Letters

Applauding the Huntress
As the father of a daughter from Alaska who used to baby-sit Sarah Palin’s kids and who loves to shoot, and as the husband of a former Alaska State Trooper (yup, my wife was a Trooper, as was I) who I nagged for 23 years to try trap shooting and now she beats me, I can certainly applaud you putting the huntress on the November/December cover.
    My wife also had a Girl Scout group, and our son was in Boy Scouts, and one day we got both groups to the local trap range at Birchwood, north of Anchorage, and had all of them shooting and hitting doubles. The girls had never fired shotguns before, and only some of the boys had. The soon-to-be ATA President and fellow State Trooper Dave Kaiser volunteered as an instructor, as did four or five other regulars at the trap club.
    None of the young shooters had bad habits to break, and all listened attentively at the safety briefings and instructional sessions. We had prefaced the shoot with an NRA-sponsored safety course for both groups to make sure that safety was foremost on their minds.
    Well, the adult instructors and the trap club had so much fun teaching the new shooters that we ran through the five flats of shells we had and the club fronted another five flats.
    Suffice to say you did a great service to the shooting and hunting fraternity by showcasing the lady hunter on your magazine.
    Jay Yakopatz
    Via e-mail

Strung Out Further
I read with interest the letter in November/December from Steve Helsley regarding the Shooting column on shotstrings (“Strung Out,” Sept/Oct) and Michael McIntosh’s reply. It nicely summed up the issue of writing about guns, which is: Some of the writing is personal experience and opinion and some is technical/historical. I believe that in the latter category the author needs to ensure that his facts are correct; obviously, with Michael they were not. There is so much inaccurate information around as well as myths, legends and so on that it is imperative that whenever possible information be accurate. There are many writers who strive for accuracy and work hard to educate the shooting public as best they can. It is also the responsibility of the editor of the magazine to be part of this process and, if necessary, ask for a peer review. As for Michael’s comments, if he views the history of gunmaking as techno-wonkism and is not willing to do the careful research required, then he should avoid the subject. It is not the place for “creative” writing.
    Roger Lake
    Via e-mail

It was with some bemusement that I read the reply by Michael McIntosh to Steve Helsley in Letters. I’m not sure what compelled Helsley to take the time to prepare a detailed discussion. I do, however, appreciate the specific citations. I was bemused because McIntosh’s reply was largely irrelevant, except for: “Perhaps I failed to make the point in this case, or perhaps Mr. Helsley missed it. Shotstringing does exist, and its extent influences the efficiency of any gun and cartridge.” This statement nicely sums up McIntosh’s entire article. I really don’t care that McIntosh got a “bellyful” of citing references in college and that he chose not to write a thesis or dissertation. How does that address the point of Helsley’s discussion? I would rather that he had used the space to document the assertion with which he began his reply that some of the tests were spurious. Had McIntosh simply cited the references documenting the spurious tests, all of us would have been better informed (and more important, we could have made up our own minds).
    The series “Finding Out for Myself,” by Sherman Bell, in The Double Gun Journal is a fine example of technical articles that are well written and well documented. His testing of Damascus-barreled guns dispelled the dogma that Damascus barrels are inherently weak. Other articles reporting the results of pressure-testing black and smokeless powder laid to rest more dogma. His well-documented analyses allow the reader to make up his or her own mind as to the veracity of his conclusions. And his articles are a pleasure to read. Bell’s articles are proof that documentation does not necessarily reduce writing to the level of “dishwater.”
    As to whether shotstringing is an emotional or technical issue, I would suggest that that depends upon how you frame the issue. Moreover, I would suggest that it is a false dichotomy to assert that it is one or the other. It is both. Helsley’s example of the 16-versus-20-gauge dispute is a case in point. There are technical differences between the two; however, the technical differences are inconsequential in the game field. But countless articles have been written about which gauge is better in the uplands based on the technical characteristics of the cartridges. To me, which is better is an emotional issue. What’s better: the .30-06 or the .308, etc., etc.? Such “debates” made great reading when I was a boy, but as I matured, I cast a more critical eye on these articles—although I still enjoy reading them, but more for light entertainment than enlightenment.
    One point I suspect all would agree on: All else pales in comparison to the ability to put the shot on the bird to make a clean kill. To make a clean kill requires not only good technique but also choosing the proper combination of gauge, cartridge, shot size and choke (there is no unique combination for type of game, distance, etc.) and recognizing the limitations of one’s abilities. Illuminating this point is the recent debate in SSM concerning the .410 (another technical/emotional issue false dichotomy; for an excellent analysis of this controversy, see the letter by Richard Kowallik in Sept/Oct ’08). Tom Roster, in a well written and persuasive article in July/August 2008, described the technical characteristics of the modern .410 cartridge. He discussed its limitations in the field. He showed that in the hands of a skilled gunner who understands the cartridge’s limitations that this “inefficient” cartridge can be very effective.
    Sportsmen should spend time learning and honing good shooting techniques and practicing ethical behavior in the field and not worry to distraction about the technical trivia—which is not to say they should not be aware of the technical issues and that ammunition companies should not continue to develop more efficient cartridges. The technical improvements and refinements in guns and ammunition are marginal for making clean kills compared to the skill and ethical integrity of the gunner.
    Will knowing that shotstrings exist improve the ability of shooters to put the shot on target? I don’t know.
    Dr. Herman Karl
    Co-Director, MIT-USGS Science Impact Collaborator
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

A Pleasantly Surprising Hunt
After reading the article on Vincent Guglielmo and his Chenango Valley Kennels (“And the Twain Did Meet,” May/June ’08), I contacted him and made arrangements to hunt with him in New York this past October. After hunting in Maine the week before and being very disappointed in the number of grouse, I was happily surprised by my hunt with Vinny. We “moved” 19, 20 and 16 birds on the three days I hunted with him. Most of the birds were uncooperative in giving us shots, but at least they were there. All but about five were grouse. The woodcock reportedly had been more plentiful the week before I arrived. The weather was pretty lousy during my hunt, and our most prolific day occurred during a fairly heavy all-day rain. The dogwork (Vinny uses both pointers and setters) was excellent and a pleasure to watch. Vinny is a hard-working and very interesting individual who loves to hunt and knows grouse. His wife, Kristin, is charming and welcoming. I am certainly planning a return trip and feel as I have made some new friends thanks to Shooting Sportsman.
    Edward Kreps
    Via e-mail