Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Gun Writers and Their Divorce From Reality

(I posted this on another site, too.) Just got an order from Midway USA today. Along with the usual ads there was a reprint from the April 2001 Shooting Times. This was a three page article by Rick Jamison about the Hawkeye bore scope. Don't get me wrong, I think Jamison is one of the writers usually less full of baloney than most. Jamison described the scope and its use in great<BR>detail and mentioned that it is currently available at a $60 discount-a mere $700. The last paragraph read as follows. "IF YOU'RE A COMPETITION RIFLE SHOOTER, YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO BE WITHOUT A BORE SCOPE. EVEN THE AVERAGE SHOOTER WHO IS SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN THE CONDITION OF RIFLE BORES NEEDS ONE." The bore scope looks like a great thing for a gunsmith specializing in barrel work, and I have looked into a barrel through one at just such a smith's shop, but an essential for the average shooter? Has Jamison been getting free tools in exchange for promotion for so long that he has taken leave of his senses? Sorry to cut this so short-I have to return to planet Earth to clean a rifle. I will be using my homemade cleaning cradle, a homemade rod guide, a homemade cleaning rod handle and homemade Ed's Red. curmudgeon

Curmudgeon,<P>I can understand your feelings on this, and, for the moment I don't have a bore scope, but I want one. BTW Want One is a first cousin of the poster on here, Need One. And, Jamison really is right, according to the people I talk with that have them AND shoot competitively or just a lot, they are a really informative addition to your shooting accessories. BUT they certainly are not necessary for most hunters who will probably never wear out a barrel in their endeavors and they are expensive and somewhat fragile. Most people would rather have another gun than a borescope, but some of us like all the current bells and whistles. Just like some people have to have the latest electronic gadget. You pays your money and takes your choices. Ahh, consumption, what keeps the American economy rolling. Good shooting.

Where I work, as a helicopter mechanic, we use boroscopes from time to time, checking out turbine engine for damage or excessive wear. But I don't see the need for boroscoping a rifle barrel. <P>Even if you have one, and find some sort of anamoly in your barrel, just what will that tell you, that a few sessions at the range won't tell you? Either the rifles a "shooter" or it's not. Would you replace a barrel that shoots MOA, just because a land doesn't look right, or perhaps "fouls" too much half way down the barrel? I don't think I would! <P>I doubt you'd be able to detect any microsopic crack in the barrel with a 'scope. <P>Don't get me wrong! I love toys like every other guy! But a boroscope just doesn't seem worth the expense. Like "IIFID", do I "want one"? Sure. Would I buy one? No.<P>Anyhow, I agree with Curmudgeon, gun writers just might have too much time and money on their hands. <P>------------------<BR>Brian<BR><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/bw_99835/" TARGET=_blank>The 416 Taylor WebPage!</A>

I have used a borescope before, and I can't say that I would call it a "must have" item. $700 is a lot of change to drop for something that will see so little use. A $3 bore light will be sufficient for most guys. Funny how writers lose sight of that when the stuff is free? I guess I would rather spend the $697 change on a new rifle or handgun (or two!). <P>------------------<BR>Stush

To quote a barrel maker friend of mine..<BR>"Keep the damn bore scope out of the barrel!!!!You'll just scare the crap out of yourself and then wear out your elbow!"<BR>Seriously.<BR>Good barrels from good makers on good rifles are cheaper than bore scopes.<BR>Still,sometimes ya just gotta know.<BR>Jamison is on crack if he thinks the average ST reader can take advantage of a borescope!<BR>Most guy's will see their bore,get shocked and then decide that it's good enough and then go on shootin' the same scary barrel!<BR>I have the good fortune of knowing several gunwriters,and it ain't always about telling it like it is,but covering what is handed to the writer.<BR>Jamison probably would probably have rather been out shooting chucks than write that piece.At least I hope so!<BR>E4E

The thing that really surprises me is the recoil punishment that some guys want to subject themselves to in the rifles they are purchasing. I strongly support buying what you wish, but in my neck of the woods, I have mounted a few scopes for others, and "helped" sight them in on the rifle range we have on the property.<P>I have "helped" with 338's 458's a few other heavy recoil rifles. Unless you have a dangerous game hunt in mind, The recoil abuse that some of these Orville Overkills have taken in the name of whitetail hunting is fairly drastic IMHO. <P>They usually ask me what I use for whitetail hunting and when I bring out my NEF 30-30, it gets quite a few laughs. I bought a used VariX111 in 1.5-5-20mm for it that cost more than the rifle.----Chainsaw

Rick Jamison BOUGHT his Hawkeye borescope.<P>How do I know?<P>My friend at Gradient Lens, who SOLD me my Hawkeye, told me so. He also told me that Gradient (a) had a policy of giving NOTHING away free and (b) had never given a gun writer a free Hawkeye.<P>Some gun writers ARE indeed freebie-moochers and product pimps. A reader who lumps us ALL into those categories is probably a liar and a sneak himself, so he assumes that we're all as unreliable and oily as he is. The looser a person is with the truth, the more easily and quickly he assumes that everyone else is.<P>Please note that I'm using my own real name here, not sniping from behind the anonymous cover of some "handle."<P>I've been writing for publication since a year after the end of World War Two, and I know and have known, personally, about seventy or eighty (or maybe more) well known gun and outdoor writers, past and present � have hunted with many, had several as guests in my home, have visited more than a few in their homes, have had a multitude of personal contacts with them. It's probably safe to assume that none of you who love to badmouth us have known as many, as well as I have. I've also edited the columns, articles, and books of many more writers than I've personally known.<P>From this background, I know how far off the mark you are when you allege that we get everything that we write about FREE. You simply don't know what the Hell you're talking about. Yes, we get SOME things free, because once we've used 'em in tests, we can't return 'em in new condition, if at all (cases, bullets, primers, powders, etc), or it's less costly to the manufacturers to write them off than it costs them to accept those used products back and refurbish them for later sale.<P>We borrow the expensive stuff ("on consignment" is the trade terminology) for a specified period � then we have the option of either buying the product or returning it. A few writers abuse this superb privilege, but most don't. I never have. My personal honor and my personal relationship with my Lord, Jesus, won't allow me to do such a sorry thing. I know a number of writers who share BOTH these reasons for honoring this privilege and never abusing it.<P>I suspect that the reader who assumes that we're all getting everything free and regurgitating the manufacturers' product releases is exactly the kind of person who would grab everything left loose within his reach and make off with it, given any kind of opportunity to do so. If you found a fine new rifle, handgun, scope, binocular, etc, under a conference-room table where you knew the manufacturer's company had just been there introducing that product to a bunch of writers, what would YOU do with it? What makes you think that ALL writers are as dishonest as you are, or less honest than you are?<P>Most of the writers I know and have known are honest men. I'd trust 'em quicker and farther than any anonymous pot-shooter who runs around smearing writers because he assumes that we're all as slimy as he is.

Ken, I guess a somebody touched a nerve so I'll try not to make matters worse here. I am actually a little surprised that so many people assume that the equipment that writers test is free or given away. I have had problems with writers not being honest in evaluating equipment at times, but never assumed the equipment was free. In fact, I've read in a couple of articles where writers have purchased the equipment they were testing because it turned out that the particular test specimen was particularly accurate, well built, or tripped the writer's fancy somehow.<BR>I guess this is just another example where assuming can get us into trouble or make us , let's just say, "expose our nature" at times. -Sheister

If I may, Curmudgeon's post has more than a little merit and is underscored by Jamison's enthusiasm for a tool that sells for $700. For an ''average shooter.'' I think not and wonder why Jamison would pen such a sentence. It sounds like a sales pitch, pure and simple and reads too much like the alleged product reviews published in several big name firearms magazines. I place Jamison among the good guys in the writing business but can understand resentment from readers who are offered sales brochures under the guise of editorial content. You referred to Jesus and went downward from there with mean-spirited assumptions. I've seen you do this before. Joe Zemaitis, 131 N. Main St., Lombard, Il., 60148 630-495-9686

Wow! Talk about bias and double standards!<P>Readers can spout all kinds of mean-spirited, utterly unfounded trash born of complete ignorance of the facts and fathered by hostile assumptions, and that's freedom of speech and freedom of opinion.<P>A writer has to take all this crap about himself and his friends for years � then when one of us speaks up and calmly shows how stupid and silly some readers' conclusions about us and opinions of us are, "someone has touched a nerve." Let a writer put things clear and straight in the tone that the balderdash deserves, and he's "gone downhill."<P>We writers take a lot of undeserved guff and stuff from readers. Few readers who shovel it out so freely and without foundation and justification can stand the truth when it's put plainly and clearly before them. <P>I didn't make any assumption, mean-spirited or otherwise. I referred to what I've seen and what a significant portion of thoughtful mankind has long acknowledged to be true.<P>As for what Rick says about the Hawkeye, he's right when he says it's an important tool for careful, dedicated, technically minded shooters. That speaks to its usefulness and practicality.<P>Its price versus its usefulness is a balancing act for you to decide for yourself. If Rick is out of order for pointing out the real-world value of a borescope, simply because some shooters can't afford it or don't consider it worth what it costs, then no writer has any right to recommend any product to anybody. No, it's not for everybody. What is, in this game?<p>[This message has been edited by Ken Howell (edited April 09, 2001).]

Well, there you go again, as Ron Reagan said to Jimmy Carter. Mr. Howell, Curmudgeon's post noted a key phrase used by Rick Jamison, the words ''average shooter.'' Some writers do take a lot of guff from readers, and deservedly so; it's called criticism, especially when the medium is driven by advertising concerns--one of the worst being Peterson Publications and their eagerness to push products. It would be nice if writers pointed out what was bought and what was given to them, especially when average readers are flipping the pages.<p>[This message has been edited by 2shots (edited April 09, 2001).]

Ken<BR>If that is not how you respond when a nerve gets touched, I would sure hate to be around when you do get one touched.<P>In your first post, next to last sentence, you posit that an earlier poster would steal a found article? Where do you get off suggesting such a thing? Twice, I was cheated out of rent money on a rental house we owned by church pastors, does that give me right or reason to post bad things about people who claim to have a relationship with Jesus? <P>I failed to see the reason for your bile, and I regularly accept free stuff for my opinions. <P>E4E: I believe you got to the point of the whole issue very succinctly, thanks.<BR>art<P>------------------<BR>Life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun.

Well, first of all, as Curmudgeon quotes, Mr. Jamison does not just say "for the average shooter", he says, "even the average shooter who is seriously interested in the condition of rifle bores needs one." That seems clear enough to me. I am seriously interested in one and I am certainly within the commonly defined parameters of an average shooter, if one is discussing my competitive rifle skills. Also, he does not say it is essential for the average shooter, just that it is an informative tool. I repeat, if you can afford it, and want one, why not? If you can't or don't want one, so be it. If, after you get one, you find out that you are unable to adequately process the information it provides, well, ole P.T. summed that one up. But that would be the purchasers problem, not the problem of a good piece of equipment. Haven't you ever had a barrel that went south and you really didn't know why? Is it the bedding,etc? If the rifle was purchased used, could be the barrel, how would you know, without extensive work and time invested? The borescope would tell you instantly. Quick, what was that number again, I WANT ONE.<BR>

"Deservedly so?" Bull sweat.<P>It is not "deservedly so" when cynics tag the entire community of writers as freebie-moochers and product pimps (my terms for a lot more of my colleagues than I wish there were among us) � especially when they go on to reveal that they don't know gnat squat about how we go about our craft and very poorly compensated profession.<P>It is not "deservedly so" when someone publishes a pejorative opinion about a writer he knows absolutely nothing about, especially when he bases his judgment of that writer on something he merely imagines about another writer, or about writers in general.<P>I have not addressed any of my comments to any individual poster, here or elsewhere, except those specific posts that I address to someone BY NAME OR HANDLE. When I don't specifically address my comments to an individual by name, I write to a typical, anonymous reader who's only one among how many I can't even guess. Even when I address a comment to a person, I know and intend that my comment will be read by others.<P>My "what would you do" question was what's known as a rhetorical question. This is not the place to go into what a rhetorical question is, so if you don't already know, look it up. I did not suggest that anyone in particular would be dishonest in that situation. In fact, a literate reader can easily see that I assumed and expected an honest handling of the misplaced goodie.<P>Which brings into focus this wry irony � an anonymous poster can legitimately impugn me and my colleagues, some by name, yet I'm out of order to ASK what an anonymous poster would do in a specified situation.<P>My father was a pastor for several decades � so was I, much more briefly � and no one knows better than I do how corrupt, sneaky, and despicable SOME ('way too many) men of the cloth are. In their very negative way, they've added to my reasons for continuing the Howell family heritage, which my uncle put into words very well � "maintain complete integrity with a sense of humor." (We'd all been raised to that standard, but he was the first to express it succinctly).<P>Several of the comments and allegations in this thread lead me almost to three conclusions:<P>� We know how to write, but many of you don't know how to read or how to get (from what you read) all and only what it says.<P>� An anonymous reader can (should, some think) lambaste us by name and in general with all kinds of low thoughts and motives, and specific character flaws, but a writer is out of line to generalize about a certain kind of reader's manifest behavior and its origins.<P>� Published writers are considered fair game with no closed season and no limit, so any sleazy slur on our integrity is "deservedly so" � yet an anonymous reader can publish, here, his sleazy opinions about us writers, and a writer's clear and factual defense is "bile."<P>Who is it out there issuing hunting licenses and setting seasons and bag limits on writers? Who is it out there who's declaring the complete protection of readers who are out to bring writers down?<P>I admire, by the way, the candor of one poster above who posted his name and address (which I don't remember).<P>I do NOT, sir, accept your scolding. You are at least as far out of line as you think I am.<P>And you who accuse me of bile are also miles off-course. Using the term "bile" to impugn my defense of honorable men against cheap, unfounded smear is in itself somewhat less than honorable. I readily recognize and accept that you probably didn't intend it to be offensive, but you should know that it is an insult by its very nature. As a way to discredit my defense of most writers' honor, it is a sorry technique.<P>I have not intended to offend anyone, but I don't apologize for offending anyone who's intent on believing that ALL of us who write for YOU (at *&^%$#@! poor rates) are beneath your respect and credulity. I don't "buy" your "rules of the game." They stink.<p>[This message has been edited by Ken Howell (edited April 09, 2001).]

Mr. Howell, in my fumble-fingered way I guess I was trying to defend your side of this arguement, but lacking your talent for articulation it was probably taken in the opposite spirit in which it was intended- the same accusation you quite often make against many of us at times. Without trying to read between the lines, we all seem to make the same mistake of assuming to know what was being said when it quite often is not the case at all. <BR>I'm not really sure what has set you off tonight, as usually you are quite understanding of our foibles in the written arena- where our weaknesses are all the more pronounced for all to see. But you don't have to point out by name who you refer to in your posts, implications are clear enough when you quote exact phrases. Maybe we should all call it a night and see if we understand the point of this whole exercise in the morning. -Sheister

Sheister, I didn't see anything objectionable in your comments. And I usually don't bother trying to refute sleazy slurs aimed at me. But I'm fiercely loyal to both my friends and my readers.<P>When I hear a writer start snapping about readers in general, I remind him of a few things that he should constantly pay close attention to. (E g, "Your readers are your only reason or justification for writing. You owe 'em your complete loyalty and respect," "Never let yourself lose sight of the fact that no matter what you write about, or how much you know about it, there's a passel of readers out there who know as much about it as you do � if not more," etc.)<P>When readers who don't know what the Hell they're talking about start casting broad nets of slurs onto the reputations of men whom I know don't have it coming, I feel that it's in the long-term best interest of both readers in general and writers in general to set the record straight.<P>The nastier or more ill-founded the allegations are, the more I feel the need to speak pointedly instead of using syrupy, fluffily polite prose. Remember the mule that needs the introductory love pat with the 2x4? Too often and unfortunately, the only way to make a point and make it stick is to use pointed words.<P>I know all too well that those who're terminally addicted to disparaging writers (usually to make them feel bigger themselves) have set their minds flint-hard against being persuaded that we're not all the kind of sleaze balls they prefer to think we are. So I come down hard against what they say, but aim my comments at others who'll read my words.<P>Otherwise, I wouldn't waste good words on the flint-heads. The person persuaded against his will [the old saying goes] remains unpersuaded still.<P>If I were to hear but did not refute sleazy slurs on my colleagues, generally or by name, I would be tacitly accepting if not endorsing "facts" that are NOT facts. So I have to speak, pointedly, and take the flak. Simple honor and loyalty require nothing else or less.<P>This is especially true for me, since I'm well known among my colleagues and in the industry for frequently and openly criticizing the shady and downright unethical things that too many writers do. I coldly and equally despise the rotten behavior of both sleazy writers and the sleazy criticism directed at ethical writers. A few unethical writers would love to hang me from spikes driven through my scrotum for blocking their scams aimed at getting freebies from new gun-makers and advertisers whom they've been trying to persuade that God gave writers the right to all the freebies they want.<p>[This message has been edited by Ken Howell (edited April 09, 2001).]

Regarding Ken Howell's point: Suppose people habitually disagreed with your point of view by questioning your honesty? Think about it. I know a lot of professional writers and editors. They are no less ethical and honest than other people I've met. Think about yourself, your friends, and the folks you work with and go to church with. Why is it that you think it's okay to challenge the honesty of someone you don't know based on some assumption you don't know anything about? Suppose somebody who didn't know anything about what you do started making similar assumptions? Say what you will--you undoubtedly have good points to make, at the very least from your point of view. But focus on the argument, and leave off the characterization. I don't think anyone is a bad guy here. I think a lot of times guys just say things, then they feel like they're stuck with it and they start justifying it and the next thing you know we have another huge flame war going and we lose a few more good guys. I can tell you that Ken Howell has a lot of good things to say. I'd like to see him stick around. I think curmudgeon had a good point to make, and it inspired a good discussion. I do think that the offhanded questioning of honesty was ill advised. I know it always offends me when someone tells me one of my colleagues is "in the advertisers' pocket." By the way, when it comes to "hardware," the almost universal rule is that you borrow the computer, hard drive, sound system, receiver, or whatever and return it after the review. Consumables that can't be reused, such as software, media, books, and so forth are typically kept (unless the vendor requests return) and usually donated to charitable organizations when applicable. In 14 years involvement with reviewing computer equipment, I've never been influenced to recommend a product because of ad dollars or a company sending me a product. I can honestly say I've seen the same behavior from my colleagues. Of course, in my end of the business 95 percent of the editorial staffers are raging, flaming, anti-Second Amendment liberals. Sigh...

Ken<BR>I am sorry to have to bring this up this way, I have actually read your stuff for a long while- you have been around long enough to be my father, and In person I would accord you all kinds of respect. But here in the ether, I have no way to do that and address the issues.<P>As I said in my first post, you have assumed that someone willing to flame a writer (from the relative safety and anonymity of the afore mentioned ether) would take a valuable found article, knowing the rightful owner.<P>Not only can I write, but in the course of earning a degree in english lit, I did learn to read very critically. I do not see how you can call a pre-answered question rhetorical. If you would like, we can discuss the many styles of rhetorical questions laid out by the best semanticists of our time, and I guarantee you will have some trouble finding a place to put that question.<P>The original poster's incredulity is well-founded, his delivery might not have been as gentle as it could be, but because he went from point A- written absurdity (in his mind) to point C- logical position for his set of beliefs- by way of the only logical reason he could come up with ie. ulterior motive- he supposed the guy was on the take. <P>I believe you did smear the guy for questioning a writer's motive. While his criticism was harsh, he does make a point that at least a fair percentage of readers would ascribe to. To clarify that point, he questioned how many average shooters would need such a (pricey) tool. <P>By the way, the courts have decided that a public figure is expected to take the flak. The guy put his stuff out there, he should accept the consequences. I would suggest that the group sitting around a fire would have seen the rolling eyeballs and the smile and it would never have gotten this far.<P>Again, I mean no disrespect, Sir.<BR>Art Peck<P>------------------<BR>Life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun.

Wow! Ken Howell is a lot faster writer than I am! Organizes his posts in neat paragraphs, too. Here I start my defense, and he pops off two posts while I'm getting my fumbly fingers to tap out one. Something tells me he doesn't need my defense. Anyway, I hope everyone kind of sees the good side of all this. An Ken Howell, I think I'll stick to my anonymous handle, considering all those flaming liberals I work with.

Dear Mr. Howell: I participate in this forum for information and fun. As in many other areas of life when character, politics or religion enter the fun leaves. Character and religion have arrived. I will leave this thread before politics show up, too. curmudgeon