Author Topic: Venturino poisoning? (Read 1156 times)

Questor · « **on:** March 16, 2005, 03:54:03 AM »

I was somewhat alarmed a few months ago when Mike Venturino became one of the monthly writers of Handloading magazine because I've consistenly been disinterested in the topics he writes about, and therefore I don't read his work.

Yesterday, I got my April issue of Handloading and as usual I was prepared to drop everything for a few hours and read it from cover to cover. This time, however, I flipped through it, saw that it was mostly cowboy and cast bullet stuff, and I set it down without reading any of the articles. This morning, I was straigtening up a bit and I just put the magazine in the recycling bin. This is the first time this has happend in the few years I've been otherwise raptly reading Handloader.

Have you had a similar reaction to Handloading?

Again, I have nothing against Mr. Venturino, just the topics he writes about. I believe his work is a bit overexposed, as I lost interest in Shooting Times and switched to Guns and Ammo for the same reason.

To me, old-style guns and black powder may spice up a magazine, but just as with a bad curry, I lose interest when it dominates the main ingredients.

Greybeard · « **Reply #1 on:** March 16, 2005, 04:13:28 AM »

Actually I consider Mike one of the better writers of these times. I don't care for all of the stuff he does but do like most. I'm really not into the old single shots but most of the revolver and lever gun stuff he writes I find interesting.

But both Rifle and Handloader have gone down hill drastically since Wolf was sold awhile back. I used to read pretty much every thing in both. I find now I read half at most and some issues have little of interest to me. Now Rifle Shooter or whatever that newer mag is of a name like that I've found not worth my time to toss away so when my subscription to that one is up it's over for me.

jerkface11 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 16, 2005, 10:23:02 AM »

I for one would rather read about old guns than have a magazine with 4 1911 articles in every issue. Besides the taurus in the new handloader was pretty neat.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 16, 2005, 10:58:48 AM »

I guess it is how well you like the older single shot rifles. Mike Venturino has some real good write ups and I have learned a lot from them. Then again I am a Shiloh Sharps shooter with black powder cartridges.

Rustyinfla · « **Reply #4 on:** March 16, 2005, 11:16:37 AM »

I don't mind reading the articles by Mike, but I'm not too fond of the ones by ""Duke."

Not meaning to throw stones too far but I have trouble looking at the pillsbury doughboy and calling him "Duke." He just don't look like a Duke. Mike... OK. Mikie, even, but never Duke.

Rusty <><

JBMauser · « **Reply #5 on:** March 16, 2005, 11:25:54 AM »

I am not a great fan of M. V. He first earned my ire when he wrote a story on reloading .40s&W for the Glock. He did not even mention that no powder manufacture recomends loading this round for the unsupported chamber of the Glock. He did not even bring up the fact which I would think would be critical data for any handloader. I wrote to the editor to voice my distane for promoting an unsafe procedure. In another article on loading black powder for single shot rifles he basically talked about how to load these old ones but would not share the details of wads, lube etc as that would be revealing his match winning load combination. waste of time to read the entire story and be told you are not getting the info you read the entire story for. It is like, read my stuff but if you want to learn anything buy my book. I would rather not. JB

sharps4590 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 16, 2005, 02:03:05 PM »

The only magainze I subscribe to anymore is Fur, Fish and Game. I became nauseated by the 25 years of nothing but the latest double stack DA 9mm. I think G & A ran 9 years of nothing but that on their cover. Shooting Times went south when Skeeter Skelton and Bill Jordan died and G & A did the same thing when Elmer Keith passed over the Great Divide.

Regarding Venturino I've read most of his stuff and have enjoyed most of it. I even have a couple of his books. I qualify that by saying that I shoot mostly SAA's and big bore black powder cartridge rifles when I'm not carrying a muzzleloader. He's done no more or less than any of the other current crop of writers. He's found a niche, is comfortable there, is doing a heck of a job promoting himself and his choice of what he shoots and is probably making a fortune in the process.

I've met Mike, Mikee.....I do like that and agree with the poster who alluded to "Duke"...hehehe.....anyway, he's always taken the time to be as friendly and personable as those guys can be at conventions where thousands are wanting to meet them. Bill Jordan and Ted Keith were probably the nicest I've been fortunate enough to meet. I won't comment on John Bianchi and Bob Milek, especially since Milek is gone. Mileks knowledge was vast.

If you don't like him or what he writes about don't read him. Nothing to b***h about. Other writers have committed much worse sins than Venturino.

Vic

JBMauser · « **Reply #7 on:** March 16, 2005, 04:41:45 PM »

Vic, I take umbrage with your comment that others have done the same. I found it beyond the pale that someone who postures himself as worth reading and getting paid for it would promote an unsafe formula. Just because he chose that risk, it is not forgivabale to promote that formula to new, novice or uninformed readers to know that those who actually know someting recomend 180 degrees against that formula. kind of reminds me of the so many pieces of silver..... Much of our hobby is art much of it is science. I don't care how nice he smiles. If he writes BS and puts people at risk he should be shunned. Period. JB

Double D · « **Reply #8 on:** March 16, 2005, 05:49:23 PM »

JBMauser, a question for you sir? Are you also as vehement about unsafe loading practices in unsupported chambers for guns like the 1911 in 45 ACP?

I know there has a been along standing debate, and supporting history with the high pressure loads in the 40 S&W being more inclined to rupture in Glocks. Mike Venturino has come on the side that does not support the theory of bad design. I don't dislike everything Mike writes because he doesn't share my point of view.

I accept the theory myself that there is a design flaw, I don't think it lies soley in in the Glock. I beleive it is a combination of steep feed ramp angle, jacketed bullets in nickel cases, high pressure loads and an unsupported chamber. I also continue to shot my Glock 40 without trepidation.

jh45gun · « **Reply #9 on:** March 16, 2005, 07:09:04 PM »

Like all gun writers he has a opinion does not mean it is set in stone. I like lever guns and old single shots so I like his articles on said subjects. To me it beats the current crop of the short magnums and semi auto pistol write ups that seem to flood the market these days. A few years ago I used to buy several gun mags a month. Now I buy maybe two a year if they have a article in them I like. WHile I do not like the crap they write now days ( Crap to me anyway) evidently it still sells magazines as they still keep churning out the same formula. The only gun mag I get monthly is American Rifleman because I am a NRA member. Even half of their articles I never read as I have no interest in them. The one I just got yesterday was a washout to me I did not care for any articles in it but who knows next month may be a keeper. Mike may not be what some folks want but like it was said he found a nich and I for one am glad. Jim

muskeg13 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 16, 2005, 10:35:32 PM »

I've always liked MV's articles, so it's no wonder that I have most of his books. His writing did a lot to spur me into cowboy action and BP cartridge shooting, and for that I'm grateful. I'm also into shooting big bore lever actions, so I have a lot of fun now casting those big bullets and trying to get them to fly straight. Unlike Questor, I was very glad to see Mike become a regular contributor to Handloading. This partially offsets the fact that he no longer writes the Shootist column in Shooting Times. His articles were the anchor that kept be renewing that subscription, as I could always count on liking at least something in that magazine each month. I may just let the subscription run out now because Shooting Times seems to be going the way of (hand)Guns and Ammo, nothing but plastic, sheetmetal and high capacity magazines. I want to read about shooting real guns.

Dave in WV · « **Reply #11 on:** March 17, 2005, 02:53:44 AM »

I like Mike's writing and I'm not into black powder or cowboy shooting. His looks don't bother me. Each to his own.

New Hampshire · « **Reply #12 on:** March 17, 2005, 12:05:15 PM »

Im 25 yrs old and currently dont shoot BP cartridge guns, but I rather like Mike. He is one of the more decent writers. BUT, my favorite "cowboy" still is John Taffin :grin: .
Brian M.

JBMauser · « **Reply #13 on:** March 17, 2005, 02:26:35 PM »

Double D, I know that there are a few other barrels that may be of concern but as far as I know. None are so generous in design as the Glock. Its Never jam always feed because your life depends on it chamber is cavernous compared to standard barrels. You can put a factory round in it and shake it like a babys rattle not to mention all that shinny brass you can easily see lying there unsupported. The fact that the story was specifically written about loading for the Glock is what got my dander up enough to write the editor and dress him down. I see little difference with someone teaching a new loader wrong on purpose and the sin of omission in not explaining the failures and risk of injury. There is no good way to anneal the base of brass to overt failure without trashing the brass. And there is no way to resize the guppy belly out of fired Glock brass without working the brass and making it brittle over time. It is a true catch 22 and there is only room for a Ka-boom. If the article said load three times and crush the brass, well at least a risk level would be proposed and the reader would set his own risk tolerance. Not even mentioning that The powder manufacturers (whos powders he sited in his published loads) specifically noted in their own published data not to use their data in Glocks or other guns with unsupported chambers was just wrong. JB

JBMauser · « **Reply #14 on:** March 17, 2005, 02:44:22 PM »

Double D, I reread your post, I do not think there is a design flaw in the Glock or any other unsupported chamber design. They are designed to rely on the quality of modern brass to hold together for ONE time and Never jam. They were not designed in any way with reloading in mind. The fact is that brass gets brittle when it is worked, Stout loads in Glocks and others produce noticable bulges at the base. You can only push them back into shape so many times before the brass becomes brittle and when that happens it will no longer bulge and stretch and a Ka-boom is all you have. Tell me how you will know when to scrap your brass? What test method is there? We are not talking about split necks, we are talking about a full blow out down the mag well. Brass gets brittle from age, heat and pressure and being worked. That is accepted fact, opinion will not alter it in any way and since their is no easy way to tell how elastic the brass was to start with how to count out "safe" cycles? I don't have an answer. JB

sharps4590 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 18, 2005, 01:06:45 AM »

JB....take all the umbrage you want. The fact remains that other writers have done the same. You can read the disagreements with with writers in almost any "letters to the editor" column in any periodical. Equally, you can read kudos to many of the same writers on the same subject. As much as I admired and enjoyed Keith his "heavy 44 special loads" were quite the hot topic of that day. I don't believe today anyone would argue that Elmer "knew his stuff" but his were still questionable loads of the day. Seyfried said some unkind things about John Linebaugh also but was gracious enough to take most of them back. Last I knew Seyfried was still shaking his head about Linebaughs heavy loads and re-built Rugers but admitted he knew whereof he spoke.

From reading the posts there are only a few who aren't fans of Venturino. Nobody's perfect.

Regarding Glocks......never fired or owned one nor do I care to. Having said that, I can see they are truly the worlds first dishwasher safe handgun.

Vic

Graybeard · « **Reply #16 on:** March 18, 2005, 03:26:29 AM »

Ho Hum, been loading for Glocks as long as I've owned them and will be loading for them as long as I own them. Never even seen a buldge in one of my fired cases yet and for sure have had no problems. If I were to only fire factory ammo I'd sure not be firing much.

JBMauser · « **Reply #17 on:** March 18, 2005, 12:45:30 PM »

greybeard, your loads must be modest or midrange. Heavy loads do show a pronounced bulge and I have picked up factory brass at the range and seen a visable bulge.

Sharps 4590, I am not trying to question loads or load power, you are correct in what you say about kieth and the popularity of load pressure. I am talking about simple handloading metalurgy. If Greybeard has little bulge with his loads he is not working the brass much when it is resized. He may shoot them till the primers fall out. The problem has all to do with resizing that brass with a noticable bulge. Maybe the brass never lies the same twice and it bulges at each point acound it's girth. Then again it could bulge in the same place a few times and loose it's softness in resizing. There is chance here but not opinion. Chance in load pressure - bulge size, bulge repeat in the same area etc. It is not an opinion that you can break a paper clip by bending it back and forth till is looses it's softness and breaks is there? JB

JBMauser · « **Reply #18 on:** March 18, 2005, 01:34:21 PM »

One last point to all, This has only to do with Glocks and Unsuported chambers i4 .40 S&W, not 9mm. JB