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

Yesssss, I have the same problem, now if only my body matched my brain. LOL<P>Horrifying thought: What if it does?

"now if only my body matched my brain.... Horrifying thought...."<P>If "practice makes perfect," how come after all these years of practice the muscles in this old carcass have gotten, the WORSE they are now than they were fifty years ago? �o)

I have experienced the same thing when it comes to firearms manufacturers. I say that tests have shown that Mossberg 590's are more reliable than 870's. They tell me "Well I know a guy who had a Mossberg jam out of the box and I have never had any of my 870's jam" <P>As far as your IQ... oh never mind.<P>Also you make the best use of the word "Shalom" for any self proclaimed Christian I have seen.

Mr. Howell, I see your reasoned point and the underlying discipline that guides your life and work. If I may, much of the animosity expressed toward many gun writers here and on several other sights comes from the suspicion that much of what's published today is little more than reworked advertising copy. Critical reviews of a gunmaker's products are exceedingly rare. There's no balance and nothing comparable to, for example, that found in many automotive journals, where writers compare products, rate features and report which machine never made it out of the mud hole. It's the ''A lot of gun for tne money,'' ''A new dimension for a longtime gunmaker,'' and ''Has all the accuracy a hunter could ever use,'' that makes all too many readers sharpen their canines and bite back. My example of the automotive press excludes MotorTrend magazine and its ''Car of the Year'' awards.

OK, I'll fan these flames, I have been around literally millions of shotgun shells being fired and have seen numerous Mossberg's break, although I don't know if they were 590's or not, and have never seen an 870 break. I'll take an 870 over any Mossberg ever made and we can test them however you want. I'm not saying they are flawless, but if they work for the first box they tend to work for a very long time, dirt and grit, not withstanding. Take a Mossberg out, shoot it 50,000 times or so and let me know if anything breaks. Then we can talk. <p>[This message has been edited by If It Flies It Dies (edited April 11, 2001).]

While I havent shot my 590 50,000 times, I agree with you that if it shoots the first few boxes itll shoot forever. Dont forget that 870's haven't been mil-spec consistently for the past 25 years. Only reason that 590's arent being ordered anymore is so they can have a high capacity auto.<P>Oh, and never say never. I have seen 870's break although it doesnt happen often. <P>As far as testing when the Marine Corps tells me that a firearm is best in its class and fit for duty (mostly embassy for shotguns) ill take their word on it.<p>[This message has been edited by Cazador (edited April 11, 2001).]

Please cite any tests that show the Mossberg to be superior to the Remington. <P>Here is a test, there are still thousands of 870's being shot hundreds of 1000's of times at competitive trap each week. Guess how many Mossbergs are out there?

Sorry, guys, I just can't NOT ask:<P>What do the writers say about how often them thar shottguns � uh, shotgunns, uh, shotteguns (whatever!) come apart in use?<P>hee-heeeeeeeeee!

I believe that when we speak of "gun writers" most of us are refering to the writers who are paid to write a report on a specific gun. If you believe that a writer who is writing the article for a magazine, who's main sorce of revenue is advertising by the companies who's products are being evaluated, is going to bite the hand that feeds them then IMHO you are very naive. There are some very good writers out there. They are the ones who compare one product against another. Some of the ones that write hunting stories are awsome and have kept me entertained for hours at a time. When they write an article about Remington's M410 and tell me it's the greatest thing since peanut butter, that's not writing, that's a comercial. Of course this is just my opinion and I'm not a genius.

Dr. Howell, <P>When I asked him to cite some tests, it should be obvious that I was not referring to any conducted by gunwriters. I meant some that might be valid.<P>Ha,Ha, hee, heee, ho, ho....<P>Fire burn and cauldron bubble........<BR>Stir the pot and make some trouble.<P>PS. Two of the stranger cross word puzzle clues I ever saw were in the same puzzle.<BR>One was, "Try to murder Shakespeare" and since you don't have the rest of the puzzle to work with, answer is 10 letters, relevant to this forum, 3 words and begins with "f".<BR>Second, in the same puzzle to give a further hint was clue, "A Parisian's complaint" answer, "a French Whine".

Clint from Flint, what is most obvious in both your post here and the allusions you cite in it is the penchant of so many cynical readers to form flint-hard negative opinions about people and practices they don't KNOW anything about. I think it's striking how so many harshly judgmental readers can so easily keep themselves convinced that their opinions, based on nothing known (merely suspected, cynically), are more accurate than solid facts that I and others can attest to.<P>"Naive?" Bull sweat! Cynicism is no guarantee of accuracy, certainly no guarantee that you can't be hornswoggled just as easily as those of us who can trust, believe, and respect people whom we don't know.<P>My trust has been betrayed too many times to count or remember. Every time it happens, I vow that I'll never trust anyone again. A second later, I remind myself that it's more healthful, mentally and emotionally, to trust and be betrayed than to be unable to trust.<P>"Naive?" Balderdash!<P>When your premises are inaccurate or flat wrong, even the conclusions that you can logically derive from them are equally inaccurate or flat wrong.<p>[This message has been edited by Ken Howell (edited April 12, 2001).]

Let me add a couple of facts to help clarify the thinking of honest readers willing to form more-accurate ideas about gun writers' ethics and judgment.<P>� In several threads and many discussions, I notice that readers' judgments of writers are almost invariably inaccurate in two stark, distinctly contrasting ways:<BR>� impugning writers whom I know to be honest and ethical<BR>� honoring (often worshiping) writers whom I know to be dishonest and unethical<P>There are many honest, ethical, trustworthy writers. I KNOW this to be true, because I know and have known so many of them.<P>There are also of course too many dishonest, unethical, not-to-be-trusted writers. I KNOW this to be true, because I know and have known so many of them.<P>It's both striking and ironic to me that critical readers almost always condemn and distrust the good ones and regard the shady ones as oracular demigods.<P>� Readers opine that writers should report the flaws and short-comings � certainly any total uselessness or worthlessness � of merchandise that they write about. But when a writer says anything derogatory or disparaging about a rifle, scope, powder, bullet, ANYTHING, no matter how accurate his observations or how discreetly he presents them, he and his magazine find themselves far into the densest, fiercest, longest-lasting flak cloud you can imagine. Writing truthfully and accurately about the warts and pimples on examined merchandise draws more readers' hostile fire, by far, than omitting mention of them.<P>Magazines have been founded on the announced mission of printing the full truth about everything they examine. And sooner or later, they die. Readers don't prove, by buying enough of those magazines to keep them in business, that as a community or a market, they really want the full truth.<P>Readers often flock to the shelves to buy items that writers had identified as poor in some respect. One of my staff writers wrote a harsh report on an item, and readers tore down the maker's doors to buy that item. My conclusion was that they hadn't read the report at all � all they needed to know, it seemed, was "Hey, 'Elmer O'Connor' wrote that up in Rifle magazine! I gotta have one!"<P>These and other manifestations of readers' thinking convince me that readers' harshly negative opinions of writers originate primarily in envy, hostility, and cynicism, not in objective appraisal of known facts and proven truths or in accurate personal knowledge of the writers as people.

Yours is but one opinion and like me you are entitled to yours.

Mine is "... but one opinion ..."?<P>Nope. Wrong again.<P>Mine are facts, frequently observed and abundantly experienced over several decades of intimate familiarity and close associations � plus several opinions based on solid facts, not on predetermined and baseless earlier opinions.<P>The main reason I like mine better'n yours is that I KNOW very well both what and whom we're both talking about, and you THINK you know what you clearly don't. I know how wrong you are, and you obviously don't want to know how right I am.<P>Even biased personal opinions hit closer to the X ring of truth when they're based on solid knowledge of the pertinent facts, not on preexisting biases alone.<P>On witness stands here and there from time to time, I'm asked my opinion on such and such a technical point. My experience leads, entitles, and demands of me that I answer something like "Given the marks on the case and the way the receiver and stock disintegrated, my opinion is that the shooter loaded that cartridge with a drastic overcharge, most likely also using a much faster-burning powder than he should use in that cartridge." My opinion would be a direct outgrowth of closely studied facts.<P>If my opinion were to rest on the same kind of "thinking" that I refuse to acknowledge here as sound logic, my legally illegitimate answer would instead be something like "My opinion is that the shooter didn't deserve to be maimed so severely, even if he did goof a little bit, and the factory has more money than he does, so I think the company should take good financial care of him the rest of his life."<P>I can depend on my kind of opinion to put me closer to the truth than your kind ever can.<p>[This message has been edited by Ken Howell (edited April 12, 2001).]

This thread started with an accusation that a writer got something for nothing and became a shill for the manufacturer. I (stupidly) chimed in, adding thoughts about gun magazines publishing advertising copy as though it were editorial content: That's my point. I did not mention whose writing, in my opinion, illustrates the cynical beliefs of more than a few publishers (''They're too stupid to know the difference''). I chose not to enter the Keith-O'Connor debate because I like both their writing. It's not about personalities, character,integrity, shoe size, anger or envy; it's the shilling that grinds. I'm done and on the verge of saying something to somebody that I know I later will regret. For you Christians, a joyous Easter and, if you're not one, never mind. Joe Zemaitis, a descendant of the last European tribe to accept Christianity.

I wanted to reply to Clint's point about not being able to trust the integrity of a writer who works for a magazine where the reviewed product is from an advertiser. I can understand this concern, but I can tell you from experience, that his generalization doesn't reflect reality in all cases. My magazine has lost advertisers because of criticizing their products. <P>Most advertisers are actually pretty cool with a bad review--as long as we can demonstrate that we have been fair in our review. Sometimes it can be a hassle, though. I remember a CD-ROM drive manufacturer that complained to everyone from the Editor in Chief on down about a somewhat negative review based on some informal--but solid--tests. We sat down with them and agreed to retest another model and a competitor of our choosing, and we mutually agreed on the tests. Our retests proved that our original conclusions were valid, and the vendor finally shut up (reluctantly). <P>Now, I know there are also computer magazines out there that never met a product they didn't like--but I think the astute reader can figure that out too. I'm not saying my magazine is perfect, we have some inexperienced people, and it's a continual struggle among the senior staffers to make sure we're putting out an A-class product.<P>The idea that a magazine that doesn't accept advertising is automatically giving you a better review is not based on fact. I subscribe to one very famous consumer magazine that accepts no advertising. However, I've seen this magazine recommend some very poor quality computer products in the past, including some models from a company that had among the worst records for reliability and service I've seen. As a computer journalist with 14 years of experience, I can say that this magazine's computer coverage has improved, but it does not match that of some of the magazines that accept advertising but specialize in testing and reporting on computer products.<P>Under a free-enterprise economic model, you have to be able to pay the bills, pay your employees, and make a buck if you want to deliver information for a living. You can either charge a large amount of money for the information and accept no advertising, or you can use ad revenues to help ease the bite on your reader. The biggest, most widely circulated magazines use the latter approach. <P>I can't speak for other publications, but ours does not allow ad salespeople into editorial meetings--and it's strictly forbidden for the ad guys to try to influence edit. By the way, my company does both no-advertising and advertising supported products.<P>Sorry for the long-winded comment. I'm sure it will not convince those who are convinced (as some of our own readers are) that if you take advertising, it has to influence your editiorial integrity.

Ken, I respect your observations, and I will not argue. The rest, same there.<BR> I agree that SOME writers probably would deserve all the critism. I would also agree that many do not. I think all of us can agree upon that. I don't think anyone here is trying to trash gun writers. If there were no gun writers, there would be no magazines for us to suscribe to. Now, can we calm the waters a little bit.

All the Gun writers are dead,and have been for Twenty years. It wouldn't be bad if they could tell us something new and useful, but now all they do is Shill a Product. BTW Mr. Howell I have read some of your articles and find you technically sound, but you haven't told me anything that Warren Page didn't. A run of the Mill rifle will last a Lifetime of hard use. If the Gun Companies didn't put new makeup on the same tired old Woman, they would all be out of business.<BR>Pretty stuff but still the same 1962 M700.<BR>Lets see? That was Thirty nine years ago when they changed the Bolt handle and safety on the M725 and said look what we have. A new model Remington Rifle. RIGHT!

No writer worth a wet Pyrodex pellet thinks that anything he writes is for every reader's interest or information. No reader worth a fired primer thinks that anything a writer writes is meant for him if he already knows it. For every writer, and for every article he writes, there's always a bunch of people out there who know the subject better than he does � and I'm definitely NOT referring to the know-it-alls (KIAs). They're a class unto themselves, and all they ever contribute to any forum is sour before it comes off the vine. <P>(I'm saving my best stuff for later anyway. You'd better ignore it. It'll ruin your day.)<P>I never met Warren Page. Have always admired him as a writer and hunter, mainly, even though he was the first writer to come to my attention as a shill (your term). My friend, the very poor, VERY honest Charlie O'Neil, was fuming one day � Page had presented an offer he didn't think Charlie could refuse (essentially but not quite verbatim, "Build me a free OKH rifle and finance a thirty-day safari in Africa, and I'll make you rich and famous").<P>Charlie ran him off so fast his shoes smoked.<P>Apparently, Art Mashburn didn't run him off.<P>Another friend of mine, on the NRA technical staff, knew Page quite well. At a benchrest match in Page's later years, my NRA friend saw Page holding court with a crowd of his admirers. My friend and one or two of his buddies worked their way to the front of the group. When Page paused, my friend asked him whether he'd ever had hemorrhoids. Puzzled by the question, Page said no, he hadn't.<P>"Ah!" my friend said, "Just as I thought � a perfect [burro] [aperture]."<P>And you know what? I still admire Warren Page for what else he was � a writer as skilled at his craft as Jack O'Connor, Robert Ruark, and others � an able hunter � one of the founding fathers of benchrest. Something my father told me when I was a boy rang true then and has been a foundation principle for me ever since � "No single characteristic of a person is the totality of that person." (My simpler form is "Nobody is only one thing.")<P>I'm not surprised to hear that whatever you've read of my writing didn't tell you anything you didn't already know, years ago. There's one like you in every crowd, and it's good for any writer to be reminded of your presence. Last year, I presented a symposium on how to design a cartridge, to a couple of hundred shooters (maybe more). Presented a lot of classical interior-ballistics information (learned from Homer Powley) that still hasn't been published in laymen's gun literature, that not even Warren Page knew. Afterward, quite a few men from that crowd thanked and complimented me for the "new" (to them) information � while one man circulated through the crowd, saying over and over that he knew all that already.<P>So he'd wasted that hour or so of his time.<P>I hadn't wasted mine.<P>Readers of my Custom Cartridges book know the story of the famous "screw-in primer." Bill Ruger told me of the time he was driving the prototype (only one ever built) of the Ruger car down the Connecticut Turnpike. At a toll station, he didn't have the change to toss into the toll bucket, so he took the lane to a manned toll booth. The fellow manning the booth stared at the Ruger car.<P>"What kind of car is that?<P>"It's a Ruger."<P>"Oh, yeah! My father used to drive one o' them!"<P>(Yeah, yeah, sure he did!)<BR>

<BR> I for one like most stuff that outdoor's writer's get published. I was no star but I did some writng years ago, its not an easy job and your not going to get rich off of it.<P> A lot of the negative comments here appear to come from some really uninformed people, why bash a total stranger's work ? I cant think of any one writer who's work I cant stand. You should see how hard it can be to keep coming up with interesting stuff month after month, especially, I imagine, if you have to write several a month, in an attempt to keep your kid's off of Alpo.<P> Being a Public figure can be a real treat, try running around with a tin star and polyester. So many people go thru the day looking for something, or someone, to take their lousy attitude on.<P> I like the work of Boddington and many other outdoor's writer's. There was a thread congratulating him for makeing BG. A guy posted congratulating him !BUT! he made a point of saying he didnt like his writing.<P> What does writing have to do with a man who's dedicated his life to defending his country and attained the great honor of becoming a Brigidier General in the U.S. Marine Corp?<P> Im not surprised he doesnt post here anymore.......10