Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters "Gun Writer" Backgrounds

One of my favorite writers (who doesn't now acknowledge that he knows me) had all but given-up all hope of "making it" as a writer when he sent me an article in 1978. I later learned that he'd sent-out five or six articles, vowing privately that if one sold, he'd keep plugging. Otherwise, he'd be content to be a truck-driver. All had come back except the one that he'd sent me.

I sort of accepted, sort of rejected the one that he'd sent me. I sent it back and told him that I liked it but wanted more. At the first SHOT show (1979) a couple of months later, I introduced him to the folks who made the components that he'd need, and they sent him gobs. He did more work on his loads, expanded the article, and I used it. His writing wasn't the problem � he'd just done too little load-development, using too few components for the intended scope of the article.

His work got better and better, so � before he really qualified for the position but obviously soon would � I added him to my staff. He has long since gone on to bigger and better pastures and is internationally known and respected. (Needless to say, I'm both pleased for him and proud of him.)

I asked him several years later what had happened with those other first articles. The Editors who'd rejected 'em had bought 'em after he became one of my staffers and his work appeared regularly in Handloader and Rifle. Also, other Editors invited him onto their staffs.

But I'm the polar opposite of most Editors. When I got an article manuscript from a free-lancer, my mind set was Here's something that I can use unless something about it makes it unworthy. Others generally (some have told me) open the brown envelope thinking I'll have to send this back unless something about it compels me to use it.

My pal Neal felt the same way I did � when I took-up the reins that he'd dropped (1978), I inherited a passel of articles that his assistant had rejected but Neal had accepted (and stock-piled) with the notation "OK with tinkering" (IOW, potentially usable but needing a lot of editorial improvement).

After several years of sometimes very tedious and tough tinkering, I was able to use all but very, very few of those articles. In fact, I can't remember having, finally, to give-up on more than one. Most Editors don't have the skill or the will to put forth that much effort for the reader.