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

No one knows everything about guns, nor hunting. But I look at it this way....I shoot and hunt as a hobby. But when I get up in the morning, I go to work in a field unrelated to that hobby. That limits my time and ability to research and learn about guns and hunting.

So when someone has decided to devote their working life (or at least a significant chunk of it) to gunwriting, or guiding, or competitive shooting, and thus can put their workday hours to researching gun and hunting related topics, they are bound to have a LOT more experience than me. If they're smarter than the average bear, that makes them worth reading so I can benefit from that time and expertise.

Couple that with the fact that when I can't be out shooting, I like to read about guns/hunting, I'll buy those books and magazines.

Although there are still good articles written today, I find I don't subscribe to many magazines anymore, mostly because the most popular ones republish a lot on the same topics.

That's not really to criticize. When I was first reading them 30 or 40 years ago, every caliber comparison article, remington vs. winchester vs. whatever -- all the popular topics were new to me. And they are new to many readers today, so they sell. I'm just getting old.

So I find my joy now in looking for the classics that I missed or have forgotten. Just reread Francis Sell's book on deer hunting. Rereading Elmer Keith. And just picked up a book on the .22 by CS Landis, that I have never read.

That said, there is still good stuff written now that is of interest to me. Just not in every magazine, every month. Thanks to all of you who contribute to gun literature for making our lives a little richer.

Quick question? Ken Howell.

I don't post much and I'm a relative newbie here recently.

I see posts from Ken Howell - but going way back in years. Last I heard he was moving and in very poor shape physically. That was years ago. Any news about him ?

I have his first book, Designing and Forming Custom Cartridges. He was talking about Volume II. Did that ever happen.

Thanks for any info.

@ John B. RE: Scope [Relative Brightness % Light- Transmission comparison].
Are all scopes(different brands, but with same power and objective size, with same lens coatings----Fully multi-coated, etc.) with a brightness (light-transmission rating of X%...(Say...95%) actually equally bright, OR...can Brand (A)w/92% transmission actually be brighter than Brand (B)w/95%+ transmission?. If so....How so?

WILL; Just another rifle loony long-time reader.

Read my article "RIFLESCOPE BRIGHTNESS" on this same page and you'll find your question answered.

JB: I just went back and read (as thoroughly as I possibly could) your piece on [Brightness], and I still don't see anywhere, anything explaining my question.

Does [LEUPOLD's] estimate of *98%* transmission with their [Top-of-the-line] scope equate to, say, NIKON's estimate of *98%* transmission with (their)[Top-of-the-line] scope...All things being equal.....Power setting, Objective lens diameter, side-by-side comparison, etc.

No disrespect intended...If a simple 'yes' or 'no' is too difficult an answer....Then I apologize for the inconvenience.

WILL.

OK, let's do it another way.

There are two basic ways to find a riflescope's percentage of light transmission. The first is to calculate it, using the number of lens surfaces, using knowledge of the glass and coatings, plus any other glass surfaces such as those for etched reticles, and come up with an approximate number. The other is to actually measure it using a very expensive piece of equipment called an integrating sphere, useful for a variety of optical tests. There are problems with each of these approaches, all applicable to the question you asked.

First, we don't know which method a company uses, and in fact its advertising may just quote the light transmission from ONE lens, and scopes have far more than one lens.

Second, even measuring light transmission with an integrating sphere doesn't tell us how well we'll see an object in dim light, because of all the factors I listed in my article, including our own eyes.

All of which means the numbers thrown around by various scope companies are relatively meaningless to their prospective customers, except in convincing some prospective customers that certain scopes are brighter, so they'll buy them.

I've followed 24 Hour Campfire for a while but have had trouble getting registered. A week or so ago they must have decided to let me on. I'm guessing I qualify as a gun writer...

In 1991 I started writing articles for Precision Shooting magazine. That continued till the magazine folded in Oct. of 2012. I did freelance work for other magazines but my focus was PS.

I've been a competitive target shooter since I got out of college (1960) and a big game hunter since 1967. I've collected custom rifles also since I got out of school.

I've been a stockmaker for custom rifles since the late 60's. In the future I hope to be able to contribute something to this site.

Dick Wright

Welcome. Looking forward to your input.



Jim

FWIW this is my latest stock job. It's a CZ 452 in 17 HMR. Lots of custom work... new trigger guard, modified trigger, shortened magazine, etc, etc...

I also made a tuner for it since I will shoot it in informal benchrest matches next year.

Dick

Dick: I say good on you for embellishing a nice rimfire a bit.

Most folks don't want to spend any money on them...


But which rifles do you shoot the most? Might as well treat yourself on the rim fires!

Dick, welcome and that is an awesome rifle...

I've never figured out why folks seem to spend all the money on centerfires that they rarely shoot. Between squirrel and turtle control (we have a lake on our property) and the matches I shoot this in, I will shoot this more the first year than most people shoot their big guns in a lifetime. ?????

We have quite a few informal rimfire benchrest matches nearby. If I have enough ambition I can shoot it once a week in warm weather.

Dick,

Welcome to the Campfire! I have many years of PS carefully stored year by year. I always looked forward to your articles. We could use a jack pine savage here. Are you still shooting benchrest rifles?

Craig

Craig,

It's been nearly three years since PS folded and I'm starting to think that no one remembers.

I'm getting too old and benchrest is getting too expensive to participate seriously like I once did. We have two clubs within an hours drive that have rimfire benchrest and I shoot in their matches when I can. One of them has egg shoots which are kind of fun.

Dick

Man alive that is a beautiful rifle.

Always enjoyed your work in PS, Señor !

Kudos on that stock work, and a warm welcome.

GTC

I thought the article was well written and informative John. Like you have stated, companies throw around light transmission numbers basically to attract customers. Bushnell used to advertise that they had " the brightest scopes in the world" with a published figure of 95%. That figure is measured in the center of the visible color spectrum (550nm). Leupold states that they have 98% "total light transmission) whatever that means. It looks like Zeiss measures across the visible spectrum or some type of an average apparently. In the end, even though people see things differently due to their eye sight capabilities, if I see better through one scope it is likely that you will see the same difference(percentage wise) even though our eye sight isn't the same.

Welcome to the Fire! That sure is a beautiful piece of wood, and very nice checkering to boot!

Dick,

Sorry not to welcome you to the Campfire sooner, but was having computer troubles that finally got resolvedin the past day or so. Then I had to catch up on other stuff!

I've always liked your articles in PS and now I like your stockmaking too! I also make wood stocks now and then, and know very good work when I see it!

John Barsness