Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Do we allow gunwriters to have "evolving" viewpoints?

I would hope that gun writers and those that read their material can change without being labeled as some kind of trator to the cause ! I know, in my own case, I have moved toward the slower calibers typically of larger diameters than where I stood 30 years ago. Now I first grab either my 358 Win. or 35 Whelen whereas 30 years ago I'd have gone with my 7mm Wby or 338 Win. Yet, I still go to the 270 or 243 if my hunt is out on the Wyoming prairies. As we gain experience and as components and guns change, it is only human that we change our opinions. If we don't and if a gun writer doesn't, he'd sure be boreing as hell to read. A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Rolly-Well said and if your ever up in Athol stop by the Crossroads and tell them nasty Seals I'm still alive especially Jim and Rick.

Good luck to ya........Jayco

Ken,

As to your study on what people like to read about, I'd never really analyzed why I like what I do, but I know for a fact if I came across a "specialty" magazine chock full of articles on the: .375 H&H, the .416's, the .458's, the .470/.577/.600 Nitro Expresses, etc., and using them to slay big, dangerous animals... then "Katybar the door" and get out of my way! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I still hope to someday hunt Alaska & Africa, although a lot of people tell me to stop dreaming and grow up. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> I may not ever get there, but I'M still having FUN playing with my .338 & .375 H&H and dreaming of bigger guns! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

There's an interesting division of sorts between those who know what they like and like what they've know, and those who'll try anything once...

I never hunted until I was pushing 30, have since had the chance to hunt upland birds, waterfowl, turkeys, deer, elk and wild pigs. I'll read stories about just about any hunting except quail (too many cliches) and cats (remember, no arguing with taste) and would try just about any of it except maybe big cats.

On the other hand, my hunting buddy up in Maine is a forester and spends the whole year looking forward to chasing big whitetails. They have a 4-week rifle season (Sundays excluded by state law), one buck limit. He's been hunting nearly 30 years and fills his tag about half the time now that he's had some practice. Every few years if they've had a dry spell he and some buddies will spring for a week on Anticosti Island ... little higher success rate there.

I once asked him where else he'd like to hunt if he had the chance -- he said he'd like to go to Saskatchewan and hunt *really* big whitetails.

"How about other than whitetails?" I asked.

"Hmmm," he replied. "Well, I guess I'd like to go to Washington or Oregon and hunt blacktails."

But he still gets Outdoor Life and a couple other mags, and reads articles on anything.

John

I wait to see if the gunwriter changes his opinion to be more in line with mine, being human I like to believe I am right. Some have some haven't, but I don't lose any respect for the person either way.

Yes my opinion does change from time to time. I think that has to do with maturing, both in age and in the sport. I do not think that changing one's opinion is necessarily situation dependent but is more a part of the growing process. I really don't see anything wrong with changing ones mind or sticking to your unchanging beliefs as long as your opinion is backed up by rational.

Gunwriters are human and, like all of us, learn from experience and ultimately may change their minds. However, on the subject of firearms and using them we should hold gunwriters to a higher standard. Been there and done that as well as honest reporting is the minimum qualification. Patience with and courtesy to the reading public is also very desirable. Gunwriters are also teachers and have placed themselves in a position of responsibility to help those who may not know as much. I'm really pleased to see this happening on this forum. Respected gunwriters taking the time to interact with those of us interested in the sport of hunting and shooting is one of the very best things I have found on the net. Thanks to all of you for caring enough to make the effort. Sometimes my experience may cause me to disagree with you but I'm still learning too.

I would certainly hope we'd be allowed to modify (if not totally change) our opinions as we gain experience.

Many years ago, when I was a relative youngster in this business, an older editor friend told me that it was a hunting/gun writer's duty to try everything possible. This wasn't to become an All-Knowing Authority, but to gain some perspective for informing readers who get to hunt and shoot a lot less.

I have tried to follow his advice. At last count I'd taken big game animals with over 50 cartridges, some using black powder and home-cast bullets, along with traditional muzzleloader and bow and arrow. What I found out was that all work. There ain't any "magic" in any of them if the hunter can't hunt, and all do the job if the hunter can get close enough and shoot competently.

Of course I have my preferences, but I hope you'll never hear me saying there is one perfect answer for anyything. That tends to paint the gun writer into an untenable corner.

This is a small part of the reason Ross Seyfried doesn't work for Wolfe Publishing anymore. Ross was fond of calling this bullet or that rifle or some scope The Very Best And Perfect. To some people this made it sound like he'd tried everything. Others eventually became convinced that he hadn't looked very hard. This is not the place to debate that question. I bring it up merely to sugges that lots of experience tends to widen a hunter's perspective of what's possible, not narrow it.

As far as the hunting side of it goes, I have been both a subsistence and trophy hunter. In my 20's I was married to a tribal member of the Fort Peck Reservation, which gave me tribal hunting privileges--basically unlimited. I hunted a lot with her grandfather (born in 1898) and learned a lot of things, including how to kill sharptailed grouse on the wing with nothing but a stick. We were desperately poor then, and the wild meat we got was almost essential.

In my 40's I was able to hunt a great many places, and for large trophies. I've made 10 trips to the northern reaches of North America (which I define as any place caribou live), and have been to Africa a number of times. I've also hunted in Europe and South America more than once, and hunted in half the 50 states. On some of those hunts I got to hunt with "subsistence hunters" from other cultures, whether Inuits in the north country, Bushmen in Africa, or French-Canadian trappers, and learned a lot from all.

Is subsistence hunting harder than trophy hunting? In some ways yes, in some ways no. In subsistence hunting you're after the first piece of edible meat that crosses your path. In trophy hunting you're looking for a needle in haystack. Subsistence hunting can be made much harder by hunting where a lot of other subsistence hunters hunt. Trophy hunting is a lot harder where a lot of trophy hunters hunt.

The techniques in either case are very similar--if you are to be successful. Some have described certain hunting technqiues as "magic," but I have found them pretty similar the world over. If you don't learn to stalk, track or read sign correctly at an early age, you probably never will. Subsistence hunting may weed out the incompetents more quickly, but truly succesful trophy hunters generally know how to hunt very well. It might pay to remember that most trophy hunters weren't trophy hunters earlier in life. A few may not have been hunters at all, but most started hunting when young, and probably learned as meat hunters, if not "subsistence" hunters, however you want to define that term.

By the way, I still learn something every time I visit the range or head into the hills.

MD

Do we or should we? I think that we'd almost have to since techological advances in bullets, powder, cartridges, clothing, optics, etc. are constant. What a writer favored 20,15, or even 10 years ago could long be a second or third choice due to upgrades or essentially new equipment. I mentioned bullets in particular since we as hunters now have an overwhelming choice in them, and its not choosing the right one anymore, its choosing "a" right one out of almost endless possiblities. Things aren't as black and white as the once where. In addition, I am very young (27) in my hunting career and in my 13 or 14 years of deer hunting, I've learned alot. I now wonder what the next 13-14 will teach me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. I don't think that gun/hunting writers are any different. I guy goes on their first elk hunt and takes an elk, they have a better grasp on elk hunting to a degree than anyone that has never done it. That same guy goes on several more elk hunts and takes more elk in the process, they get more data to write about and consequently, their opions/views will change. There is so much constant change in the hunting world that changes in viewpoints is unavoidable in my opinion.

Readers and writers alike need to consider two crucial principles very carefully � and give them their due honor.

�Taste
Taste has two dimensions, horizontal and vertical.
In the horizontal dimension, some people like collecting stamps, playing bridge, or shooting while others groove on wind-sailing, TV sports, or bird-watching.
In the vertical dimension, maturity has a greater part. A beginner collector knows little at first and collects more or less indiscriminately then as he learns more and his taste matures, he specializes in a narrow field � drillings, vierlings, and other combination guns, for example, or Confederate handguns. A friend of mine collected rifle scopes and had a passel of oldies that I'd never heard of.
The classic adage de gustibus non disputandum est is Latin for "about taste, there's no disputing." An honorable person respects others' tastes however much they differ from his own.

� Opinion versus Fact
Facts are immune from opinion. They are what they are, irrespective of our opinions (water seeks its own level and runs downhill, mirrors reflect light, and falling objects in the atmosphere accelerate at a fixed rate, no matter what you and I opine or conjecture). If you want the answer to a question, don't look for it among a menu of opinions. Depending on what the question is, there may not be a "the" answer, anyway. But if there is a "the" answer, it is what it is, no matter what you or I may think.

In preparing my book Designing and Forming Custom Cartridges for publication, I tried several ways of arranging the cartridge drawings � by decimal and metric designations, by country of origin, by type of gun (rifle or handgun), in order of power, factory or wildcat, etc � and encountered with each arrangement problems that went away only when I arranged my drawings by the cartridges' designations in numerical and alphabetical order.
A good friend took vocal exception to this arrangement and to my published assertion that it was the best way that I'd tried. Nine years later, he still bitches about it � insists that the .357 Magnum drawing should be right after the .38 Special drawing, somewhere before the .38-55 Winchester, not just before the .358 Winchester (which should be before, not after, the .358 Norma Magnum). No explanation of the reasons for preferring the numerical-alphabetical arrangement sways him. I'm wrong for saying that it's the best way � for claiming that any way is the best way � but he doesn't hesitate to insist that his way is best. Oh, well � de gustibus non disputandum est.

Technology forces evolution. Experience forces evolution. Even public opinion forces evolution.

As others have pointed out, as you age, you are exposed to new methods and situations. Nothing stands still. Readers cannot allow evolving viewpoints. They may influence them, but they do not grant permission. Change is a natural occurance, resulting from a number of constantly modifying sources.

I saw a show on the Discovery channel. One of the experts on the show stated that military small arms have evolved to their peak. No major changes can occur. This statement confused me initially, because the military firearm can be made better with changes to ancillary equipment. Scopes, ammunition and materials. The piece was made in 1996. I wonder if the individual has changed his mind? I wonder if his collegues have reminded him about his public statement?

-------
Off topic Ken. I emailed regarding your book via HuntChat. Would you PM cost to Canada?

It's really very simple. Life is on the job training. The reason you can't teach an old dog new tricks is because, quite often, the dog has seen that trick before and isn't about to be fooled again. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Old Dog

Is this ever true...
When I first started shooting/hunting again, at age 25, I couldn't wait to accumulate as many guns as I could...

I wanted to shoot them all, all the time..I was up to about 65 guns at one point, whichis nothing compared to some collections, but pretty impressive for a 28 year old...

I swore I would NEVER sell a gun..I wanted my collection to be HUGE, even tot he point where the house was leaking guns..

A few years ago I wondered why the hell I had all these guns that I haven't shot in 2-3 years..I started to prune.

Now I am only interested in high quality guns, that suit my purposes. I kept only hte very best, or the sentimental (I cannot bring myself to sell my fathers guns, even the old Mauser bolt action 16 guage that he bought for $5)

Nowdays, I only need a couple of good quality all around hunting rifles, one large gun for grizzly hunting, a few shotguns, a few handguns, a couple of good .22's and a couple of Milsurp "fun guns' ...

It would seem like some type of self harm if a persons view evolved with their experience, and they held onto a previous established counter opinion, for the sake of being consistent with their readers.