Author Topic: Venting a bit (Read 1669 times)

Questor · « **on:** July 30, 2003, 12:12:55 PM »

I was just reading Jack O'Connor's Rifle Book. It sucks. I think a lot of today's authors do better work than that. I think the same thing about so many of the other old-time writers. Today's best simply out-class them. That goes for Elmer Keith too. Does anybody else agree with me on that point?

I will concede that few if any of today's writers are writing full-size hard-bound books. I wonder why that is? I think the potential is within today's writers to write excellent hard-bound books. Got any ideas?

God forbid though, that John Taffin or Claire Rees should get the bug to write hardbound books. The thought makes my flesh crawl.

Don't get your gizzard all bent out of shape if this offends you, it's just for the sake of argument.

bobg · « **Reply #1 on:** July 30, 2003, 12:53:01 PM »

I sure don't agree. I think Jack O' Conner was the best writer there was or ever will be. You are right, Elmer sucks.

bobg :x

Graybeard · « **Reply #2 on:** July 30, 2003, 01:02:43 PM »

Don't agree either. I think Jack was about the single best shooting type writer ever to come along. The guys now days are only out to push some company's product that they are on the payroll of.

BTW both Taffin and Rees have hard cover books out. Taffin several. So has this royal highness Boddington which is my all time least favorite among writers.

GB

Zachary · « **Reply #3 on:** July 30, 2003, 04:30:02 PM »

Quote from: Graybeard

So has this royal highness Boddington which is my all time least favorite among writers.

GB

Speaking of Boddington, I saw him on a commercial recently. I don't quite remember what the commercial was for, but the point is in line with what GB is saying - how can today's writers, especially such as Boddington, give an honest evaluation and opinion when they are being showered with dollar bills?

Personally, I take anything Boddington has to say with a grain of salt. :roll:

Zachary

MS Hitman · « **Reply #4 on:** July 30, 2003, 04:46:06 PM »

I don't agree with your opinion on Elmer Keith.

Graybeard · « **Reply #5 on:** July 30, 2003, 05:00:12 PM »

Elmer wasn't all that great a writer as far as style is concerned but the old boy could sure tell us storys and make us feel like we were there experiencing it. That's enough for me.

GB

les hemby · « **Reply #6 on:** July 31, 2003, 01:56:51 AM »

yep and you gotta give it to him. he was flat bad with a six-gun. not the fastest but didnt want him shooting at ya at a long ways off. the man was good at what he did. of todays magazines how many bad reviews do you see. my remington 597 wont go 2 rounds without jamming, Shooting Times thought it was best thing since bubble gum. I let all my subscriptions expire if i need to know something will ask here where we are not paid for our answers

Questor · « **Reply #7 on:** July 31, 2003, 02:33:58 AM »

We needed a new topic to stir things up a bit. I read some more last night and he sure did like that .270 a lot. He gives it many pages of detailed admiring praise, then gives the 30/06 a couple of pages that basically say "It's OK if you like that sort of thing."

I like Boddington's work because he seems to realize that he's primarily in the entertainment business and he writes in an entertaining way. It's kind of like reading Capstick (who by linguistic mannerism, Boddington has clearly been influenced by), because it's 90 percent entertainment and the other 10 percent doesn't matter. Dick Metcalf is excellent on technical subjects and I admire his historian-like perspective on topics of the day. Jan Libourel (spelling?) is very good and I enjoy his work when I find it. Eileen Clark is among the best when she's writing on non-food topics because her work is well researched and well presented.

Face it, most of the ostensible how-to information in hunting and fishing magazines is purely worthless and misleading junk information. What matters in most of them is the entertainment value.

I like Peterson's Hunting because it covers the gamut of world hunting topics.

The very best of the best are the guys who are the frequent contributors to Rifle magazine and Successful Hunter magaziine. I actually keep these magazines and sometimes refer back to earlier issues. These guys are so far ahead of everybody else that it's hard to believe they're in the same business. I hardly even care about rifles, yet I read each issue of Rifle just because it is so well written.

Charlie Detroit · « **Reply #8 on:** July 31, 2003, 03:51:25 AM »

Well, I probably am not qualified to write about the newer writers because I don't want anything but what I've already got and so don't really read the rags anymore. I used to, 25 - 30 years ago, though. Plus, I got Jack O'Connor's book 'way back when (maybe 40 -45 years ago), and actually taught myself to shoot a rifle from his "How to Shoot" chapter(s). The knowledge has stuck, too, I'm happy to say. I lost track of the book some 20 years ago, but just recently found a used copy at Half-Price Books. Sure was glad to get it...sorta like when you try to explain math to your kid; you know to do something, but you don't know why. When I'm teaching my daughter how to shoot, I damn well better know the "why", or she won't do it (she's like her old man; if there ain't no "why", ignore it).
Never read much of Elmer's work, but I always pretty much was in his camp when it came to the heavy bullet/low velocity. Never was much of a fan of the Weatherby view. This might have been caused by the fact that his rifles looked like they came out of Detroit in the '50s...lots of chrome, bigger tailfins. I was always a "form follows function" man, even before I was a man.
One of the reasons that so few books are getting into hardback these days is probably money. Ain't it always? Hardcover books are so expen$ive these days that most folks will just wait for the paperback.

Charlie Detroit · « **Reply #9 on:** July 31, 2003, 03:59:24 AM »

Forgot to mention that I learned to shoot handguns from Jeff Cooper's book back in the '60s (I think; us old farts lose track of time). I think it was called American Practical Hangunner or some such. Now I know that some of us here (I ain't namin' no names) may not care for the old Colonel, but his instructions on how to hang on to handguns and fire 'em with some degree of confidence that you were gonna come close to your target were very useful to us kids that didn't have coaches.
I still write to him now and again; I'm just glad he's still out there and causin' trouble.

Mikey · « **Reply #10 on:** July 31, 2003, 04:42:55 AM »

Whooooee, I'm bet somebody's ears are smokin' right about now. Wait, hold up a minute, I feel a tremor in the Force. Must be onna those old-timers turning in his grave.

I like old Elmer because he did it and was there. The man overcame some horrible childhood injuries to go on to become one of the first of this (last, sorry) century's handunning pioneers. He may not have been the the best versed author in the field but I would much rather read his writing, and read about him, then read Jeff Cooper continuing to blather about his ownself. I liked Elmer's preferences for big bores and 44s and continue to use his magnum loadings today. Regardless of how (well?) he penned it, you quickly understood his points and would probably agree when you repeated his shoting efforts. When I hear a former Marine tell his reading audience there is no use for a rifle sling in modern shooting today then I know the wheels have slipped more than just a cog or two.

I never had the chance to read Jack O'Connor so I can not comment on his writing style. I'm not a fan of the .270, there are other calibers I like more. Had one for a while; seemed to slap a bit harder than an identical 06; no more or less accurate than the identical rifle in 06 (consecutive numbered pair of rifles). But, the 270 has earned it's reputation honestly and is highly thought of in both the field and literature.

Boddington and other current gunwriters may well be overly influenced by commercialism and sponsors and in that regard I agree with Questor. I also agree with Graybeard and his comments.

Men like Keith, O'Connor, Jordan, Whelan and others were more influenced by the needs of the time than commercialism. They sought to provide something for those who needed it, be it guidance, lessons, direction or standards of expectation. We may not have a lot of new calibers these days but we sure have a whole bunch of new platforms and casings to shoot them from. In that regard there may well be nothing new under the sun.

What bothers me most is writers who indicate their current fad is the end all to be all. Geez guys, someone throw me a bone here. Taffin may be well (?) published but the notion of magnumitis sort of fits that image yet he will tell ya'll right up front that he is most likely to leave home with a 38 subnose in his pocket - OK, go figure. Too many contradictions with him.

In the most recent Guns and Ammo Boddington blathers on and on about the 270. He once said his one of his favorite all around cartridges was the 8x57mm - OK, go figure. Again, too many contradictions and 'ya'll gotta have what's new".

Here's another: His Majesty Townsend Whelan. Another all time favorite of many but, there is just something about guys who so badly poo-poo one cartridge in favor of another. Man, I have more 8mms and 303 Brits than 444s, although I'm trying to level that playing field. I don't poo-poo much of anything, I just tell you why I prefer one over the other (I hope).

Oh yeah, the 7mm Mag over the 06 advocates. My 06 will do the same or better depending on the loading. 444 vs 45-70: Hay, I've always stood up for the underdog.

Things are much, much different today. That may be the reason for so much televised commericalism and fellas who maay present a more civilized image. I remember the steely eyed Bill Jordon who could draw and fire two rounds before the quarter he had on the back of his hand hit the bottom of his holster - can you imagine the anti-gunning soical outcry over demonstations like that today. The Keith syle tales of good hunts must be couched in more civil or clinical terminology today out of political correctness, so as not to raise any more anti fervor. Anything relating to the destructive capabilities of yesteryears big bore black powder rifles is met with great social concern. Non-hunting or shooting people who watch the movie "Quigley Down Under" get quite concerned about a man's ability to shoot through 2 men from so far away that you don't even hear the gun go off and God forbid you begin to mention the sniping capabilities of today's 50 calibers.

Things have changed fellas, that's for sure. Maybe that is why the less gruff, more polished, less offensively steely-eyed types might be seen as a better public image of the sports we enjoy than the old cigar smokin', cowboy hat wearin', quick drawin' folks of yesteryear. But those men stood for standards of personal expectation we do not have today - may be it is a bit too difficult for some of today's folk to meet those standards and hence the call for a softer image better able to circumnavigate today's social issues in order to support the shooting sports. Maybe. Mikey.

Questor · « **Reply #11 on:** July 31, 2003, 04:50:58 AM »

Sam Fadala wrote an excellent book called, I think, The World's Greatest Shooters. It's his best work. It gives a brief but interesting biography of many of the greats mentioned in this thread including Keith, O'Connor, Whelen, Annie Oalkley, and many others. It's a good read, and it's not too expensive in paperback.

dakotashooter2 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 31, 2003, 08:02:43 AM »

Modern writers are basically just riding on the shirttails of the oldtimers. Most modern writers rely on information, technology and lessons passed on by others and write more for their own satisfaction than that of others. A classic example would be all the new rifle cartridges to show up in the last 10 years. The writters love this because it keeps them working. After all what more can be written about the 270, 06 or 44 mag that hasn't already been done. I just chuckle every time a writer (and us shooters) jump all over a new cartridge that is supposed to be gods gift to the shooter. One thing I've leared about guns is there is no best. Comparisons are easy because you can always find something that is worse (or better). The best writing always comes from a strong base of life experiences. In this pampered society we have lived in for the last 40 or 50 years most modern writers don't has squat for life experiences.

HWooldridge · « **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2003, 09:13:14 AM »

Dakota,

You said it all in just a few words. Almost everything today for the shooting fraternity is rehashed in some way and amounts to merely creating a lot of "busy work" for the writers. My dad often said you could successfully hunt anything in the world if you owned a 22, a 30-06 and a 12 gauge. Although I really like the 44 Magnum, the 44 Special with good handloads is plenty sufficient for most things. Now, we have the 480 and larger - when will it end? Variety is fine and everyone should be entitled to spend their money as they want, but the media frenzy is affecting every part of our life - not just guns - and as you stated, people don't hunt as much as they used to and trophy or sport hunting is not the same as putting meat on the table. Both my mom and dad's families had livestock, chickens, hogs, etc. in the 1930's plus ate out of the garden, but they had no refrigeration and subsisted on whatever game was killed daily to help fill everyone's dinner plates. Hollis

Charlie Detroit · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2003, 10:31:13 AM »

Well, I still like it that the old Colonel is causin' trouble...his kinda trouble we need. You may wind up agreein' with him or not, but it makes ya think over the whole topic. Besides which, he really did teach me to shoot (out of a book, but then, I've always been the kind of person who could learn out of a book. My fencing coach in college laughed at me when I said that I'd learned to fence out of a book, but he was the only person I couldn't beat, and he was an athlete that had practiced for 30 years.).
I never said that I didn't respect Keith, I think he really knew how handguns kill/disable/whatever. That's the old "heavy, slow bullet" thing. His guns, however, were 'way too much for a guy who didn't have much opportunity to practice. I wound up with the Colonel's favorite, the 1911A1, and I've never been sorry.

BruceP · « **Reply #15 on:** August 01, 2003, 04:03:20 PM »

Well, while I still read some of the rags or buy them anyway. I have kind of soured on some of todays writers in the last few years. Seems money can change a mans view about thing from one day to the next. I have read a little of O'Conner and Keith but not lot. I like the 270 Winchester but would not go as far a O'Conner in its praise over the '06 and the like. I cant really fault either mans logic in the limited reading I have done. I like O'Conner's writing better. I dont care for Cooper even though I like the 45 acp. I like Rick Jamison when it comes to reloading even though he can go over my head (or my interest) sometimes. I like to read Mike Venturino as I am interested in the arms he writes about and he writes well also. Boddington use to be a favorite but not any more. Kind of like Chuck Adams in bowhunting. Jim Wilson has a way of telling a story that reminds my of Skeeter. Man I miss him and Bill Jordon. Now they could tell a story. Well I'll stop there with my views on past and present.
Oh, a question about one more from the past. at least as far as my seeing his writing goes anyway. What ever happened to Clay Harvey. I have a book by him and his writing style is one I really enjoyed. haven't seen any articles by him in years.
BruceP

Questor · « **Reply #16 on:** August 04, 2003, 02:50:59 AM »

I finished reading O'Connor's Rifle Book. One criticism about today's authors is that they are constantly endorsing product in a sort of soft-sell advertising. O'Connor did this as well. Almost every page had some kind of endorsement on it, whether it was for a particular bullet or a particular custom gunsmith. To be sure, the economics were different in his day because the incentives clearly were in favor of endorsing custom gun makers rather than mass manufacturers. I'll bet he had a closet full of substantially discounted custom guns and all the Remington Core-Loct bullets he could use.

Graybeard · « **Reply #17 on:** August 04, 2003, 05:41:08 AM »

Maybe but I don't think so Rudy. As best as I can determine the writers of his day really didn't get much in the way of perks such as you mention. I believe he paid for his hunts or perhaps the magazines did but don't think manufacturers were doing it in those days as they do today.

As to free bullets dunno about that in those days of old. Magazine writers are not allowed to accept free products such as guns, scopes, binoculars, etc. Discounted prices to them, yup you bet. BUT if they actually buy the stuff they are paying a substantial price generally. I get the same deal as the writers do in general with most all companies. In some few cases the prices are less than wholesale but not usually. Twice now I've gotten Freedom Arms guns from Bob Baker and both times I'd loved to have kept them but just can't afford to pay the price he needed for them. Some times the prices are no better than you can buy from discount catalogs. Redding comes to mind here. Lee offers the deepest discounts in the industry from those I've dealt with and bought from. For the most part the price offered is about the same price someone with an FFL could buy the item for.

Now consumables like bullets, powder, primers, cases, reloading manuals, etc. those are free to writers and the bigger the name of the writer and the rag he writes for the easier and the more he can get. Free hunts are the single biggest perk. Dang wish some of them would offer me a few of those. :eek:

GB

Questor · « **Reply #18 on:** August 04, 2003, 06:46:01 AM »

I wonder how he could afford all of those hunts? Judging from the numbers of big-game animals killed, he must have had both a lot of time and a lot of money to spend on hunting.

Graybeard · « **Reply #19 on:** August 04, 2003, 01:13:01 PM »

Me and you both. :eek:

Actually all things were cheaper in those days. He was a pretty successful individual both at book sales (he wrote a BUNCH) and as a magazine writer. It is possible that when a writer is on staff a lot of their hunts are paid for by the magazine or arrangements are made with the outfitters. I can't say for sure in Jack's day. But today the writer's hunts I think for the most part are paid by some combination of manufacturers and outfitters. It is not uncommon for 2-3 manufacturers to hold a get together of writers and split the cost of the hunts among them.

Still I often wonder myself just where they come up with all the money to buy the things they say they do and to pay for the taxidermy and transportation which from my understanding is not normally covered in such arrangements. Maybe one day you or I will be famous magzine writers and will know. :-D

GB

Graycg · « **Reply #20 on:** August 04, 2003, 02:35:06 PM »

I like Mike Venturino and Ken Waters, good technical input with an easy to read style. I sure do miss Bob Milek something fierce though, I really enjoyed his stories on Handgun hunting. Jim Carmichael also put out some really fine stuff and I used his rifle book and the O'conner rifle book to learn lots about shooting at game and targets, tuning loads and rifles and they have helped me immensely. Gotta admit, I always loved seeing the photos of the Shah hunting with old Jack, now those had to be great days to be a sportsman. If not for Jan Liboral, I'd never have discovered Veral Smith's contributions to the cast bullet handgun hunting world. Colonel Cooper sure does beat his chest a bit, but you can still learn alot from his works if you can put that aside. Sherrif Jim Wilson has some good handgun stuff that is applicable to my shooting. As for "Col. Boddington" I hope he's a better reserve officer than writer...also wonder why it took him so long to adopt the Col moniker....

regards,
Graycg....O-6 promotable...

Dragon31 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 04, 2003, 05:51:31 PM »

When I read I do so for two things: first, for the pleasure of the story (all good literature has three parts Character, Location and Plot). Second for the technical information contained in the story. I enjoy Keith and O'conner because both could spin a good story. You knew who the Characters were, you knew the location and the plot unfolded with either the game animal going down or the character accepting that tomorrow would be another day, and a new hunting adventure. I love both the .270 and the .44 mag but, having used both for a long time I question some of the technical material that both men used to make their stories more entertaining. When I taught literature to mainly adult military undergraduates I used examples of both men's style in class.
As far as Col's Cooper and Boddington are concerned I have always had a problem with people who like titles with their names. It always confused me, do I use my military rank, academic achievement or my present position title after/before my name. Net result, I use none. What really scares me is on social issues I find my self agreeing or at least understanding where Col Cooper is coming from.
Currently writers that I enjoy reading are Mike Venturino (From his pictures we both use the same diet), Carmichael, Waters and Wilson. These guys write well and their editors, do an excellant job. They all entertain us, cause us to think (even when we are critical) and motivate use to want to try and do things that we haven't done before. Being over 21 I understand that technical material is open for interpretation, that I am more likely to get bad information from the evening news than Shooting Times, and some guys get paid to write about guns and hunting. We live in a great republic .............keep venting.

Questor · « **Reply #22 on:** August 05, 2003, 02:21:39 AM »

I just returned O'Connor's Rifle Book and checked out his Shotgun Book. I will return it without reading it. That book is totally obsolete because so much has changed since it was written.

Graybeard · « **Reply #23 on:** August 05, 2003, 05:44:25 AM »

Yes to some extent it has changed. But read it anyway. It really is worth it. I own that as well as most of his books. Jack was a game shot not a clay sports shooter. His ideas and thoughts on shooting game are just as valid today as back then.

GB

Old Griz · « **Reply #24 on:** August 05, 2003, 07:25:23 AM »

HWooldridge:

You asked when will it ever end? It won't. The firearms manufacturers need to keep comming out with new stuff in order to stay in business. Do we need a .500 S&W? Not really, but they will sell a bunch and make money. Writers will write about it saying it's soooooo wonderful so that S&W (et al.) will buy ads in their magazine, thereby paying their salaries. And because there's enough of us who want to know what's new, we'll keep buying the magazines, perpetuating the worthless reviews, commercialism, and new products which are reinventions of the same old wheel. It's the American way!

By the way, my wife and I love New Braunfels. It was our favorite get away place when we lived in Ft. Worth.

Questor · « **Reply #25 on:** August 05, 2003, 07:36:40 AM »

I like the progress. The equipment we have today is so much better than the stuff they used in O'Connor's day. I can't believe the stuff people had to do back then so they could have a gun that's in most ways inferior to what we pay $500 for today. Optics, clothes, and even general know-how have improved and continue to do so.

Perhaps it may be worth reading some of the Shotgun Book, but it's too much work to find it. I suspect it may be like the Rifle Book in that regard.

The last few chapters of the Rifle Book were excellent, in fact, they should have come first. It seems like that book, as in so many books written by technicians, is written backward. The Rifle Book starts with-- starts with!-- a lengthy explanation of headspace. What a turn-off.

daddywpb · « **Reply #26 on:** August 05, 2003, 12:00:35 PM »

I don't want to take up space writing it again here, but I put my comments about the almighty Boddington in the hunting and shooting general discussion section.