Terry has put together an excellent article on how the advent of the Internet has turned many otherwise reasonable people into complete fools,
attack dogs and control freaks. He accuratly says the prospect of hiding behind a keyboard "empowers" people who would never act the way they do on-line in a FTF encounter. His example of the 30-06 vs 270 debate, that has wasted endless bandwidth, is classic. His obsevation that many of the "experts" have never seen the guns, shot the guns, reloaded the cartridge or hunted the game they claim to know all about. MOST Internet sites are well moderated but there are a few, one especially, that is totally out of control and some of the trash from there has "leaked" over to this site where they are engaging in the same antisocial, illmannered activity that is permitted at their "home site".
Let's all be alert to maintain civil conversation and avoid being lead into pi**ing contests with trolls migrating here and engaging in the behavior that is permitted where they now control.

What happens when the folks in the pissing match actually do know what they are talking about?

What about the folks that get on these sites and actually do have the knowledge and experience but are not real people oriented and do not respond in proper(?????????) internet speak?

You have a PM coming. Cluttering up the site just gives these trolls the attention they want.

I think that almost all of us are here because of the mutual interest in our subject matter + I would like to believe in our common courtesy.So far the latter rings 99.9% true.The former gets distracted upon occasion on the political forum but that is a different matter.Back to subject at hand. I agree that some people who would NEVER open their mouth in public will spout it on the internet with no fear of getting a fist in the chops.That being said Crazyhorse,I agree that anyone should have their say;I just always hope that it's an intellegent dialogue between those of us who care + not just...."a pissing contest". WHO LEARNS FROM THAT?!

Agree 100%
You like Ernest I take it ?
Here he is in Africa with his RF Sedgley 400 Whelen and another shot of it after Doug Turnbull did a full restore of it for me. (It was a "gray gun" with a perfect bore!)

Pissing matches solve nothing, no one gains anything from them. That being said, because the internet is a cold impersonal medium, misunderstandings that would be worked thru in face to face conversations with no ill feelings on anyone's part, rarely do that on the internet.

All of us are opinionated, some more than others, and because there are no actual rules of the road for internet civility, what might not or would not offend someone if you were looking at them or you could hear each others voice, may or will or does come across completely different when it appears on a monitor screen.

Unfortunately it is also a two way street and the breakdowns have the tendency to escalate way beyond what is reasonable.

I agree 100%, but civil conduct should extend to all communications regardless of the venue.

I believe in giving EVERYONE the benefit of the doubt on any issue within reason. One thing I have noticed as I have aged, is the ease some folks have of overlooking or ignoring the part they themselves play in these little melo-dramas, novellas if you speak spanish.

So after the couple of pm's, I went back and searched thru random posts/discussions 45-70 shooter has been involved in. While I do admit there are some individuals that do enjoy pushing your buttons, it seems like your buttons are out on a stem like a crawdad's eyeballs, just waiting for someone to brush against them.

In one pm you state that you are not going to name, names yet in one of your posts you clearly list one persons name from this site and their name from another site. 45-70 shooter for someone who registered on this site right at 18 months ago and with 112 posts you seem to have brought a lot of baggage with you to be having the trouble you are.

The internet is what it is, and in looking at your responses I can see why some folks take offence to them. Kindly Do Not PM me again about ANYTHING.

Without doing more than just rudimentary research of your past responses to people it is clearly evident that you are not as hot on treating others as the way You want to be treated.

Happy to no longer PM you. Sorry you believe as you do, but I'm not going to modify your opinions. Obviously you support your positions very well, I do the same.
Good Day Sir.

Since when did EH have a 400?

Thanks for the pic 45-70.Congratulations on having possession.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
Since when did EH have a 400?

since he had R.F. Sedgley build it for him.

OK. Well, the picture of EH above does not seem to represent the rifle in your picture.

What's the provenance of this rifle? Of all the mentions of rifles and whatnot surrounding EH this is the first I've heard of a 400. It is a bit out of character for EH's other rifles.

Skeptical? You bet. Able to accept it's true? You bet. Want further evidence? You bet. The pictures above do not match, nor would they offer any sort of proof.

And lest I be accused of a lack of 'manners' my inquiry is in the interest is knowledge, not cynicism.

Not taking sides in this, just thinking about the subject of the OP.

As for this question:

quote:

The pictures above do not match, nor would they offer any sort of proof.

Is it possible the following statement was overlooked in the response where the rifle pictures were posted?

quote:

Here he is in Africa with his RF Sedgley 400 Whelen and another shot of it after Doug Turnbull did a full restore of it for me.

Also considering the picture of Hemingway holding the rifle is in B&W and actually only a small portion of the rifle can be seen, claiming it is not the same gun seems more like for the sake of

Since Hemingway died in 1961, that picture is over 50 years old at minimum, probably close to or over 60 years old.

To say the pictures are NOT of the same rifle based on a picture showing only a portion of the gun and much of it in shadow and with the added information that the gun had been restored, rings more of some kind of personal issues among folks than just curiocity.

Really don't want to get into a "mine is bigger than yours" debate. They are never "won". My days of responding to "Internet experts" are all over.
The obvious changes are a substitution of a much lower base for the scope as "back in the day" scopes were mounted like luggage handles (see pic below of two other Sedgleys of the era "as built"), the bolt handle was replaced to improve the angle and clear the scope, the front bbl band swivel was cracked and replaced with a new one.
You may believe or not, I don't care. When you get the EH estate distribution file and the original R.F. Sedgley production records, you will be enlightened. I'll keep shooting it and enjoying it as any rifle that is safe to shoot should be and, if a hunting rifle should be hunted.



Note the original Sedgley letters under the rifles.

The other difference I see between the two pictures is that in the original of hemingway holding the rifle in question, there is no scope.

That alone will change the looks of a rifle tremendously.

As far as it "being out of character", hemingway may have obtained the rifle on a whim and never actuallty killed anything with it. It does not mean he did not own it or carry it.

Isn't there a book devoted to Hemingways guns ?

What does it way in there ?


I am not questioning the above owner but have read this book as I wanted to clarify the 505 Gibbs.

.

CHC, I did not miss the restoration aspect, but there are several design aspects that are different between the guns. Look at it this way, a guy posts a picture of a rifle in 400 Whelen and says it belonged to EH and then uses a pic that is commonly considered to be the Griffin and Howe to associate the two. The age of the pictures does not matter, and there are plenty of other pictures of EH with his 06 and to be quite frank, they all look like the picture above. I am convinced the picture above is of the 06.

As far as a 400 Whelen. I don't necessarily doubt EH ordered one, however it is out of character. As far as I've read, EH never handloaded a thing and to purchase a rifle in this caliber seems odd as access to ammo would be difficult. He was not the gun freak we all want to make him out to be. HE owned good guns but didn't have a Westey RIchards or H&H on order every year like some people want to imply. It has been a common thing to refer to the shotgun EH killed himself with as a Boss but I don;t think it's ever been documented he even owned one, but it fits a narrative about a Nobel prize winner that he would not settle for less etc etc...in point of fact, EH's guns are not very remarkable.

If this in fact a true EH rifle, it's a huge deal 1) Because even the writers of Hemingway's guns missed it, and they did a hell of a lot of work 2) It does show a departure from standard, easy to get calibers and 3) the rifle itself is of very historical importance. My questions on provenance are simply the Socratic Method in practice.

I don't know why everyone's panties are in a twist. Had I made the original (secondary) post, I;d expect skepticism and since it was of my own volition to post it, I would happily provide the details, when it was made, custom stock instructions, to which address was the rifle sent etc. I have done a fair amount of research in my day and found some very gnat's ass stuff for people; I suppose I have a penchant for digging deep to verify information. I happen to be very, very interested in this and if there is supporting documentation, I would be very happy and appreciative to see it. I've read almost a dozen books (other than his writing) on EH and have never seen a mention of this. It's just flat out interesting to me. Remember, Hemingway is not the usual sportsman. He is an icon, a legend and one of the people who is used to define an epoch. To have something that belonged to him, that also changes a bit of perception, or even adds to it, is remarkable. Since the can of worms was opened (not by me) I'm just asking to see all the way to the bottom. For example, there should be pics of the rifle before the restoration and in progress etc. These would be fascinating to see. ANd if there is any question as to whether I'd say what i have said in person, I'd be happy to PM my number.

505G - The book does not mention anything about a 400. It states the G & H was eventually stolen which is a damn shame. That is by far the most 'EH Identified' gun he owned. I'd say even more than his Model 12s. However my favorite of his is the S03.

My oh my. "Hemmingway's Guns" list SOME of his guns. He did not buy from G&H alone. 400 Whelen ammo was available from G&H in the 1930s. Photos of the restoration in progress ? We are not rebuilding the Constitution here (the ship) it's just an old gun. EH may be an icon but not among big game hunters or PHs. He was a depressed drunk who went through wives like wine and whose father and son also killed themselves. He owned the only house in Key West FL with a full basement ..... needed to keep all his booze in.
Insofar as the changes from the old to the new I enumerated them.
Great writer-yes, war hero-sorta, great hunter-not.
Time to move along.

Here's a picture for you. Can you figure this one out ?

BaxterB, I understand what you are getting at, but I also understand the age old concept of "Well I never saw/read/headrd anything about so and so doing/owning/ssaying ________________."

Maybe it can be proven that Hemingway did or did not own that particular rifle and maybe it can't. How much history concerning Hemingway will be changed either way?

Have you never ran into a situation where just because you had never heard of something or seen something that did not mean it did not exist.

I don't know if the rifle in the pictures belonged to Hemingway or not, nor do I see that in the bigger picture of life that it really matters. If you do, that is your thing, not mine.

Basically however infering that a person is purposely giving false information about something, based solely on a not real great half century or more old photogtaph that does not really show any real distinguishing marks or indentifiable aspects of the rifle, with the fact that it was stated that the rifle had been re-worked, and simply because no mention of Hemingway owning such a rifle in the various literature about his personal firearms, appears to be more in the lines of starting a pissing contest.

Just as easily as 45-70 shooter may not be able to prove that Hemingway owned that particular rifle, cat you prove that Hemingway at some point did not own that rifle?

And no, I do not want either of you pm'ing me, because Hemingway's ownership or lack there of is immaterial to me. Trying to understand why pissing matches over such things get started however facinate me.

Whether Hemingway's ownership or lack of can be proven or not, is the clincher. Depending on the outcome it will be interesting to see whom is going to come out looking like a liar or a bully.

CHC, thanks for your thoughtful post. The questions posed are honest ones and are probably unanswerable. The whole issue really is of little consequence as it's pretty old history and very few people actually care.
All one has to do is look at all the years of misinformation on the gun EH killed himself with, that has been debated for decades. Certainly a lot more "famous" gun, yet various experts spent years peeing on one anothers' shoes over it.
I collected R.F. Sedgley rifles for decades and had many the "did not exist" (A Denver PD sniper rifle, a Steyr 95 in 30-40 and this little beauty) She is one of three known, again befuddling the experts who don't have my files full of RFS info. Seems nobody could figure out the 03' with the Mauser banner, give this one a try......

I guess I'm one of the gullible ones. I don't have any trouble believing EH had a .400 Whelen, though I wouldn't have even a guess as to whether he ever fired it if he did own one.

The thought that immediately entered my mind when I read here that it looks like a .30-06 EH supposedly DID own is "...and so?"

Isn't a .400 Whelen just an '06 case opened to .40 caliber? Couldn't it have just been a re-bore which Sedgely handled for EH?

As to the stuff about "no existing record of", I have personally owned several rifles which there are apparently no records of, but which for sure existed as factory originals.

One was a solid-frame (not a take-down) M99 Savage in .22 Hi-Power. In actual fact, a member of this forum who lives in Alaska owns it at this very second. I have tried to buy it back from him with no success. If you look in various books on 99 Savages,they will say no solid frame Hi-Powers were ever made by the Savage factory, but this one definitely was, and was proofed in England for its initial sale.

Anyone who claims they know everything that was made 50 years ago by anyone or used by anyone will find me very hard to convince of that.

I have found errors of that sort in Bill Brophy's books, Wayne Van Zwoll's, and many others.

Regardless what they may think, I don't believe anyone has perfect knowledge of firearm history. That's a goal, not an achieveable destination.

Lastly, and least important because my memory is certainly not perfect, I could swear that 50 to 60 years ago, maybe even a bit longer, I read a magazine article about EH in Africa WITH a .400 Whelen.

For me it rings a bell. Whether the peal is a true tone or not, I simply can't say.

I agree with Albert + once again congratulate you on your find.Shoot it in good health.

Thank you both for your thoughtful comments.

A correct 400 Whelen is not just a necked up 30-06. The chamer is different. See the chapter by Mike Petrov in Fred Zeglin's book "Wildcat Cartridges", available on Amazon.com



I suggest it is time to get on to more interesting stuff like how can an 03' Springfield have a Mauser banner on the receiver ring and just what is that Deluxe RF Sedgley sporting rifle with the action that appears to have shrunk ?

EH is dead, let's let him RIP.

Like I say, not taking sides. But just because something is not/was not documented, or possibly even researched oy anyone doing biographical work, does not automatically mean it did not happen or that someone/anyone is a liar.

I thought we had moved on from EH.
Let's talk about the other "mystery" rifles.
No question about what they are ...... I know, do you?

quote:

A correct 400 Whelen is not just a necked up 30-06. The chamer is different. See the chapter by Mike Petrov in Fred Zeglin's book "Wildcat Cartridges", available on Amazon.com

As a general expression, ,the .35 Whelen is referred to as a necked up .30-06, just as a .270 or .280 is referred to as a necked down .30-06.

Neither expression is intended to be used as a dimensional guide for cutting a chamber.

There are an heap big lot of "professional gunsmith" chamberings and rechamberings out there which do not meet either SAAMI specs, or the original wildcat specs, Kemosabe.

Doesn't mean that to that gunsmith (or the rifle's owner) it is not a .25-06, .270, .280, .338/06, 35. Whelen, or whatever.

Amusing but could be fatal. An owner has a rifle he BELIEVES to be an 8x57 which is actually a 30-06. He chambers and fires an 8X57 in it (it has been done) and we read about him in the Obits.
Only a chamber cast and a guy with a full set of mikes can tell you what any chamber is regardless of the owner's belief or what is stamped on tha barrel.
There is now a SAAMI spec for 35 Whelen and the only "right" 400 Whelen in the Griffen & Howe dimensioned one, described in detail in Petrov's chapter in Zeglin's book.
Nor, BTW are the 270 or 280 necked down 30-06s, they are necked down 30-03s and in the 280 the shoulder is moved forward to prevent some dunce from shooting one in a 270 WCF

quote:

Originally posted by 45-70 shooter:
Terry has put together an excellent article on how the advent of the Internet has turned many otherwise reasonable people into complete fools,
attack dogs and control freaks. He accuratly says the prospect of hiding behind a keyboard "empowers" people who would never act the way they do on-line in a FTF encounter. His example of the 30-06 vs 270 debate, that has wasted endless bandwidth, is classic. His obsevation that many of the "experts" have never seen the guns, shot the guns, reloaded the cartridge or hunted the game they claim to know all about. MOST Internet sites are well moderated but there are a few, one especially, that is totally out of control and some of the trash from there has "leaked" over to this site where they are engaging in the same antisocial, illmannered activity that is permitted at their "home site".
Let's all be alert to maintain civil conversation and avoid being lead into pi**ing contests with trolls migrating here and engaging in the behavior that is permitted where they now control.

Terry Wieland wrote a total crap article about manufacturing craftmanship about 6 months ago.
I never thought much of him one way or the other until I read that article. I have spend an entire working career in that field and can say that he is way off base. Apparently he knows nothing about the subject and did no research on it. The gun writers world take pot shots at the net from time to time. Wieland's worthless editor Scovill, at Rifle Magazine, is just as bad. I think the world of non-fiction writers are chapped by the net since it erodes their ability to make a living.

quote:

Originally posted by 45-70 shooter:
Amusing but could be fatal. An owner has a rifle he BELIEVES to be an 8x57 which is actually a 30-06. He chambers and fires an 8X57 in it (it has been done) and we read about him in the Obits.
Only a chamber cast and a guy with a full set of mikes can tell you what any chamber is regardless of the owner's belief or what is stamped on tha barrel.
There is now a SAAMI spec for 35 Whelen and the only "right" 400 Whelen in the Griffen & Howe dimensioned one, described in detail in Petrov's chapter in Zeglin's book.
Nor, BTW are the 270 or 280 necked down 30-06s, they are necked down 30-03s and in the 280 the shoulder is moved forward to prevent some dunce from shooting one in a 270 WCF

Obviously you missed the point entirely. I was not citing the .270 and .280 as BEING necked down .30-06s, but as cartridges which are often referred to that way for ease of conversation.

For instance a young guy asks an older shooter, "What is a .270 Winchester?" And the old guy says to him " It's sort of a necked down .30-06, except uses .277" diameter bullets in the necked down '06-type case."

The .35 Whelen is often referred to in the same off the cuff manner. It IS NOT supposed to be taken absolutely literally!


As far as shooting 8x57 Mauser rounds in a .30-06 resuilting in the shooters's name being in the obituaries as a death caused by that error, can you point out an obituary which specifically says that?

Or did some gun-writer paraphrase some other gun writer, who heard it from yet another gun-writer? Of course one does not want to do it. But as for it producing obituaries, there may be just a tad of hyperbole in their warnings that it is a poor thing to do. Like any good shooting story, it may tend to have grown a bit, depending on who was telling it.

When I was about 55 years younger than I am now, I bought a bunch of loose ammo in a sporting goods store in Hollister, CA which was all sold to me as surplus .30-06 ammo. Most of it was, some wasn't.

Anyway, I fired at least half a dozen rounds of what turned out to be 8x57 ammo through my then recently acquired DCM Remington 03-A3 .30-06. It certainly produced odd looking empty cases, which is how I noticed what was hapening. Then I more closely checked the loaded ammunition....and learned to always do so with all "loose" ammo I came by from ANY source.

But it did not harm me or the rifle in any way. I still have and use the rifle. Never did notice my name in the obits.

Terry's comments certainly are dead on as they relate to the rant about him and Rifle. I'm sure the author of this post is well know writer that has written dozens of books and has been published in evert major gun magazine .... right ? Funny how the Internet does here exactly what he suggested ...... brings out all the anonymous experts. As far as the 270/280 goes all I have done is tell the facts. The 338/06, 35 Whelen, 375 Whelen and 400 Whelen are all reformed 30-06 cases. Having owned/own all plus the 25-06 and 22-06, facts are not idle chitchat.

As for the "obit" remark, it was for emphasis. There was a rifle hanging on the wall of the now defunct Creekside Gun Shop (Doug Turnbull's dad owned it). The rifle was a DCM 03A3 that had been fired with an 8x57 MG42 round. (not your average Remington 8X57) The receiver ring was 1/2 gone, the barrel split for 3 inches, the upper handguard gone, the locking lugs both failed but the safety lug kept the bolt from going through the shooter's head. Given the "war standard" metal used in 03A3s, you are very lucky. I'd have the bolt and receiver magnafluxed and headspace checked before I ever shot it again.

Mine was fired with surplus German 8x57 military ammo.

It has been fired certainly hundreds if not thousands of times since then with both commercial and handloaded .30-06 ammo. I'm not worried about firing it more times without magnafluxing anything.



Would I shoot it again with 8x57 ammo? Certainly not intentionally. But I am not going to panic now either, because of what some previous observor thinks may have been the cause of a problem with someone else's rifle.

That is all perfectly irrelevant to my casual reference to the .35 Whelen as a necked-up .30-06 or your posting "the facts", anyway.



Have a nice day.

Prudence is a good thing but running around in circles screaming the sky is falling takes too much energy.
We're actually talking about swaging the bullet down .015". Not a whole lot.
As far as the example of one, until more info is in, I'd have to file that along with all of the "spontaneous" firings of Remington rifles that hadn't been bubbaized nor was the shooter's finger anywhere near the trigger.

Well Wolfe has done it again. In the new Successful Hunter Ron Spomer takes apart the faked hunting shows, videos and DVDs piece by piece. I was rolling on the floor reading it having actually watched a few of these "canned hunts" where shooting an Elk at 1000 yards is routine and every shot takes five minutes and tons of blabbing. Just a guess but probably 99% of the people who watch these on a regular basis are the same folks who believe the guys on Pawn stars are really experts on everything that walks in the door.

As for the 8x57 in the 03', the shooter is apparently not much of an expert on the various 8x57 ammo out there. Shooting an underloaded, soft jacketed American commercial round (loaded down in case someone shoots it through a .318 bore rifle) is a whole different animal than serious WW II German machine gun ammo or today's Euro .323 serious hunting loads that equal a 30-06. Sorry you can't admit you were lucky and that having a rifle evaluated after suffering serious abuse is not required. Please do the world a favor and don't "pass it on" to your kids or sell it to some unaware fellow. I once knew a guy who shot 303 British rounds in an 1898 Krag because they must be more powerful because the rifle kicked harder. Eventually the front lug cracked and sprayed gas all over the place. Again, as with the aformentioned 03' he was saved by the safety lug (the bolt handle) from having a third eye.
If you cannot visually tell the difference between an 8x57 and a 30-06, you are a danger to yourself as well as anyone nearby.

Finally on the "self igniting" 700s, The needlessly complex trigger (compare it to an NH M70, Mauser or a 03' National Match) is easy to screw up if you start adjusting it. I have seen several that if dropped on the butt will fire. It will also "pack up" in a few days if exposed to the weather on the coast of Alaska. For any big game hunting situation the good old Mauser/Springfield two stage trigger properly polished and tuned is unbeatable and they always work. If you can't hunt with a 2.5 - 3 pound two stage trigger you need some training.

45-70, are your eyes brown??

Gee, was that an insult ? Like being back in grade school all over again.

Nope baby blue and seeing very clearly that anyone who thinks shooting a jacketed bullet that is .323 diameter down a .308 bore is no big deal should only be allowed to own one centerfire rifle and should be required to take it to the gun shop when buying ammo so that the owner can make sure the rifle's owner doesn't give all rifle owners a bad name by embedding parts of his rifle in his or their bodies.

What I love about the Internet is the willingness of people to defend the indefensible since there will not be a gang of other shooters standing around either shaking their heads in disbelief or laughing their butts off.

Read the new Successful Hunter ...... becha you are a regular on The Outdoor Channel.

quote:

Originally posted by 45-70 shooter:
Gee, was that an insult ? Like being back in grade school all over again.

Nope baby blue and seeing very clearly that anyone who thinks shooting a jacketed bullet that is .323 diameter down a .308 bore is no big deal should only be allowed to own one centerfire rifle and should be required to take it to the gun shop when buying ammo so that the owner can make sure the rifle's owner doesn't give all rifle owners a bad name by embedding parts of his rifle in his or their bodies.

What I love about the Internet is the willingness of people to defend the indefensible since there will not be a gang of other shooters standing around either shaking their heads in disbelief or laughing their butts off.

Read the new Successful Hunter ...... becha you are a regular on The Outdoor Channel.

If you are referring to my shooting of 8x57 surplus ammo in my 03A3, please recall that the ammo was sold to me as .30-06 ammo, BY a gun shop. At the time I was young enough and inexperienced enough that I didn't realize that even so I would need to check it all individually round by round ...'til I got to shooting it. Upon firing it, the need of not trusting MY own safety to a gun shop's word became very apparent, and I have never forgotten that.

It also became apparent that previously published warnings which I had read about that very combination of rifle and ammo were not necessarily predictors of what really would happen.

Of course firing the 8x57 in an '06 is not a good thing to do. There is no sense in taking any unrequired risk when shooting, or when just living everyday life.

But it also isn't necessarily a thing to panic over either. As wasbeeman pointed out it isn't a lot of sizing down that is done to the bullet if and when that chamber/ammo mistake happens. If the gun already has a flaw in its material, design, or construction, the resulting pressure buildup before the bullet is freely moving down the bore MAY cause serious trouble.

But not likely a fatality. The fatality part was YOUR warning, not anyone else's in this thread. And it was obviously just a scare tactic to try to win a point, not a "fact" of what would occur each and every time.

So, I assume you will forgive my posting the "fact" that it doesn't always result in dire consequences, just as you posted the "fact" that a .400-Whelen is not exactly an identical cartridge to a .400-'06.

So, please still have a nice day. You are still free to still tell people that firing an 8x57 military round in their Springfield '03 will blow it up, and I am still free to refer to a .400 Whelen as a necked up .30-06.


Anyway, I still think that is a nice rifle you have, and I still would not be one iota surprised to find that it really, truly, did belong to Ernest Hemmingway, and that it might well have been a rebore and rechambering of a .30-06 by Sedgely, thereby opening an '06 up to .400 Whelen.

Oh not an insult at all. I just thought you were packed so full of shit that your eyes had to be brown. Another supposition of mine is that you are a troll.

45-70, you started this thread referencing tee wee. After his factless article in handloader regarding CEB bullets and then follow up shill for swift, he has shown his true colors. Now he's just pissed off b/c he's been outed (on the internet) for what he is AND is not. I'm sure dave scovill has shit his pants for letting tee wee soil his magazine. Now dave has to deal w/ soiled pants and a soiled magazine. Thanks tee wee.

Alvin, I'm sure given your expertise on other PUBLISHED authors, you too have a vast resume of published books and articles in all the top gun magazines. Perhaps you could share the vast list with us ?
I'm sure Dave worries about wannabes such as you as much as he does about snipe hunts in Iran.
Really amusing how all the trolls came out of their caves when somebody put in right in the X
ring on how worthless they are.
You have a real case of DNS about Swift bullets but, then again, they do cost more than the the Wallie Worls stuff you use. While your on you list of published stuff, show us some pictures of all the Swift bullets you ahve used and have failed to bring home the bacon. No I am no Swift shill, have used them, liked them fine but I am a Barnes shill because they are the best big game bullets made (as evidenced how every one but Sierra has a "knock off" out now.)