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

I'm more amazed by the fact that people read all that technical stuff in the first place. Yawn.

-Gun writing as in the obvious mistakes made in doing so.
-Basic courtesy as in not recognizing them and responding rudely (I would have to
see M. Mc. response to have an opinion)

I don't think you need to be a belletrist to comment on someone else's opuses.


Agree 100%


JC

One thing I know for sure, from 60 years in newspapering, wire services, television news documentaries, books is that the hotshots I've encountered are invariably generous, reasoned and measured in their responses to criticism. Before I entered my craft at age 15, JO'C had replied to two of my letters about 7mms and deer hunting. Generally it's the middle ranks who lack cool.

My "couple of points" are:
1. That on the historical aspect the gunwriting was faulty, resulting in McIntosh's disengenious claim (that "it remained for... my old friend... to demonstrate the [shotstring] phenomenom once and for all"). There's a resource out there by Burrard that he could've consulted. Or he ignored it.
2. His response to the reader providing the correction was ugly.

As for EDM's apologist-like attitude that evidently defends those who would get the important facts screwed up and make bold pronouncements based on a lack of research or on puffery, what can be said?

EDM, if you're all for helpful comments to posters as you did myself, then as a rule I wouldn't dumb that "average reader" down. That's what McIntosh did. And evidently many average readers saw through it, and disliked the elitist tone of his response. I'm not plying a complaint on the Internet but allowing consideration of this example as a reflection on writing. The complaint was the letter to the magazine, company, etc. If you wish to help me write better I ask you send me a re-write of my original post and I'll be sincerely grateful.

I give kudo's to the magazine for publishing both the writer's correction and McIntosh's reply.

Poor old MM. The best damn short story I ever read about hunting: "Knowing How, Knowing When". Spare, imagistic, just write haha. There are fabulous researchers and Ed M. does come to mind. There are damn fine writers. No reason at all why these two categories are mutually inclusive. Probably both types should be polite to the peonage (us) in the hope of selling more books, articles, etc. Says a lot for Brister's marriage that he consistently missed behind.

jack

In my opinion, Michael McIntosh has run out of things to write about. Lately his writing has been blah, blah, blah about simple topics. He doesn't even know what a "square load" is, if he thinks 3/4 oz in a 28 gauge qualifies! I enjoy Chris Batha's writing more.
My 2 cents. Joe

Whine, snivel, bitch, moan.
I though McIntosh's reply was perfectly appropriate. Helsley also writes (or photographs) for the magazine and most periodical writers are aware of (or should be) a simple professional courtesy: If you don't like my stuff, for whatever reason, take it up with me, not as a public affront.
Outside the business, you may not like this, you may not understand this but the simple fact is, those of us who actually try to make some money freelance writing have enough hassles without bitching at each other.
Helsley's the amateur, not McIntosh.
And do remember, when writing Letter to the Editor, the writer always has a opportunity for the 'last word', whether the reader likes what he says or not.
(This is coming from the writer who has probably elicited the greatest number of critical LTE's in the short history of SSM.)

Mr. Hughes, you have a history of posting late-night, alcohol-fueled rants over at the SS board, including a particularly offensive one aimed at a freelancer. So please don't call anybody an ''idiot.'' Copies were made of your posts before Special Ed removed them.

SDH, I read your protection of bad journalism, but don't think I agree. When a "company" writer makes his effort to make a deadline, and then makes mistakes, he should stand up and be counted. Some time ago, MM wrote a story on Baker guns and had a nice color photo of a couple of them on a full page. Great ???
But, he had the gun grades completely incorrect. Great story, huh ? I let him know that his whole article was wrong, via email, but he never responded. I guess I should have let SSM know. When a writer gets to the point that a "deadline" is most important, and the content is not, then I would hope the magazine would reckognize that. Well, maybe too much to hope for. Yes, I am not a writer, but have a few articles. I took it up with MM , and he apparently didn't care. He made his deadline and got his check.

Joe;
My understanding of a "Square load" was one in which the length of the shot column in the bore was equal to the bore dia. I have also on occasion seen it stated to be the equivelent weight to a round ball fittin the bore. One "Writer" bragging upon the 28 ga put it this way. He stated the British put great store in a gun which fired a SQ load (to my knowledge neither Greener or Burrard mentioned it) & proceded to give the rd ball definition. He then stated (correctly) this wt could be found by dividing 16 by the gauge size. Thus he stated (again correctly) 16/28 = .57oz. Then he totally shot himself in both feet by stating this conclusivly proved the 3/4oz load in the 28 was a perfect Sq Load. I don't recall at which grade of elementary school I began studying decimal fractions, but I knew long before I had much knowledge of shotguns that .57 & .75 were not equal, even though they contained the same two digits. I am still not certain if it torqued me the most that someone so ignorant was writing an article, "OR" if it was he thought all his readers were that ignorant. By my definition of Sq the 28 load would be just over 7/16oz incidently & of course the .57oz roundball equivelent is just over 9/16oz.