during a shooting situation deserves to die. Did he "bushwhack" and "backshoot"??? Sometimes, but I don't see that as a fault. He was in a life-or-death situation.

If you have decided to kill a man, you should do so in the most effecient way possible with the least chance of getting yourself hurt. Dead is dead.....they die just as well when shot in the back and don't present near as much danger to the shooter. Tha classic stand-up, face-to-face gun battles seen on the movies work for Matt Dillon because he has read the script and already knows he won't be hurt.....in real life things aren't so certain.

So what if he seemed to enjoy what he did. He never pretended to seek the approval of others and didn't believe what he did was in any way wrong. If a man believes in what he is doing, and is VERY good at it......why shouldn't he be proud and enjoy his work.

I believe if I had known Askins, I would have liked the man and gotten along well because I treasure honesty and lack of pretense in a man. I believe he would have been a great friend.....and a terrible enemy if wronged. I have to say I like that attitude.

"He never pretended to seek the approval of others and didn't believe what he did was in any way wrong. If a man believes in what he is doing, and is VERY good at it......why shouldn't he be proud and enjoy his work."

Bundy, Dahmer, Night Stalker,etc. all probably thought the same thing.

He was hyper-sensitive to sounds, which is why he slept alone in his garage, which was soundproofed. He's not the only one to have a pistol nearby when he sleeps, however. Undoubtedly he had PTSD, and probably at least gave suicide a passing though. Almost everyone has.

He died in 1971 at 47 years of age. I remember it, but until I checked, thought it was later than that.

As for Askins, I never read much of him, only his articles which I thought I thought the language was precious. (He alwasy referred to England as "the tight little Isle, if I'm thinking about the same man.) I'm convinced he was a psycho from what everyone says here (including those who knew him.) Can't say I am deflated by all this negative information, as I never had much of an opinion of him in the first place.

What we certainly do NOT need is a platoon of psychos like Askins, who feel killing babies is a matter of convenience.

In the immortal words of Col. Chivington....."Nits make lice".

They were not taking the side of the law against lawlessness now were they

What gives you the idea that he killed babies???

Charlie's favorite PH in Africa was also at times a mercenary. Charlie liked the occasional opportunity to quit hunting four-legged critters with him, to go hunting two-legged critters (ivory-poachers, rebels, etc) instead.

Once, they wiped-out a party of poachers, and it was alleged that they found a live baby among the men's and women's bodies and killed it rather than take it back to a village.

True?

Untrue?

I have no reason to believe or to doubt the allegation. But the story has made the rounds, and some have eagerly welcomed it as another insight into Charlie.

It wasn't mentioned in his book but I did read an article he wrote once where him & his dad rode horseback across west Texas when he was quite young. Along the way they bumped into some bad guys that had just robbed a bank & they told the elder Askins that they wanted their horses. Daddy Askins had a shotgun across the front of his saddle & told them they couldn't have the horses, when one of them started to pull a gun he got a face full of lead shot for his trouble.
The younger Charlie (maybe 13-14) thought it was great fun...maybe thats where he got the killer instinct so young
I remember Charlie Jr. saying he got off his horse & took the dead man's gun & still had it after many years.

Dick

Idaho1945 I have read the same story but I thought charlie jr got in on part of the shooting (I could be wrong about that). I think the border patrol at time was a very different place and those guys had to be mean to survive. I have no doubt that Jordan, Skeeter and a few other guys may have shot guys that in this day and time it would have been a crime. Didn't Jordan have a accident in a border patrol office? I also read somewhere that Jordan shot the cowboy hat off a mexican floating down the river. I don't know if any of that is true.

Charlie Jr found not only something he was good at but found out he could make a lot money from it. I had never heard about killing the baby until this thread and I hope its not true.

Dink

I don't think the border has changed, but the Border Patrol certainly has.

I know a WWII POW who upon his liberation told me of killing a German at the top of a tree, begging for his life and not getting it. He is a keeper in my book, albiet not one without scars....

Revenge and retribution follow most men in their lives, even the very best ones, when a crosshair is upon them. When that crosshair rules your life do you become a willing target or do you fight it, and do you close your eyes knowing it is gone forever, or do you believe the contrary?

I personally cannot answer that, but many I know find that crosshair is perpetually placed upon them, to a certain degree.

What about Askins best friend George Parker? I read somewhere that Askins said he was the bad one. I've never been able to find much info on him.

Allways like these 20/20 hindsight threads where people evaluate someones behavior from 50-100+ years ago by today's poor values and liberal ideas.Tells you what people think and what their lack of values are. More people packing guns today than ever,because they have learned the truth. That they alone are responsible for their own safety and security.The border is a far rougher place today than in either Askin's time.It is just that our liberal politicians are in denial of it and their lackey's the media, hide it.
I don't like the horse that I have very much,but he is mine and woe unto the misdirected who forcibly tries to change that. The judicial system in this country would rather give a murderer a life sentence than do what needs to be done by executing them that need it. So who is punished then? The taxpayers that's who. You and me.I've enjoyed reading about the Askins and probably don't agree on everything they did either. I wasn't in their shoes when all these events happened though. "Only those not in the Arena find it oh so necessary to critisize those that are".There is still snake stomping going on in this country without the stompers immediately calling the law at all because citizens have learned that it doesn't bother our liberal courts to finacially ruin you, to exonerate you of wrongdoing. Way I see it . Magnum_Man

The problem with folks who like to kill others is that "others" extends beyond "bad guys." I have a problem with people killing other people unless it's in self defense, or in time of war. Retribution killing may have its place, but that place should be VERY narrowly defined.

Psychos who like to kill people simply like to kill people, and the type of people they chose to kill are usually those over whom they have a tremendous advantage. It's one thing to kill an enemy soldier from ambush, it's another to kill an enemy civilian from ambush. Those who don't recognize the difference are a menace to society.

If Charlie was such then why did he not kill anyone after 1957?

Askins shooting an illegal in the back while wading back across the Rio Grande, or shooting a baby in Rhodesia are irrelevant to my feelings about him. I was around him a couple of times and was overwhelmed by what an ass he was. No "liberal ideas" involved.

Details??

I had not heard nor read before about his love of killing.

However, I recall reading him as a lad and not much liking his style/personality at that time. Came across as an egotistical sort.

JWP if you asking about the mexican he shot in the back he talks about it in his book. I think he fell on ground and the mexican almost took his pistol from him. It pissed him off and as the mexican was running across he river he shot him in the back. Askins stated they found the body a couple days later but he did not own up to doing the shooting.

Dink

This statement in red is what I was asking details about. The guy that he shot in the back was after he attempted to take Charlies gun. I read about that

Another story about Askins : he gave a talk one winter at a quail plantation near Tallahassee and was bragging about the number of men he had killed - I think he claimed 32 or so - and then said their was still one more to go. He bragged that he planned on ending his own life when the time came.
I never cared much for his writing either.

Did he?

Go back to page 5 and read the second from bottom entry.
Greg

I only see 4 pages on my screen

This post went to the first post on page 5 on my screen

Repeated:
It was at either the first or second Bianchi Cup, Askins attended as a VIP. Ray Chapman and John Bianchi were courting the NRA (or perhaps the NRA was courting them) to sanction the match and start a "practical shooting event" (the name changed in 83 to "action shooting" at Jeff Cooper's insistance). Anyway, Askins was seated at the head table during the awards dinner, wearing a cowboy hat and looking flamboyant and bored. IIRC, Bill McMillan (ex Olympic pistol shooter, Marine Officer and San Diego Deputy) was giving a short talk. Right in the middle of the talk, Askin stands up, looks out over the crowd and then just walks out, totally disrupting the presentation. He never came back, nor did Ray invite him back IIRC. He also wrote a critical piece for the American Rifleman after the 1978 US IPSC championsip that was egregious enough that the champion, Ross Seyfried wrote a response---this was years before Ross had ever penned an article---maybe in a way, Askin is responsible for Ross' writing career.

I have to say folks that this is disgusting, and this kind of thread is a disservice to legitimate gun owners everywhere because it just serves to reinforce a stereotype. Heck I love guns and it makes me sick.

Liking guns and or like Charles are not intertwined

What makes you sick?

The unpleasant facts?

The fact that the unpleasant facts are coming to light again?

I'm too stupid, I guess, to see how revealing complexity can possibly be considered to be "reinforc[ing] a stereotype."

I enjoy reading about the personal lives of the older gunwriters. All most of us know, the ones of us who did not actualy know them or live close to them, is what they wrote about.

I wonder what many of them were like day to day.

I have always wondered how some of them could afford to make trips to Africa year after year, when it seems they did nothing but write. I don't think writing for magazines pays that well.

Askins was an Army officer, and I am pretty sure a Cols. retirement pay would not let him afford to go year after year to Africa.

I said what I did because I see that everyday there are anti gun folks and non-shooters that think of or portray gun owners as just a bunch of crazy dangerous lunatics. So as gun owners we have to fight this stereotype by putting up a PR fight to show that we are no different than sportsmen that like to fish , golf,etc. So when it turns out that a stone cold killer was able to rise to a level of celebrity and some seeming acceptance in the shooting fraternity as this guy did then I see it as a chance for them to go see I told you they were all just a bunch of cruel killers.

I just finished reading Col. Askins Swan Song letter in the August, 1987 American Rifleman. All I can say is, Wow! You fellas are right about this dude, he was absolutely unrepentent.

Howell thanks for posting in this thread.Facts are facts and thanks for sharing them.

I agree with Bauer;I have been keeping an eye on this thread, and found it very interesting. Sometimes the truth is ugly, but it is what it is. Saying this thread is "a disservice to legitimate gun owners everywhere" is absurd. Burying your head in the sand because something is unpalatable to you wont make it go away.

I would like to thank the posters who actually had some first hand experiences with Col. Askins for giving their side of the story. Good stuff

How does it promote gun ownership by ignoring the man's autobiography? And someone said to "shoot, shovel, and shut up" while Askins did only the first. He was vociferous in promoting his cold bloodedness, in fact.

To take up for the man in the face of overwhelming evidence that he was unrepentant is plain dumb. It's like asking the public to not believe their eyes.

Gene L, the post you quoted is anti Askins. Not pro

In spite of 3rd and 4th hand stories, I doubt that Askins killed anyone that didn't deserve it.

Especially poachers and babies.

That Pollyanna doubt doesn't jibe with what I know about ol' Charlie.

I've read this entire thread with real interest. Re-reading Mas Ayoob's article (referenced in Ken Howell's post on page 6 of this thread) was good. Ayoob knew Askins, and the article was, I think, a pretty fair representation of the kind of man Askins was.

I appreciate the contributions to this thread by Ken and the others who knew Askins. He may have been a SOB, but there's no doubt he was an interesting SOB and his history is fascinating, if macabre.

Your doubt is wrong!

Askins,Junior did have a darkside, ......well documented.

Continue to doubt if you must, he won't be doing anymore backshooting in this world. There are some rules of engagement and surrender that should be followed.

'Nuff said.

If you knew Charlie and spent any time with him, he'd leave you no room or reason for doubt or wonder.

He was truly a complex individual with more than one facet, but some traits and attitudes were as blunt, as clear, and as uncomplicated as a swift kiss of brass knuckles in the snot locker.

Ne'er a suggestion of subtlety or innuendo in years of chats.

No kumbaya, either.

And no hint or trace of jocularity that I can recall.

You keep bring up babies, even after Mr. Howel said that it was rumored, but not proved.





I suspect if it were true Mr. Howel would have know

Not proven to me.

True and I suspect you would have known

Don't recall that ever coming-up in any of my chats with Charlie.

May have happened after the last time when I had a chat with Charlie.

I have no way of knowing whether that ever actually happened � with Charlie or anybody else.

That is my whole point to Gene we just do not know

There is no doubt Col. Askins was of a type too strong for the stomachs of most modern males. A century or more ago, his characteristics, or at least his attitudes, would have been much more mainstream. We now live in a "kinder, gentler" era.

I've five or six of Askins Jr's books on the shelf. One leaves the reading of Asian Jungle - African Bush with an entirely different idea of his personality than from Unrepentant Sinner. The former book benefited from the editorial services of E. B. Mann and John Amber. It's price has dropped recently on Amazon, ABE, and other used book sources, and it's worth the price to read Askin's descriptions of hunting with Harry Pope's grandson Allen and his wife Yvonne.

A strange coincidence: Col. Kurtz in Conrad's Heart of Darkness is one of the more enigmatic characters of literature. In Coppola's movie version, "Apocalypse Now", one of the special oddities of Kurtz's military career was his paratroop training at the age of 40+. Our Col. Askins was similarly trained at about the same age. On his own in SE Asia, unlike Coppola's Kurtz, Askins did not go native but went hunting with the natives.

--Bob

I can't argue with that

I do.

It's an unwarranted, unfounded affront to the men of yore.

How so? How'bout Wyatt Earp, killed a few men and it is rumored that he killed a lot of cowboysfor years and left them alyong in the desert

You seem to assume, you and a few others, that unwarranted killing was somehow acceptable back in the day. I think Ken Howell's point is that assumption is a bit insulting to our forefathers.

As for "provable," nothing in his writing is provable, is it? We're taking his word that his books are "true."

In his bokk did he claim to have killed any babies? Yes or No

No affront at all. Just the way it was. I said his attitudes would have been much more mainstream; not necessarily the exact standard of the day. A century or more agone, many people thought very little of killing blacks. Indians were considered savages and often targeted for extermination. People were killed over minor disagreements, by modern standards. It was simply a different time.

I agree with Ken Howell. In most times and in most cultures, killing another person was a relatively rare event, and those who did so generally had what Massad Ayoob calls "The Mark of Cain" on them. That is, they were regarded by others in the society with some fear and suspicion and set apart from most of their fellow men. This leaves aside war, of course, where soldiers were "given permission" to take another man's life, or self-defense.

It is certainly fair to say that punishments were harsher in the past than they are today, particularly for lesser crimes. However, as a rule, when those punishments were applied, it was on the basis of society judging and passing sentence, via some sort of legal system, rather than an individual being "judge, jury and executioner." I think in the past, as today, that is considered an exceptional event, and a person who performs such a thing, particularly repeatedly, as apparently Col. Askins did, would also stand outside the norm, in any time or place. I believe that is what Mr. Howell meant. I'm sure that he'll be along to correct me if I'm mis-stating his position.

A different time, but killing people for fun wasn't part of the equation 100 years ago. Or any other time unless you're a sicko.

As for his claims, I haven't read his books, so I don't know that he didn't, so I can't answer yes or no. I have read what others say who have read his books and his lust to kill, which is so universally noted by those people, it can't be discounted. I don't think he himself discounted it, in fact. This wasn't back in the Dark Ages or during the reign of Vlad the Impaler, it was 60 or so years ago. So the "different time" thing just doesn't have any weight.

Perhaps the saddest thing is he apparently WAS unrepentant, which pretty much insured his place in hell.

I'm surprised that anyone would defend this guy in the face of all those who knew him who called him an asswipe. Apparently the ability to write a paragraph gives immunity from criticism.

Good post, Gene.

I am more surprised that you continue to post something as a fact that you admit that you in fact do not know if it is true or not. Now that is ass wipe stuff, righ there

I haven't continued to post any falsehood as a fact. It was reported here, by a man who has been in those circles where this rumor was widely believed by folks who knew Atkins. (We're talking about killing the parents of the baby, and the baby). He, himself said he killed 27 men and someone said he didn't count Mexicans on this number hereported he enjoyed it, sought it out for the pleasure of killing humans. He reported every thing alleged in this post except the baby (and possibly its parents.) So, say we don't put them in the talley. That's still a lot of death on his hands. I never read in any of his articles where he actually shot one when he was in fear of his life.

Where is that posted, Gene


Here ya go I'll make it easy for you

There's a big difference between rumor and admitted/confessed fact. Putting credence in rumors is sewing farts to a moonbeam.

Historically, gunmen of the old West didn't kill all that many people. For example, historians agree that Hickok probably killed half a dozen men, Billy the Kid perhaps 8 or 10, and Bill Langley probably fewer than 5, despite the wild claims of dozens of corpses littering the landscape at the hands of these men. The rumors of murders done were rooted in the fanciful dime novels of the day, and propagated by envious souls who had nothing better to do than tell tall tales. Langley was hanged, and both Hickok and William Bonney were shot to death. Most gunmen died violent deaths, of course.

Langley is known to have had numerous bad actors roaming Texas claiming to be him, and his "rumored" tally of murders was inflated three or four times higher than the actual number of murders he committed. Such imposture is thought to have inflated the death tally of other gunmen, too, including Wes Hardin.

It is entirely possible that Wyatt Earp committed vengeance killings after his brothers were shot in Tombstone, but the killings he admitted to were all within the loose limits of his authority as a lawman. Rumors, schmumors.

It is worth noting that like Askins Jr, the most prolific murderer of the American West, John Wesley Hardin, confessed to the killings of 40-odd men. Some folks scoff at that number, but at least one of his biographers, a noted Western scholar whose name escapes me at the moment, believes the number was actually higher than his 42 or 43 claimed kills. Hardin was not a sworn peace officer, but his role in the Taylor-Sutton war/feud was arguably as righteous and as lawful as the killings committed by the Sutton Regulators... the difference between outlaw and lawman in Reconstruction Texas was largely a matter of who your allegiance was to. In other words, there were some great similarities between Askins and Hardin.

Hardin admitted to his homicidal tally, as did Askins. Hardin believed in taking every advantage in a gunfight, including back-shooting and ambush, as did Askins.

Wyatt Earp never admitted to those things. I'm not saying he was as pure as the driven snow, but I think it's hard to say he was in the same class of killer as Charlie Askins Jr. Hardin was, but not Earp.

I'd say that Wyatt Earp was little different than Charlie or any number of the old gun fighters


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyatt_Earp#Cowboy_revenge

How does making Wyatt Earp look bad make Charles Askins look better?

First off I didn't make Wyatt look bad. Facts are factas and history is history.
Not trying to make Charlie lokk good or bad, but the old days were vastly different than today and Charlie wasn't much differrent than many of the old timers

Earp hunting down his brothers' shooters is far different from what is described to have been done by Col Askins.

"Eye for an eye" vs. killing for pleaseure AND bragging about it place the two men in completely different catagories IMHO.

Askins sounds like a serial killer that had a badge.

How do you know that Earp didn't enjoy the revenge murder?

There was about 80 years difference in Wyatt Earp's time than in Charles Askins time. Second, so far as is known, Earp didn't kill people for pleasure. Revenge, maybe, after his brother was killed and another was crippled, but not for sport.

Charlie wasn't much different from Jeff Dahmer, for that matter. It's a matter of what's acceptable in the view of history that's important. Wyatt Earp passed the test, Charles Askins apparently has not.

Killing people for sport has never been widely acceptable in a relatively civilized society.

Niether Earp nor Askins were ever convicted of murder or manslaughter. Dahmer was a canibla Askins was not, bad comparison. I am not sure were you get the Killing Men for sport.
I am not defending Askins, but let's not assume what we do not know

Article By Ayoob

On another night, Askins used the Remington autoloading shotgun, loaded with the 00 buckshot he called "blue whistlers." He recounted:

"They came out of the shadows and, as it was brightest moonlight, I could see every manjack had a long gun in his hands. We let them get up to within nine paces of us and I fired the first shot.

"I had the old Remington with its 9shot magazine and I knocked down the first two rannies in as many shots. I then switched my attention to the other three who did not like the heat. They ran back into Mexico, a distance of about 60 yards and opened fire.

"An interesting facet of this little exchange was that the lobo in the lead had an old Smith & Wesson .44 Russian. Despite the fact that he had a load of my 00 buckshot through his middle and one of the boys had hit him spang on the breastbone with a .351 slug, he dropped to his knees behind a cottonwood sapling and kept right on shooting.

"The .44 Russian is a single-action and this bravo had to thumb the hammer back for each shot. He got off three rounds before a second charge of my buckshot ended his career,

"Quite as interesting, really, was the second gunman who had a Westley Richards 10 gauge loaded with Winchester High Speed #5 shot. We had killed him before he could touch off either barrel. A most happy circumstance since the distance between both parties was only nine steps. I have the Westley Richards today, a memento of lively times long past." [2]

Today, Johnnie Cochran would be hired by the families of the deceased to sue Charlie and the whole Border Patrol for opening fire on the heavily armed gang without warning. Yet doing as they did undoubtedly saved multiple Patrolmen from being killed or maimed. As the saying goes, "Things were different then."

Isn't that precisely what you've been doing?

Being GUILTY and being convicted are two different things. Ask OJ.

Agree with Gene's previous post 100%. The degree of crime since Roman law has often hinged on motivation. Revenge, while not a Christian ideal, is completely different from pleasure or killing indiscriminately. Thus killing in War is different than murder although the actual act may have been the same - killing.

the person who plays fair in a gun fight more often than not ends up dead

Ayoob Article

Weapon Retention

Weapon retention is the art and science of retaining control of your firearm when a criminal tries to disarm you and turn your firearm against you. Plan A is to execute a technique and peel the offender off the gun. If that can't be achieved, Plan B is to shoot him.

There wasn't much in the way of gun retention techniques in Charlie's time, and Plan B was his Plan A. He made it work more than once. He recounted the following in our American Handgunner Annual in 1988:

"I got to my feet and made a run at this coyote and just as I reached him, I tripped and fell down. This bastardo, as quick as a cat , grabbed my gun, which I had drawn, and standing over me commenced to tussle enthusiastically to get it away.

"I had no illusions as to what he'd do if he succeeded. He had thoughtfully wrapped his hands around the cylinder and while I had my finger on the trigger I could not fire the weapon because he would not permit the cylinder to turn.

"Very energetically I rolled up on my shoulders and kicked this sonofabitch in the belly. It broke him loose from my pistol. He wasted no time. He ran for the river which was only 30 steps away. I saw him very clearly against all the lights of Juarez and I let him run until he was in the Old Rio Grande up to his knees.

"I held the gold bead front sight in the white-outlined rear notch and put the gold right in his back just at the belt line. On the shot he pitched forward as though spanked with a baseball bat.

"Three days later the BP Chief told me, 'They dragged a dead Mex out of the river of the Socorro Headgates yesterday. The U.S. Consul in Juarez told me.' I didn't say anything. I wasn't any too proud of the fact that I had stumbled and the wetback had almost killed me with my own gun. (A customized Colt New Service .44-40.)"

Allowing the opportunity to get shoot is not at all good

Ayoob Article




If Askins killed only for please, then why was his last in 1957?

The thing I've learned from this thread is that if ever in a poop-hits-the-fan situation such as a collapse of society......I'd want folks like Askins on my side. I already knew that as he was honest and didn't pretend to be something he wasn't.

What I've also learned is that there are a hell of a lot of folks here at the Campfire that I wouldn't want anywhere near me.

When killing time comes I don't want someone who is busy worrying that all the "rules" have been followed and trying to give my opponent a "fair chance". I want lead in the air and bodies to hit the ground......as fast as possible with as little danger to me and mine as can be arranged.

And I damn sure don't want to listen to a lot of crying later about what was done. I'd much prefer one who "enjoyed" killing that one who drove me up the wall with hand wringing and whimpering.

Askins enjoyed it.

That's the difference.

It's probably not a good idea to spend any more time than necessary around someone who has demonstrated that he enjoys killing people.

The last time I saw Charlie (NRA or SCI convention hall � he and I were old friends by then), I was with a man whom Charlie didn't like. He snarled at us and abruptly turned away when I greeted him. I wouldn't dare to entrust my back to such a man in any sort of tense bullets-may-fly-any-second situation.

I understand your point Ken, but I'd feel very comfortable. Just as in the situation you mention....Askins didn't "pretend" to like the man and acted on that feeling.

As I stated earlier, I believe a man would know at all times where he stood with Askins and I like that. I have some of the same tendencies and although it is uncomfortable for some (that's why I tend to be a loner)....I don't "pretend" to like someone just because it is socially expected.

I feel that's the "problem" with Askins.....he never tried to be "politically correct" and said what he meant. Most can't handle raw honesty.

The problem with Askins was,...by all accounts (including his own) he got off on killing people.

He wrote about the killings he could legally justify.

I suspect there were some he didn't write about.

Agree.

All of this strikes me as very "holier than thou".

I see the same posturing when I suggest that it is OK to enjoy the kill when hunting.

Well,...I don't mind considering myself holier than a cold blooded killer.

I realize that it's faint praise,..but I accept it.

Askins sounds a lot like John Wesley Hardin. Same cloth. Some remember Hardin fondly.

When push comes to shove, homicide doesn't care which direction your enemy is facing.

Audie Murphy killed two Italian officers who were riding away. Shot them in the back. He writes about it. We hail Murphy. However, some would have called those killings murder.

I'm not defending Askins. But I'm simply not going to pass judgements from heresay.

It is quite possibly true that he was a sociopath. Perhaps he had a "taste" for it. Or, maybe it was all made up.

The account mentioned where he shot a German soldier in the kidney was a result of the German soldier sabotaging army vehicles. I'm wondering if the tampering ceased after that.

But one can't hail John W Hardin in one breath and condemn Askins in the other.

One can't call him a back-shooter as if it's purjorative and say Murphy was a saint.

One cannot truly vilify a man who shoots an enemy at arms length and laud the man who shoots one from ambush at 500 yards. Or the artilleryman who does the same enmass from 10,000 yards!

Killing, whether intimately or remotely, is what man is good at.

I get the same distasteful feeling when I see a goose hunter laughing like a schoolgirl when his goose plummets from the sky and bounces across the cornfield. I believe there are a lot of men who kill geese and enjoy it, who never truly faced another man who would have killed them given the chance.

Again, I'm not defending Askins. But sanctimony aside, he saw some things.

Dan

There were.

What makes you think people like Askins would be on your side?

Gene...we already know that there would be people like Askins on the other side. It would be nice to have a few to balance the ledger.

Dan

A man like Charlie is exactly who I'd want by my side if the bullets started flying. A man with his ability and experienced would increase my chances of survival by lowering the enemy numbers quickly

No, it wouldn't. I'd like people like Teddy Roosevelt on my side. Or Melvin Purvis, for that matter. Thing about psychotics is they don't really have a "side."

Good post

Even if I could be sure that Charlie was "on my side," I couldn't trust him not to shoot me in the back for whatever "reason" might move him to action at the time.

� a lot more coldly than Hickok killed his own deputy!

Do you know more about Charlie than you have stated or is this a gut feeling?

I expect if it was you and Charlie Askins in a lifeboat, it wouldn't be two of you for very long.

- Tom

I know a lot more about Charlie than I'm going to post. Hasn't the tenor of my posts hinted as much?

More to the point, I know a lot more about Charlie than you do.

So your conjectured assessment of Charlie and mine are bound to differ.

Understandable.

OK by me.

You've discerned the drift!

Ken

Hickock was deeply troubled by the killing of his deputy. At the same time, Hickock was supposed to have murdered a man with a hoe in front of a child. Killers all.

Dan

I forget whom G Gordon Liddy was referring-to (speaking of a couple of the others who became infamous for their doin's in Watergate) �

White House conspirator A, he said, would knock your mother over the side (as HMS Titanic was going down) to take her place in the lifeboat.

White House conspirator B, he said, would knock his mother over the side to take her place in the lifeboat.

I think that I can guess what he'd say about Charlie.

A man with a hoe, or a man with a 'ho?

This quote from M Ayoob in the previously given link puts much of this controversy to rest. It seems that even old Charlie agreed with the esteemed Dr Howell's opinion.

Before anybody else leaps forward to put a calculated pejorative twist on it, let me mention that Earp shot a cowboy in the back.

The cowboy, expecting to make an easy dollar, had taken money to kill Earp. He flung a shot at Earp as he galloped past.

Earp whirled and shot him as he went by.

Nothing cold or calculated there!

But it'd be oh, so easy to say only that Earp shot an ordinary cowboy in the back.

I think its kinda funny that a few people have said they would like Col. Askins on their side if the SHTF. I doubt I'd get a lot of sleep around a guy like that...I bet you could piss him off without knowing it, and end up with a bullet in your back. I have been in Law Enforcement for about 22 yrs now, before that I was in the Marine Corps. I dont think its real healthy(for your life or your career)to align yourself with someone who is so "comfortable" with killing people. Just my two cents worth...

Let me make this REAL clear so some of you silly sailors can understand.

Let's look at a few situations here, and see if you can accuratley identify what is a justifiable killing ,and what's not.

1) You're sitting with your family at the dinner table, when an armed burglar breaks into your home. As he comes at your family, you grab a gun and kill him.

2) You're at the grocery store when a man pulls a gun and starts randomly shooting innocent men , women and children. You draw your own gun and kill him.

3) Someone kills your entire family. You find out who it is, you track them down and kill them.

4) You're driving down the street, and see someone walking on the sidewalk that doesn't quite suit your fancy. You roll down the window, shoot them in the head and drive off.

Now, if you can't see the fundamental differences in those situations, I can't really help you. One is an act of self defense, one is an act of protecting innocent lives, one is an act of vengence and another is plain old murder.

Now, Charlie Askins certainly killed people in his line of work who he legally and morally was well within his rights to kill. Anyone who draws a gun and/or fires on a peace officer is essentially signing their own death warrant. And they know that. But there were other situations where he had zero right to kill people. While in Viet Nam on a hunting trip, he killed people who were a nuisance to him. Just folks wandering by. There are several stories of him firing on fellow peace officers and completely innocent civilians. Skeeter Skelton told the story of Askins nearly blowing the head off a sleeping American who just happened to be lost in the desert. He shot and missed the guy.......and was embarrassed he missed.

If you can't tell the difference between a righteous killing and a flat out murder, you probably have a real hard time telling the difference between right and wrong.

Brian.

5. Your fellow LEO has murdered an innocent, unarmed eighteen-year-old boy and is about to go on trial for the murder. There's only one witness. Before the trial, you assassinate that witness to make sure that your friend beats the rap. For the rest of your friend's life, you collect repayment favors (including but not only thousands of dollars) from him.

(Hypothetically speaking, of course!)

[sarcasm] BUT DID HE WRITE IT IN HIS BOOK THOUGH?!?!? HE'S JUST MISUNDERSTOOD! [/sarcasm]

Brian.

Wow, I am reminded of that great line on pg 1, "Hell just got fuller"...

One of Charlie's editors coined that line � his lead-off sentence in his announcement to us that Charlie had died.

Sounds like that gentleman knew what he was talking about.Again thx for the insight, this has been a great read.

Just to try to maintain fairness: the man Col. Askins wrote of killing in Vietnam was an enemy soldier. The fellow peace officers he fired on had not identified themselves as such and appeared to be an armed threat to Askins. The sleeping American Askins fired on in the desert was thought to be a smuggler and appeared to have a carbine in his hands. Askins undoubtedly murdered some people; but the events listed above should not be presented out of context.

Ahem......enemy soliders? Askins wasn't in the military at the time, he was on a hunting trip. Furthermore, the Viet Nam war was several years away. They weren't enemy soldiers to Askins or any other American at the time. By the way, Askins killed more than one person in Viet Nam. Shot a group of folks with his Savage 99 and then shot some poor donk who walked up to him with his 44 Magnum.



That must be why he was embarrased he missed those folks, huh?



It was a sleeping civilian with a shovel in his hand. When Askins made a little noise and the guy sat up, Askins tried to blow his head off. He missed, and was upset that he had. The only thing that civilian did wrong was sleep in the general area of Askins. Askins would have killed him and not thought twice about it.

Brian.

You need to read up on the matter. It was 1957; Askins WAS in the military at the time, and the man he shot was a Viet Mihn soldier armed with a French MAS rifle. The other incidents are clearly explained in his autobiography.

Sounds like a lot of folks arguing on here should read the books about and by the man before they start in on it.

I beleive that Askins was a Militaary advisor in Vietnam at the time and if memory serves he wrote about killing the Vietnam soldier with the 44 after he was fired upon

Askins wrote about a group he was with chasing a bunch of rustlers into Mexico. They surrounded the rustlers in camp as they prepared their evening meal (maybe 20 miles into Mexico). After a short firefight, the rustlers lay dead; not wanting to waste food, the Americans sat down and ate the tortillas the rustlers had so thoughtfully prepared.

For those apparently not up to speed, the war in Vietnam had been going on since 1945. By the 1950s, American military personnel were in country as military advisors to the South Vietnamese. Unless Askin's autobiography is a complete fabrication, Col. Askins was stationed there as chief instructor of firearms for the entire South Vietnamese Army.
He had arrived there with a battery of hunting guns, including one of the first .44 Magnums, and indulged in the pursuit of game at every opportunity. It was during one of these trips that he encountered the enemy soldier and killed him. Anyone is free to call this murder. My take is that Askins saw an opportunity to reduce the opposing forces by one and took it.

The American involvement in Viet Nam began in 1961. President Kennedy formed the Special Forces, who were in country after that time. Before that, the French Army was involved I don't know when Askins was in Viet Nam, however, didn't read his book, only his articles.

He was there in 1957, on a hunting trip. I've never heard it was anything but a hunting trip before this thread. Warren Page hunted there as well around the same time and (shockingly) didn't shoot anybody.

Brian.

Ayoob Article







Article

You were saying?

Brian.

Seems to be a good use of a model .29!

Dan

He was there in 1957, on a hunting trip. I've never heard it was anything but a hunting trip before this thread. Warren Page hunted there as well around the same time and (shockingly) didn't shoot anybody.

Brian. [/quote]

He was there in 1957 as a military advisor. Read up on it.

His book, "African Bush - Asian Jungle" really is quite good and gives decent insight to two sides of the man.

Ayoob Article






You were saying

Not suprised that you missed the point, but then that was expected.

Brian.

I expected as much

American advisors had been in Vietnam since 1950, and the first casualty date is listed as 1956. The first battlefield fatality is listed as 1961.

My father served there in 62-63 as an advisor at Pleiku, and did a second tour with the Big Red One, at Lai Khe, in 66-67.

He said "things had changed by then".

The object is to make the enemy dead. Shoot 'em in the face, shoot 'em in the back, hack them with a machete or put rat poison in their rice.....the end result is a dead enemy.....which was the whole point in the first place.

Too many folks trying to excuse murder for my tastes.

Peace out,
Brian.

Icons are holy, don'cha know?

� the sanctity of print �

It is quite easy, from the comfort of one's armchair, to criticize Col. Askins' actions in Indochina and on the border since none of us were there ourselves. Askins may have committed murders. I haven't seen anyone attempting to excuse it if he did. I have seen some making pronouncements without even having read the Colonel's own accounts. I think everyone understands Askins enjoyed killing; but it is inappropriate to mischaracterize incidents in which he may well have used his guns legitimately.

How many of us would kill Osama bin Laden, whether or not he had a weapon in his hand?

I'm not saying that not having the stomach for it makes one less a man. But I'd certainly say that's a murder I'd be proud of.

Dan

IMHO murder is killing without justification, killing Osama would be justifield.

Skeeter whitewashes Askins' deeds in a positive spin in his book Hoglegs, Hipshots and Jalape�os. Kinda makes me suspect about his other writings.

Yeah...let's trash ol Skeeter.

Dan

Not meant to trash Skeeter. Just wondering how he could gloss over some things.

Askins days on the Border were very rough and dangerous times. Askisns tells of officers being shot and he loads them up and deives to a pay phone to call for assistance. Very different in those days than today.

Suspect Skeeter's writings, WOW

jwp

Justification denotes justice. We normally confer that to the system. But, if your "justification" requires only that you are satisfied in the correctness of your actions, then it opens up a broad spectrum of potential acts to which one can personally find justification.

A man can kill someone just because he wants to, and still find that the act could be justified in all manner of circumstances. The decision to kill or to let the person live can be done in war or in legal circumstances. You don't have to kill the robber who wants your money. You can let him have your money. That you decide to kill him is a personal choice that you can justify. Society can justify it. But there will be a lot of people who would say, you could have survived without killing him.

Dan

I agree with your assessment. At one time at least killing Osama would have been is an act of war, but with today's administration, who knows

Osama is a mass murderer IMHO

Surprisingly, so far I don't believe (and I could have missed it) that anyone has trotted out the, "Hey, he was a public figure who supported hunting and the right to bear arms, so we can overlook a few killings that may not have been on the up-and-up," line.

Perhaps it was not as black and white as many want to believe

All this leaves me wondering

Where's the orgasmic, obsessive satisfaction in deifying or demonizing someone whom you've never met and really know nothing about?

just curious

and puzzled

You are repeating yourself Ken.

Yep

I am not daemonizing anyone

It is clinically interesting to observe antithetical moral-high-horsemanship jousting, don't you think, Ken? When does moral ascension become condescension?

One thing I've learned. We all "think" we know someone. Truth is, we only know part of that person. Whether or not we like, or even respect that "part" matters only to the person making the judgement. Normally, it doesn't matter to the other party.

One lesson I learned early on was that no matter how terrible the suspect was, if you looked, you could find something redeemable in their character. I always looked. Not because I wanted to redeem them, but because in order to get the confession, I often had to make some form of bond. It didn't stop me from being disgusted with them, but it opened a window for me that helped me to realize that we are all animals in the end.

Dan

Exactly. My heroes are the men I grew up with, that I ate Sunday dinner with. They were the ones that parachuted from a crippled B17 only to land on a church roof, break their leg and spend 2 years in a POW camp, or spend months in the Punch Bowl in Korea. They taught me to shoot, fish, and how to do things. They were human, sinned, and were no means perfect. But they were the real deal.

I cannot understand how anyone lionizes someone they do not know intimately, I have no connection with people that hold sports figures, writers, or actors up as heroes.

Actually, there's a Kill Warrant out on OBL. So by theoretically killing him, you wouldn't be satisfying YOUR desire, you'd be carrying out the order of a democratically elected government...ours. If the killer got some sort of personal sick pleasure from the killing, while it would still be legal, it would also still be sick.

As far as killing the enemy, there are problems with granting an open license. Have been since warfare was invented, and it kept up with technology after WW I. No poison gas, for example. The biggest problem is if you do to them before they do it to you something that falls outside the pale, you look like Hitler. Or like OBL. Which leads to Kill or Capture warrants being placed on your head. And say if you used poison gas to kill people, soldiers or civilians, all sorts of retribution would be justified by the enemy.

Escalation of hostilities is what started WW I and II. Acts, outside the pale of what was considered acceptable, led to extermination camps of those the Third Reich considered enemies. No one thinks these acts were justified.

"Acts, outside the pale of what was considered acceptable, led to extermination camps of those the Third Reich considered enemies. No one thinks these acts were justified."

But Gene, there ARE those who think they were justified. Both at the time, and even today. Luckily, they are in the minority, but how much of a minority is needed to kill 6,000,000 people, or foster a war that kills 55 millions.

As for there being a "kill" order out. That's specious. No one can be "ordered" to murder if they don't "want" to. Even those ordered to attack, don't have to fire to hit, or to use their bayonet. Every act is a personal decision.

We condemn from a distance.

You were in war. You undoubtedly either knowingly killed, or knowingly participated in killing. It was "war." At the same time, we justify war in our own minds as being righteous based on our beliefs. Whether or not we are correct is not up to our own interpretation. It's up to the one who has the authority to judge us eternally, if we so believe.

Dan

History, and common sense must rule here. Like executing a mass murderer, some feel it's never justified, but most people do.

Killing ain't necessarily murder, especially in war. However, murder can occur even in war.

No one is ordered that OBL MUST be killed. It's not a mandate, it's an option. It's from what I understand, a "Kill or Capture" order, and if the guy gets dusted, the dust-er will be justified in the eyes of the U.S. Since capture seems highly unlikely, it's mostly a kill order.

I never thought about the "righteousness" of my actions in Viet Nam. That's a strange term implying a moral imperative, emphasis on "imperative", which few of us felt applied. If I'd done anything morally reprehensible, I might have, but I never did.

What was morally reprehensible to you might not be to someone else. The Japanese felt perfectly justified in their treatment of the Chinese or even to US POWs. We speak from a plaform of morality that exists only in our own world. To someone else, we are weak.

Indians killed babies. They felt justified. We then felt justified in killing Indians. It goes on and on.

Dan

Yes, but the ones you mentioned were operating withing the context of their particular cultures.

Askins was not.

There are "cultures" and "sub-cultures." Gang members who kill indiscriminately are acting within the context to their "culture" without benefit of out acceptance. That they are acting outside the law doesn't matter to them as long as they are working within their own personal code.

Hunting down and killing the man who rapes one's daughter is legally wrong; but not necessarily morally wrong to everyone.

Like I said. Those who "knew" Askins, didn't "know" everything, or for that matter understand everything.

I'm not defending Askins, beyond accepting that we all have the capacity to follow our own code of morality as it suits us. The line between us and him, is as simple as motivation. It doesn't take much to change a man.

Have you seen the video of Iwo Jima where the Japs are being rooted out of their burning bunkers and shot down as they emerge, many unarmed? Can you tell me the difference? Once a man identifies an enemy - for whatever that term evokes - then terminating that enemy is a simple thing.

Dan

I can tell you the difference...first, the killing of enemy who surrendered was done in the heat of the moment, kind of like the justification you noted for killing a rapist, and second, the process of accepting a surrender endangered American lives, as a lot of them shammed surrender in order to kill Americans and themselves in suicides. And third, the act of taking prisoners back to a POW holding area over dangerous ground was perilous to guards assigned to these tasks.

There simply is no parallel to war and other circumstances (as Askins was in). A WHOLE different set of rules applies.

It's easy to justify that whole different set of rules isn't it?

So why then, did we accept the surrender of thousands of POWs?

It was up to the individual as to whether he would hold fire, or fire to kill. Some killed. Some accepted the prisoners. So, your set of circumstances do not apply across the board. You can justify it, while another soldier would not. Your acceptance of those circumstances as being justification, only illustrates which direction you would undoubtedly go if you had the Garand and the unarmed Japs were squirting out of the bunker in front of you.

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't judge you and would probably do the same.

I'm sure Askins was a real "expletive," but I'm also sure he wasn't a real "expletive" to everyone. He selected his friends and I'd bet his personal code forbade him from harming them. Everyone else was an enemy. I believe he loved family above all else, at least no one has any rumors of his killing his relatives for schitz and grins.

He was a "hardcase." Sort of a Doc Holliday or Wes Hardin in the 20th Century. He didn't fit in. But, given another time and place and we'd be writing his history in a different light.

Dan

Vlad Dracula is a hero to his people. But judging him in any other light, the impaling of thousands of people just doesn't seem justified.

Dead nags don't neigh.

They leave enough hay farts hanging around to be long remembered.

I'm just wondering what those Viet Minh would have done to Ol' Chuck if they had gotten the drop on him. Offer him tea & cookies perhaps?

Barry,

They are a peace loving race.

Dan

Slight correction. President Kennedy did not "form the Special Forces."

According to the book, "From OSS To Green Berets," by Aaron Bank, U.S.A. [Ret.], Pocket Books, Simon & Schuster Publ., 1986, the offical forming of a U.S.A. Special Forces Group was ordered by the Army to be activated at Fort Bragg, N.C., on May 1, 1952. Commander-In-Chief at that time was President Harry Truman.

Col. Bank, former OSS officer (Jedburgh), WWII, China and Indochina service, and Col., 187th Regimental Combat Team, Airborne, in Korea, was charged with forming up the new "Special Forces." He specifically wanted former Army Rangers, Airborne troopers, and former OSS operators for his new group. This became the 10th Group.

Almost a decade later, President Kennedy awarded the Special Forces the "green beret" as an offical "cover."

L.W.

There must be a heck of a lot of sick people who have come and gone, since a reading of human history leaves one with the impression man has thoroughly enjoyed killing his fellows for thousands of years. That tendency has only recently been "civilized" out of us.

Precisely where has that tendency been civilized out of?

Dan

Evidently, quite a few members of this forum. In all seriousness, I think a majority of modern day Americans are over-civilized to the point they are easy pickings for those who would prey on them. Many are horrified by any display of violence; even justifiable violence. That certainly appears to be the case in many parts of the country; though it varies significantly by region.

Do you mean enjoying killing his fellows as in war, or enjoying murdering his fellows as John Wayne Gacey or BTK, or the DC Sniper?

I hear Jeff Dahmer had some good recipes.

Dan

Brian.

You guys are a bad influence on me. Now I have to read Unrepentant Sinner again. I suppose there are worse thing I'd have to do.
Paul B.

While I do agree that to some extent violence has been "civilized out" of many modern folks, it would seem to me that much of what has been said about Askins falls into a different category here.

It sure sounds like his reaction to stress was to kill someone. That's a little different.

I've been around a few dangerous people in my life, though the danger wasn't mortal danger (at that time anyway); they just got violent very, very quickly and easily and and once it got started it was a pretty blind thing. I'd hate to have to spend much time with someone who was wired like that AND was famous for flat killing people.

But then, I'm not wired that way, not at all.

In between killings, he wrote some pretty good articles.

Dan

Dr. Ken thank you for your thoughtful comments and in deed restraint. I believe all who knew Charley agrees he was an a-hole and probably unstable as well. I fail to see the need to analyze the man and his motives either read his stuff or don't. As to whether or not he would be charged with crimes in today's world very likely. Understand there we would never have won WW1 or WW11 by todays ROE. I was raised an Army brat in the 50's and I assure you there were many "spooky" people around. Was Charley outside the norm? O' yes but not a Jeffery Dahlmer.

I have skimmed this thread over time, so if this has been mentioned, I beg everyone's indulgence. In the July 2010 issue of Field and Stream, David Petzal (himself a curmudgeon whose name evokes a bird held holy by the Aztecs and who communicates very civily and helpfully on a one-on-one basis)had this to say,"Charley Askins: Charley enjoyed shooting people for recreation, which some might consider cranky."
He also says of Jack O'Connor: "When he visited the Outdoor Life offices, the editors hid in closets and under desks. Others burst into tears. A few actually wet themselves."
Of Warren Page he says, "I knew men who had been in his classes when he taught prep-school English, who still had nightmares about it 40 years later."

Just killed(pun intended) a lunch hour reading the entire thread.

Dr Howell, thank you for such candidness. It's rare these days, especially on the web.

Greg, thanks for reminding me of the Bianchi Cup story. I'd forgotten that Roy E. told me that, oh so many years ago.

Pete

Wow, Roy Erwin---I think of him often but know so few people that knew him. I distantly stayed in touch with Roy thru our mutual friend Jim Hewins who was the Bianchi Cup Match Director for about 15 years. Roy passed away a few years ago---I feel like I missed out on something by not staying in personal touch with him. Did you ever see his collection of Armand Swenson pistols?? He had the only Swenson Browning High Power that I've ever seen.

Thanks for stirring up a fond memory.
Greg

Oh yeah. Those Swensons were pieces of jewelry. Absolutely amazing.
Last saw him around '95 in PHX.

Pete

Pete, maybe I should PM this, but there may be some others on the this thread that would get a kick out of this story.

I was with Roy shooting downstairs at the Bullethole (Hodgdon's indoor range at the time). Roy had just sent that High Power back to Swenson to have Armand put a long (6") barrel in it. When he got the pistol back, Armand had made some kind of a bushing (alla 1911-gun) to fit the barrel to the slide. One problem---Roy now had no idea how to dis-assemble the gun and Swenson hadn't sent any directions. I was with him when he called Swenson for directions. It was hilarious as Armand didn't remember how he had designed the bushing--it was a one-off project and it didn't dis-assembe like a 1911. Roy was concerned as he couldn't clean or lubricate the gun. If you knew Armand then you know that he called everybody "Laddy." At one point Swenson finally said to Roy, "just send the gun back to me, laddy, I'll clean it for you." If you knew Roy well, you knew his sense of humor and highly advanced manipulative skills, he had Swenson tied in a verbal knot. I was a priceless memory.

Thanks again for stirring up good times in my mind.
Greg

A friend of mine has a matched pair of Armand Swenson High Powers.

Brian.

Good read this thread. Well most of it.

Wow, Brian, those have got to be priceless to anyone who knows what they are. Does he shoot them?

Sigh. To the fans and aficionados, thank you.
To the rest of you, what a load of Cr*p.

Hi, I'm Charlie's granddaughter, let me set some of this straight.

He wasn't a babykiller. I don't know who started that story originally, but its obviously spun out of control.

He loved the women in his family dearly (his wife, his daughter, and his 4 granddaughters). He hated his mother and his sister (met the sister once, what total trash).

He drank tequila and ouzo daily, because he had arthritis. I never once in my lifetime heard him bemoan any kind of issue that he'd need to drink his troubles away.

Yes, he shot a lot of blacks in Africa. There was this little war most Americans don't learn about where the white farmers who had developed Rhodesia were being slaughtered by black revolutionaries. My family had many many friends there, and he was there to help them try to come out on top in that war. Unfortunately that was not to be, and the country is now Zimbabwe. Maybe a few more Charlie Askins could've kept the country from turning into a unfarmable wasteland with 5000% inflation.

If you met him and he was charming the ladies, guess what? He was a charming person when he wanted to be. He wasn't trying to steal you wife, he was just cooler than you, sorry bub.

And yes, the way he fought might be considered sneaky. But he kicked ass, took names, and lived to be a very old man, which is more than a lot of gung ho whackjobs can say. He'd think most of these kids going off to war currently are total wahoos for the way they do things now, I guarantee it.

He had several strokes, and a a few heart attacks in his later years, and a dwindling case of dementia. Yes, he drove off one day to take his dog to the vet and got lost. There were NOT posters all over town (what crap, we had one news report run, and a family friend actually returned him to us).

He passed away in his own bed at home holding hands with his loving wife. Which is a far sight better than most men, psychopathic killer or not, will ever do.

Thank you for your post Thangle.

Some known men are never known; its the partly truth, partly fiction that makes their names not likely to be forgotten...

I knew my grandfather and loved him, but my father certainly knewhim; I suppose our views of the same man differed, as did every Joe Blow in the old hometown...

Thanks for the family member insight.

Good post Thangle

Nice post, Thangle. Thanks for taking the time to post it.

They're in the white, because he wanted to have them hard chromed and never got around to it. Last I saw (6 or 7 years ago), they were just sitting in a drawer. I would bet cash money they're in the same place and haven't moved since I seen them last.

Brian.

Fred Sanford?

Brian.

I guess you know you are a legend when they make up stories like some of these!

Some of these read like pulp fiction Wild Bill Hickok stories.

You've got being a "DICK" down pat....

...isn't that the punch line to an old Nixon joke???

Who threw sand in your mangina?

Brian.

I guess that puts a well-directed foot in a few fannies around here.

"And yes, the way he fought might be considered sneaky. But he kicked ass, took names, and lived to be a very old man, which is more than a lot of gung ho whackjobs can say. "


"He passed away in his own bed at home holding hands with his loving wife. Which is a far sight better than most men, psychopathic killer or not, will ever do."

I think she has a pretty good handle on it. He was a devoted psychotic killer who lived to be an old man in a profession filled with gung ho whackjobs

I've got severe degenerative arthritis in both knees and I drink (too much) bourbon. My rheumatologist and internist keep telling me to have no more than 3 drinks a day; now I've got another medical opinion that says to switch to tequila and all will be better. Best advice I�ve had all day!

Mark Twain had a cold.

A friend advised a quart of whisky.

Another friend also advised a quart of whisky.

"That," Twain exclaimed gleefully, "makes half a gallon!"

Hey Ken. These are my kind of doctors! Got their address?

Skeeter probably had waited in the dark for smugglers. He probably appreciated the fact that a man who shot straight in a heated moment was an assett. Smugglers usually are hard men.

An old Browning Superposed I traded for a few years back, factory lettered as Capt. Charles Askins Sr.'s personal shotgun, pictured in several books, included Unrepentant Sinner by his son, the Colonel. An extensive thread on www.shotgunworld.com, under "I love my Browning" had 28,000 or so hits over 3 years. It's probably several pages back in the Browning Forum, but has a lot on info of Major (then Capt) Askins, Colonel Askins, with input from the Colonel's son, Bill Askins, San Antonio. Included are the Colonel's Colt Woodsman he turned into a center fire, causing a big stink at the Camp Perry matches. Check it out.

DF

I bumped the thread, 1933 Superposed, to the top of the www.shotgunworld.com site, Browning Forum, so it will be easy to find. It's long, but interesting. Lots of input from very knowledgable gun folks. Also input from Bill Askins, the Colonel's son, with photos and info about him.

DF

Click on the www.shotgunworld.com URL, then select Forums, then in the drop down box, "I love my __". Scroll down to "Brownings" and hit "1933 Superposed."

It's now up to 29,304 hits with 497 posts.

DF

I added Thangle's very interesting piece to the "1933 Superposed" thread, which ended up more about the Askins than about the Major's pre-war Super. To see it in context, go to www.shotgunworld.com, Forums, I love my__, Browning shotguns, and 1933 Superposed.

Bill Askins has three daughters, Thangle refers to the Colonel as having four granddaughters. Thangle is either Bill's daughter or his neice. Hope to find out. I do like her writing style. Guess that apple didn't fall far...

DF

The link is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the history of the older gunwriters, and of their guns.

I knew that Col. Askins was said to totally despise Jack O'C., but I never knew why. That is explained in the posts.

This is an interesting thread. Some have said that 60 years ago are not that different than today. Well in fact they are; in todays world BP officers are sent to prison for shooting a drug smuggler whom they believe is a danger and then the U.S. Goverment brings the scumbag over to testify against the officers.

Also, the smugglers are better armed and the National Guard sent to protect the border are not allowed to defend this country against them. Everytime there is a shooting by the BP the media questions it, but doesn;t seem to mind as much the killing of a rancher by a smuggler. Someone he was trying to help.

Read some of Bart Skelton stories along the border from 30 years ago and beyond and you will see things were done a little differently. (I know Bart was not there as he is too young, but he does know those who know.)

Askins and Hardin may be cut from the same cloth. Concerning Hardin the story goes Hardin killed a man while they were camped together because he wanted to get some sleep and didn't trust the other not to do the same to him. It should also be noted Hardin became a lawyer after getting out of prison and as I recall was murdered.

As far as justice, I remember reading an article in one of the Western magazines, I think "Wild West" of a fellow shooting another in the back while he sat on a board walk enjoying the day. The killer was aquitted because the dead man had threatened him a few days before. Times do change.

Laffin'

I read the first page of this thread and it was very interesting.

I clicked on the last page and saw this.






No matter how they start, we always seem to end them the same way.

Laffin'.

It is ironic isn't it.

I saw Col. Askins in New Orleans at the NRA convention in 1970. He wasn't a great big man, but has an air about him that was noticeable. He was headed from the hotel to the French Quarter, by himself, and I had the fleeting thought if he knew his way around down there. I then had the thought that he'd be perfectly OK, that anyone trying to mess with him would be dealt with accordingly. And that was before I read more about him, before I did some family history on the www.shotgunworld.com forum relative to his Dad's 1933 Superposed that I happened to end up owning. This info on the Fire about Charley is amazing, how many lives he touched, one way or another. Not many neutral feeling about the man. He wasn't that kind of a guy...

DF

JM,

I cross referenced this thread about Col. Charley Askins on www.shotgunworld.com, Browning forum, 1933 Superposed thread. There was a lot of interest on that post about the Askins family in reference to the Colonel's father, Major Charles Askins, Sr.'s pre-war Superposed Browning. I had to caution the shotgunworld crew about the occasional crude behavior encountered on this Forum. For some reason, we just don't see that over there. Maybe those shotgunners have more class than us riflemen...

Interesting contrast...

DF

DF-
I spent an interesting evening a year or so ago working through that SGW thread. It's a well-written mystery tale.

There may be a couple of reasons for the differing behaviors in the two forums. It's billed as "the Friendliest Shooting Forum on the Net!" Perhaps there is some attempt to live up to that motto.

The moderators there can be pretty heavy handed in enforcing civility and friendliness. A couple of my innocuous and I thought helpful posts have gotten blown away after some later posts later became impolite, and the entire thread disappeared.

--Bob

It's quite a tale, no doubt. It started off with me trading for this old shotgun, just because I like the lines and the way it looked. Traded a Jap Browning Sporting Clays gun, even swap. Only later found out that this old gun factory lettered to Capt Charles Askins, Ames, OK. The Browning Historian, Mr. Glen Jensen, called me at my office, all excited. I had left the serial number and model info on his answering machine. "Do you know who owned that gun?" he asked. Well, I guessed I was about to find out... On hearing "Capt. Charles Askins", I initially thought it was the Colonel, never dreaming it was his Dad, the Major. Well, the rest thay say is history. Since Nov. '77 there have been 500 posts and nearly 30,000 hits on that site. More hits than any post in the hitory of Shotgunworld since it's founding in '94 or there abouts.

Thanks, BTW, on the writing compliment. I'm not a writer, but have enjoyed the thread and where it's led. Met some super folks with great backgrounds of knowledge, as is the case on this Forum. Had nice exchanges with Bill Askins, the Colonel's son who lives in San Antonio. Bill was very helpful and we ended up with info not otherwise published or previously available about the Askins clan.

Glad you enjoyed it.

BTW, maybe a heavy handed Forum moderator is not all bad...

DF

Carlos Hathcock was born in 1942 and obviously did not serve in the South Pacific in WWII. He served in vietnam where he earned his honors and passed away in 1999, five years before you wrote this.

I think he meant that he was a Carlos Hathcock-TYPE person, not actually Carlos Hathcock. Surely EVERYONE knows Hathcock's story at this point.

One of us � you or I � needs to learn a bit about understanding what we read.

Did you notice, understand, or wonder why I put Carlos Hathcock between quotation marks?

That punctuation denotes that my late friend Wally was, in the south Pacific during World War Two, an earlier Marine Corps equivalent of the later and better known Hathcock.

(By the way, punctuation doesn't have anything to do with being at an appointed place at the appointed time.)

Reading is fundamental. Sadly, they don't teach it any more.

Why should anybody bother to write well � or at all � while fewer and fewer "readers" know how to read?

Many thanks to Ken Howell for his insights here, based on personal familiarity with the subject.

Not much I can contribute, except as a matter of possible interest to point readers at one of Stephen Hunter's fascinating novels about Earl Swagger, father of Bob Lee, the Nailer. Hunter steals a lot of historical info to stick in his books and in Pale Horse Coming, Earl acts out retribution on the bad guys by recruiting the most famous gunmen of the 1950s to help him out. Naturally though the names are changed, you can recognize Askins, Keith, O'Connor, Murphy, Bill Jordan and even Ed McGivern. What squabbling when they get together. Hunter has great fun with describing their personalities. And Charlie comes across pretty much exactly as he would have described himself, though maybe not to his family.

Stumbled across this 1961 article in Guns that Askins wrote about his father. It gives some insight into his obtuse persona.

"My Old Man and I lived a great deal
alone. He did the cooking, and I kept house.
He was a good shot but a rotten poor cook.
He never criticized anything. Neither did
he offer a lot of fatherly advice. I recollect
one time I pistol-whipped an old enemy and
the sheriff carted me off and heaved me into
the county pokey. My Old. Man rounded up
the necessary bondsmen and came over to
the county seat and bailed me out. On the
way back, the bondsmen would have taken
me apart. My Old Man cut them off at the
hip pockets with the remark, "Next time,
belt him with a longer barreled gun. You
can swing it harder." If my Old Man liked
you, he was for you, right or wrong."

Would love to see Dr. Phil deal with those two!!

Here's the link to the issue, the article starts on page 14:

http://www.gunsmagazine.com/1961issues/G0461.pdf

Reading his book explains it pretty well too.


Travis

I have read the book, but IIRC, Col. Askins only talks about O'Connor taking Maj. Askins job at Outdoor Life. I don't remember anything being mentioned about J. O'C. telling Outdoor Life that someone else was writing Maj. Askins articles.

This thread is the first time I have heard that.

I have also read that both Elmer Keith and Col. Askins helped out the Maj. when his health was failing.

I had not read the thread so I missed what you were referring to exactly. Sorry about that.

But in Unrepentant Sinner I thought he made it REALLY clear that he had no liking for JO at all.



Travis

Askins was pissed that his old man got the can, and wasn't replaced by Elmer Keith (who was a personal friend of their's). He blamed O'Connor and held that grudge till the day he died.

Brian.

I have the book and Askins does make it clear that he did not like JO, but he didn't say exactly why, other than JO took Maj. Askins place at Outdoor Life. If it was Outdoor Life's decision, and they thought J. O'C could do a better job, then I don't see why the Col. should have held it against Jack.

But, if as reported on these threads, Jack did tell Outdoor Life that Keith and the Col. were writing Maj. Askins articles, them yes, I could understand why Col. Askin would hold a grudge.

I don't know that it happened that way, or that it didn't. I am going by information posted on these threads. I don't have first hand information, or facts.

Elmer told me that he'd written several of Major A's articles, which Mrs A read to him for his approval and modification when the old man was incapacitated, but he never said anything to me about how OL, JO'C, and Charlie may have been involved in that arrangement.

JMHO, but Askins never struck me as a particularly rational person.

Brian.

Great read...

Bump

Notice that Howell never acknowledged the granddaughter's comments.




Dave

That's what impressed me about Thangle-finally someone that shut him up!

I did, true Ken. Check out his first post (about the 3rd or 4th post in the thread). He mentioned that 'Hell, just got fuller' about Askin's death.

You can say what you wish about Ken, but that was some SERIOUS foreshadowing....

I wonder who the PH was he is referring to. I know he hunted with the guy I hunt with, John Sharp, and he was a Bush War vet.. I'm betting they were good kills...

You could ask him

Do you have a link to that thread? I thought that Ken's unfounded acusations were uncalled for, especially when he claimed to like Askins, which in my opinion wasn't true. If Ken had trueluy liked Askins, he would not have bad mouthed him as he did. Nothing that Howell claimed was backed by a single fact.

You're ON that thread

I searched and came up empty I'll try again. Do you remembered the year?

THIS IS THAT THREAD.

The quote that Jorge put up was from an older thread where Ken howellderided Askins is what I am searching for.

HOLY F*ING CHRIST. THIS IS THAT THREAD. Go to page one, you see it started a LONG time ago.

Surprise to see this updated.

Daum

Just found this this morning and think this is one of the few threads I've ever read front to back. Very interesting! I have nothing to add except it may also be the first thread without someone peeing on another's shoes, stone throwing, and name calling, just a little polite differences in perceptions here and there.

And thanks to Thangle for a granddaughter's view.

Why?

Post a photo of that Browning Superposed. If I recall, you did some restoration/stock work to it. Beautiful shotgun.
Bob

Charlie claimed to have been the first to have tested the .338 Win mag. He took it on safari and shot over 30 animals with the cartridge. When he got back he expected Winchester to want a detailed report on the performance of the new round. Instead all they wanted to know was if they should keep the belt? Charlie loved belted magnums so he was all for keeping it.

Pardon me for interrupting, but would this happen to be THAT thread? Just curious...

THAT thread IS this thread,

....fer' cryin' out loud, try and keep up, wudja' ?

GTC

Gem of the entire thread here...

We live in a different day and time. I grew up surrounded by some ruff men who you knew not to cross. Their circumstances and environments created them. Get put in a survival mode and the will to live is very strong. No such thing as a fair fight when your life is on the line. A next door neighbor was in Korea and he was one of 7 who survived out of 113 men. A full fledged working alcoholic who was very gentle with children including my son. I’ve know many vets and LEO’s who have seen and witnessed things you can’t unsee. A friend down the road is a state trooper and many nights or weekends is the only trooper on duty in 5 counties. Help, if things go south, is only an hour away. Our society doesn’t understand that the majority of us sleep well at night because ruff men stand guard and watch. ROE suck when personal survival is on the line.

Normally I wouldn't mess with a firearm with such a provenance.

But, when I got it, the finish orange pealing, was such a mess I started working with it. When I found out who owned, it, I shut down my efforts, took it to a real pro, James Flynn, who I've known most of my life.

James is retired, but in his heyday was a well known shotgun guru, working on Purdy, H&H, Boss shotguns from all over. He could build and harden metal parts, was a master stock maker.

So, he did his thing, bringing out the beautiful grain that Browning has fixed the Major up with. He was personal friends with the Brownings. So, even though he bought the gun (it wasn't given to him), a Gr I. I know this isn't Gr I wood, more like Gr. IV So, he did get special handling. The gun came from Belgium marked, F/M chokes. Browning gunsmiths custom opened the chokes to the Major's specs. He was a bird hunter, knew exactly what the wanted. His books and writings cover the details. The metal is untouched.

The pad when I got it was a replacement and in very poor condition. James was known for his leather covered pads, so I let him put one on this gun. It's not a Hawkins like the Major had ordered, but was period correct. He could have had one.

Notice the trigger placement. Receiver has two trigger slots, this trigger sits like the back one of a double trigger, but is set up as a factory single trigger. This was prior to Val Browning's trigger design which he developed after his Dad passed. Val's trigger is the std. Superposed trigger still in use. I like the way this trigger feels, evidently the Major did, too. He knew exactly what he wanted when he ordered this gun.

The rather unique profile is what drew me to this gun in the first place. It was different. I had no idea how different....

DF

I've read Unrepentant Sinner, and based on the book, Askins Jr didn't seem like a very admirable person. But he lived in a different and harder time, so I'd make some allowances for that. He clearly had significant knowledge and skills with firearms.

I have read all I could about both men. If we had more of them, we would have less problems to deal with.

Both are interesting, though very different. Jr. spoke of his contentious Irish Mother, who he didn’t get along with. My guess, he took a lot after her. They were estranged, maybe too much alike.

The Sr. was an easygoing guy, so I guess the idea that opposites attract holds true here. Jr. and Sr. were very close.

Quite a study in personalities.

DF

Yeah, gotta put him in context of when and where he lived. In his book, I get the impression he was proud of being a “hard arse”, flaunted that image.

And he was known to embellish as an author the points he was trying to make. That was his style as a writer. So, maybe he wasn’t as bad as advertised. I’ve read he had a soft spot for animals. But he was quick on the trigger against adversaries.

A complex individual for sure. But if you were in a foxhole, you’d be more than happy to have Jr. watching your 6.

DF

Sr. was an easy going guy, but he was also a soldier and saw at least some action. He seem easy going, but I think if pushed, he was also very capable of action.

Agreed.

A gentleman but not someone to be trifled with.

DF

Thank you, DF for sharing.

I worked with a Jehovahs Witness gal, who seemed to always question my opinions and my acts as less than admirable at times; I told her that she has to be going to heaven because folks like her never have to make any decision that would compromise her outcome...

based on this thread, I bought the book. I thought about giving the book as a gift to someone a few years ago and tried to buy it. I remember it being much more expensive than it should have been. Not sure why.


So I went to amazon to look for it again today after reading this thread from front to back. This is what I found
Used paperback....$89