message board home
Next
8/28/2014 12:58:26 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 4: Guns/General Subject: Shooting Groups Msg# 898177
|
||||||
|
I see it much like a writer using an uncommon word that few readers know the meaning of.
One thing that jumps off the page to me is seeing sentences ended with a preposition... ...but I don't see a need to be so fussy, fault-finding, and down-right persnickety (yikes, are only five percent of our readers going to bother to look that up? To you, my friend. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: First, "off in the wilderness" is a loaded phrase, and hardly accurate. Hmm, I thought it was catchy and to the point... sort of related to "A miss is as good as a mile." Next, being able to shoot a group does show that the shooter can use the sighting system, or a good group would not be possible, so throw out that criticism. Ouch, bad wording on my part. I should have said "correctly adjust" the sighting system as necessary. It seemed clear when I typed it but I can see it isn't. I also understand why you aren't about to cut on a 100 year old collectible rifle - I wouldn't either. If I were writing about it and showing a picture of a group shot with it I would explain that in the photo caption, saying here is where it shoots with today's ammunition with the rear sight all the way down. Then, I'd hope the reader bothered to read the caption... Because of every point I've tried to make, pictures of off-target groups jump off a page at me like a misspelled word or a misused word like "for" instead of "fore", "break" instead of "brake" or a typo like "and" instead of "an". I see it as a glaring example of miscommunication. I know why the group is off-target and I'll be generous and say that probably half to three-quarters of the readers of the magazine know why as well. However, a magazine is all about communicating thoughts and ideas to its readers, all of its readers, and when it does less than that it is screwing up. The remaining percentage of readers are sitting there wondering what the big deal is about a group that missed the target and may completely miss an important point the writer was trying to make. Stu mentioned seeing those letters to the editor asking about it, Bob has always considered it a negative and I think it's a clumsy and perhaps lazy editorial practice. I see it much like a writer using an uncommon word that few readers know the meaning of. How many are actually going to go pick up a dictionary and look it up? I'd be surprised if the correct answer is five percent. So, they read on and just dismiss a potentially critical point. For every reader who speaks up about a point they don't understand there are probably hundreds or thousands who don't bother. Everybody understands that a tight group centered on the bullseye is good and they read on while thinking, "That gun is accurate and that guy can shoot!" They don't read on while wondering why anyone would consider a group that far from the bullseye acceptable from a gun that expensive fired by a so-called expert. If I was an editor I would explain this in the editorial guidelines sent to prospective writers and nobody reading my magazine would suffer any confusion - or think less of my magazine and maybe not subscribe to it, not to mention deciding not to buy the rifle in the story, because of it. One of the reasons it is such a pet peeve of mine is that it's completely unnecessary. |
) that we must apply our own narrow view* to everything, when we know for a fact that it our view isn't universally accepted, and that there are usually good, simple, often excellent reasons for groups to be pictured that are near but not on the AIMING POINT (I'm weary of your faction choosing the terminology--it's an aiming point, not necessarily a "bullseye." It depends on the type of competition or intended use of the firearm! 
)
