Redsetter wrote on Aug 18^th, 2018 at 6:06pm:

I enjoyed how you chose to evade directly answering my questions, Redsetter.
Did Phil Sharpe ever work in a ballistics lab?
So, you haven't actually contacted any ballistics labs techs to see how many shots they've fired over a specific period of time... and instead you're using books and articles... that may contain errors... to promulgate a claim that may be erroneous... which may be carried onward into the future... becoming an old error... which could... "seldom, if ever, die" ?

BP wrote on Aug 18^th, 2018 at 7:15pm:


How much MORE direct to your question about my "sources" than the answer I provided?  Ken's many articles do not constitute "sources"?  Hope I've increased your "enjoyment."

Of course, Sharpe carried out ballistics experiments, though probably not so many as Ned Crossman (with the backing of the US Army), but who (except maybe someone advancing a specious argument) would place them in the category of "lab technicians"?

Redsetter wrote on Aug 18^th, 2018 at 3:05pm:


Really wouldn't matter to you anyway. I gave you a source and you still question it. And by the way, Jay Kimmel is not my friend, nor do I know him. His work is highly regarded by Savage and Stevens collectors. But I could care less if you believe him, or me. In fact I could care less what you write here. You're a knowledgeable guy Redsetter, but you're so full of yourself that anything anyone writes you wont believe. Even when you ask for a source you still find a reason not to believe it.
I have no inclination to gather further sources, as proving anything to you is impossible when you continue to not accept the source provided. If I posted the findings of the Congressional investigation you'd want me to bring the witnesses here to tell you, and then you'd ask for their documentation.

marlinguy wrote on Aug 18^th, 2018 at 8:25pm:


Yet again, by your reference to the "popularity" of Kimmel's book--that being the most utterly irrelevant consideration that could be named--you demonstrate your misunderstanding of the nature of the methods of historical research; whereas, the published report of a Congressional committee WOULD constitute exactly the kind of verifiable documentation I was referring to; but YOU obviously recognize no significant difference between the two kinds of evidence, proving my point better than I could explain it myself.

I have no idea what Kimmel has to say about the events in question; perhaps he does provide unquestionable documentation, citing Congressional reports, local newspaper stories, etc.  But instead of citing such evidence to explain why you & others regard his work as reliable, you indulge in a personal attack on me!  (As, incidentally, you've done several times in the past, when asked to provide the evidence for a given conclusion.)

craigd wrote on Aug 18^th, 2018 at 11:21pm:


Not sure what you mean by "second hand accounts and hearsay."  Travelers, soldiers, explorers, some of the literate hunters & trappers,, left REAMS of letters, diaries, & sometimes published books, such as The Oregon Trail, by the great historian Francis Parkman (which nobody who reads it EVER forgets). Guaranteed "best sellers" were the first-hand narratives of whites captured by Indians, who later escaped. Pioneers traveling West by wagon-train almost always wrote detailed descriptions of their travels to relatives back home, & although much has been lost, a tremendous amount of this material has survived. Frank Meyer, & a few other buffalo hunters, wrote detailed accounts of their trade.  All these are primary sources, not hearsay.

craigd wrote on Aug 19^th, 2018 at 11:16am:


The historian's assumption is, or should be, that some degree of bias, incomplete or selective knowledge, poor recollection, etc. is almost inherent in "eye-witness" reports--which is why experienced detectives don't trust them without corroboration when investigating a crime.  If possible, a conscientious historian would compare all related personal anecdotes & whatever other evidence is available, to try to arrive at the most probable deduction about what actually happened.   

So-called "oral history" is even more unreliable, because it's usually based on long, long-ago memories, unsupported by written documents (or it wouldn't be "oral").  This I learned personally while still in Junior H.S., when I talked as often as I could with "old people" about old guns, old cars, & other old stuff (because even then, new stuff didn't much interest me), learning much later, through reading, that much of what I'd been told was badly distorted, if not pure bunk.

Agree Bob.
Ignore all bias for the moment, and consider eye witness accounts... put three people on a street corner and have them witness the exact same event... then, without allowing them to talk to one another, record what they say they have witnessed... you'll often get three different recorded "statements" of the same event.
Then later, along comes a "historian" with their own personal "assumptions" that do incorporate their own developed personal biases... and what the "historian" then "claims" to be "probable" actually becomes quite questionable... and debatable.

Redsetter, In YOUR opinion Kimmel doesn't hold any weight. In your opinion Grant also doesn't. His books were mentioned as another source of the same info, and you said "he never mentioned his source".
So nothing is good enough for you. Even though Grant published his books a mere 20 or so years after the fire at Stevens, and the Congressional Investigations. So Grant was alive when the fire took place, and likely had first hand knowledge, since he was a gun enthusiast and single shot collector long before he wrote his books. But of course it doesn't fit your needs, so lets poo poo Grant until his work fits your needs.

You still amaze me at the lengths you'll go to deny things others post. I'm sure it's very important for you to always be right. So tell yourself that all sources are unreliable to you, and you'll always be correct!