Maybe this has no place in a site like this but I couldn't stand by. This hits on a couple points, but seems to reflect upon gun writing and basic courtesy. I might myself not be wholly factually correct in my researched assertions (it's not my 'job' afterall). As an aside, I hope he isn't this way in 'real life.'

Here is the content of my letter to concerned parties:

"Dear Sirs,

I'm new to shotgunning and have recently been buying copies of Shooting Sportsman at the newstand.
I read the articles and absorb the content regularly. I grant high praise to your efforts and the magazine. It's a polished and wonderful magazine.

I am writing today to highlight my criticism at the gross lack of inclusion of facts presented in one particular article "Strung Out" (Sep - Oct 2008) by Contributing Editor Michael McIntosh. Yet moreso I write to to highlight the utter lack of respect given and insult made in Michael McIntosh's subsequent published reply to Mr. Helmsley's "Letter to the Editor" wherein Mr. Helmsley noted discrepencies in the article. Michael McIntosh's reply produced sufficient outrage for me to write today and I'm sure others feel the same.

I read Michael McIntosh's article concerning the stringing of shot in "Strung Out." Incidently, Mr. McIntosh's book "Best Guns" lies besides my Major G. Burrard's The Modern Shotgun 3-volume books in a blanket chest in my bedroom. The Modern Shotgun set was one of the first I purchased upon my growing interest in all things shotgunning. Mr. McIntosh is by far a talented writer, but I am absolutely stunned that he would not have consulted Major Burrard's book (Vol III The Gun and The Cartridge) when he set about to write his stringing article. Major Burrard's books are known to be a most complete review of elements of shotguns and cartridges and his authorship has been celebrated since the volumes were published. I know you are aware of this.

I cannot remark on the stringing experiments that Mr. Helmsley's very respectful letter (to the editor) referred, except for those experiments written in Major Burrard's books which he did not include. Therefore, I want to additionally provide as reference to Major Burrard's works (Volume III pgs 119 - 166) the following:

1. A Mr. R.W.S. Griffiths in 1887 conducted a scientific investigation of stringing of shot with the experiment performed at not only 40 yards, but at 10 through 60 yards at 10-yard intervals. The method utilized was simple mathematical translation of shot results thrown at a revolving disc, translated linearely. His results were published in The Field on Apr. 09, 1887. His experiments appear scientificially sound. The general methodology of this experiment is no less scientifically sound than the one presented by Mr. McIntosh in his article in your magazine.

2. In a report in the journal Army Ordnance of May-Jun. 1928, spark photography experiments conducted by Mr. P.P. Quayle reflecting shot stringing were explained and results provided. Although Mr. Helmsley's "Letter to the Editor" referred to this testing, I include it herein again because the results between this and the above experiments were said to be practically identical. These experiments appear scientifically sound. The general methodology of this experiment is more scientifically sound than the one presented by Mr. McIntosh in his article in your magazine, if even to account simply due to the methodology of spark photography.

3. In 1890, a Mr. H.A. Ivatt conducted a shot stringing experiment shooting at a target affixed to a moving train. His experiment included the movement of the train at four different speeds to account for pattern results against varying flight speeds of birds. His results were published in The Field of Sept. 20, 1890. The actual testing was limited in nature however, and its results were used to substantiate a specified finding. The general methodology of this experiment appears no less scientifically sound than the one presented by Mr. McIntosh in his article in your magazine.

4. The proprietor of the London Sporting Park, Mr. W. Webster Watts, in 1910, conducted an experiment that utilized a moving target, a 9'x4' sheet affixed to a motor car traveling at varying speeds. The results were published in The Field of May 7, 1910. The general methodology of this experiment appears no less scientifically sound that the one presented by Mr. McIntosh in his article in your magazine.

5. In Feb. 1926, Major Burrard and friend Mr. C.E. Allan at Baynards Park, Surrey, England, conducted experiments at a moving vehicle with a plate affixed, and at three different distances. The general methodology of this experiment appears no less scientifically sound than the one presented by Mr. McIntosh in his article in your magazine.

My purpose to have listed the above is merely to point out that with minimal effort it could have been deduced, that as in Michael McIntosh's words - "It remained for a Texan, my old friend the late Bob Brister, to demonstrate the phenomenon once and for all" is not factual. I suspect many of your readers came to the same conclusion, as I did, when reading the article the first time through, and McIntosh's lack of effort to research the issue is insulting to history at first look because of the manner in which he proclaimed the above statement. Mr. Helmsley merely called him out on this matter.

Therefore, I get to my most important point; I highlight Michael McIntosh's abhorrent response to Mr. Helmsley that was published in your most recent Shooting Sportsmen issue (Nov -Dec 2008). Keep in mind that Mr. Helmsley's "Letter to the Editor" was utterly respectful, factual, and well presented. Michael McIntosh's response was repugnant, contradictory, flip, and antagonistic with a sheen of taunt, and has turned me off of this writer in a most personal sense. I was speechless when I finished reading it and couldn't believe that someone could be so crass. He appears utterly spiteful, angry, and rejectful of criticism. I believe he owes an apology, published or otherwise, to Mr. Helmsley. Many of my friends share my exact feelings on this issue and we find it simply incredulous that he replied that way. Utterly shocking; he has lost tremendous respect in my community for treating another this way.

Best Regards"