Author Topic: Carmichel takes a poke at us..... (Read 1882 times)

Wlscott · « **on:** March 24, 2005, 04:10:40 AM »

Anyone read the April issue of Outdoor Life?

Jim Carmichel has a column in that issue about his "standard load" technique. It's really not a bad article, and I do agree with the concept of having a few "go to" loads for different calibers.

But, in his text, he really goes after the "internet forum reloading guru's" who claim that there is a "magic" combination of bullets and powder for each gun. Basically, he claims that if the rifle will shoot, it will shoot his "standard loads" well. So I guess we can all stop looking. Carmichel has the loads figured out for us.

When I finished his article, I had this revelation. Most of us on these forums are the type that we go out and try it ourselves to see what works. Most of us don't really take the popular writers opinions as gospel, and it is often stated on these very boards that most writers for major magazines are biased by advertising $$. Is it possible that the writers are reading these comments, and are trying to return fire? I think so. I've read comments by other writers that follow the same general lines.....trying to discredit any and all who frequent internet forum boards. Now, don't get me wrong. I know that all info on the net needs to be double checked against published reloading data, but there are some helpful tips and hints on these boards by guys who have probably been loading for at least as long as Carmichel.

Comments??

SuperstitionCoues · « **Reply #1 on:** March 24, 2005, 04:30:02 AM »

The last thing that I am ever going to consider is taking the opinions (and I stress OPINIONS!) of an outdoor writer as gospel - especially when the use of energetic material is in question. Doing so is just plain stupid.

Does Carmichael even realize the amount of safety issues he raises by wanting to be the authority? Sorry, but when it comes to playing with powder, primer and projectiles, I'll do my own research and take my own counsel which includes asking others about their experiences.

Good lord, if Carmichael really thinks this, he really is a cretin.

Questor · « **Reply #2 on:** March 24, 2005, 05:10:04 AM »

I've often wondered what forums the magazine writers frequent. John Barnsess says similar things, and so does Dave Scovill. I'm sure you can get bonehead advice on the web, but here at least things are quite sensible.

I treat load data printed in magazines and load data on the web forums as having equal veracity: none. I always go to published load data from professional labs. That magazine disclaimer that says "... these loads only work in the author's guns..." tells me all I need to know about the care, responsibility, and discipline of magazine loads.

aulrich · « **Reply #3 on:** March 24, 2005, 05:29:21 AM »

Funny I have used Ken waters "Pet loads" alot and used his recomendations and to date I have not been let down. So what Jim is saying is not new.

Lone Star · « **Reply #4 on:** March 24, 2005, 08:55:42 AM »

Guys, Jim writes for the lowest common denominator in OL. The magazine has dumbed down a bit since Jack was writing "Getting the Range". He is probably trying to warn the more guillible readers to avoid much of what they read on-line. Personally, while this forum is quite knowledgeable, there are others which are not and which disseminate dangerous ideas and loads. I like to think that these are the "internet gurus" Jim is referring to, not us. Don't take it personally, it's just a slick anyway. :twisted:

jerkface11 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 24, 2005, 12:04:13 PM »

Veral Smith moderates one of the forums on this board. I'd say he's about as knowledgeable as it gets. And i'd sure take his advice over some magazine writer.

Graybeard · « **Reply #6 on:** March 24, 2005, 12:49:15 PM »

Barness and some of the other name writers hang out at the 24 hour campfire I think. If I were to guess I'd guess that's where more of them are than any other one place. The owner there has set up a forum just for them and low unto you if you say anything untoward regarding a magazine writer on that site. Also most of the magazines now have their own websites with forums and the writers for each rag hangs out at least some of the time on those forums.

Other than those places I have no clue where the name writers might stop in to read.

Gregory · « **Reply #7 on:** March 24, 2005, 01:15:23 PM »

When I was a kid (we're talking the 1960's here) Outdoor Life, Sports Afield, and Field and Stream were the magazines you read if you liked the outdoors and to be the shooting editor of one of the "big three"meant something.
It's a lot like the Evening news, used to be if you were the anchor on a major network everyone listened to you (what other choices were there back then?).

Today we have CNN, Fox News and others......not one anchor, you get attached to. Same for the information on shooting we have a lot more choices today, the internet being one of the major sources of information.

Could it be Carmichel sees his star fading? Maybe he can go cry in his beer with Dan Rather of CBS. A new day of information has dawned.

longwinters · « **Reply #8 on:** March 24, 2005, 01:18:58 PM »

I know that I am not nearly as knowledgable about guns and reloading as many of you, which is probably why I have learned most of what I know about both topics from this website. But I do have to say that the best load I ever shot (out of my 280) came from an article by Barsness. I also visit other sites as well as this one and, in my opinion, none are as consistently good as this one is. If it had more pictures it would probably put some of the gun mags out of business.

Long

Catfish · « **Reply #9 on:** March 24, 2005, 04:18:38 PM »

The only gun magizine I get, if you can call it that, is the American Rifleman. I got burned out on the gun rags years ago when I kept reading thing that just didn`t make sence. I mean gun writers head shooting groundhogs at 500 yrs. with a .22 Hornet and their do all load. I started loading my own in 1965. I have been loading about all of my rifle, pistol and shotgun ammo ever since. At present I have 6 different wildcat rifle round I load and shoot and they range from yea I`ve heard about them to man that sound crazy to me, who ever came up with that. I just bought 48 lbs. of the AA 2230-C powder which Accurate Arms has no firm data for, but it was cheap and in a range on the burn rate chart that I use alot.
The only real difference between wep pages like GB`s and the gun rags is that you can expect you see alot here from people that really don`t know much, since they are not getting paid for what they write, but with the number of people posting here your chances of learning something is still better than in the gun rags, though it may require some sorting from time to time. :?

Glanceblamm · « **Reply #10 on:** March 24, 2005, 05:31:03 PM »

What Lone Star said

jh45gun · « **Reply #11 on:** March 24, 2005, 08:07:08 PM »

I have never cared for Carmichel. I would look to see what he was writing on and most of the time it was about crap I was not interested in. Too bad these guys forgot most of what their predecessors talked about and how they put it that was at least worth reading. Jim

Dave in WV · « **Reply #12 on:** March 25, 2005, 05:01:21 AM »

I like what I've read by Barsness. I've read some things I took difference to from a few gun scribes too. I really miss reloading articles by Bob Milek.

Ka6otm · « **Reply #13 on:** March 25, 2005, 06:34:10 AM »

Wlscott,

Interesting how 2 people can read the same article and interpret it differently. What Carmichael said was that there were some internet gurus who claimed their "pet load could should into a quarter inch all day long if I do my part" and basically he said that was BS.

His opinion of statements like that about accuracy is exactly the same as my opinion of them.

The way I took the article was that he had some "standard loads" that he uses to determine the accuracy potential of a particular rifle before settling down to serious tweaking to produce the most accurate load for a given rifle.

The article also stated that none of the loads were maximum loads and that's at least true of the .220 Swift load he shows...don't know about the others as I don't load for them and thus wasn't interested in checking his statement.

Ka6otm

tomaldridge · « **Reply #14 on:** March 25, 2005, 08:11:24 AM »

Gents, keep your BS filter in place. If it don't sound right, it probably ain't right.

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #15 on:** March 25, 2005, 08:38:23 AM »

You have to be able to sort out the bad information, but the collective knowlege on these boards is incredible. Post a picture of the unknown gun you got a country auction on a few boards and you'll have it identified in a day or two. Ask about ammo for it once you know the caliber, and you get told which specialists supply it and how to form cases for it. If that's too much trouble, the folks on the gunsmithing boards can tell you what it can be rechambered to, or rebarreled to,

And all this is free, available 24/7, and fast.

Wlscott · « **Reply #16 on:** March 25, 2005, 09:33:11 AM »

K6otm, it is true that there are some pretty outlandish accuracy claims made on the internet. I take most of them with a grain of salt. But, I still understand him as saying that his standard loads will shoot in "any rifle that will shoot". For example, his .223 standard load is a 52 grain hollow point match bullet from (I think) Sierra. Will it shoot in my H&R Ultra?
The chances are good due to the 1 in 12" twist in that barrel. But will it shoot in my Colt AR15? Probably not since it's a 1 in 9" twist. I load two different powder/bullet combos for each of these rifles. I don't always get bug holes with these "pet loads", but I rarely shoot a group over an inch with them. Your rifle chambered in .223 (assuming you have one :wink: ) may not like either one. I'm just saying that I don't believe that there is one holy grail-like load out there for each caliber.

What really tripped my trigger though was his holier than thou attitude towards those that frequent these type boards. There's good as well as bad info on this and other boards. I think the good outweighs the bad.....especially if you have a good BS detector.

ajj · « **Reply #17 on:** March 25, 2005, 09:53:49 AM »

Whether or not it motivated Mr. Carmichel, I have no doubt that boards like this hurt the printed monthlies badly. The net has sure cost them most of my dollars. lefteroverdj makes the point very well. Interactive access to a huge pool of experience is just plain BETTER than the slick mags. It's better reading even if you don't want to intract. The magazines can't compete and it's getting worse for them every day. I like to settle down with a magazine now and then but there aren't many good ones and their quality deteriorates steadily. I used to buy some of the marginal ones before I found sites like this. Now, I've simply forgotten that they exist.

Wlscott · « **Reply #18 on:** March 25, 2005, 10:39:36 AM »

Quote

I like to settle down with a magazine now and then but there aren't many good ones and their quality deteriorates steadily. I used to buy some of the marginal ones before I found sites like this. Now, I've simply forgotten that they exist.

There's only one place that I really read a hunting/shooting magazine anymore. And if I could figure out how to get a computer monitor in the bathroom I probably wouldn't even read magazines at all :-D

jh45gun · « **Reply #19 on:** March 25, 2005, 10:54:43 AM »

You guys ever notice most of these gun writers when showing a pic of a group they are so excited about usually pale to the groups guys post on the forums. I have shot a lot and measured my groups and I usually am generous on the large side instead of the small side and even then my 1.5 inch groups or 1 inch groups ect look a lot smaller than their 1.5 and 1 inch groups. I think they are pulling our leg on some of them. Jim

myronman3 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 25, 2005, 11:49:10 AM »

oh yeah, i notice that. i never seen such big 1 1/2 inch groups in my life. i cant believe they have the balls to actually show pictures of their "groups". another trick is to watch the distance they are shooting these "groups" at. i am sorry, but i cant get excited about a 1/2 group at 50 yards out of a rifle.
rag writers are so full of it, all they are anymore is an advertisement. thats why no matter how big a p.o.s. they are hocking, they never say anything bad about it. why even bother.

Woodbutcher · « **Reply #21 on:** March 26, 2005, 01:08:54 AM »

Yeah, me too, since the early sixties, read and re-read those articles like they were good for me.
Last year, at the sportsmans show, they were giving away 6 month subscriptions to one of the outdoor mags. I figgured it wouldn't hurt anything to try. It had been years since I'd bought any.
Those mags were so dissapointing, it wasn't worth the effort to open them to try to find something interesting. What a letdown from back when!
Yeah, yeah, I know, things change, they're never the way they were. I know all that, I've lived it for a while now, ya know? So I went down to my musty treasure hoard of old mags, and compared the old stuff to the new. Bottom line, I... might... buy stuff like it used to be, not the new stuff. Enough people are buying those rags to support the present line of...stuff, so my opinion only counts for me. And my money!
But I do miss old Cactus Jack. Woodbutcher

RugerNo3 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 27, 2005, 05:58:02 AM »

Quote from: Wlscott

Quote
I like to settle down with a magazine now and then but there aren't many good ones and their quality deteriorates steadily. I used to buy some of the marginal ones before I found sites like this. Now, I've simply forgotten that they exist.

There's only one place that I really read a hunting/shooting magazine anymore. And if I could figure out how to get a computer monitor in the bathroom I probably wouldn't even read magazines at all :-D

Dontcha know that's what laptops and wireless internet is for?

:-D

Wlscott · « **Reply #23 on:** March 27, 2005, 10:07:10 AM »

Quote

Dontcha know that's what laptops and wireless internet is for?

RugerNo3......The last thing I need is an image of you sitting on the throne typing messages on your laptop :-D :-D :-D

papajohn428 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 27, 2005, 10:56:19 AM »

I think it's just a matter of time before most of the 3rd-rate magazines are gone, the advertisers look at circulation figures, and they've been dropping steadily. Magazines have the unenviable task of trying to be interesting to an incredibly diverse group of readers, and it's nearly impossible. So they do an article on 1911's, re-hash something about single-actions, show a picture of a Garand....and we can get what we LIKE, 24/7, right here. Pick and choose, if one forum doesn't have what you want to talk or ask about, there are others. AND IT'S ALL FREE.

So to hear someone in a magazine putting down someone on the internet doesn't exactly surprise me. It's to be expected.

BTW, have you seen how skinny some of the monthlies have gotten? Five bucks for a rag a quarter inch thick? Not gonna happen!

Papajohn

sharps4590 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 27, 2005, 11:26:30 AM »

You guys covered a lot of real estate in the posts on this thread. I used to take G & A, Shooting Times, Sports Afield, Outdoor Life, Field and Stream, FF&G, the Blackpowder Magazine based in Wyoming, Muzzleblasts and Muzzleloader plus my American Hunter and North American Hunter magazines. The only one I still subscribe to is Fur Fish and Game, (got more money fer powder, primers and such too!! ). I still receive the NRA and NAHC magazines as part of my life memberships. Often there isn't much in them I'm interested in. You guys are right. All the others have gone downhill. I don't know if this is because of the internet but it can't be helping their cause.

Didn't Sports Afield go to just canoeing, climbing, camping and those sorts of things? Seems I read that somewhere a few years back.

I didn't read Carmichaels article but he was never one of my favorite writers anyway. I do believe him to be very knowledgeable. Anyway...their circulation has to be hurting.

Vic

Doctor Sam · « **Reply #26 on:** March 29, 2005, 07:50:21 PM »

Sharps4590 is correct about the NRA publications being right in there with the rest. Many of the articles seem to be blatant ads for whatever is presented, i.e., "I wonder what Winchester paid them to write that?" type reports.
Shouldn't be a surprise as the NRA is the largest gun control organization in the country outside of the UN. Their back door deals with Congress stink to high heaven.
And in case you are wondering, I am a Life member.

jh45gun · « **Reply #27 on:** March 29, 2005, 10:27:23 PM »

Then maybe you and some other life members should do something about it! Seems to me the NRA does have elections but the same folks get elected and every one still bitches about the NRA. Well you do have a choice the next time a election comes around and or Convention? Seems like folks can sit and complain about things and that is as far as it goes. To me the NRA is not perfect I do realize that but it sure is better than if we did not have them. Without the NRA and GOA and other progun groups we would not have any gun rights at all right now. Think about that!

Graybeard · « **Reply #28 on:** March 30, 2005, 02:33:59 AM »

Quote

Shouldn't be a surprise as the NRA is the largest gun control organization in the country outside of the UN. Their back door deals with Congress stink to high heaven.
And in case you are wondering, I am a Life member.

Amen. Same here. I think I've been Life since '77.

Quote

Then maybe you and some other life members should do something about it! Seems to me the NRA does have elections but the same folks get elected and every one still bitches about the NRA. Well you do have a choice the next time a election comes around and or Convention? Seems like folks can sit and complain about things and that is as far as it goes. To me the NRA is not perfect I do realize that but it sure is better than if we did not have them. Without the NRA and GOA and other progun groups we would not have any gun rights at all right now. Think about that!

We've tried. There is nothing we can do. The folks in charge illegally use the club magazines to push their agenda. Sadly too many sheeple belive the BS they spew and believe the NRA is actually doing something postivie. Neither is true.

Take for instance your closing comment above. Without the NRA we'd actually still have most of our gun rights. THEY are responsible for us losing them. They do not protect them. I'd suggest YOU read and learn just what is REALLY going on at the NRA.

They are the biggest ANTI gun group out there and gun owners are falling all over themselves to feed them money to help take away our guns. Geez what a scam.

Wlscott · « **Reply #29 on:** March 30, 2005, 03:25:47 AM »

Bill, In June maybe we could sit down and have a discussion about this.

I'd like to learn more. I'm not a life member, but I do pay my dues every year.