My my... this is now my second transfer of an old article. It dates back to the First Gunboards.
* * *
Carcano
Moderator Italian Weapons Forum
Germany
1040 Posts
Posted - 09/16/2003 : 2:17:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear readers:
I am saving and transferring an old thread from the still-accessible old board. Please do as I do: import as many worthwhile and substantial threads into the new board as at all humanly possible. PLEASE ! Once they are gone, they are gone forever.
Antonio:
Just got my August 20th issue of the Shotgun News today and on page 10 is an article on the Carcano written by a Paul Scarlata. Good overall article. Some info seems a bit dated especially in the ammo and sight picture area. It did however, dispel some of the myths regarding poor quality and safety. Nice job. Commets please.
Date: Aug 19, 2003 on 12:15 a.m.
AtlPete:
I applaud any author who trys to dismiss prejudice with facts as Scarlata does here, and given the paucity of material on Carcanos I was gratified to see the article. That said, if one takes the article as a shooter's overview of Carcano history and functionality, as I assume was its intent, then IMO the material omissions and factual errors therein are sufficient for me to give it a reluctant thumbs down. Not just for the issues you point out Antonio, but for the glaring omissions and errors. Examples include identifying 91/24's as a new variation of the TS and not as a reworked fucile, a phenotype for 8MM variants (M1938/43? what?) and the huge amount of text devoted to shooting with that wrong sight picture. Like-wise, if I read the text correctly one is given the impression that not only were 7.35's completely de-issued from the RE with the 1940 reintroduction of 6.52 but were re-barreled back to 6.52? And I agree it reads like it was written at least prior to the import of Privi 6.52/introduction of the Hornaday bullet/cartridge but notice there is no mention about Norma's undersize 6.52 bullet, IMO the single biggest source of misinformation regarding Carcano accuracy. I look forward to other posters reaction to the article here. As an aside, when one considers how much pernicious commercial chicanery is advertised in every issue of SGN, it is commendable that at least a bit of truth appears in the articles. Thanks for pointing out the article to me as I no longer regularly buy it unless I need to make a bulk ammo purchase, Pete
Date: Aug 22, 2003 on 10:58 a.m.
mag:Most of the work he does is like that. He just repeats old information, true or not. He does not seem to do any actual research himself. His shooting reports are always a joke, he does not seem to be able to reload any ammo for what he is "testing" and uses mainly surplus of questionable quaility or incorrect factory ammo. mag
Date: Aug 23, 2003 on 06:32 p.m.
Krag (= the author of the article in question):
Gentlemen:
I appreciate your input to any articles I do for the SGN. I try my best to obtain the most up to date info I can and then examine it, shift it and attempt to present what I feel is the "truth" (an emphemeral concept at the best when it comes to milsurp firearms).
Needless to say the fans of a certain rifle/nation/army/designer/manufacturer are the harshest critics. That is just a fact of the business and one I have had to learn to live with over the years. I try my best but can never satisfy everyone. Oh well?
As for my test firing being "jokes". I attempt to find ammunition that is closest to the original. I cannot reload for six or more obsolete calibers each year so as to try and wring the best performance out of a rifle and thus placate its fans. My test firing reports are factual descriptions of what happens when I load the rifle, aim it, pull the trigger and measure the results. If it does not live up to everyones' expecations I am sorry. But that's life. And yes, I did this article before the new Hornady ammunition was available. I have a report on it coming out later this year and the performance of the 6.5mm Carcano ammo was surprisingly good.
Thanks for the input - good and bad - keep it up as I am a but a student and am always looking for additional information. One can only try their best.
Date: Aug 23, 2003 on 08:11 p.m.
Carcano:
Atlpete, Paul:
allow me to thank you both for your well-mannered exchange.
And allow me to quote a recent posting of our esteemable JPS (John P. Sheehan), from whom I have learned a lot over the time. I think he sums it up very succinctly:
When you consider each thread that you do read, there is a lot of misinformation posted as well. The advantage to the internet, in my opinion, is that it is interactive. Knowledgable people can contribute and if a thread runs long enough, most information is corrected and enhanced by very knowledgable people. This is a real short coming of the magazines. How many of us ever bother to write a letter to the editor? Much of the misinformation becomes perpetuated for this very reason.
With my best regards,
Alexander Eichener
[email protected]
Date: Aug 24, 2003 on 01:32 p.m.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Eichener
Email: [email protected]
Carcano Website: http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano
* * *
Carcano
Moderator Italian Weapons Forum
Germany
1040 Posts
Posted - 09/16/2003 : 2:17:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear readers:
I am saving and transferring an old thread from the still-accessible old board. Please do as I do: import as many worthwhile and substantial threads into the new board as at all humanly possible. PLEASE ! Once they are gone, they are gone forever.
Antonio:
Just got my August 20th issue of the Shotgun News today and on page 10 is an article on the Carcano written by a Paul Scarlata. Good overall article. Some info seems a bit dated especially in the ammo and sight picture area. It did however, dispel some of the myths regarding poor quality and safety. Nice job. Commets please.
Date: Aug 19, 2003 on 12:15 a.m.
AtlPete:
I applaud any author who trys to dismiss prejudice with facts as Scarlata does here, and given the paucity of material on Carcanos I was gratified to see the article. That said, if one takes the article as a shooter's overview of Carcano history and functionality, as I assume was its intent, then IMO the material omissions and factual errors therein are sufficient for me to give it a reluctant thumbs down. Not just for the issues you point out Antonio, but for the glaring omissions and errors. Examples include identifying 91/24's as a new variation of the TS and not as a reworked fucile, a phenotype for 8MM variants (M1938/43? what?) and the huge amount of text devoted to shooting with that wrong sight picture. Like-wise, if I read the text correctly one is given the impression that not only were 7.35's completely de-issued from the RE with the 1940 reintroduction of 6.52 but were re-barreled back to 6.52? And I agree it reads like it was written at least prior to the import of Privi 6.52/introduction of the Hornaday bullet/cartridge but notice there is no mention about Norma's undersize 6.52 bullet, IMO the single biggest source of misinformation regarding Carcano accuracy. I look forward to other posters reaction to the article here. As an aside, when one considers how much pernicious commercial chicanery is advertised in every issue of SGN, it is commendable that at least a bit of truth appears in the articles. Thanks for pointing out the article to me as I no longer regularly buy it unless I need to make a bulk ammo purchase, Pete
Date: Aug 22, 2003 on 10:58 a.m.
mag:Most of the work he does is like that. He just repeats old information, true or not. He does not seem to do any actual research himself. His shooting reports are always a joke, he does not seem to be able to reload any ammo for what he is "testing" and uses mainly surplus of questionable quaility or incorrect factory ammo. mag
Date: Aug 23, 2003 on 06:32 p.m.
Krag (= the author of the article in question):
Gentlemen:
I appreciate your input to any articles I do for the SGN. I try my best to obtain the most up to date info I can and then examine it, shift it and attempt to present what I feel is the "truth" (an emphemeral concept at the best when it comes to milsurp firearms).
Needless to say the fans of a certain rifle/nation/army/designer/manufacturer are the harshest critics. That is just a fact of the business and one I have had to learn to live with over the years. I try my best but can never satisfy everyone. Oh well?
As for my test firing being "jokes". I attempt to find ammunition that is closest to the original. I cannot reload for six or more obsolete calibers each year so as to try and wring the best performance out of a rifle and thus placate its fans. My test firing reports are factual descriptions of what happens when I load the rifle, aim it, pull the trigger and measure the results. If it does not live up to everyones' expecations I am sorry. But that's life. And yes, I did this article before the new Hornady ammunition was available. I have a report on it coming out later this year and the performance of the 6.5mm Carcano ammo was surprisingly good.
Thanks for the input - good and bad - keep it up as I am a but a student and am always looking for additional information. One can only try their best.
Date: Aug 23, 2003 on 08:11 p.m.
Carcano:
Atlpete, Paul:
allow me to thank you both for your well-mannered exchange.
And allow me to quote a recent posting of our esteemable JPS (John P. Sheehan), from whom I have learned a lot over the time. I think he sums it up very succinctly:
When you consider each thread that you do read, there is a lot of misinformation posted as well. The advantage to the internet, in my opinion, is that it is interactive. Knowledgable people can contribute and if a thread runs long enough, most information is corrected and enhanced by very knowledgable people. This is a real short coming of the magazines. How many of us ever bother to write a letter to the editor? Much of the misinformation becomes perpetuated for this very reason.
With my best regards,
Alexander Eichener
[email protected]
Date: Aug 24, 2003 on 01:32 p.m.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Eichener
Email: [email protected]
Carcano Website: http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano
