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

"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>I did NOT assume or imply anything of the kind, sir!<P>Read my very next pointed question, and you should be able to discern that I obviously based it on the assumption that the answer would be "I'd return it to the owner," (I'd turn it in to lost-and-found," "I'd do the ethical thing," or something of the sort.<P>I don't recall my exact wording, but it was along the line of "why, then, do you so readily and easily assume that anyone else would be less honest than you consider yourself to be?" Doesn't that question explicitly assume a promise of honesty from the person who so easily impugns the honesty of writers?<P>And I have to point out here that the "arguments" so far presented here, aimed at knocking me off my perch, are personal, not logical, not factual. Good reason for that � no one here can factually and logically refute what I say about the ethics of most of the writers I know, or what I say about the disparity between the eagerness to disparage good people and the solid, unyielding resistance to my defense of good people whom I know well and most of you don't know at all.

Thanks, Art, for signing your real name. But I have to take exception to your "I believe you did smear the guy for questioning a writer's motive" and reject what "at least a fair percentage of readers would ascribe to" as justification for anything.<P>I did not smear anyone. If you consider what I said a "smear," then you should be irate and raging at what I've been trying to rebut. I did not aim my comments at a person but at (a) an anonymous cadre, if you will, of those who shoot at writers from the brush and (b) more specifically at the ammo those nameless snipers use.<P>As to the comment someone made here about our obligation to take the flak simply because we've written for publication, you have woefully confused writers with public officials. We retain the right to be immune from slander and libel, and to seek redress when we're slandered and libeled.<P>Besides, it's one thing to voice a libelous or slanderous opinion in private � quite another thing to publish it here. For one thing, when you [general "you" here, not aimed at anyone in particular] publish it here, you're stepping into exactly the same field where you consider us fair game for any crap you feel entitled to fling at us. How can you at the same time consider yourself exempt or immune from what you consider yourself entitled to fling at us?

Ken<BR>I must concede that you have a point, if you did intend to lay it out as such, that you could possibly have been intending it as a refutation of the finder's integrity. The way it was set up starting in the second paragraph makes it a bit of a stretch from a critical read point of view, but I ain't lookin' to fight nobody over nuttin!<P>I would like to point out that I have seen a lot of unedited work from other outdoor writers and there are few who would be able to keep up with your clarity on such short notice. Some are real editors' nightmares, and I am assuming you do this without spellcheck. <P>best to you, Sir. No offense taken, no offense intended.<BR>art<P>------------------<BR>Life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun.

Ken<BR>You keep late hours! I'm trying to get to bed! You obviously had your reply going while I was working on mine.<P>As far as slander and libel go, you lose a significant amount of protection when you set yourself up as a public figure and authors have been lumped in there.<P>As I said, I'm not really looking for a fight, just a lively discussion.<P>It is time to say goodnight, however. Again, I apologize for any potential hard feelings I may have caused.<BR>art <P>------------------<BR>Life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun.

"I don't recall my exact wording, but it was along the line of "why, then, do you so readily and easily assume that anyone else would be less honest than you consider yourself to be?"<P>My sincere apologies to all. I DID indeed cover both sides of the coin � both the dishonest and the honest person. I did NOT at any point, however, intend that as a smear aimed at any one person. I was asking that question of anyone, everyone, no one in particular. That's why I referred to it as rhetorical.<P>So I apologize for my inaccurate later representation of my earlier words. I remembered my attitude and intent far more accurately than my wording.<P>But I stand by the point of what I wrote. It's accurate. What entitles anyone to assume that anyone whom he doesn't know, would be (a) as dishonest as he is or (b) less honest than he is � then publish that assumption as an allegation?

No hard feelings, Art. Have a good night.<P>I hope at least a few of those who read our exchange of views can distinguish between personal attacks and logical rebuttals.<P>It's appalling to me to see how many who read and post on these boards immediately assume that any argument with a modicum of life and fire is a clash of personalities, fraught with animosity. I bet most of you can watch a football game or a boxing match without assuming that the fellows out there trying to cripple each other one minute are still out to murder each other a couple of hours later.<P>I have no animosity toward anyone here. Animosity would make me simply ignore you all, "have nothing to do with your silly childish games," etc. It is respect and concern for your understanding, individually and collectively, that brings me here and compels me to set straight a few of the mistaken conceptions that I see here. I get a Hell of a lot of flak from the very people whom I thought would welcome a bit of truth.<P>If I didn't care what you know, what you think, what you do, how well you do it, etc, I wouldn't be spending so many words here, with flak for "pay," when I can get a couple of hundred to four hundred dollars for about the same number or fewer words written as an article for a magazine. And a whopping pile more by putting as many or fewer words into a book and publishing it myself.<P>Which I better get back to, after I do my taxes.<P>G'night, all.

Interesting subject, followed by a Frenchman. See, I read several foreign publications, among which VHA and Man Magnum, Guns and ammo sometimes, American Rifle shooter when I find it, Fire from Belgium, and I also buy French papers of course.<BR>In all these magazines, I 've found exceptionnal writers - Finn Aagard, Jeff Cooper, a French "G Mike" and some others. <BR>Rick Jamison's style is a bit different, his style is a bit too "enthusiast" for me. But I've usually found his articles very informative.<P>I can say that US and South African writers are generally more knowledgeable than their French counterparts - with some exceptions, of course.<BR>French articles are also less technical because the average level of the readers is lower, I must admit. We have either hunters or shooters, here. People who practice both are rare.<P>In all publications, I have found some articles to be nothing more than "infomercials", the writer using the products brochure and that's all. <BR>But this happens very seldom.<P>So I guess the writers population is like others: there are exceptionnal characters, many people who do their best, and also some opportunists.<BR>We readers have the choice, we can buy or not. <BR>olivier

WELL said, mon cher ami!<P>Except for one more wry but rather sadly amusing observation (below), I think I've said enough here for any intelligent reader, fair-minded enough to put bias aside in the face of factual and logical refutation of inaccurate assessments, to see the logic and accept the truth of my posts.<P>In this thread and several others like it ("open season on writers, no bag limit") on other boards, I've been struck by a stark contrast �<P>� All the writers whom so many posters have been harshly and unjustifiably criticizing (by name) on these boards are men whom I know to be good, honest, reliable, ethical men.<P>� Many of the writers whom so many posters have been praising, endorsing, canonizing, even deifying on these boards are men whom I know to be frauds, scoundrels, liars, cheats � exactly the kinds of men whom so many of you love to say those honest men are.<P>I don't recall seeing anyone in any of these similar threads accurately peg any writer whom I know with justifiably harsh criticism. You accuse the honorable men I know, and you swallow the bull sweat of the scoundrels I know.<P>Go figure.<BR>__________<P>Now I'm going to Missoula for another long lunch chat with some gun people who get along very well with each other's idiotic biases. �o) What a welcome relief!

Try as I might, I cannot find fault with Ken or anyone else who defends those within his sphere of influence who deserve his support. I've always found it a sign of character that a person would do what is right, even though he might be leaving himself open to attack by doing so. <BR>Many good points have been made in this discussion, however it would be just as easy to admit that some of us have posted unjustified attacks against whole groups at times based on a couple of writer's opinions or written essays on a subject or two.<BR>Personally, my posts at times could be construed to attack certain writers. I try to be very careful to attack the half-truths or the articles written with the advertisers' dollar in the back of their mind, and not the person themselves. I have posted several times that Craig Boddington in particular writes with no conviction and writes much but says little (paraphrasing). In my mind, this makes him somewhere close to dishonest, at least in his written word. I have heard from people that he is a wonderful person in person and I accept that and try to avoid attacking him personally. I hope I have been successful at conveying that. Many of us, including myself, go over the edge at times- sometimes out of passion for a subject, sometimes out of ignorance. If not called to task for our indiscretions, we would probably continue to make these statements, which may eventually be accepted as true instead of opinion. I hope that we as a group can police ourselves to be careful, in a gentlemanly manner, not to impugn those who don't deserve it and are merciful to those that do deserve what comes their way. Ok, off my soapbox now. Sorry for the longwinded post- Sheister

Never mind.<p>[This message has been edited by BW (edited April 10, 2001).]

HoKay now that the shouting is over I'd like to go back to the first post and ask a question. Say I spring for a bore scope and can now see the inside of the bore. What am I going to do about it? It seems to me that after I put umteen rounds through a bore it is going to be worn. If it still shoots as good as it did what difference will it make to me to be able to see it? If it doesn't and cleaning and general tightening up doesn't improve it don't I know the tube is worn out and it is time for a new one. What good will it do me to see it? I am not trying to be cute but trying to figure out why I should want one as Mr Jamison says. If you run that thing down there and can say Yep, the bore is worn what can you do about it? Can you un-wear it?<BR>BCR

Boggy, actually the tool for "un-wearing" a barrel is covered by a different writer in a different magazine, but that would be outside the intent of this thread, so you will have to start a new one. I would like to hear a little more about this concept, but doubt I could justify buying one at the moment, since I don't have any worn-out barrels at the moment.- - Sheister

BCR,<P>That's what I asked, in the third reply to this thread...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="2">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!</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Still wondering about that myself. <P>------------------<BR>Brian<BR><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/bw_99835/" TARGET=_blank>The 416 Taylor WebPage!</A>

Exactly! For example I have a .308 barrel with about 5500 full power rounds through it. I could now load it scheutzen style by breech seating a bullet and then loading a charged case! I discovered the throat wear in the process of working up cast bullet loads. The throat will still engrave a normally seated .310" lead bullet but not a normally seated .308" jacketed bullet. I don't need a borescope to tell me the throat is going. As the throat wear advances it can be measured well enough with a cleaning rod, a bullet, a piece of masking tape, a pencil and a caliper. The proof of this particular pudding is the 1.5 moa groups it continues to deliver with either jacketed or cast bullets. curmudgeon

Well, first of all, I guess we need to define average shooter and acceptable levels of accuracy. I consider myself an average shooter and, with no reflection on anyone else's choices, would instantly replace either the gun or the barrel on any .308 that I had that could only group 1 1/2 MOA. I have at least 4 of them, and none of them shoot anywhere near that poorly. And, except for a ultra light hunting rifle would probably do the same for any that could not shoot less than MOA that I intended to use for anything beyond plinking. Sure, I know you don't HAVE to have an extra accurate rifle to hunt 95% of all game with, but, for me, it is a matter of confidence, when I shoot, I want to know that that bullet is going exactly where I aimed, with some very small variance. If I miss, or worse, don't make a good hit, I want to know that it was my mistake, not bullet strike variation within the parameters of that rifles grouping ability. So, back to my point, if a borescope helps me feel better about that, or if it helps me to evaluate a new barrel, then that is enough reason for ME to buy one. Just because someone else can weigh the same set of facts and arrive at different conclusions does not make me right or him wrong, we just assign different relative values to the same facts. So, back to the point, if you choose not to buy one, that doesn't make you right or wrong, just a normal consumer making one of the infinite set of choices that creates our economy. And, for someone to say that someone who does purchase one is wrong, is not viewing the situation correctly. More properly one could say that you would not make that choice and, there, you would be right. Are we confused yet?

Q � How is a borescope like a gun writer?<P>A � Opinionated people who don't know gnat squat about either one can with equal ease, immunity, and lack of foundation condemn either one with equal vigor and scorn.<P>This is woefully understandable. It's oh, so easy to form a rigid opinion solely on the basis of even so little as a single clause from a single article, then erect ridiculous straw men specifically designed to be easily knocked over without any resistance.<P>An open mind and an open eye taking a free squint through a Hawkeye into a bunch of barrels can teach you more about barrels than you ever dreamed you could know. The unexpected discoveries alone are enough to recommend the USE* of a borescope like the Hawkeye to every serious shooter who cares anything about barrels.<P>* (... as specifically distinct from OWNING one, the lack of which admittedly and unavoidably limits the opportunities to use one)<P>When mine arrived, I called a long-time friend, a retired aero engineer who knew I was getting one, and he made about two or three two-mile leaps to bring along more rifles, sixguns, and shotguns than I knew he had. That long afternoon showed and taught me so much new stuff about barrels, I now wish I'd made notes.<P>Not to be overlooked, BTW, is the fact that the 90� tip lets you look (as if you were a needle-head) at the sides of the bore, the throat, the chamber, the case � anything you can run that self-lighted probe into and look around � from perpendicular to the surface.<P>E g, a look at the throat of one of J's prized sixguns showed a flaw that I couldn't have suspected could exist. I'm going to have a hard time translating the view into written words, so please bear with me.<P>Apparently, the factory had reamed the forcing cone or leade in that .44 barrel with a .45 cone reamer � and had of course stopped reaming when the rear (larger) diameter of the reamed taper reached the specified diameter. Problem � the forward (smaller) end of the taper didn't reach the tops of the lands.<P>The result brought back memories of a forest fire 'way up in the goat rocks that three of us smokechasers went out to put out. We climbed a steep high-country slope and came smack up against a sheer cliff. We couldn't find a decent way up or around it, so we climbed it in the most awkward ways possible.<P>Then we climbed the steep slope on the top of that cliff � and ran smack into another cliff, as bad as (or worse than) the first one. And after we climbed that one, we hiked up another steep slope to another one.<P>That's the best way I know to describe the profile of that leade. Picture a steep slope at the rear, which SHOULD reach to the tops of the lands, but instead fetches up smack-dab at the base of a vertical "cliff."<P>That flaw was not noticeable by the usual poor-boy ways of squinting along the inside of the barrel � was barely visible, once we saw it through the borescope and then knew to look for it. My pal was able to correct it with a brief little bit of work with a simple tool from Brownell's � a heck of a lot faster and cheaper than junking the original barrel on that classic sixgun and replacing it with a new one. And I'm sure the sucker SHOT after that and was worlds easier to keep clean.<P>Another good friend found a "steal deal" on a varmint rifle that he liked. But he knew I had a Hawkeye, so he got permission from the seller to bring it to me for a squint. The barrel looked slick and clean to the usual poor-boy squint into the bore. But the magnified view through the 90� tip on the Hawkeye showed that dreaded dry-lakebed pattern of tiny cracks not only in the throat but far toward the muzzle � a badly shot-out barrel. My pal saved not only his purchase price but also the costs of components, mileage, etc, involved in loading test rounds and driving to the range who-knows-how-many times to try to make the sucker shoot, before having to rebarrel it.<P>Both my friends (not I) enjoyed the savings benefits of MY borescope � but I trust that some of you are fair-minded and logical enough to see some and imagine other ways that a Hawkeye can save somebody enough bucks and hours to equal its "high" purchase price in an amazingly short time.<P>A passel of small savings or expenditures can really add up fast. At lunch today, one of the guys told of how the price of the finest washer and dryer in town had made him gasp. Then he and his wife totted up all they'd spent at laundromats � and the total was three times the "high" price of the washer and dryer.<P>Editing and page-formatting one of Frank deHaas's single-shot books, I found it getting too long, too fast, for the final size of the book. I looked back over what I'd edited so far, and noticed that every time Frank referred to a breech block, he used the full term, "breech block."<P>I left the first reference in each chapter as "breech block" but deleted "breech" from every other use of the term in the rest of the chapter.<P>I saved enough space for an entire chapter.<P>I wasn't the least surprised, because one of my favorite illustrations of this very point was the result of a small modification that John D Rockefeller asked a worker in his oil plant to try. Old John D watched the man solder lids on cans of oil.<P>"How many drops of solder do you use on each lid?" he asked.<P>"Three," the man said (as well as I remember now.)<P>"Try using two," Rockefeller said, "and see how that works."<P>It worked, and the savings from ONE LESS DROP of solder per lid per can of oil added up to bushels of bucks in a surprisingly short time. Old John D didn't become filthy rich by being stupid, careless, slow to grab every opportunity to save a fraction of a cent, or shrugging it off with "who needs it?"<BR>__________________<P>My fervent, sincere thanks to you who've filled my heart and my "Inbox" with your applause and approval for my defense of ethical friends unjustly accused of gray ethics. That's exactly the sort of thing that keeps me coming back and taking the flak.<P>THANKS!<p>[This message has been edited by Ken Howell (edited April 11, 2001).]

Ken,<P>While I think the reaction to the statement made by curmudgeon was a bit harsh, I understand you "allegiance", for lack of a better word right now, to your fellow gun writers. After all, many of them are (and some were ) your friends.<P>In the year or two that I've been fortunate enough to read your writings on these forums, I've never found fault in your statements or logic. Not, that it may not be there! Just that I'm not experienced enough to know it. <P>So, even though I've stated that I see little, or no, use for a boroscope myself, I intend to take a rifle or two to work, and take a look. We have the 90 degree type of 'scope you mention, as well as the straight type. I think our rigid 'scope may be a bit too short, but the flexible ones well be plenty long. Of course I can always look from both ends! <P>I expect to find it very interesting, given your experience. I am actually curious to compare my Douglas barreled rifle, to a factory Browning A-Bolt, and a Ruger MkII.<P>So even though I don't really qualify as "old", don't let it be said this "old dog can't learn new tricks"! <P>Would I pay $700 for this oppurtunity? Nope. But, since you live so far away, and I can't borrow yours, so I'll use the one at work.<P>Take care Ken!<P>------------------<BR>Brian<BR><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/bw_99835/" TARGET=_blank>The 416 Taylor WebPage!</A>

Mr Ken, I sure hope you didn't take my post for flack as it wasn't intended as such. I can see that if I was trading rifles all the time or cutting barrels one of these things would be handy but I don't do that and I don't believe the "average shooter" does either.<BR>You gave an example of one fixable problem that the scope discovered. Now to my limited knowledge a worn out bore isn't fixable other than maybe setting the barrel back and rechambering which is going to run pretty steep.<BR>I reckon for me it is just too much to pay to satisfy my curiosity which is all it would do, for me.<BR>BCR

Maybe people arent as stupid or ignorant as they seem. Maybe they think "Gee, 700 bucks for a too that I may never need. Do I really need this?" They also may think "Gee, so-and-so has just written an article on the premice of seeing which scopes were most resistant to heat. He put a Leupold in his oven at 200+ degrees. I guess if I am ever in a pot of boiling water trying to blast my way out this will help me." <P>It seems to manly lowly shooters as though the typical gunwriter has lost sight of who he is writing for. You obviously are not one of these, but it is frustrating hearing someone tell me I have to spend hundreds of dollars to be a "consientious" shooter.<P>Sorry to stir the pot while it was sitting but I just got in here.

If you folks (readers) were as stupid as you frequently seem to be, I wouldn't waste my time fooling around with trying to give you tips or facts intended for your benefit.<P>A significant, recurrent problem is that intelligent people, including geniuses (which I confess to being guilty of), so often do, say, and think abominably stupid things. The root cause is not stupidity but hasty conclusions based on a certain, specific, unintended arrogance. Let me spell it out for you, then judge for yourself (a) whether you've seen others display it and (b) whether you've ever done it yourself. This is in no way a flame � just an observation a long time in the forming, on the basis of a passel of first-hand experiences.<P>Here's the picture I see all too often. I'll put it in first-person for brevity, but it applies to my brothers of the word as well.<P>I spend a lot of time and tightly focused concentration researching and analyzing something � about interior ballistics, cartridge or gun design, a key passage in the New Testament as originally written in koin� Greek, whatever � and when I'm sure I've accurately hammered it flat and nailed it down, I present it to someone else or to others.<P>And the immediate response? In one of its politer forms, "Oh, I don't agree with THAT at all!" and a shoot-from-the-hip "argument" to dispute it.<P>What do I see in this? After I've so carefully applied an IQ well into the genius range to the careful examination of a question or problem, over a significant period of diligent work, considering and examining every aspect of it from as many sides as I can think of that might apply, here's some guy IMMEDIATELY judging it to be inaccurate, stupid, absolutely out of touch with reality, whatever, before he has taken the time or spent the effort to consider even so much as one tiny bleeding, blinking component of the examination that led me to my so-carefully considered conclusion.<P>What's my personal impression of that person at that point? He has hastily cast a negative judgment on something that he has considered for only as long as it took him to hear what I've just said, and he obviously considers his snap judgment superior to my careful, diligent examination. For some mystic, mysterious reason, he immediately judges it to be wrong, THEN he flails about trying to assemble arguments to discredit it.<P>I see that as not just stupidity but as downright arrogant stupidity, and I see it as often � no, probably more often � in educated geniuses than I see it in people aware of their limitations.<P>So � being one myself � I confirm and confess to my favorite definition of an intellectual: "someone educated beyond his intelligence." I've made so many of these stupid, arrogant hasty judgments in my youth, and I've been so ashamed of them for so long, I spend far more time and diligence than most folks do in forming well reasoned, well founded conclusions.<P>To some degree, so do the honest writers whose prose you read. Contrary to the innate impression and assumption, even setting the thoughts into words on paper takes the writer far longer that it takes the reader to read 'em. And any decent piece of writing takes the writer much, much longer to form and and assemble the thoughts in the first place. A good writer has to know, consider, and analyze eight, ten, or more times as much as he finally puts into words.<P>Not even a brigade of Einsteins and von Neumanns can match his logic in no more time than it takes them to read or hear his words, if the subject is entirely new to them.<P>Now how does this apply to this thread? It is, IMHO, sheer arrogance to assume � immediately upon reading a sentence about something that you've never thought about or considered before you read that sentence � that your immediate flash judgment of the matter is superior to the conclusion reached by the person who has studied it honestly, carefully, intelligently, for some extended time.<P>But you've never done that, have you? �o) (I love it when perfect people appear among us!)<P>Shalom