doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com OT: Gun writing gone bad?

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"

I won't be the first time I make this point on this BB - McIntosh never has been much of a writer who is interested in facts. He's far more interested in selling print and stroking his own ego than furthering the cause. He's a good fit for for the pop culture of 2008. Sort of the Ellen DeGeneres of the gun world.

when i read brister's book, it struck me that chapter on shot stringing was a virtually identical repeat of burrard's tests. except burrard had the consideration of not firing a shotgun towards his wife. at least his driver was behind some steel plate. but you're right. there was nothing new in brister's book as far as the test, the method or really even the results.

you'd better be careful tho. there are a few people frequenting this board who will totally flame you for quoting burrard or giving him any credibility. i personally agree w/ a friend and bbs poster who once remarked, "when people disagree with burrard, it's usually immediately before they make a mistake."

roger

It happens. I long ago recognized that the best of writers can be guilty of errors and omissions, some more than others, some bigger than others. Be kind and blame it on deadlines. And like all of us, they get prickly when called on it.

Perhaps it has to do with opinion and fact. One is easy to come by, the other is more difficult, but the differentiation is fuzzy. I have long suspected that few of the writers, even the most cherished, breezed through high school physics. Most seem to have a tough time uncorking that bottle without spilling it all over their pants.

Ithaca5e, forget high school physics. junior high math impeded some of them. they might know guns but when it comes to math, physics and engineering most of them need to shut up and listen instead of speaking.

roger

I would expect the shot stringing in a cartridge without a shotcup and with an overshot card to be more than a one with a shotcup and crimp. I believe I read in Garwood's books that there was a difference.

Best,

Mike

Say what? Perhaps if you had limited your diatribe to "a couple of points," then the average reader might be able to comprehend what you are getting at, other than a great dislike for the current 800 pound gorillia of gun writing. Your critique may have more words than McIntosh's article, the Letter to the Editor, and McIntosh's response combined.

Perhaps if you download your scholarship to a Word file, cogitate and revise, re-write it 20 times, have it proofed and edited, and then submit it to a magazine, you will get some sense of the dificulty of seeing one's name in print other than on a Forum such as this. McIntosh's name sells magazines and books, but also makes him somewhat of a target for quibblers and malcontents...and, to be fair, he cannot be right 100% of the time.

I recall an article he wrote about the "superiority" of a 28-gauge for pheasants..of all things! Of course there was a complaing subscriber in the "Letters to the Editor" of the next SSM issue. Don't you get a kick out of a letter-writer getting so overwrought that he finishes up with, "Cancel my subscription forthwith!" In this case, McIntosh's response to the naysayer was that he had killed more than 250 pheasants the prior year with his 28-bore thus his expertise proved his original point. Or from my view, he admitted to having shot 250 pen-raised game-farm "chickens." After all, states have seasons and limits, and no combination of traveling to diffeent venues could account for so many wild birds.

So my point is, lighten up; pronouncements in magazines are not Holy Writ. Several years ago my article--"Why Parker?--in the DGJ attracted naysayers like a lightening rod. Dan even gave someone the full last page to attack point by point, which points were mostly his unsupported opinions and, where "factual," were just plain wrong. My nose was a little out of joint that Dan didn't give me an opportunity to show the error of the letter-writer's ways, but to what end? The pissing contest would have been unending. As it was, the letter-writer called me and bought a book. And as it is now, "Why Parker?, slighty rewritten (to avoid the sharp angle), is the first chapter, story line, and theme of my new book.

If I had my druthers, magazines would omit the critical letters to the editor and only print corrections, if truely significent errors were made. Why SSM would put Mike in a defensive position is problemaical. Consider this: SSM pays Mike for his words of wisdom. If every reader with nothing in his brief case but a peanut butter sandwich gets a free shot at the big guy, then his answer to his editor, if required, should be, "He's just plain wrong," and thus nothing appears in print. Or if the reader's point is well taken, the editor should simply correct the glitch in the next issue, as is done in newspapers, and let the complainers ply their trade on the Internet. EDM

Say what? Perhaps if you had limited your diatribe to "a couple of points," then the average reader might be able to comprehend what you are getting at, other than a great dislike for the current 800 pound gorillia of gun writing. Your critique may have more words than McIntosh's article, the Letter to the Editor, and McIntosh's response combined.

Perhaps if you download your scholarship to a Word file, cogitate and revise, re-write it 20 times, have it proofed and edited, and then submit it to a magazine, you will get some sense of the dificulty of seeing one's name in print other than on a Forum such as this. McIntosh's name sells magazines and books, but also makes him somewhat of a target for quibblers and malcontents...and, to be fair, he cannot be right 100% of the time.

I recall an article he wrote about the "superiority" of a 28-gauge for pheasants..of all things! Of course there was a complaing subscriber in the "Letters to the Editor" of the next SSM issue. Don't you get a kick out of a letter-writer getting so overwrought that he finishes up with, "Cancel my subscription forthwith!" In this case, McIntosh's response to the naysayer was that he had killed more than 250 pheasants the prior year with his 28-bore thus his expertise proved his original point. Or from my view, he admitted to having shot 250 pen-raised game-farm "chickens." After all, states have seasons and limits, and no combination of traveling to diffeent venues could account for so many wild birds.

So my point is, lighten up; pronouncements in magazines are not Holy Writ. Several years ago my article--"Why Parker?--in the DGJ attracted naysayers like a lightening rod. Dan even gave someone the full last page to attack point by point, which points were mostly his unsupported opinions and, where "factual," were just plain wrong. My nose was a little out of joint that Dan didn't give me an opportunity to show the error of the letter-writer's ways, but to what end? The pissing contest would have been unending. As it was, the letter-writer called me and bought a book. And as it is now, "Why Parker?, slighty rewritten (to avoid the sharp angle), is the first chapter, story line, and theme of my new book.

If I had my druthers, magazines would omit the critical letters to the editor and only print corrections, if truely significent errors were made. Why SSM would put Mike in a defensive position is problemaical. Consider this: SSM pays Mike for his words of wisdom. If every reader with nothing in his brief case but a peanut butter sandwich gets a free shot at the big guy, then his answer to his editor, if required, should be, "He's just plain wrong," and thus nothing appears in print. Or if the reader's point is well taken, the editor should simply correct the glitch in the next issue, as is done in newspapers, and let the complainers ply their trade on the Internet. EDM

I believe Brister got into modern at the time loads and was basicly an update on shells of the new age.Of course Mac does have a shoe named after himself.

When one publishes something that is held forth as non-fiction, one takes on the burden of at least trying to be correct. After all, if we're not interested in facts, or something that approaches fact, we might as well read comic books all the time.

The idea that you can hold yourself forth as an expert, yet not be accountable to critics or facts, is one that doesn't sit well with me.

While I will confess I have a hard time understanding exactly what the original poster is getting riled up over, I'm not surprised to to hear Mike "I once owned a Trojan I didn't shoot well so I know Parkers are not as good as Foxes" McIntosh's name associated with it.