Question:

Why is there such a high percentage of overt opposition and dissent expressed towards Major Ned H. Roberts (deceased 1948) by present day gun folks? 

I had been led to believe that Major Roberts and Gerald O. Kelver of the A.S.S.R.A. were respected contemporaries.

Dr.Maynard
.

Ned Roberts was a pretty good writer when writing on muzzleloaders. His book the Muzzleloading Caplock Rifle is excellent and a must for any gun owner. His later works on breechloading rifles is really little more than descriptions of various rifles. His second book with Ken Waters has some disastrous and potentially dangerous load information that has never been fixed. To be fair Ned got loads from friends and passed them along apparently never understanding they were wrong. Waters should have known and it is a mystery why he never edited them out. I know that Ned is credited with developing the .257 Roberts but I wonder how much of that was his work and how much was the work other more knowledgeable shooters incorporated in his work. 

40 Rod

If you'll read Harvey Donalsons book, "Yours Truly", composed of his writting in "Handloader"  magazine. You get more insight regarding Neds abilty's. There friendship seems to be at least cordial but, strained because of Harvey's opinion of his skill. I would guess that he wasn't the only one.

He had poor eyesight and was a poor shooter, at least in part, because of it.

Frank

EDIT:
I'm sorry, I reversed the title of the Donaldson book. I corrected it.

40_Rod wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 12:31pm:


According to Water's foreward in Roberts "last book", Waters was asked to edit and complete what was to be Robert's closing sequel to the earlier single shot book?   

No argument that Waters method of determining maximum pressure is bigtime sketchy.   But that was Waters claim to fame for years and years in Handloader.

The topic got me interested enough to try and find some of Roberts dangerous loads.   The book Waters completed as co-author includes loads for 25-21, 28-30, 32-40, 33-40, and 38-55.   Most loads list black, King's semi-smokeless, and a couple of numbered smokeless I've never seen for sale.  There are a couple for 4227 and 4759.   

I could find modern loads for 32-40 that listed 4759.   They were heavier than Roberts suggested.   

This thread topic is baffling.

I've never been a muzzle loader shooter, so didn't get Ned Roberts' book on the topic. But I do have other books written be him, and the final book written with Waters. I like his writing, and I'm somewhat surprised by this post, as I hadn't heard derogatory talk about him until this was brought up?
I personally was pleased and encouraged in my interest of old single shot rifles and tools, by reading the likes of Ned Roberts and Gerald Kelvar, plus a host of others.

  Dr. Maynard said:
Question:

Why is there such a high percentage of overt opposition and dissent expressed towards Major Ned H. Roberts (deceased 1948) by present day gun folks?

  I don't know where he got that from.
Sounds like a Troll to me.

JLouis wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 5:50pm:


It's even easier to argue that there doesn't seem to be any inappropriate data recorded in his book.   There actually is precious little data there.    And his books are basically history accounts, descriptions of rifles and the personalities of his day.   The books I have weren't even published until the powders he mentions were no longer being manufactured.   

I'm uncertain of any ill feelings between Donaldson and Roberts myself? In his letter to Roberts, published in, "major Ned Roberts and the Schuetzen Rifle" pages 102-105, he seems quite cordial in answer Ned's request for data. He (Donaldson) was a bit miffed with a Mr. Hankins for buying Rowland's rifle and shooting outfit out from under him, when he was sure Rowland wanted it to go to him.
This particular book has very little load data, and the bit it has is all for DuPont shotgun powder.

I don't have much experience when smokeless in these guns but the loads listed in J Louis's post are shure nuff plain as day printed in my copy of the Waters/Roberts book. I am highlighting them with a note NOT to use them. If they are unsafe and still published, what is the difference between that and for instance, the guy on GB currently selling the #2 Ballard reworked to .45/70? A mistake not corrected is another mistake.
Regarding the original post, lots of gun folks don't have much use for certain others of their species. Elmer Keith didn't like Jack O'Connor, Gerald Kelver made some pretty acid remarks about who I assume is Ken Waters regarding publishing the book we are talking about, and I even seem to detect acrimony at times right here on the ASSRA site. For me, I just try to sort out the worthwhile and disregard the negative. Like eating fried chicken, enjoy the chicken, pitch out the bones.
(Now if somebody here was grinding his axe on me personally, I would probably have to respond with a challenge like 100 shots offhand, 200 yards on the German target, shoulder to shoulder, on a mutually acceptable field and date.) 

In the May-June 1981 Handloader magazine The article "Harve was wrong about Roberts"By Ken Waters goes into detail about his study of Ned Roberts shooting history both civilian and Military. Mr Waters contacted several states and obtained his records of service in Guard units and Shows a picture of the Virginia team at Camp Perry in 1909 with Ned Roberts as a team member. Worth reading.

JLouis wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 8:06pm:


Personal experience can't be beat for sure.   

That's the book that Waters edited and completed some years after Robert's death.   Waters not only had a chance to verify the loads from the manuscript, but also proofed the printing.  He also listed 45 loads of his own alongside the 17 listed that were credited to Roberts.   

It is interesting the 17 Roberts loads only listed 2 powders that are on burn rate charts today and those 5 listings were 3 for DuPont 4227 and 2 for DuPont 4759.     When did Hercules take over DuPont mills?    And Hodgdon and IMR take over.     One 4227 load in the book actually matches up to loads listed in modern manuals.   Wonder why the 4759 don't?   Of course, other than the fact modern manuals don't have a lot of 32-40 loads listed.     In fact, Waters did a Pet Loads on 32-40 in 1972 and only offered about 15 loads.   

This thread is really puzzling.   
Did Roberts actually include a dangerous load in his writings.
Was it really a misprint?   
Or did an experienced reloader like Waters overlook a load 2-3 grains (about 20%) too stout? 
And the big question....  who are the present day gun folks showing overt dissent?   In fact, who recently even mentioned him?

Quote:


Dupont (later to be sold to IMR) bought Laflin & Rand in 1902 and when Dupont was broken up in 1912, Hercules acquired the L&R powders. Hodgdon took over distribution of IMR within the last 20 years.

I have personal knowledge, regarding the 16 gr load of 4227 and a 200+ gr bullet. While I don't think it would blow up a Stevens 44, it would sure loosen it fast and the 18 gr load load, I think could break the breech block pin.

I think a Ballard could handle the loads better but, I bet no one would want to try it.

Frank

This was shot in a HW.

Please note that on page 378 of Ken's Pet Loads, that he only recommends loads between 13.0 and 15.0 of 4227 with a 181 gr (321297) lead alloy bullet. This is a GC bullet that can be driven much faster than the 1400 fps that he gives for his 15.0 gr charge.

Frank

Waters used fixed loads if he followed the practices of his load test in Handloader.  This because he used several rifles, not all singleshot. In fact, the loads he included in the Roberts book may have been info gathered in the same test. The above cited 16-18gr. load of 4227 is the very one my two old pards raised their eyebrows over, since I had proposed using that for my "starting" load. I'm ever grateful to them for the caution to disregard that info. I do, enjoy the rest of the book now and then, and learned much about the tools of the singleshot shooter from it when I was more youthful than now. Pat

Litl red,
The intermittant appearance of IMR 4759 in loading data and manuals is because it has, over the last umpteen yrs been alternately into and out of production. Latest is that
it was again being discontinued at end of 2014.
Great stuff. Lucky I have most of a 12# keg of orig DuPont IMR 4759. I suppose I should be using it more. 
beltfed/arnie

Most discussions of Roberts' writings never mention the 1941 edition of Phil Sharpe's Complete Guide to Handloading.  The 1941 edition has what Sharpe called a Supplement, 7 chapters taking the handloading scene from 1936-37 to late 1941.  Chapter VI of the Supplement is titled "The Match, Free or Schuetzen Rifle" by N.H. Roberts.

Sharpe wrote that he was asked by Lucien Cary why he had not included Schuetzen loads in the 1937 edition.  Roberts was present when the question was asked and agreed to write the chapter.  Sharpe then wrote "this Chapter is passed along just as it was written", thereby dodging responsibility, at least in 1941.   

The table of loads in Chapter VI includes the same loads discussed in this thread for the 33-40 and 32-40, plus loads of 4759 and 4227 for the 28-30 that I do not consider safe for my Stevens 47 with a 44 action.  It also recommends loads using King's Semi-Smokeless.  In the body of the book, Sharpe advises anyone who has that stuff "to carefully pour it down the nearest storm drain, followed by a lot of water".