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