doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com OT: Gun writing gone bad?

Greg, considering Mac's multiple wives and girlfriends, I think we can conclude that he and Ellen do indeed have one thing in common: they both like women.

i've said this before in defense of writers and it's based on askins the younger's comments in his autobiography regarding editors: you can't be sure that what you're reading in a magazine is what the writer wrote because of what editors may have done to it.

in this case having read neither the article nor the response i wouldn't comment on that aspect altho if as purported, there's no excuse for outright rudeness. some people shouldn't believe their own PR. the only gun magazine i'll even pick up is the Brit mag "Sporting Gun" but i'm almost curious enough now to find a copy of SSM and read the response.

roger

Most times I can't make a simple post on this forum without errors of spelling or grammer of some type.When its pointed out I will state I know some about guns not spelling and spelling don't pay the bills. I have seen posters here get offended when statements they have made about a gun is rebuffed and fire back a terse rebuttal. Fact is no one like to get spanked in public even if its on this small compared to world events forum.Kinda cast the first stone thing.

SDH, your point is well taken on the editing problems. In this case an editor could not have mistakenly dreamed up the wrong names that were put with the guns. Some may have found the article interesting, but a large portion of it was just wrong and if someone bases their Baker knowledge on it, they would be wrong, too.

Of course deadlines are not the driving force for all writers. In this case, I see similar , non studied text all of the time. The text is just dressing for the rather good photos attached.

I've read MM forever and enjoyed 99+% of it.

I'd summarize his reply to the critic of his shot string article as: "I know all the research, but won't bother with factual details that would bog down my fine writing." Without providing supporting data he claimed some studies cited by the critic were bogus. His cavalier response suggested disdain for the critic. I was unpleasantly surprised.

Then I remembered ... included in my MM 1% is a circa 1985 article in SSM about "ugly machinery" guns, which was very like the opinion Jim Zumbo was tarred and feathered for expressing.

In one of his books he describes making gun fit adjustments to comb height based on shots fired at a pattern plate. On a SxS, to compensate for barrel downflip, he recommends adjusting fit to deliver patterns higher on the pattern plate than the desired POI.

I've enjoyed pretty much everthing else I've read of MM. Why does this negative stuff stick so in memory?

Jay

I agree with whomever said that the mighty Mac has run out of things to write about. I used to look forward to each and every article, now, I leaf over it. I don't even check out the title.

Maybe lack of humbleness makes people forget basic rules such as:
"If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically."

JC

Too-Shay.

GJZ, please be kinder to Mr Hughes, I am sure not all of his alcohol fueled rants have been late at night.

As for Michael, I am sure he sometimes gets an instruction to do some article on some topic upon which he is poorly informed. No one person can be well informed on everything. I remember him saying the pre-1913 LC's all had Circassian walnut. When I called him on that, he stated that the LC catalogs stated that all their wood was imported. I told him that was true, but half of it was imported from Pennsylvania. Beans even knows which farm, if he is still around this site.

I enjoy Michael's collaborations with Trevalion, as one is a good writer, and the other is a national treasure of information. I would love to see an article in SSM on how to make quality gun screwdrivers as the last hack that tried got it all embarrassingly wrong and became a laughingstock in the industry. But, maybe he wrote it late at night.