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

My point on EDM is that although he may be a researcher in Parkers, he doesn't know squat about other doubles and yet he tells all who will read that Parkers are so much better than anything else. That means either stupidity or foolishness.

Pete and others...talking about guns or what was wrote about guns is what this website is supposed to be about.

To me this has been sounding like personal attacks on people which is not supposed to be tolerated.

All of those things stated about the former work & writings on Shot-Stringing are in fact well documented & recognized. Since Mac inferred this work had never been done, this certainly needed corrected. Having not the SSM accounts, I will have to say though from all appearance it would seem that MR MAC was the one who turned it "Personal" by his attack on the letter writer. I have seen a number of instances where a reader sent in a correction to an error, where the writer graciously appoligized for the error & thanked the person for the correction. This would seem to have been the proper course for Mr Mac to take as the reader was in fact correct.

I must agree with "2-piper's" comments regarding documented research and civil conduct in print. Never the less, none of us should ever underestimate the EGO of a published writer who may believe his infinite knowledge on a given subject makes him an American Icon. Ego makes it easy to fall into the trap of believing he's the smartest person he's ever met (at least on a given subject). As such, he believes his writing is a gift to the uninformed and uneducated and should not be questioned. When ego gets in the way, the writer does damage to himself and cheapens all that he has written in the past and will write in the future.

The considerable efforts and accomplishments of both Michael MacIntosh and Ed Muderlak for the sport are not diminished by the occasional factual quibble or disagreements over style and presentation. In spite of the Fox book, I consider MM a popularizing journalist--a flack for the trade. His forte appears to me to be the short essay constrained by magazine length requirements and often containing the "hook" of eye-catching oversimplication. I would prefer to see him accept correction by the factoid "wonks" with better grace but this episode is not his undoing to my eyes.

EDM's booklength work on Parker Bros. is a durable accomplishment beside which the Abbott&Costello "Who's on First?" encomium in DGJ pales to insignificance. I would prefer that Muderlak had MM's facility with the shorter form or could accept that he doesn't, but again, his good work is not diminished by failure in what is perhaps a lesser endeavor.

This game is supposed to be writer to reader rather than expert over novice--something which MM's much-maligned hero G. T. Garwood never forgot, at least by the light of day in the public press.

jack

Some writers exist only to make others look better. Sherman Bell's factual reporting has put the onus on nearly 100 years of lies and propaganda about Damascus barrels and short chamber pressure. He is greatly responsible for the reuse of great old guns from the past.

Peter Hathaway Capstick could retell a really great story whether it was his or someone elses. He is greatly responsible for repopularizing the safari, and since this has provided much needed income in many African countries which would have otherwise slaughtered much game for temporary food, he did much to keep this game from becoming extinct.

Then there are the opinion writers who are merely filler between advertizments in current bathroom magazines.

jack, that's as clear and fair as we're likely to see. Thank you.

Pete, do not forget about photo writers. Maybe you consider them opinion writers. They are as important as anyone, they are not out there to turn the gun world upside down. They want to display their wares and make some comments. Playboy and Penthouse made a living at this. And I don't know about you but I love the photos!!! (I do read the articles, honest, I do )

Tim

This thread reminded me of the one and only LTE that I wrote to a gun publication a few years ago about an article written by Col. Craig Boddington (why he uses the Col. title escapes me. We have a retired Lt. Gen in our horse club and he goes by "John", his given name.).

The article was about the Christensen carbon wound barrels/guns. In the article, Boddington stated that the carbon covering did a number of things for accuracy/stability while allowing for lower weight, etc., but also stated that the carbon facilitated quicker cooling and the barrel could be shot many times within a short time and not have a very hot outer surface, which he somehow extrapolated into quicker cooling.

My LTE pointed out that this conclusion of quicker cooling was an error and that quite the opposite was true. My LTE stated that carbon covering actually insulates the heat transfer and referred to my background in composites and tests I had witnessed on the subject and even acknowledged that in some specialized configurations, carbon nanotubes could facilitate good heat transfer. But, not in a configuration like that needed for the application at hand.

I looked for months. The magazine never printed my LTE nor did I recieve any acknowledgement of its reciept. I guess some guy that has read that article will find out the hard way that shooting a carbon wrapped barrel a large number of rounds quickly will superheat the barrel core because it can't loose heat effectively. The magazines don't care as long as they sell print.

Chuck,

You dared to correct a writer with many books and articles? Wow, according to some here they are untouchables with no room for error. How could you.

JC