The Guns & Ammo Network

Gundom’s Dumbest Axiom

by Robert W. Hunnicutt • January 12, 2012 • 11 comments

Frank James sent in a story today, and it included an old chestnut that every gunwriter keeps at hand when inspiration fails (sorry, Frank).

That hoary maxim is Townsend Whelen’s “only accurate rifles are interesting.”

Now, I may have a jaundiced attitude toward the sainted colonel because my longtime boss and predecessor as technical editor of the American Rifleman Pete Dickey had met Whelen on several occasions as a boy and found him a pompous blowhard who didn’t know near as much as he let on.

I wasn’t there for that, so can’t comment on Whelen’s personality or erudition, but his most famous quote is simply absurd on its face, regardless of its source.

It is certainly the case that only accurate rifles may be desirable or useful or maybe only accurate rifles have a place in your gun safe, but it is preposterous to say only accurate rifles are interesting.

If some archaeologist dug up the first Chinese hand cannon, would your interest in it be conditioned by its accuracy? If you had the chance to examine an antique musket owned by Louis XIV, would you wonder what group it would shoot? Would you decline the chance to shoot an MBI Gyrojet because the chance of it hitting a tin can at 25 yards is infinitesimal?

I would argue that a “gas trap” M1 rifle is quite interesting, though they weren’t much for accuracy. The Colt All-American 2000 shot patterns, not groups, but its construction was unusual and ahead of its time. The AK-47 is not renowned for accuracy, but I would say its role in world history is pretty interesting.

So Whelen’s quote is bunk, in my mind, but I can guarantee it will continue to be used as long as a gunwriter is facing a deadline.

What do you think?

1. How dare you criticize an icon like Townsend Whelen!
2. Thank God; someone’s finally told the truth about the old bird.
3. Who’s Townsend Whelen?

In Culture & Politics, Long Guns, Rifles, Uncategorized • Tagged
  • Howard

    I go with # 2. I find the stranger they are the more I admire firearms. I collect old break top revolvers certainly not the most accurate. I also cherish my 221 fireball which is the most accurate rifle I own.

  • Antonio

    #3, and it depends on what you find interesting in a rifle. There are a multitude of features, characteristics and attributes that different sportsmen and collectors favor in their rifles. Application, of course, is a main point of discussion.

  • guest

    #2&3 Why worry about what someone else thinks. Buy, use, collect what you like and quit quoting someone else!

  • TexExpatriate

    Put me down as agreeing with Whelen. I wouldn't give you two-bits for an inaccurate gun, unless I knew someone who could fix it. I don't have the savvy to fis itmyself.

  • Brett M. Bryant

    #4 – Opinions are like A$$ Wholes, everybody has one. And in my humble opinion, if all he found interesting were "Accurate Rifles", I guess he would like most of mine. None were manufactured during His lifetime, and most are considered "affordable", unlike most of the late 19th and early 20th century rifles that he would have found "interesting.

  • Doug

    Frankly, I find all firearms to be interesting, if only as case studies for what should be avoided in the future.

    Case in point: the Hotchkiss Type Universal submachine gun. It wasn't super accurate, it wasn't terribly powerful, and it certainly was interesting (it was the first submachine gun that could be broken down into parts and stored inside of itself, which was both an interesting feature, and its downfall, because it was extremely complicated and expensive to manufacture, and the risk of losing parts was ever present).

    Another case in point is the Brown Bess musket. It ain't accurate in any sense of the term, but it's definitely neat, because it's historical. Same with the blunderbuss. There's no such thing as an accurate blunderbuss, in fact, they stand as the absolute antithesis to accuracy, but they're also fascinating, and deserve to have a place in history alongside every other gun that has paved the way for something better.

    And don't get me wrong, I deeply respect Mr. Whelen, he was a spectacular rifleman, and one of the finest writers to ever write about our sport, but this was one case in which he was dead wrong.

  • Dave Emerson

    Everybody has their off days, the Colonel included.
    Might be a lot more informative if full context of the comment were taken into account.

  • Rich

    The M1 is a damn accurate rifle IF you take the time to polish a few contact areas, grease it properly and know a wit about shooting . Whelen knew more about guns than you ever will. I took your article as nothing but blow hard yuppie crap from someone who is a wannabe gun writer. Go build some guns and develop some cartridges, some loading data, and then come back and maybe I'll value your opinion a little. Until then, go BUY everything and then spout off like a know it all. WAIT, you're already doing that !

  • X-Man

    Life's too short for cheap sunglasses, six cylinder engines and inaccurate guns. The Colonel had it right.

  • FearSellsJunk

    Most people buying ARs and pistols that shoot accurately and make lots of noise are just making lots of noise, so why not enjoy a crappy gun that also makes lots of noise? Statistically, it's not like you need the damn thing to repel cavalry coming fast at 1000 yards.
    OTOH, I'm all in favor of getting rid of a crappy gun that can't hit what I'm aiming at, or melting it down so nobody else gets frustrated with it, too. Some iron makes better tractor parts.
    Point and click is only good on computers, so as long as it goes bang, it can be interesting for one reason or another. Air rifles are piquing my interest these days, too.

  • jamezb

    “Two”….and cheers, it’s about time someone deflates this buffonery – the “hunting only” gun banners are starting to use it! I want to be able to own and collect anachronistic and diverse firearms…whether they can perforate the side of a barn from the inside or not.