Talk:Jeff Cooper

Conditions Rearranged

Having white to red color codes representing safe to endangered. It follows that the conditions should also be safe to endangered, condition 4 to condition 0. Chaney44145 (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

History professor?

I like coop as much as the other guy, but was he a history professor? I think we need a source for that. I can let philosopher fly, as anyone can be. --Kvuo 02:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

According to his webpage he has a MA in History, however, there is no mention that he actually taught history. -- L.J.Brooks 01:46, 03 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I know two of his daughters. He taught high school in Big Bear, California in the 50s and 60s, mainly as an alternate teacher.

Gunsite 250 has that course number because it was a University of Phoenix (?) course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8202:3E10:C4A6:DD73:1430:3FF8 (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Safety rules section and a few other changes and questions

I changed all Commentaries URLs to http://dvc.org.uk/jeff since that seems to be the canonical one (there are 4-5 mirrors in total).

I changed "Colt 1911" to "1911 Colt" because I'm certain the model of the year is more important than the fact that Colt is the best known historical manufacturer---and this is how Cooper refers to it. Not a minor detail since the Colt addition of a firing pin block is considered to be significant.

I added "and several other referenced books" to the entry for Paladin Press since they are pretty much the only current publisher of books by Cooper, including almost all the ones referenced in the article.

The big change was to the safety rules. The previous version was a "corrupt text": only rule three did not have a significant change (although rule four only adds a necessary phrase to the traditional version). The accompanying explanatory text seems to be from The Modern Technique of the Pistol, cut down and otherwise modified.

For now, I took the newest version I could find and bolded the rules themselves.

My question here is how much additional explanatory text should there be; one of the major virtues of Cooper's rules is that they are simple. On the other hand, more explanations from an original source would probably help.

The other questions is: the single quote used for _The Art of the Rifle_ is "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen," and I'd like to add it to the two quotes in the article, but I don't see a good place to do that, and I'm not sure adding this quote would improve that section.

I have some issues with the Weaver Stance, which are a major point of debate between the Cooper camp and others, but I think they are best addressed in the stance's article.

Hga 10:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

All guns are always loaded, even when they're not

sounds more like a law of physics than of shooting. i'm oxymoronic, even when i'm not -W guice 09:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a "law" of attitude more than anything else, and a lot of ink has been spilled over this rule.

Cooper's rules are oriented towards circumstances where firearms are more likely to be loaded than not, e.g. self-defense, law enforcement and combat, and the training for such at a "hot" range (which Cooper pioneered), and "came from a period when the most frequently heard [com]plaint in the wake of a Negligent Discharge was 'I didn't know the gun was loaded.'" (see link below)

Whereas the NRA rules are oriented towards sport/target shooting (the NRA's main interest). You can find a good discussion of all this at "The Rules" page at The Gun Zone site, which is the source of the above quote.

In any event, these are Cooper's rules per the most recent version I could find. Hga 19:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Proper version of saftey rules

68.165.35.18 (and any others): Please don't change Cooper's saftey rules from the version that is cited (from the most recent edition of his Commentaries that I could find with the rules), unless you can find a better version you can cite. These are Cooper's rules, not your's or mine. Hga 23:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Chuckles5492: per above, please don't change Cooper's safety rules. Also, a Google search on Jeff +Cooper +"Four Commandments" turned up only 33 hits, only 3 of which referred to the rules. I take this as evidence that this usage for his four rules is very rare. And the referenced source for the rules refers to them as rules. Hga 00:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Korea not in SE Asia

Vietnam would be in SE Asia. Korea is not. Northeast Asia is more like it. Perhaps someone should address that. 192.240.93.54 20:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Ricky

Reading his biography "The Soul and the Spirit" page 179 claims he involved in training local irregular forces in southeast Asia in an attempt to open a second front to China's south. He spent most of his time in Saipan and Bangkok, but flow all over SE Asian and even stopped in Korea a few times. His objectives obviously did not materialize but are not outside the realm of possibility. 24.237.20.194 (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Guru, qualified or not?

68.5.181.88 changed 'He was also known as "the Guru."' to 'He was also known as "the Gunner's Guru."' That didn't match my memory, so I checked Google: I found 113 hits for "the Gunner's Guru" and 896 for "the Guru" +"jeff cooper". Based on that, I reverted to "the Guru". Hga 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

His column in Guns and Ammo is subtitled "Thoughts from the Gunner's Guru" not plain Guru...so changing it back. Citing this in print rather than a google search a little more credible. This months current issue is the last one he turned in before his death with a large tribute article within. --63.163.213.245 00:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Most significant and enduring contributions to riflecraft?

"Riflemen regard Cooper's development of the scout rifle concept, and his subsequent work on the evolution of the Steyr-Mannlicher Scout rifle, as his most significant and enduring contributions to riflecraft." was added by Clmckelvie, and I wonder if it's too early to make such a judgement. Given that there aren't too many Scouts out there, it's entirely possible that his book The Art Of The Rifle (which is intended to preserve and carry forward the art of practical rifle shooting) will end up being his greatest contribution; an inexpensive book that applies to all rifles can reach a lot more people that a 2000+ US$ rifle. Hga 13:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cooper and Hunting

All but a stub was deleted:

To limit it to pistol hunting is grossly misleading: the vast majority of his writings on this topic are about rifle hunting. And his support of pistol hunting was extremely qualified, with his personal experience as of 1965 including nothing larger than deer.

The following quotation about hunting gorilla is in context misleading to the point of being incorrect.

The last past about criticism WRT hunting gorilla is an unsupported assertion that is also in general contradicted by his writings on pistol hunting and hunting in general. Hga 11:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Rule One, Cooper in his Commentaries vs. Gunsite doctrine

Critic-at-Arms, you've placed me in a quandary. I don't want to be one of those "people on Wikipedia who think that if it isn't in the Times, it isn't so", but your change is not a correction but a difference:

I got the following version straight from the Vol. 11, No. 4, April 2003 of the Commentaries:

1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.

Whereas you say the following is "actual Gunsite doctrine":

1. All guns are always loaded. NO exceptions! Never treat a firearm as if it is empty and "safe."

In favor of the former, it's slightly shorter, simpler, and I think better, especially since the latter part follows the pattern of the rest of the rules in explaining the "why" of a very short rule, whereas the version you've replaced it with simply repeats the same thing two or three times. Although I certainly do remember hearing the "NO exceptions!" bit in times past.

I think it would be best to revert to the Commentaries version, and then add some or all four rules of "the doctrine as practiced at Gunsite" below. Can you provide a citation of any sort, e.g. some printed matter you received there, especially so that you can add/confirm any changes? I'm going to redo this as "Here are Cooper's Rules, and here are as they are practiced at Gunsite" (which Gunsite, BTW, that's ... rather critical, I'd say, if the original, then we can add "as founded by Cooper") in a day or two, and you are of course welcome to do this first. Hga 14:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Paranoid Dementia

In the OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS sections, I found this:

"His opinions found an almost slavishly uncritical following in some quarters. Others, however, found him incoherent, over-dogmatic, consistently inconsistent and frequently deeply flawed in many of his judgements. Towards the end of his life, his writings became increasingly archaic and disconcerted ramblings, causing concern amoung some of his closest friends and leading them to speculate that Cooper was suffering from paranoid dementia."

Someone deleted this on Sept 14. I put it back. I recognize that it does need a citation. So why put it back without the citation? Because I know people who were associated with Cooper and this is very much their sentiment. The original entry is loaded and opinionated and could be stated in better terms. But it does capture the observations of many who followed his column and work over the years. As one example, Cooper's deep hostility towards the .223 and AR-15 platform and his deep support of the M1911 put him in a distinct minority amongst armed professionals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.10.254 (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"and his deep support of the M1911 put him in a distinct minority amongst armed professionals" - do you have a source for that? There are many armed professionals who DO hold an unwaivering support of both the .45ACP cartridge and the M1911 pistol. I am one of them - based on the lethality of the round, the simplicity, reliability and proven record of the 1911 in the absolute worst conditions imaginable. 199.64.0.253 (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not a professional, and nowadays don't shoot often enough to pretend to be one, I'd note the professional I follow most closely, Massad Ayoob, prefers .45 ACP for winter when thick outer clothing is a particular danger for defeating hollow point expansion. As I recall he is at least moderately pro-M1911. Tiger McKee is a professional of some sorts, and in a private communication he mentioned he prefers the M1911 primary for the same reason I do, it fits his hands the best, but it wouldn't be our choice if it wasn't otherwise at minimum good. As for .223, if it's so great, why the major interest in 6.5mm Grendel and especially the 6.8 mm Remington SPC, "that was developed by Remington Arms in collaboration with members of the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit, United States Special Operations Command", all of whom are professionals. And the direct impingement system of the AR-10/15 is hardly above criticism. Hga (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

First, you should have spell-checked it before putting it back. Second, although I never met him, I have read several of his books and all of his Commentaries. At worst, his writings were in crotchety old man territory. What does it mean to say that his writings "became increasingly archaic"? That makes no sense, and you wrote it.

As to the .223/AR-15 issue, Cooper was in good company. Col. David Hackworth (you may have heard of him?) certainly agreed with the Guru's qualms, based on published statements in his autobiography. In an article by Richard Lardner published by Associated Press on June 5, 2008, several active duty and retired military personnel with recent experience in Baghdad echo the Guru's concerns. I know enough about handguns to know you point the hole away from you (actually, I took the NRA basic course, which is a start) so I have no opinion about the M1911 issue. Cooper is clear that he prefers the right caliber for the job, which is usually larger, and I'm comfortable deferring to his judgment. He did at one point endorse the Ruger Mini-14 for varmint shooting (that's a .223 rifle).

I hope his "closest friends" took some action about their dementia worries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Cooper's Expertise on Survival Retreat Topics

Another editor removed a link to an existing page on survival retreats, and asked: "Did a bot add this? What does it have to do with Jeff Cooper?"

Jeff Cooper was one of the editors of Personal Survival ("PS) Newsletter in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The "Retreat (survivalism)" wiki article cites Copper's expertise in this regard, complete with citations to his PS newsletter articles. It is clearly a valid cross-reference, so I'm reverting the link deletion. Trasel (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Marine or Colonel?

I'm not sure which is best.

His being a Marine was very important to him and his art and he self-identified as one, and few people seeing "Jeff_Cooper_(Marine)" are going to be confused.

But isn't he better known as "The Coronel"?

I'm currently happy either way and have no trouble with FlieGerFaUstMe262 being bold, but thought we might want to discuss it a bit. Hga (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

New Quotes section

Cooper is so frequently quoted, I think that a "Quotes" section would be apropos. If there are no objections, then I'll start one. Trasel (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move(s)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved.  Skomorokh  08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

• Jeff Cooper → Jeff Cooper (disambiguation), and:
• Jeff Cooper (Marine) → Jeff Cooper
• WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; Col. Cooper is significantly more “notable” than Jeff Cooper (broadcaster) (unsourced BLP). ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 17:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• I agree, wholeheartedly! Trasel (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Jeff Cooper (Marine) may be the dominant meaning within the USA Army, or among handgun shooters, but not necessarily among civilians and in other countries? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Uhh… why the Army? Even if you meant the U.S.M.C., a much broader audience knew Cooper as a writer and weapons expert than for his achievements as a jar-head (current page-name notwithstanding). ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 10:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment it doesn't sound like it, if the broadcaster was indeed the newsreader for BBC1 (assuming BBC1 across all of UK), then the man on the street would recognize the broadcaster more than the marine. As for unsourced, it has external links, so that's not quite true, it's just not referenced properly. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Whoa, there. If you do a web search on "Jeff Cooper", far and away the most hits are for the American Colonel, not the English newsreader. The PRIMARY page link should be with the most widely recognized referenced individual. - Harold L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.82.80 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • So are you begging that question? ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 10:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is not clear that there is a primary topic. Also Ms. 45#, your signature is really messing up the edit screen. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Overwhelming primary topic. Last month Jeff Cooper (dab page) got 680 hits[1], Jeff Cooper (broadcaster) got 122,[2] and Jeff Cooper (Marine) got 4,333.[3] That's a ratio of better than 35:1 looking for the shooting expert. Station1 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Safety of Condition 2 with a M1911 or the like

OK, one theory is that if you drop one and falls on it's "back", the firing pin can rebound off the lowered trigger hammer face and possibly fire the round while the muzzle is pointing up. The other concept, and it's much stronger than a theory or opinion, is that cocking the hammer with your thumb is fraught with peril, see discussion at Safety notch. If your thumb slips before it reaches the half-cock point, it might fire. If the spurs that implement the safety notch get worn down (e.g. by their having to catch such slip-ups too often), if you've pulled the hammer back far enough the round will fire.

As Safety notch notes, this "is one of the oldest forms of drop safety" so it's pretty well established, at the level where my Dad taught me it while I was in grade school or thereabouts. Hga (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

DOB

The article here puts Cooper's date of birth as May 10 1920 but the Prescott Daily Courrier has it as May 20 (prg. 5). Which is correct? --Grugnir (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect source for first paragraph of Color Code section

This contents of this paragraph are incorrectly sourced:

• The most important means of surviving a lethal confrontation, according to Cooper, is neither the weapon nor the martial skills. The primary tool is the combat mindset, set forth in his book, Principles of Personal Defense. In the chapter on awareness, Cooper presents an adaptation of the Marine Corps system to differentiate states of readiness:

There is no "Awareness" chapter; while there is an Alertness one and it is the first and therefore implicitly indeed the most important, it doesn't touch upon anything so organized as a color code, let alone detail one. Hga (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying "color codes" section

After editing the word "goblin" out of the color codes section in favor of the less blatantly racist "fraggle", the editing has been (not unfairly) reverted because the descriptions of the color codes are apparently direct quotes. If this is the case then they should be clearly marked as such as well as correctly sourced. As it stands now, there is no indication that the word "goblin" was actually used by Mr. Cooper. Unfortunately I have absolutely no knowledge of the rules and markup language for editing wikipedia pages, otherwise I'd do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.222.96 (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside of, say, the Potterverse I wasn't aware Goblin was considered a racist term, let alone a "blatant" one; could you provide some evidence? Note that there's none in the previously linked Wikipedia disambiguation page. However, I know it was a common term used by Cooper for a generic adversary of ill will and we can be pretty sure of the providence of the quote.

Absent evidence of it being "blatantly racist" (especially when it would have been made by Cooper) and/or given that even you believe it to be a direct quote, let's revert it to goblin and then I can see about getting it properly cited. Surely you don't think that a term used for Muppets (!!!) is appropriate for this section? Hga (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you live in a world where no one hijacks neutral terms for their own political purposes. In the real world however, "goblin" can used (by mostly white racists) as a synonym for "black people". It simply boils down to the use of a word that can be reasonably interpreted as racist. If it's a direct quote then it should be marked as such. If it's not, then no one can have any problem with substituting a neutral word such as "enemy". Unless you have some other problem with using a less controversial word?64.213.222.96 (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you have absolutely no evidence that this is a racist term, let alone "blatantly racist", it just "can [be] used" as such. Which it true for just about every word that doesn't have the emotional connotations of "Muppet".

I guess it's time for me to become a Wikilawyer, find out the details of the triple revert rule, etc. etc. etc. :-( Hga (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well man, consider yourself lucky that you've never heard someone at a gun shop gleefully detailing how they'll be ready for when the "goblins" come, with a wink and a nudge at the right time. As for the triple revert rule: you and I are the only ones editing this, so feel free to revert my edit and I promise that I'm not going to be mad. Of course, it seems like the best course of action would be for someone to just edit the section in such a way that it was clear that these were direct quotations. 64.213.222.96 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't whitewash the fact that Cooper was a blatant racist. If you dispute this, you've clearly never read his writings. This in no way detracts from his influence and impact on shooting, but, he was also a racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.13.81 (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've read much of his writing starting in the '70s, when this issue was still very fresh and big, and never ever noticed it. If you're going to convince us of your assertion, you're going to have to provide specific examples. Hga (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Specific examples abound http://meetthenra.org/nra-member/Jeff%20Cooper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.13.81 (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The top example of Cooper's "racism" at the NRA-bashing site you linked is that he speculated that political violence in Mexico might cause a shortage in .30-30 Winchester Ammo. When someone has written so much on so many topics and the best examples of "racism" are so obtuse it is pretty clear to me that they are not a racist. 134.134.139.78 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/14/what-doesnt-get-you-fired-from-guns-amp-ammo-de/196901 Here's some other lovely quotes he had on race you spaz.

184.174.147.227 (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Gunsite Scout Rifle

It appears to me that people deleting and undoing my contribution does not know what the Gunsite Scout Rifle stands for. It stands for Jeff Cooper's legacy and philosophy at work after his death. Please remember Gunsite Training Center is founded by Jeff Cooper and his former students are current teachers at the elite firearms academy. Why is Ruger Gunsite Scout an advertisement when clearly the Steyr Scout rifle is referred? One must know that Gunsite is Jeff Cooper's legacy and the lastest scout rifle bears the Gunsite name following the strict specifications of a scout rifle. Sure two people undid my work, but now I will like to discuss about it since people think undoing someone's work is so much easier than understanding someone's work. Jeff Cooper passed away in 2006 and his legacy is left behind in his philosophy "Cooperism" as gun editors calls it and in his Gunsite Academy which promotes scout rifles and Modern Technique of the Pistol. Yes, there are other scout rifles but Steyr Scout is the first and Gunsite Scout is the last rendition of the concept. Why the last? In "Gun Years" speaking, a model change will be unlikely since models lasts 10 to 100 years like the M1911 handgun. Lets look at the time frame here; Cooper specified the scout rifle in 1980s and not until 1997 a major manufacturer took notice and produced the now famous and iconic Steyr Scout and not till 2011 was a more popular and highly awarded Gunsite Scout produced by Ruger. http://www.gunsite.com/main/ruger-gunsite-scout-wins-rifle-of-the-year/2282/ One must know why the Gunsite Scout is so wildly popular in its introduction, its due to its price tag of $900 compared to $2500 for a Steyr Scout. Now everyone is able to afford a real Jeff Cooper specified major production Scout Rifle. That is why the award of the rifle is mentioned since it is highly rated and plus it has the Gunsite name and logo on it. Therefore it is the latest legacy of Jeff Cooper since he founded Gunsite Academy. Please discuss this with me if you have your counter opinions. Thanks.Neoking (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Since no one replied and still reverted my re-edit of it, then can anyone tell me what is the latest scout rifle that follows Jeff Cooper's philosophy? Since User:Trut-h-urts man only explanation is that my contribution sounds like an advertisement of the Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle and Gunsite Academy then all I have to is just redo and reword the thing so it doesn't sell but to tell right? Then I will just keep it simple then, "Jeff Cooper's legacy of the scout rifle is continued by the introduction of the Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle in 2011 by Ruger and Gunsite." Seriously, Steyr Scout will be the only rifle mentioned? His legacy continued with the addition of the Gunsite Scout and it will end there. The word legacy is: Something inherited from a predecessor; a heritage. The Gunsite Scout rifle is a milestone for Jeff Cooper's legacy because he passed away in 2006 and his teachings gave birth to this particular rifle, wont that define as "legacy"? Gunsite is founded by Jeff Cooper, his philosophy is taught by Gunsite, and Gunsite honors his philosophy by finally making a rifle with the Gunsite logo on it for mass production. If Jeff Cooper was still alive he will be promoting the rifle, but unfortunately he passed away. His teachings evolve and improve and it is passed on to his students and their students honored Jeff Cooper's teaching by having a Gunsite Scout rifle made, now that is heritage right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoking (talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please also see the reference I had made http://www.downrange.tv/blog/the-rebirth-of-colonel-coopers-scout-rifle-video/7918/ in which they call it the rebirth of the scout rifle. It is a milestone for Cooper's teaching and riflecraft. Please understand the specifications on a Scout Rifle is ultimate reliability at all costs and the Steyr Scout was priced at $2500 which in rifle speak you can get 5+ rifles that shoots more accurate. All parts are designed to be as rugged as possible and well balanced by shifting weight to center and sacrifice barrel length. Bringing the price down to $900 and keeping with the specs set by Cooper is worth mentioning. Cooper's idea was that the Scout Rifle should be everyone's one and only rifle for all around use but the Steyr Scout was not priced at every man's wallet. Also to quote Jeff Quin "The Scout rifle concept was a pet project of Jeff Cooper for many years, and the new rifle from Ruger is the culmination of years of evolution of that original Scout rifle conception. Mr. Cooper’s idea was for a short, handy, powerful, and easy to use bolt action rifle for use as a general purpose rifle" http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-Gunsite.htm In his article he specifically called it "CULMINATION of years of evolution" so he does also see that the Gunsite Scout Rifle is a legacy of Jeff Cooper. I already tried to prove my point, the discussion now should be disproving the point that Gunsite Scout Rifle is NOT Cooper's legacy. Neoking (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In general you're making sense. My only quibble would be to make it clear this is a legacy, not the legacy of Cooper's. E.g. for a while I've thought that in the long run his efforts to preserve the art of serious riflery (e.g. his book) might end up being his #1 legacy (and the Scout is an important but small part of this), but we can't e.g. ignore his 4 safety rules, which I get the impression are the most used/cited (as well they should be). And of course his place in the creation of modern pistolcraft was critical if not seminal, but that's way back in history for most of us.

Anyway, I'm happy with the current wording of your effort. Hga (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Rule 3 added comments

The original language included this sentence, "Federal regulations require that law enforcement, registered gun owners and military personnel all be trained to keep their finger on the trigger guard until absolutely ready to fire." There is no such thing as Federal registration of civilian gun owners and am not aware of any general regulations on their training, so that bit was removed. I can well believe there are Federal regulations about the other two classes mentioned, but a citation would be nice. Hga (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That whole section was full of crap. Some newbie instructor probably meant well, but we didn't need commentary that did not clarify the rules, nor the fantasy about trigger off the finger and other nonsense.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Mel Tappan

I need to dig up a copy of Survival Guns but for now I can unequivocally state Tappan was strongly influenced by Cooper, to the point that in his other major work, Tappan on Survival, on page 85 in the Handguns section of the Weapons chapter he says "Space does not permit a detailed analysis.... If you question my choices, I urge you to read either the appropriate chapters in Survival Guns or Jeff Cooper's outstanding text Cooper on Handguns". If my memory is correct the latter was outstanding way back then, and while not of quite the same stature Survival Guns was an significant work as well. Enough so that while it's now terribly dated in the specifics Paladin Press put it back in print. Hga (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Bren Ten

Just a note for precision's sake, Cooper was not a mechanical engineer and did not "design" the Bren Ten. He endorsed the effort, lent his "Gunsite" logo to the firm of Dornaus & Dixon and probably suggested that the Czechoslovakian CZ-75, which he greatly admired, be used as a template for the pistol. MiniBus36 (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Gunsite Gossip source

See Talk:Hoplophobia#Gunsite Gossip source and this. We should find the best possible source for the "Gunsite Gossip" material. Rezin (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I thought I'd seen everything on Wikipedia, but we now have an anonymous Wikilawyer trying to police the page, who's only tools so far are deletion of valuable information and making threats. Not sure how to address this, even if we find what we think are better sources, and I don't know what to do about his deletion of the link to the complete bibliography, other than ask the author if we can reproduce it on Wikipedia. Hga (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I just placed orders for all three volumes of Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip, our favorite Wikilawyer will not be able to argue with references to them, although that's a lot less useful than links to the sub rosa on-line copies of the Commentaries we've been using, but then again Google and company will quickly find those repositories. Hga (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Maybe fixing that cite will remove the irritant. Rezin (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Still not sure how to address someone who considers a bibliography to be "linkspam", though. I avoid getting into edit wars. Hga (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gotten the first 2 volumes, through 2000, and now things get interesting. Turns out for the first reference, pertaining to why Cooper doesn't include a Black color code like e.g. the Marines, there's a total of three different references:

1. The volume and issue of Gunsight Gossip in which it first? appeared.
2. The volume (1-3) and page in which it was reprinted in Gargantuan Gunsight Gossip, which is the 100% suitable for Wikipedia reference
3. The volume and issue of Cooper's Commentaries in which it appeared.

Where Gossip started 12 years earlier than the Commentaries (e.g. 16 = 4), and in just looking at two issues of one volume of these, the latter is a superset, with 1 additional item at the beginning of each of those issues! So it wouldn't hurt to find an "acceptable" single on-line copy of the Commentaries, if such a thing exists/could exist. Certainly, with the additional item not captured in Gargantuan Gunsight Gossip, we need to be referring to Commentaries somewhere, and including a link would be optimal. Ah, one thing to add is an introductory item/note that explains the relationships of the three, adding ideally how they were published. Also, per e.g. this page, the Guns & Ammo "Cooper's Corner" is an edited copy of the Commentaries; does anyone have a collection of that? Anyway, such a note would then help this:

Right now we need to figure out a citation scheme that doesn't look awful in the list of references, that captures all 3 or 4 of the above. I'll be looking into this, since it's been decades since I studied this sort of thing and this is certainly an edge case. Also, Wikipedia strongly encourages both a single reference style in an article, as well as not changing it without general agreement. So please let us discuss that issue as well if needed, although this article is not particularly strict in observing one precise style. Hga (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds complicated. Since there are relatively few citations in this article I doubt anyone would be bothered if you changed the scheme without further discussion. Rezin (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Before you change anything: Are you aware that Cooper's daughter, Lindy Cooper Wisdom, maintains a website for Cooper's works? http://jeffcooperbooks.com/ Lightbreather (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't, although I now notice there's a link to it on the page (and the Foundation page also links to this site, further attesting to it in case someone raises a fuss in the future). Don't think it'll make a difference for the batch of Commentaries reference changes I'm about to do, after following the link to Guns & Ammo and not finding back issues in CD form or whatever, but the links page was particularly interesting. The second link is to this page ^_^. It has a dead link to a copy of the Commentaries, implying the family doesn't mind people viewing them. It has links to Fr. Frog's top level Jeff Cooper page and the books page of the bibliography, which per the introductory text, "We are regularly out on the web. When we find a great site we list it here for you to enjoy.", can only be taken as an endorsement. Even if you don't think his site is good, we should be able to keep the irreplaceable bibliography link. Except for the "Find a Grave" link, about which I have no opinion, that covers the links our anonymous friend wants to terminate with extreme prejudice. Thanks! Hga (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

John Pate's dvc.org.uk website as a source

Regarding this source - Cooper, Jeff (1995). "Jeff Cooper's Commentaries". dvc.org.uk. John Pate. - it says at the bottom of this page and others like it:

Please Note. These "Commentaries" are for personal use only. Not for publication.

I don't think we should be using Pate's website as a source. --Lightbreather (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The only counterargument I can make, besides the obvious that John Pate is being careful, it that as mentioned above, a dead link to the Commentaries is in the jeffcooperbooks.com links; we could ask Lindy Cooper Wisdom about this. Her site does list this Wikipedia page as the #2 link, only after a link to the foundation, so that implies she think highly of it, so perhaps she and the family don't mind. On the other hand they may not want to go on the record, and we don't really know who are the rights holders. Gunsight Raven Corp. and Gunsight Academy, Inc. assert rights to volumes 1 and 2 respectively of Gargantuan Gunsight Gossip, but as noted above Gunsight Gossip isn't quite the same thing as the Commentaries.

In any event, I'll be fixing up the inline Commentaries references as soon as I/we figure out a minimally elegant way to do that.

Thanks a lot for the work you put into the article today! Hga (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting: the copyright to Gargantuan Gunsight Gossip 3 is asserted by Wisdom Publishing, AKA jeffcooperbooks.com (just got it, will proceed with citation cleanup Real Soon Now). Hga (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Commentaries etc. abbreviations added to References section, new citation format

OK, I've added this as best as I could come up with, and have converted the first Commentaries reference to the new system. What do you think? Does the font in the abbreviations etc. bit look jarring next to the slightly smaller font used in the references? Opinions and suggestions solicited! Hga (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure who this is addressed to. You might want to join the firearms project at WP:GUNS and see if another editor there will help you. It looks like you've been editing since 2007, but I'm wondering if you would benefit from some of the beginner's stuff about creating articles: finding and citing good reliable sources, manual of style, and so on.

Some of this you probably already know, but maybe review Wikipedia:Your first article. Also, maybe MOS:BIO and MOS:LAYOUT. Good luck. Lightbreather (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's addressed to anyone with a (useful) opinion, and you fit the bill! More specifically, to avoid very long and repetitive text in the individual citations of CC/GG/GGGx, I'm doing something I've seen in a few books but not as of yet in Wikipedia, and wondered if anyone had an opinion on how I'm attempting it. While I've indeed been editing Wikipedia for some time, I've never done this sort of thing before, and will be looking at the style references you helpfully cited; thanks. Hga (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw that, and I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I suspect it's not kosher here - at least not the way you're doing it. Maybe study Wikipedia:Citing sources? Or consider creating a LIMITED (not exhaustive) "Published works" section? Also, again, I do NOT think you should be referencing Pate's pages. (You might want to take them to WP:RSN to get some feedback.) Have you talked with anyone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography? Lightbreather (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you be more specific on what you think is not kosher? If your greater point is that we want to limit citations of these primary sources, I agree, but I believe there may be enough of them remaining in an ideal cleaned up version of this article (e.g. the Four Rules and "Orang-gautengs"), and in the meanwhile this is the best I can do, citations to primary sources are better than none at all.

In detail, what I'm trying to do is to provide, at one point, the three legit and accessible to most people citations of sources of what's generally a small block of text that's (hopefully) identical in all three. For reference in this talk page, Cooper's Commentaries is CC, Gunsite Gossip is GG, The Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip is GGG or GGGn where n is 1-3.

I'm doing this in part because in terms of people's access, and editing by parties other than Jeff Cooper, CC > GGG >> Guns & Ammo "Cooper's Corner"; I don't know where GG fits in there, besides being the original source before CC started. I think CC was distributed on the net, and GGG is the most "solid" in every way, acid free paper, don't drop one on your unshod foot etc., but we cannot demand that people buy a US$40 volume to check one paragraph of text. And as my footnote quoting Cooper at the beginning of CC indicates, for a long period of time Gunsite and GG were owned by someone who became estranged from Cooper, and when it started CC was the original, and GG may have been edited. GGG1 and 2 were published before and after that period, but I've noticed in the first two issues of CC that their first paragraph are not in GGG, and in all cases I'm checking to make sure the cited sections are identical.

On the other hand, we do indeed need to decide what to do about sub rosa archives of CC like Mr. Pate's; I think it's pretty clear the rights holders, whoever they may be (see above), don't mind their existence. Part of my answer to that is to not link to any of the archives in the References, I am removing the links as I update them, and only mentioning the volume and number of CC. The other part would ideally be to get permission from the family to keep a link to one of the CC archives in the External links section; as mentioned above they seem to think highly of this Wikipedia article and do have a link, albeit now dead, to one of the archives. Hga (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I've given you a lot of relevant links and some projects to contact. I can't give any more to this article at this time. Sorry. Lightbreather (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Support from Francisco Franco?

As the article reads it states "Cooper had expressed support of Jonas Savimbi,[26] the governments of Rhodesia and apartheid-era South Africa,[27] and Francisco Franco.[28]" In following the citation for the last one, I find no direct reference to Francisco Franco. The only mention of Spain is his highly dubious contentions about the bombing of Guernica. Regardless, that is kind of a stretch to suggest general support for Franco and his dictatorship. I haven't read enough of his work to be sure either way, but that is a pretty strong indictment, so better sourcing would be helpful. Anyone have a better source? Thanks. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 00:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Condition 2 and safeties

The article currently states "Condition 2: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer down, safety on," but does not give a citation. In my observation, most (although not all) people talking about guns use the term "Condition 2" to refer to a pistol that his a round chambered, a full magazine in place, hammer down, and safety off, or just consider any pistol that meets the first three conditions to be "Condition 2," regardless of the state of the safety.

It's worth noting in this context a 1911 *cannot* have the hammer down and the safety on at the same time, and it seems a little odd (if true) for Cooper to have defined his conditions in such a way as to exclude from all of them a fairly common (although controversial) way of carrying a 1911 (round chambered, safety off, hammer down, with the intention of thumb-cocking the hammer if the need to use it arises). On the other hand, some pistols (either DAO (meaning the hammer is *always* down except in the middle of a shot) or DA/SA with a decocker) may *require* the hammer to be down when the safety is on, and still others allow the safety to be engaged in either position.

Is there a source for the current definition (or for either of the possible alternatives, if the current definition is wrong)?

128.253.45.15 (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ammunition Concept

Almost nothing in the entire section has anything to do with Cooper, it seems. It's a lot of talk about other people and about various rounds and calibers. Which might be interesting as such, but is not even tangentally connected to him, other than the first paragraph. Is there really need for that in the article? 2001:9B0:46:0:0:0:B4D5:2BCD (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)