doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com Jules La Bantchni

Whoa Back at Ya! A few problems with your argument:
1.This whole issue started about research AND VERIFICATION of him, versus us and your statement pretty well sums up the problem. The rifle's provenance is "pretty well established" is that like, being kinda pregnant?
2.When I Google a combination of search terms Jobson/O'Connor/Minar/Rifle I get exactly 2 articles, Jobson's orignal 1966 and Hill's 1988 and no identifiable photos.
3.Unlike you, I feel the fact the inletting can't be compared is VERY important, because Petrov gives this great weight as to HIS rifle POSSIBLY being a Minar, from the very start. The inletting that Petrov said had no equal, a unique indicator, was not available in Jobson's rifle for comparison.
4.Herein lies the rub... "Petrov believes the Springfield in question is a Minar" What we are talking about here is, how quick is he to believe HIS gun is a Minar, WHILE DOUBTING ANOTHER'S IS NOT? What does he require for proof from us, but accepts as belief, from himself?

Each member will have to answer these questions for themselves. Let me make it clear, that I am not advocating not reading or purchasing Mr. PETROV'S BOOK or musings! I wouldn't be without a copy, present or future editions. What I am saying is his research and such, I find could be applied in a more equal manner. Jerry

Please can we keep this about rifles and the people who built them? If Michael s research and findings do not pass muster with you then that is fine, it is none of our concern, and if his research does pass our muster, it should not be of any concern to you. We can each decide on our own without the need to justify our decision on this forum.

This is one of the very few polite and respectful forums on the net, and it does it without being heavily moderated as most are. We need to all work to keep it that way. If that sometimes means biting your tongue, or fingers in this case, then that is a small price to pay for the quality atmosphere we have here.

Hoping you all have a great Holiday Season,

John Holliger

I am friendly with both principals in this little contretemps, have done business with both and have also exchanged gifts and good wishes with both men and have no opinion or preference between them in the area of personal honesty.

However it's become quite obvious to me that both men have some sort of sub rosa 'stake' in this question of La Bantchni/Pachmayr. Without going into any more speculation or airing of hearsay, I'll cheerfully withdraw from the discussion with the observation and suggestion that we all ignore their differences.

If we apply the rules and conventions of 'debate' then both men IMO have failed to make a convincing case because of no demonstrated logical progression/connection of proven or strongly-indicated facts. I myself have seen a lotta data presented here but with no logical analysis or further development of their assertions on either side.

I repeat, across a debating table any logical knowledgeable person could blow both men's positions (as presented here) completely out of the water. In a debate almost anyone could take either side of the argument as presented and, in a few paragraphs, totally undercut the opposite argument. I myself COULD do it but I don't wanta lose a friend...

I repeat, either side can totally undercut the other side's stated argument but so far neither has done it or even come close!

So, why should the rest of us worry? It's a tempest in a teacup with no logic on either side and no convincing debate exchange either, at least not IMO. Let the 2 with the 'stake' argue it out and the rest of us will hide-&-watch to see if anything is ever published and if it includes Jerry's account or not (grin).
Regards, Joe

No............it's not like being "kinda pregnant". The provenance of O'Connor's Minar rifle goes far beyond any research Petrov might have done on it. That you are unaware of that hardly refutes the fact that it exists.



Congratulations on your Internet prowess. If dependence on that media is your primary research criteria for pre-war custom rifles....you're lost without help.

Go purchase a copy of the 1980 April American Rifleman. Article by Bob Hills, interview with Jobson just before he died, and multiple pictures of the Minar Springfield. Further perusal of O'Connor's Rifle & Hunting Rifle books will show pictures of the gun and it's many changes. Including multiple scopes and mounts, metal buttplate removed for recoil pad installation, new bolt and safety, and Lyman receiver sight removed and wood patch applied.

Several knowledgeable people I'm familiar with saw the O'Connor Minar rifle at the ACGG show in Reno. I was not so lucky. It was gone before I arrived.

If you have an issue with its provenance..........you have a host of people to discredit, far beyond Mr. Petrov. You should give that issue a rest.

Looks like living in Alaska has its advantages, by the time I get out of bed they are done with lunch on the East coast and battles have been won and lost on Internet.

I appreciate all the support and agree with others that everything should be civil. Keeping that in mind I'll refrain from posting further on this subject.

Can't we just get along...like say Congress.

Hopefully everyone will chuckle and a new subject will start.......at least I for one am looking forward to the next thread. BEST overall forum on the web, IMHO

I'll second those motions. What I need to do,and literally,is get off of my "Duff" (see), and learn to take better photos and post them. I might even throw an Alvin Liden in the mix. Everyone should enjoy that. I'll try to get started on that and become a contributor around this place. Speaking of this place, I'm glad we have it. Kind of like a real Thanksgiving or Christmas, maybe not crazy about the whole family, but don't want to tear up the furniture to get it straight. Merry Christmas to Everyone! We have much to be thankful for.

Gary

I haven't been the one who has kept this going! A quick perusal of my prior entries will indicate I only responded to highly critical comments and only then to clearly state what I felt was my side, of the matter. It was obvious that besides A VERY FEW members, I was going to have to do this on my own. I started by saying I was through posting and I am until it becomes necessary to respond to a remark about me personally. Don't make any and you won't hear from me. durate et vosmet rebus servate secundis Jerry

GrandView
YOU STATED:
Further perusal of O'Connor's Rifle & Hunting Rifle books will show pictures of the gun and it's many changes. Including multiple scopes and mounts, metal buttplate removed for recoil pad installation, new bolt and safety, and Lyman receiver sight removed and wood patch installed.

Please tell me where the pictures of this rifle [Minar] are in the Jack O'Connor "The Hunting Rifle" book. I have looked through my 1970 copy and can find no such photos...please enlighten me! Thanks Jerry

Mr Jerry

What say you about Phil Shoemaker's Minar rifle. Is that suspect in your eyes and mind also?



Nice story about it HERE