First and foremost, let me thank JC for actually following through on my request for an actual photo of what appears to be a gun that is not in need of wood, or mechanical work of any kind, and, I beg to differ, not dead.
You see, Bob, you have once again proven to have some sort of weird axe to grind with me. The comment "French O/Us are not all that common", DOES NOT appear in MY post. This is similar to when you made the comment that I thought Charlin had only been around since 1952-which, is ridiculous, since, in 1996 I wrote an article in which I stated I believed my own Charlin copy had been built sometime in the 1930s.
Another thing, is this insistance that I'm after you about spelling, which, is not, and has never been the case. I'm as pressed for time as the next guy, and, if my little typing fingers juxtapose the letters in a word, thats life. But, you, accusing me of doing the same to you, when, it hasn't happened, here or on another board, thats a bit flakey. Psycho. Whatever you want to call it.
Weird, eh? While I understand ignorance is correctable, you will have to pay attention to exactly what I type if you want to comment on it. If you have a comment for Larry Brown, maybe you shouldn't put it in a rebuttal to me.
It makes you sound deranged when you do that.
As far as cheap shots, if you aren't proud of what you posted, that isn't my problem. I didn't attribute the BS that was posted about sliding breech guns to anyone, but, maybe I should have. Since, I've already had a call and several Emails from excited folk asking what I know about Regina Charlins, built on the 1894 Darne patent.
How 'bout you post your phone number, and, when they call, I pass it along to the real expert?
The one who can't read the French in his collection of catalogs well enough to know that he has a retailers catalog, and not some ground breaking new picture of a never-before-seen Charlin.
Pay attention to what I type, old buddy, not what the voices in your head say I typed.
Thanks again, JC.
Best,
Ted
