214 



RECREATION. 



it the second time it drove the cartridge 

 up into the chamber away from the bolt, 

 and the expansion was enough to wedge 

 it fast to the chamber, showing up a new 

 danger in a rifle not properly breeched 

 up to the cartridge. 



I then wrote one of the prominent cart- 

 ridge companies, stating the trouble I 

 found in shooting this rifle, and asked if 

 the trouble could be with the cartridges. 

 They answered that they were testing the 

 same cartridges through the Winchester 

 rifles and never had seen a case of the 

 primers setting back or dropping out, and 

 would be glad to make a test of cartridges 

 in my Marlin rifle if I would loan it to 

 them for the purpose. 



I shipped the rifle to them to test. They 

 reported that several cartridges of differ- 

 ent makes had been fired from m*y rifle 

 and that the primers set back as I des- 

 cribed, while cartridges of the same makes 

 tired from a Winchester rifle did not set 

 the primers back; that the minimum thick- 

 ness of 40/82 shell is .065 of an inch and 

 the maximum thickness .070 of an inch, 

 being .005 of an inch difference. 



To measure the breeching up of my 

 Marlin rifle they "Soldered .024 of an inch 

 thickness of metal on a maximum thick- 

 ness shell head before the action of the 

 rifle closed on the cartridge giving proper 

 support." 



Since these tests were made it has been 

 ascertained that the Winchester Repeating 

 Arms Company makes no allowance, but 

 breeches up close to the maximum thick- 

 ness of the cartridge head in their rifles, 

 while it will be noted from above that the 

 Marlin Company wrote: "The rifle was. 

 breeched up as tight as possible," while 

 leaving over .024 of an inch space over a 

 maximum shell head; in fact, a thickness 

 of metal over .030 of an inch could be 

 placed over a standard maximum shell 

 head and close the breech with ease. 



I therefore had the rifle sent to the 

 Marlin Company a third time to see if they 

 could make this rifle handle the cartridges 

 it was made for in a suitable manner and 

 without risk of their jamming so it would 

 be impossible for a man to project his life 

 with it in case of danger. 



My experience with this Marlin rifle and 

 its manufacturers has entirely broken my 

 faith in its reliability. I do not as yet 

 know the outcome of my third attempt to 

 have the makers properly adjust this rifle, 



A.'B. Dodge. 



CONDEMN PETERS. 

 Binghamton, N. Y., May 2, 1901. 

 Mr. J. H. McKibben, Sec'y, 

 Peters Cartridge Co., 



Cincinnati, Ohio. 

 Dear Sir: — As a user of Peters 22 cali- 

 ber cartridge and King's semi -smokeless 



powder, I wish to add my mite to the 

 flood of criticism which your action in 

 withdrawing ad from Recreation will 

 call forth. The unsatisfactory experience 

 of one person with any article of merit 

 counts little against the many favorable 

 ones, such as your goods have had re- 

 corded in Recreation. I think the edi- 

 tor's reply to you is to the point. It was 

 Recreation that first caused me to use 

 your goods. 



To cite anotlier instance: I had never 

 seen a Savage rifle, nor will our local 

 dealers carry a sample in stock. All my 

 knowledge of same had been derived from 

 Recreation. I was undecided whether to 

 buy 2 Stevens rifles, viz., models 40 and 

 45, or a Savage; but the disappearance 

 from Recreation of Stevens' ad settled 

 the matter and I bought a Savage, which 

 I shall take pains to show prospective 

 buyers, as I think it as near perfection as 

 has yet been attained. I had to order 

 direct from factory. Hoping you may 

 reconsider the matter, and that we may 

 again see Peters cartridges advertised in 

 our favorite magazine, I remain, 

 Yours respectfully, 

 Chas. O'Byrne, City Hospital. 



Eureka Springs, Ark., April 29, 1901. 

 Peters Cartridge Co., 

 Cincinnati, Ohio. 

 Gentlemen: — I was sorry to see in May 

 Recreation a copy of your letter cancel- 

 ling your advertisement on account of 

 Radcliff's letter. I read his letter in the 

 April number and was so struck with its 

 injustice that I made up my mind to write 

 Recreation about it unless someone else 

 did so. Do you not think you are mak- 

 ing a mistake? I do not blame you for 

 getting warm under the collar, for who 

 would not? Recreation has a great 

 many friends. They read it largely for 

 information and they like its independ- 

 ence. Do you think they would value 

 its advice if they thought it was con- 

 trolled by its advertisers? I should think 

 you would have much % to gain from free 

 discussion. I have used a great deal of 

 your ammunition with excellent results, 

 but until I hear you have reconsidered 

 your action toward Recreation I do 

 not intend to use any more of it, for I 

 think your position is an injury to every 

 sportsman reading Recreation. I hope 

 you will look at the other side of this 

 question and give your friends a chance. 

 Yours very truly, 



John T. Bailey. 



Bellefonte. Pa., May 4, 1901. 

 Mr. G. O. Shields, 



My dear Sir:— In looking over the May 

 number of Recreation I find that the 

 Peters Cartridge Co. has attempted to 

 take a fall out of you. In my opinion 



