Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Boddington ? How reliable?

Included in the responses to the recent thread on this forum relating to Warren Page, was at least one that referred to Craig Boddington in a quite favorable light. I have noted this same general opinion stated often as I have read through various material on this forum that relate to the pros and cons of gunwriters past and present. However, I can't express this same sentiment myself because I now have to wonder if what he writes is always reliable information.

The reason for this lack of faith in what Mr. Boddington writes is because of two articles he wrote three or four years ago in GUNS AND AMMO. If I remember correctly, the first was in the February, 2004, issue and the second was in the issue for January, 2005. In the first of these, he writes an article on how to sight-in a big game rifle, and his primary theme is that he, LIKE JACK O'CONNOR, "got it right" by sighting-in 2 to 2.5 inches high at 100 yards for MOST HUNTING APPLICATIONS. If O'Connor ever wrote anything like that, I have never read it! For open country hunting, which was mostly what O'Connor did, he always, I think, recommended a full 3 inches high, and I don't remember him stating anything else "for all applications!"

In this above article, Boddington states, and I quote, "Having grown up believing every word O'Connor wrote..." And yet, in the January, 2005, issue, in a short article on smaller 7mm cartridges, he has Mrs. O'Connor killing tigers with her 7x57! She did not! She killed tigers but it was with a 30-06! Mr. Boddington must not have remembered all that he believed!

I suppose the above will strike some of you as being a bit "picky," but I do not trust information coming from writers who have to to "pull information out of the air" to pad their writing, meet deadlines, or whatever! I think he writes quite well, and most of what he writes is probably OK factually, but in light of the above examples, how can I be sure!

M. Bell

Yep.

I'd agree, but not sure I can trust your information....

I don't like Boddington. At all.

I read every word in the articles I come accross.

I'm fairly sure it's envy, but I still don't like the guy.

Seems picky to me. The guy hunts more than ten average hunters combined in year, and it's a safe bet most detractors are just jealous.

One thing I know he has, and that's more patience than I have! While at SCI this year, I went to his booth to buy his DVD "African Experience" ( an excellent DVD ). He was in the extreme rear of his booth, trying to wolf down lunch, so I made no attempt at contact, and simply bought the DVD from his help, and moved on. While I'm paying for the video, some dude just plows through the booth, thrusts his hand in Boddington's face(mid bite) and CB, very graciously drops his meal, and talks to the guy! I can't say that I would have been so polite. Seemed like an OK guy to me, that likes to hunt.

Jeff

Note: Not directed at las. Responding to original post.

Anybody that turns out as much copy as Craig Boddington is bound to make a few mistakes.

That said, he's a nice guy, means well, and is revenue driven.

Bottom line, if you don't know it for sure don't say it. Lets just hope he gets the important stuff right. With that said, I do like his books and his writing. Can't say what kind of a person he is and most will never know unless he wants you to know.

Jim

When I read something like this I like to "check it out", I own several books by both authors; here is what I found. O'Connor, on pages 269-279 in The Rifle Book (3rd Ed.), devotes an entire chapter to sighting in (Chpt. XX, Trajectory and Sighting In). I won't retype the entire 10 pages, but on pg 273 he has his .270 Win / 130 grain bullet 3" high at 150 yds ("maximum trajectory height"). Boddington, writing in American Hunting Rifles, on pg 50 (Chpt. 5, .270 - Jack O'Connor's Caliber) puts his .270 Win / 140 grain bullet 2 1/2" high at 100 yards. Both authors are explaining how to get maximum trajectory for the cartridge/bullet selected for big game. It appears to me that both authors are saying the same thing - I see no conflict at all in what each has written. In fact I like to refer to the O'Connor chapter when sighting in a new rifle, especially a new cartridge that I am unfamiliar with - it contains good advice. Odessa

Ten Sleep:

I seem to recall Boddington writing something about WDM Bell in an article that didn't quite square with what I remembered from Bell's work - and my copes of Bell's books are well thumbed. Nevertheless, I didn't want to go to the trouble of referring back to Bell to find Boddington's mistake.

I cut everyone a lot more slack these days than I did when I was younger. Partly because I could use a little slack myself.

No zero-tolerance from me for mistakes made by gunwriters when they're dredging up memories of other men's work. If it doesn't quite ring true, I let it go. And if, over the years, they're piling up too many mistakes, then I deduct points from the man's overall standing in my mind.

Boddington isn't my favorite gun writer, but then most gun writers aren't my favorite gun writer. He's okay. He seems to be able to do what he says he can do.

A few campfire members have met him, I believe, and they speak well of him.

- Tom

Odessa,

The following is taken verbatim from the 2004 article by Craig Boddington:

Jack O'Connor did some long range shooting, and he certainly knew how. But he figured most of his shooting would be done in the 100- to 300-yard window like it is for most of us today. He sighted-in his rifles accordingly: "Sight-in 2 to 2.5 inches high at 100 yards. You'll be dead-on somewhere between 225 and 250 yards." This was good advice from the longtime dean of hunting writers. This is the advice I try to follow when sighting-in my own rifles for most applications.

(Please note the phrase "He sighted-in his rifles accordingly")

The following is taken verbatim from O'Connor's book THE HUNTING RIFLE, pages 275 and 276:

Just how high should the bullet strike at 100 yards?
That depends on the conditions under which the rifle is to be used, what creatures are to be hunted, and what sort of a trajectory the cartridge has. Since I do most of my big-game hunting in open country where I may have to take a 250- to 300-yard shot, I generally sight in so the bullet strikes 3 inches above line of scope sight at 100 yards. With the.30/06 with 180-grain bullet this means that I am on at about 225 yards and about 9 inches low at 300. With the .270 with the 130-grain factory load or with the 150-grain bullet in the 7-mm. Remington Magnum I am on at about 275.

Odessa, I do not doubt your source material in the least. However, I would surmise that your source is what O'Connor might be recommending in a generic sense for the average hunter and not necessarily what he used himself. In the Boddington article referenced above, the author should have left it in the generic sense and not tried to ascribe it to O'Connor personally; as in the tiger article Mr. Boddington should have spent a bit more time in research before he began to write!

M. Bell

Boddington is a hunter 1st & a shooter 2nd..I like that.

You are right about the nit-pickiness.....anything else genuinely trivial to post about?? Feel the need to run up your post count??

2.5-3" high at 100 is pretty standard stuff and has been written over and over by dozens and dozens of writers for years. dont have the books handy, but have seen that range written by both Boddington and JO in many of their books

My wife and I know Craig, and I consider him to be reliable. He will even report bad stuff of his own doing, something not all writers will do.

jim

Steelhead,

You can find all the information you need to varify my post in GUNS AND AMMO - February 2004 and January 2005. Also see Jack O'Connor's book, THE HUNTING RIFLE, published in 1970.

M. Bell

There seems to be a lot of anxiety over .5 inches� There is a joke in there somewhere but I won�t go there.

I think I can still trust him�. Even though I am so envious of him

Maybe Boddington misspoke.

He's also a Marine officer. That makes him reliable in my book until he proves otherwise. And 1/2" doesn't seem worth getting all worked up about.

Gotta agree with Griz on this one.

I've met Craig and spoken with him at SCI. I have found him most cordial, and honest. If he knows about it, he'll tell you. If not, he'll tell you that too. His writing style is just OK in my book. I'd like to have a little more substance in many of his articles, but I suspect editorial limits constrain him. Since I cannot write as well as he, I won't point fingers. It's hard to have something interesting to say every month, as witnessed by most posts around here.

It is entirely possible Boddington quote's a different O'Connor writing than you, maybe not. I'll give him the benefit.

Recently read where Charmin is the softest on the behind. You might try some.....