November Guns & Ammo

[JohnnyO]

The November issue of Guns & Ammo has an article called "Sparks and Caps" showcasing the Traditions Pennsylvania flintlock rifle and the Traditions Kentucky caplock rifle. The things that caught my eye were the use of pyrodex, though he admits it's all he could find he attributed the delay in firing time to being just the over all nature of the flintlock. He used pyrodex pellets in the caplock and it took him several caps to fire.
I also noticed that the patch he used was big, thick, and square...I read on a bit and noted he used .490 round balls and "one-inch cleaning patches," he said a reenactor would use "mattress ticking - or maybe silk."
I enjoyed the article I guess, and appreciate traditional muzzleloading being in a magazine primarily dominated by modern centerfires...but I just feel that a muzzleloading article, especially traditional muzzleloading article should be written by an expert... :youcrazy:

 

[rabjr]

Thanks for the heads up, the boys were runing low on toilet paper in the out house, I'll send em up a copy to use.....

 

[Mike Brooks]

Who is the author?

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

On one hand I'm just glad that they even published such an article, on the other hand I'm disappointed that the magazine relied upon someone who "couldn't find real black powder" and used PELLETS in a side lock :youcrazy: .

Hey, at least it wasn't yet another article about those other fake smoke-poles :barf:

Dave

 

[agill]

:haha:

 

[Mulebrain]

Who is the author?

Tony Knight! :haha:

Seriously tho, it sounds like a pure greenhorn who didn't do any research!

Time for him to learn, and produce a revised article!

I will look for this article to day, just for a laugh!

 

[paulvallandigham]

I don't want to buy the magazine just for this, but since you already spent the money, why don't you write an article and send it to the Editors? They probably won't use it this fall, but at least they will learn something about MLers, and know one source of better information! :hmm: :thumbsup:

 

[Stumpkiller]

Yes, please!

I would encourage all Guns & Ammo subscribers to send in an e-mail or letter to the editor saying Pyrodex is not for flintlocks (or proper muzzleloaders, for that matter).

We don't need bad press from dummies who consider us unethical for using unreliable hunting arms. Let's get the word out some people ARE smart enough to be able to shoot traditional muzzzleloaders reliably.

Like driving a standard shift or casting a fly-rod. It is learned, not bought. :wink:

 

[BrownBear]

On the other hand, what the author described is pretty typical of Joe Blow who is curious about muzzleloaders and just buys the stuff to try it. Info and supplies are hard to come by without some searching. Is it any wonder folks use the modern "alternative" guns? The guy buys traditional as he can over the counter and takes a bath, and meanwhile his buddy and the store clerk do just fine with their scoped zippers, pellets and sabots. Easy to see the bad name of traditional guns spreading.

I'm gonna write the editors, but I'm gonna take an upbeat approach of admitting the author's experience is pretty typical for beginners. But they'd do well to find an author that knows what he's doing to write about traditional guns. It would be a great service to everyone out there interested in traditional guns, but short on information and supplies.

 

[bdhutier]

Agreed, BrownBear.

Writing in to G&A is great, but I would recommend to everyone doing so to be mindful of their tone. Tone in the sense that we don't want to be critical and snotty. Like the proverbial flies to honey or vinegar. If we're nice about it, maybe offer tips on a good place to get some powder etc., then the center-heads will be more amicable to listening.

The second we're arrogant or critical, they'll ball up and keep thinking of BP-ers the way they always have.

 

[Zonie]

I agree.

The last thing we need is someone being overly critical of their story.
That would only upset the Editors and their understandable response would be, "I'll be damned if we ever print another one of those flintlock muzzleloader stories again. Nothing but complaints. "

Something like:

"Many thanks for your story about traditional muzzleloaders. It was refreshing to see a widely read magazine like yours publish a story about my favorite type of firearm.

May I point out a few things that would have improved the authors experience?

Flintlock rifles must use real black powder to work reliably. Using real black powder for the main powder charge and priming the pan would have resulted in the gun firing within less than one tenth of a second from the time the trigger was pulled until the gun fired. In short, there is no noticeable delay with the correct gunpowder and correct priming.

The use of powder pellets in traditional style cap lock guns usually results in mis-fires or delayed firing.
Had the author used loose (granulated) powder his caplock would have fired almost as fast as a modern cartridge gun.

Thank you for your time."

This is the type of Readers Reply that can correct the story and add to the magazines readers knowledge.
Who knows? Maybe it would even raise the interest of some modern gun shooters and get them to try our favorite guns.

 

[JJB22]

I agree with you all about the "right" kind of response; but, I do not and will not read articles from that magazine or many others nowadays. Most all of these so called reviews are nothing but an advertisement for the companies. I have rarely seen a bad report on a gun. It must be they are either the luckiest people in the world and never get a gun made on a Monday morning or they just can't bring themselves to say the plain truth. A bunch of newer guns that are now produced are just gimmicks and eye candy that will probably get people hurt or killed from the lack of proper research and development. I can't believe the record of a resent pocket gun produced by a famous name in the firearms business- the fact of three separate recalls says to me- we the public, is now the research and development division and we have to see if a gun is good after we lay down hard earned cash for them. Plastic guns, silly gadgets, weird calibers in handguns, and new betweener calibers are just a few recent pushes by manufacturers to make more money quickly off of us--- don't worry if we have to fix someone pistol three times-- at least we got their money. By the way I don't have the problems I mentioned above, but a bunch of the folks that belong to my club are always bringing these new "toys" to the range and I can't tell you how many times I want to yell out as loud as I can I TOLD YOU SO !!!!!!!!!!! when they pack up their stuff, shaking their head, and mumbling to themselves what the heck did I waste my money on?

Just one persons opinion.

 

[hanshi]

I had formerly subscribed to G&A since about 1972. I stopped renewing just a few years ago due to the content no longer representing the type of shooting I was interested in. I've discovered most muzzleloading articles in G&A AND many other publications are written by authors who know little or nothing about traditional muzzleloaders. Even in the prestigious Gun Digest, an author, reputedly experienced with traditional firearms, once bluntly stated how the prb will not cleanly kill deer, that only conicals will do that. There are knowledgeable writers out there; we just unfortunately seldom hear from them.

 

[poordevil]

Gary James is on the staff of G&A I think. He should know way better than that.

I love these write ups where the author goes to all the trouble , but still has to excuse himself with "I could not find , or I did not have the time" Whats the point to writing if one does not give out good or worthwhile info?
P

 

[Cosmoline]

The quality of articles in the glossies has gone way down. It used to be you could count on the authors to have well-researched pieces, but these days its seems like they get an assignment and have a few days to become experts. I noticed the same problems with a lot of curio & relic surplus articles. The authors simply hadn't had time to do their homework.

 

[Ron_T.]

Ricard Venola is listed as the author of "Sparks & Caps", the article about flintlock rifles in November's (2009) Guns & Ammo.

If you wanna see what this guy looks like, look on page 6... that's right, this guy is (or "was" when he wrote the muzzleloader article) the EDITOR of the magazine !~!~!

On his "Editor's Page" (page 6), he explains that he is losing the editor's job to become a writer again and ties in this change with the fact that Guns & Ammo have closed their Los Angeles office.

I can understand why he might have lost the editor's job, but after reading his article about the Tradition's Pennsylvania Long Rifle, I'm scratching my head in wonderment concerning his qualifications as a WRITER !~!~!

After reading his editor's page and the article he wrote about muzzleloaders, the memory of articles by Jack O'Connor, Elmer Keith, Corey Ford (The Lower 40 series), Warren Page, Col. Jeff Cooper, et. al. come to mind... and the realization of how far the quality of outdoor writing has fallen becomes a stark reality!

How sad...


Ron T.

 

[hanshi]

You and Cosmoline both have it pegged. We did use to be able to count on well done articles by knowledgeable writers. There were a few, ahem, who I will not name who knew better but flip-flopped or turned traitor and started writing garbage even in the good days. We have our work cut out for us.

 

....why don't you write an article and send it to the Editors? They probably won't use it this fall, but at least they will learn something about MLers, and know one source of better information! :hmm: :thumbsup:

Usually these editors are on such tight budgets they just won't duplicate an article with a different author. It took me a while to realize this after writing for them since the days of "Buckskin Report". I would encourage the subscribers to send e-mails or letters to the editor stating Pyrodex is not for flintlocks, as suggested earlier. The remarks on an article already published have a better chance of getting put in print in his column.

 

You and Cosmoline both have it pegged. We did use to be able to count on well done articles by knowledgeable writers. There were a few, ahem, who I will not name who knew better but flip-flopped or turned traitor and started writing garbage even in the good days..

I know several writers that have gotten to the point if a manufacturer tells them "to keep the product" they get a great writeup. If asked to "return the item" after they look it over or test it, the writeup is just so, so. Pretty sad that this happens, all about who has the advertising bucks $$$....