There have been reports that he was let go by some magazine or publication for ‘telling the truth’. Does anyone here know the scoop on that?

Thanks. Can never get enough of Finn.

Cheers

I would not view that in a negative light. Having read much of his writings, he was a very straight forward, down to earth type man and did not sensationalize things. He simply wrote about his observations and experiences as he observed them though his own findings. If someone fired him because (purely speculation on my part) he was not willing to hype something, or state things in a magazine article that were different than what he had personally observed, then he has even more of my respect.
He was a class act, and we could use more writers like him these days, instead of the infomercial type stuff that is typically written today by the majority of writers.

I’m not viewing it as a negative about Finn. Likely the opposite. Would like to know what was the issue.

This forum needs a Like button.


Okie John

Finn's "release" from the NRA was definitely not of his choosing.
We corresponded often and I have a large file of his letters, including copies of his correspondence with the NRA.
Finn was a private person and not inclined to slander or gossip. But he did not suffer fools and when someone made a statement he questioned his first comment was always " how do you know that to be a fact?"

The NRA lacks credibility. It is their loss. Finn sounds like a great man.

The NRA is as corrupt as the Pelosi family.

Sad that our only hope is run by a bunch of crooks milking a fortune for their own ends.

Check out Wayne's clothing allowance.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ierre-suit-travel-expenses-a8910771.html

Finn was also a humble man I sensed. I like that. I read in more than one article where he’d admit he wasn’t the best shot. Oftentimes when testing a rifle. I found that refreshing in a way. No ego. Hell, he didn’t need an ego….he’d been there and done things none of us will ever sniff at doing.

Didn’t Finn pass 22 years ago? When was he let go?

Is Billy Graham still in hell?

His book Hunting Rifles and Cartridge remains top spot in my bathroom. That's not weak praise.

Even if "flow" might be

According to the NRA - he died in 2000, they didn't fire him, they buried him.

Article

Thank you for the Link. His son did a very nice job writing about his Dad. Finns work was always well read in our houses reading room

Too bad he didn't live long enuff to extol the virtues of the 6.5 Crudmoor . . .

After leaving the NRA I suggested Finn write for Wolfe Publishing in Prescott, which fortunately for all of us, he did for his last few years .

I bet he wouldn't need a Midol, like so many posters.

Or change user names like underwear.

What was your prior name again?

Same Scotty.
Pm Rick and ask him how many handles on this I.P.
I'll wait.

No, who you were before.


PM Rick and ask him how many handles on this IP as well.

Finn's last article, published at his death:

He's still not wrong today.

It took re-reading that article for me to remember it. Thank you.

What is an IP Generator Alex?

Thanks for posting! Have to agree with his sentiment on all fronts.

If I had found the love for a 308 long ago, I could have saved lots of money and headaches.

It's all good.

I was always a fan of his (still am I should say), always looked forward to his articles in the Wolfe mags. I am a huge .308 guy and and loved that piece from him. I'm pretty sure I have that copy somewhere

Back to the original question. Does anyone know what the beef was with nra?

Try again

Kinda a stale "scoop"!

Ok, does anyone know the story?

you can bet it was Finn being truthful with no bull - chit

This would get anyone fired around here...

H/T: Brad






GR

Couple of excellent articles there....

Yes

Basically it was because the NRA was getting complaints from advertisers. Finn owed his allegiance to telling readers the truth.
He even wrote to say that when at least one advertiser was offering a "free" hunting trip to show off a new rifle, they specifically ask the NRA to send a writer, but not Finn.

i have an old friend who ask me this : our hunting group all are going nuts over a 6.5 Creedmoor ,then said i even got a 6.5 Creedmoor too, but i still would rather use my old 270 Win. i said up here where we hunt you won`t see any difference killing a deer its all B.S. that old 270 will do as well maybe better ,just use the rifle you want too. this new 6.5 Creedmoor is just another good cartridge and is over rated as a hunting cartridge to much ,was just another way of making more money for manufactures. > if Finn was alive he would have probably said the same thing too, that`s probably why if Finn did get fired, Finn hurt someone`s feelings with the truth. > and probably i have now too disgracing the 6.5 Creedmoor ? shame shame on me ! > long live the memory of Finn Aagaard ! <

What many readers don't consider is that writers, and Editors! whether it's Road & Track, Vogue or Gun & Ammo, are basically producing inexpensive advertising for the industry they are working in.
The best and most popular ones fully understand this and tread a sometimes very fine line between truth, facts and hype.
The rest simply tire of all the prevarication and arguing with editors and either quit or get fired.

Truth is what you make it.

I think the good writers have learned how to maintain integrity without angering advertisers TOO much. I can tell the difference between an informative article and the "I took the new ABC rifle with a DEF scope in GHI mounts using JKL ammunition and wearing MNO boots and a QRS vest and slew a deer and that equipment made it all possible" type of writing. I appreciate the writers who write honestly of their experience, nearly all more extensive than my own. Thanks 458Win, Mule Deer, and the other good ones.

Sometimes as a reader, I pay more attention to what's NOT mentioned in the article rather than what is. Writers walking that line of doing a piece but not being unbridled cheerleaders will simply not mention things that might be of issue.

No mention of how it feeds? Likely a bit rough.

No mention of weight - probably a touch porky etc.

Things like that.

My pet hate is when they fail to mention in a gun review what parts are plastic.

Two things I took from Finn's .308 article. One was from his comment on the 165 gr. Speer Grand slam ammo. I really like that stuff and wish like hell Speer hadn't dropped it. It was the only factory ammo that ever shot worth a damn in my Ruger M77 RSI.

The other was he liked the150 gr. bullet for the most part in the .308 where I preferred a 165 gr. bullet. In fact my pet load for the .308 is the 165 gr. Speer Hot Core which runs at 2550 FPS from the 18.5" Barrel and 2610 FPS from the 22" barrel of my Winchester M70. That load at 2550 FPS has put quite a few deer into my freezer.
PJ

Probably the best approach to all this is for the gun writer to have a solid day job that allows them to write on the side about the topics they care about.

Firing Finn, it says a lot about the NRA. Finn was one of the best…

But I’ve bitched about the articles in the American Rifleman before. No better example of articles praising everything no matter how crappy a device to keep the manufacturers happy.

Brad, thank for scanning that article. I've got it saved now.

Writers work at the pleasure of the Editor
The Editor at the pleasure of the owner
And the owner dances to the tune of the advertisers

I love how not a [bleep] thread can be posted without dumbfucks coming to hate on Creedmoor rounds.

It is interesting to watch some writers duck and feint comments about cartridges. He didn't want to offend and gave hope to .270 Win users when he wrote in American Rifleman, December 1986. "...the true general purpose big-game cartridges used in this country come in but two calibers, 30 and 7mm (the.270 Win, is merely a slightly aberrant 7mm whose bullets are .007 undersize").

1990, Hunting Rifles and Cartridges - The 270 Winchester. "Actually, the .270 is so close to being a 7mm that its .277" diameter bullets will not drop through the bore of some 7mm's". Later he says: "It is almost as good as O'Connor said it was, but I still have no need for one."

CDS and CBHS are real.

I remember reading many articles from Finn as teen, especially the history of elephant hunting. He became a fan of the scout rifle concept later in life. He always appeared honest and straight forward in his writing. I still miss him

7mm = 0.275591” sorry Finn

I couldn’t understand the need for the 270. I had the 280, and the 30-06, I shared Finn’s feelings regarding the 270. JOC’s writings were great for some people, but I didn’t care for them - maybe I should re-read one of his articles, IDK. Maybe because I thought Elmer Keith was more knowledgable.
The .284 caliber had many more choices on bullets for one thing. It is still my favorite (along with the .308 cartridges.)
There was a time when premium bullets were uncommon - especially for people didn’t have a lot of money.
Cast bullets were much more common for some. Going to a smaller caliber just didn’t add up for some for shooting deer or other such game. I had cast bullets for every caliber I owned down to 224 caliber. But I never shot at game with a cast bullet less than .308 (maybe .284???)
Now I play with many cartridges and I like the 270, it’s almost as good as the 280. 😬

"... but I still have no need for one."

Has been my experience for the past 65 years!

Finn was one of the best!

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

I'm a big fan of Finn's writing and remember that article and one about the 7x57 well.

Agaard elevated the 7mm-08 to the equal of the 7x57mm.

HUNTING RIFLES & CARTRIDGES, 1990. "The more I use the 7mm-08, the better I like it. It is an altogether superb little cartridge, a modern version of the 7x57mm that will do everything the renowned old Mauser round ever did - which makes it an ideal choice for a good 90% of all big game hunting."

When I first read that, I immediately thought about elephants and wondered if anyone ever shot one with a 7mm-08.

Who knows? Certainly with the 7x57. But the sad truth is the vast majority of elephants taken by a single cartridge have been laid low with the 308...

WDM Bell even wrote that if the 308 had been available at the time it would have likely been his choice.

Would you happen to know what WDM Bell's reasons were for saying he would have likely used the .308 over the 7 x 57? Just wondering what he would think would give better penetration or performance than a 173 grain projectile from a 7 x 57 on a brain shot, perhaps a 200 grain projectile (similar sectional density and similar velocity?).

4:30 am wake-up for the prep of the guntrucks for a convoy, my 5 ft tall gunner was always twice as fast, setting up his 240L machine gun in his turret. Those cans of belted 7.62 nato could be tossed up to the turret, rather than carried.

He'd then go lend a hand to the other gunners still fking around with the 50 cal, head spacing barrels and carrying ammo.

End of mission cleaning, 50 cals would still be in parts, and he'd turn his 240l into the arms room.

I'm surprised with how some gunwriters of today, would dare claim the 6.5 douche-nozzle is a better hunting round than the 308 winchester.

When a young Alaskan kid is drawn for a bison hunt, guess which cartridge makes the cut?

The 308 winchester:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt.../308-win-200-grain-hotcor-leverevolution

Brad,
Thanks for posting this article.
Whenever I read again something by Finn I am reminded of how many things I incorporated from his articles.
A practical hunter, he wrote about things of interest to others.

If I recall the situation correctly, which years later may not be absolutely correct, the dust-up where Finn left the NRA publication was at least partly due to him running some tests on a new big game bullet made by a major ammunition manufacturer. He reported it failed his test, and so badly he would never use one on big game. (He may not have used those exact words, but that was the gist.)

And he was absolutely correct about the bullet--but when I talked to one of the major representatives of the company at a major sporting goods show shortly after the article appeared, he claimed "they" (some unspecified "they" from the company) had taken the ammo to Africa and it worked fine. "They" may have done that, but the guy couldn't provide any specifics about bullet performance, such as size of animals, placement of shots, etc.

Even more interesting was the fact that the company dropped that POS of a bullet (yes, I tested some too) shortly afterward, and introduced another very good big game bullet. I also wouldn't be surprised if Finn resigned, instead of being fired--but don't know, and never asked him.

In my own experience, the policy of various publications about real testing of advertisers' products varies considerably. A few magazines won't run any slight hint of a negative review, not many. Generally if a product is really substandard, then the publication won't even run a review. Why not, you ask?

Well, for one thing some have done that, and then gotten a bunch of letters and/or e-mails from readers, wondering why the publication wasted space (and the reader's time) on such junk. Still, once in a while really bad product gets a really bad review--and the last time I remember writing one that got published appeared in one of the NRA publications--though on their Internet site, not in a paper magazine. The product was an absolute POS rifle scope, and apparently I wrote a funny enough review for them appreciate the humor.

But the policy of MOST magazines I've written for is IF the product really sucks, to contact the manufacturer again, describe what happened, and ask if it was simply one defective product, which can happen even with really good manufacturers. Then, if the manufacturer is willing to send another sample, it gets tested to see what happens.

If it does work as claimed, then the review gets published. If not, then the review does not appear. One example was a big game rifle made by a major company. The first one they sent me shot so poorly that I then did something I should have done before going to the range--check it out thoroughly. It turned out one of the two locking lugs on the bolt wasn't even contacting its seat inside the action. The company apologized, and along with sending a shipping label for the first rifle to be returned, also sent a second rifle. But the second rifle turned out to have exactly the same problem. The magazine never published ANY review of the rifle.

On the other hand, some new products were defective, but the company soon fixed 'em. I know this due to getting another new scope from major company that fell apart within about 20 rounds when mounted on a very accurate .375 H&H. The company wanted it back to see what failed, and after finding out pulled that entire production run, and changed part of the internal design. The second scope worked perfectly on the same rifle.

But the spectrum of possible responses, both from manufacturers and magazines, partly depends on the policy of their personnel at the time. I have worked for magazines where the policy changed depending on who was in charge, and have tested products from manufacturers who refused to admit some of their products weren't perfect--and those who were always open to hearing how they might be improved.

Ken Howell once told me that any review, good or bad, benefited the product manufacturer. His philosophy about bad or substandard products was to say nothing. Do not publish. Talk to whoever made it for an explanation.

I always enjoyed Finn’s writing.

"Never trust anyone who hasn't been fired at least once."

Maybe it's just a coinkydink, but every guy I know who has been in harms way, in real danger with the whole farm on the line...displays a common trait, they call it as they see it, and they don't have a phony bone in their body.

That's a fair assessment.

Finn is a guy I wish I could have shared a camp with.

Here is a tribute that I found on the Internet and was published after Finn passed away:

https://indexarticles.com/reference/american-rifleman/a-tribute-to-finn-aagaard/

I corresponded a few times with Mrs. Aagaard (Berit) after Finn's passing, initially sending a sympathy card to her in the care of the NRA. She too is a wonderful person, she is remarried to a very fine gentleman and the last I knew, her son Harald was a Captain in the USMC. I think he retired after his 20 years in the Corps.

I have Finn's book mentioned in an earlier post, along with another hardback book with a CD of Finn discussing his many adventures. I haven't looked at them for a long time.

He was definitely one of the good guys.

model70man,

Unfortunately, Berit's second husband Bill Pace passed away a little over a year ago. He was 93 and had lived a very full life, but thought you might like to know.

John

John,

Thank you for letting me know. I couldn't remember Mr. Pace's last name. I'm so sorry to hear of this. BTW, you and Finn are in the same class of writers!

Thanks very much. Finn was one of my favorites....

i have always lived by this way of thinking in life , but in todays world we are Rino`s, black and white thoughts don`t count anymore , thoughts have to have purple , pink ,green , blue or whatever. the John Wayne type of people we are now outcast in this new type of society .

Does anyone have a copy of Finn's first article on " A Professional's Rifle"? I have the second "13 years later" but would like the first if possible.
Thanks, Gary