I'm not sure I have any one question to ask. But after reading the Craig Boddington & Ross Seyfried threads, along with the one on Mule Deer's "controversial" piece in the NRA magazine, it got me to thinking. How fickle is our (gunreaders) love or hate of gunwriters?

Is it because they espouse certain cartridges/concepts that match ours? What if at some point either we or they gain more experience and change viewpoints- even slightly? Would a gunwriter be more popular if they took a firm stand early on and keep it their whole career come hell or high water, or are they better off if they've never met a gun/cartridge they didn't like? (Some don't like Craig Boddington because they think he's not maintaining the former and some don't like David Fortier/ Clair Rees because they think they fit the latter.)

What if Jack O'Conner later in his career had said that there are better cartridges than the .270 for medium game, or if Elmer Keith started using premium bullets and decided that you really don't need anything bigger than the 30-06 class of cartridges to kill a deer? It seems like I've read an article or two from gunwriters who'd interviewed prominent gunwriters before they died who'd privately admitted something to that effect. Would we have "run them out of town on a rail" or crucify them for "blasphemy" if they'd admitted something like that in print?

I always appreciated how you felt like you were there and could envision the sights, smells, sounds, etc. in a Jack O'Conner or Ross Seyfried hunt. With Mule Deer you can too, but I admire so many other things in his writings besides that, that it's hard to pinpoint one in particular. I love how he simplifies potentially complicated matters <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />, how sacreligious he is when he blows away 25 years of what I "know" from reading other gun writers <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />, and I love his sense of humor <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> He has admitted in print how some of the things he used to use or believe, he has a different opinion on now. I don't like some of it .... but yet, I do <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> There are just some things that I'd rather not have to find out the hard way! I'd rather my gunwriter be "transparent", i.e. just plain open and honest with me, even if I disagree!

Let me ask the other side of the question � how much have readers and their basic attitudes changed in the last fifty-several years?

The readers whom I used to know before I became a gun writer viewed the writers whose work we read a great deal differently � as fellow hunters and shooters like ourselves with something interesting to tell us about. We respected those old writers and learned much from them even though their different orientations moved them at different speeds in a variety of directions different from our own.

Differences in taste and choice weren't cardinal sins. Nowadays, it seems that many readers � the most vocal if not typical readers � demand that writers agree with their (readers') own preferences, biases, and opinions or else they (writers) are somehow despicable, traitors, liars, etc.

We old-time readers didn't read the magazines and books with our animosity lurking so near the surface. We weren't so readily distrustful or eagerly judgemental. We had our favorites but didn't loathe or despise those with different tastes and interests. We didn't demand that the writers of those days voice our own prejudices to be worthy of our regard and respect.

We didn't assume that our own experiences and conclusions formed a body of infallible standards that writers rattled or shook at their own risk. We weren't judgemental know-it-all-alreadies who were loaded, primed, and cocked with hair triggers set to cut loose the wraths of Heaven on writers who dared to speak or believe something else.

One result was that we grew. So did our knowledge. So did our range of interests. So did our satisfaction. So did our pleasure. And (I suspect) so did our judgement.

I restrict my writing to areas where I have first-hand knowledge and experience. I know that my opinions have changed over the years as my knowledge and experience have grown, and I don't object to seeing such growth in the writing of authors I read. Though I might be a little surprised to see JO'C dump the .270 Win, at least without some intervening transitional material. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

jim

Mr. Howell:

I agree with you that we have become a "Donahue" society. Everybody gets to speak their mind on any subject, whether or not they have any insight, background, or knowledge to share (of course, my posts are perfect . . . . <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />).

Unfortunately, I see the trend reflected in the work of many gun-writers.

I re-read some old Jack O'Connor today. I reads as well as Mule Deer's work. And the advice has not changed in 50 years! (What is really amazing is that O'Connor's Wife and Mule Deer's wife both uses the 7x57 on Elk. ) There must be something to this sensible advice about shot placement being more important than velocity.

As for Gunwriters changing over time, I sure hope they do! A man that never changes may well be showing us that he hasn't learned much over his career.

I remember an interview of Jack O'Connor that was published shortly after his death. He actually was a little disgruntled that he was so thoroughly linked to the 270!

IIRC he said that he had written a lot about the 30-06 and the 375 H&H, too and that somehow, those excellent rounds did not get lniked to him (He never withdrew his praise of the 270, just sounded like he was thinking out loud as to how he got so linked to one cartridge).

Just my 2 cents,

BMT

I think it's more the Limbaugh. Hannity, Savage 'society' . If you don't agree with me you are an idiot, an imbecil, against America, or worse, a LIBERAL! my .02 capt david <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Yes

And I'm still waitin on some of them.

Why would you wait? Changing one's opinion is situation dependant. Sometimes there is no reason to change one's views.

WRT the original question, my response would be, "Do you allow yourself an evolving viewpoint?"

You sir have just hit the nail on the head.

Someone once aptly observed that he who thinks that his way is the only way denies himself the right to change his mind.

My respect to the gun writers on this forum.But as we know they put there pants on one leg at a time just like we do.They will,I hope,admit that there are a lot of people- guides whatever that have much more actual hunting experience than they do.An article or a book is "One Mans" opinion.Nothing more nothing less.There is a whole bunch of people that have as much or more experience hunting for food as it was back then to feed the family...Now it is a sport which is not an eat or starve situation where the best hunters learned there skills....To survive and feed the family....

Life goes on...Nothing against any writer here...

Jayco.

My views of rifles and cartridges have surely changed over the years. Hopefully, my writing shows that evolution.

The readership is very unforgiving about this. They ask, "Were you right then, or are you right now?" Well, it depends. In the 1980s, it took larger cartridges for me to cleanly kill elk. Now, the .280 Ackley with 140-grain bullets works just fine.

We all learn as we get older. And we refine our stalking and shooting skills. The truthful writer simply reports his experiences honestly and lets the reading public sort it out.

Steve

Jayco, once again your bias blinds you to simple reality. Outdoor writers often have a lot more field experience than you give 'em credit for. A number of my fellow writers have been hunting for decades, since they were unsubsidized youngsters afield on their own, and some have legally taken more American and exotic game in a single season than a typical local hunter gets in several seasons. (This fact, of course, does not include loggers who poach game.)

On how many writers � presumably one[s] whom you really know something about � do you base your negative opinions of writers?

I wish I could. Since my stroke, I have to sit down to put my pants on � sometimes one leg at a time, sometimes both. If you can stand up to put your pants on, you're one-up on me. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

As humans, we love stories. Before paper and professional writers, the storyteller told his tales. In part to entertain, but mainly to teach and pass on accumulated knowledge.

Even with the internet, radio and television, there still exists the wonder of listening to a good storyteller. You can see it in the eyes of many people in theatres, churches etc.

There are so many of us on the planet, most with multiple outlets from which to find these tales, that we've become choosy. That's to be expected I suppose.

logcutter, you are certainly correct when you say that the overwhelming majority don't need to hunt. There is a "however" to this. Northern Canada has its fair share of subsistance hunters - both native and white. Most enjoy reading the magazine articles. Some will try a suggested method or technique when hunting. Others will laugh and ignore them. Regardless, the story's the thing. Either for the entertainment or the knowledge.

Whether for sport or to feed one's family, the method is the same. The result must be the same. If it is not, the sport hunter would be irresponsible. The subsistance hunter would go hungry.

Ken Wrote:
I like your un-bias opinion on the loggers.Like gun writers....Not all Loggers poach game.Of course we already new that.

My point is..I have absolutely nothing against writers.(Live on)But..There are many people I know that grew up with hunting a must for food and there still are.To match skills with a hungry person and compare for sport is two different things.I know several that grew up years ago on the Salmon River and still have creeks named after them and live there today.To say "All" gun writers have the knowledge of getting in the meat for the family like the settlers did is like telling someone how tough you are without showing it.

I have nothing against you or anyone else but it appears to me "Ego's" tend to get in the way with facts and experience.To say Gunwriters have more experience than some Packers-Locals etc etc is bold at the least.The "Silent" people that just do it for food and have since they were born.

The internet is a puzzling place where ego's fly but b.....I'll leave it there.One man is not better than another unless proven differently...That's just a fact.

Although we seem to disagree on things..I do respect your opinion and experiences....

Jayco.

Points well taken, Steve! Obviously logical. Obviously true.

Responses to my survey of readers' preferences confirmed (in spades!) my notion that (for example) the Alabama farmer who hunts bob whites, doves, cottontails, and gray squirrels with a 20-gauge and a .22 rimfire for a few weeks every year isn't terribly thrilled to read about the 20-gauge, the .22, or hunting his local game the rest of the year.

A significant percentage of the respondents said that they preferred to read about hunting game that they would never be able to hunt, with guns and cartridges that they knew they'd never even see. Very few preferred to read stories that mirrored their own experience.

That was "one man's opinion, nothing more" in the beginning � but it turned-out to be "one man's opinion" for each "one man" of hundreds of hunters who gave me their opinions. Writers learn a lot about what readers like, from readers. My survey just formalized and extrapolated what I already sensed was so.

I think this is where the confusion lies. The only difference between a subsistance and sport hunter is the reason why they walk out the door. The method and end are the same. To be successful as either type, you must become proficient.

No one is saying that sport hunters are better or more noble.

Ken-I agree that writers have to write what the majority of readers want.You are 100% correct.My point was that some people do not respond to these surveys or any surveys at all.

I did not look at it that way...Why would an experienced succesful hunter need tips on hunting?

I try to stay away from this talk but you have my blessings on your stroke.I have Multiple Schlerosis and had two Heart Attacks.I'll die trying......Can't teach an old Dog new tricks....

Best of luck to you and your family..

Jayco.

Thanks Ken. I think that it is because we love stories, that we want to hear about places and creatures that we will likely never see. The tale has to be presented with gusto however.

When I was still in the military and teaching, the worst thing you could do was blandly belch out facts. Your listeners faded away.

This may not be fair to Ben Stein, but imagine a technical lecture about the chemistry of explosives that he would deliver vs that of Robin Williams. The end must be that the student retains something. Humour and colourful descriptions stick. Bland is boring.

So, a reloading article can be made as interesting as a trip to Africa, but it takes talent to accomplish. That, I suppose, separates the average from the great.

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.