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

There are numerous kinds of articles and good and bad in each variety. There are the opinion articles like which maker is best and which caliber is the best deer rifle caliber. It is hard to make these kinds of articles good reading without centerfolds.

There are the Puff articles which usually correspond with a large advertisement in that same magazine issue. The sentences are mainly made up of as many complimentary adjectives as possible. These also include photo ops of fancy lodges in pretty places.

Then there are the "Me & Joe Went Hunting" articles which are also eminently skipable.

We have the research articles which can be extremely interesting for folks like me who like those sorts of things. The various Sherman Bell articles come to mind. Also the article on Lindners comes to mind.

Then we have the question and answer sections usually written by someone who thinks they have good general knowledge. These are usually very forgetable.

We also have the columns by "gun experts" who usually show how much they do NOT know. I remember one by a decent writer who is only a hack gunmaker. He was explaining how to make gun screwdrivers only to get it EXACTLY wrong becoming ever more a famous joke amongst his fellow gun makers. On the other hand we have a collaboration between MM and that ex-Brit up in Maine (forget his name at the moment) ). It is a treat to read anything they put down on paper.

We have the pure photo ops of either famous guns, fancy grades, unusual guns, or fancy custom guns that can be fun or even helpful research to compare similar guns which may or may not be upgrades.

We also have the adventure articles which may be Peter Hathaway Capstick qualty or the Bear that Et ma Foot quality.

There are also pure historical articles on people or guns.

I am probably forgetting some kinds, but these cover most of them. We only have one magazine which is consistently good, DGJ. That is not a lot, but we are lucky to have it.

This depends to some extent where you were reading. I purchased my copy of Burrard's "The Modern Shotgun" some 40 years ago & he lied about neither. The British Proof Houses never ceased proving damascus bbls & the British ammunition companies settled the chamber length question about the time of WWII. Bell brought it to the attention of some who were unaware, but he left the impression he had "Discovered" it all. If he really thinks so, he simply failed to do his homework.

bought the SSM in question just to see what the fuss was about. the letter to the editor, were it not for this thread, i'd not have read beyond the first paragraph, using the remaining time to load a flat of shells, checker a rifle stock, rust blue a set of barrels and gnaw an iver johnson champion receiver out of raw bar stock with my teeth. our process specs at work are no more boring and onlybarely longer. i'd guess mcintosh's article wasn't much longer.

regarding his response i didn't find it rude. it certainly wasn't demeaning or obnoxious in any way. sardonic, to be sure, but from the quotes of his article - not having read that - it wasn't apparent to me that he ever denied any of events cited in the letter took place. implied in the brister comment possibly.

all mcintosh basically said is he was writing a magazine article, not a thesis paper and was trying to keep it readable. if his article had read like the letter no one would have bought the magazine to read it.

if i had to sum up the letter and response it'd be: "how many angels can dance on the had of a pin?" "whatever"

as an aside, as i checked out w/ the SSM and the DGJ as well, the clerk remarked, "WOW! i've never seen anyone actually BUY one of these!" to which i said i'm wasn't a cheap git who sat in the store and read them for free then put the smudged, soiled, bent up magazine that no one would buy back on the rack. i've said it here before: bookstores are STORES. if you want to read something for free go to a library. and when we do things like that people are noticing and it is not a good reflection on gun owners and shooters in general.

roger

Boddington is a retired Full Bird Colonel USMC- as was the late Jeff Cooper, prior to his promotion to Brig. Gen (Military Courtesy, as he had retired as a Full Bird I believe). Like Patton (my favorite General of All) Boddington came from money and married into it-not a bad move for a "Jarhead"-

You call a retired Army General by his first name? Only brother officers of equal or greater rank do that on active duty status. Reminds me of a coach we had at St. Stanislaus' in Queen City- when he told us lads we could call him "Bob" instead of Mister Hiltz or Coach Hiltz, all respect gradually faded- I address any ranking Army (or other branch) Commissioned Officer, active or Retired, and it is still "Sir"- You respect the rank, then the man. Duty, Honor, Country!! RWTF

Post deleted by Run With The Fox

While I didn't get the impression that Bell laid claim to 'discovering it all', I'd think he is entitled and should lay claim the writings of the tests and results he authored, whether they revealed new data or simply confirmed other's data.

In my opinion he did a great service in revisiting a subject written about and investigated so long ago that it had drifted into obscurity. Having a fresh look at a subject using modern technology stirs reader interest as well as scrutiny by all parties.

Revisiting a subject is a cornerstone of engineering and science I am sure will continue forever and I think it's a very good thing for all.

Post deleted by Run With The Fox

Run did you just get back from Jamacia with more in your bag than when you left? By the by, you should be able to afford a Limey Gun (I trust that is British Gun). Just move a couple of those AAHE's sitten around the house. Get a real gun.

Tim

Chuck, his stuff meant a lot to me. Unlike many here, I don't have the old books. I've bought good guns at ridiculously low prices because of short chambers, twist, damascus etcetera. He provided a valuable service.

While Sherman Bell most certainly did not "discover" the fact that long shells can be fired safely in short chambers, he does get credit--as noted above--for doing actual experiments and providing the resulting pressure and velocity data. Some of us here, for quite a few years, harkened back to what Burrard, Thomas, or Arthur Curtis in the American gun industry had written on the same subject, going back to pre-WWII days in a couple cases, and would point out the facts of the matter. But since the Bell articles, there are far few "disbelievers". Just as there are now far fewer "disbelievers" where Damascus is concerned.

As for Boddington using his rank, it is perfectly permissible for a retired officer to do so. I do so on occasion, but mostly when I'm writing on things military. Almost never in my outdoor writing. That being said, there's a pretty long history of gun writers who have used their military rank: people with familiar names like Askins, Whelen, Curtis, Brophy, etc. So while I do not do as Boddington does, I certainly do not fault him for it.

RWTF, a military officer retires at the highest rank he's held, unless the rank was a "temporary" or "brevet" one, which occasionally occurs in wartime--but that was mostly in the past, doesn't happen very often these days. Cooper may have been selected for BG, but he would have retired as a BG had the promotion ever been officially made. Interestingly, I've known some officers who have "run out of time" (a mandatory removal date) as a commissioned officer, but who continued to serve in a prior enlisted rank, or as a warrant officer. But when they retire, it is at their highest rank. (And more importantly, perhaps, their pension is based on their highest rank!)