There's More To Hacker Than You May Know

[huntertrw]

Most Forums members will know Richard Carleton Hacker as a prolific writer on the topics of pipes and tobaccos, cigars, and premium spirits, but did you know that he is also an award-winning gun-writer whose photographs often illustrate his articles?

Mr. Hacker began that part of his multi-faceted career in 1976 writing for Robert E. Petersen's Guns & Ammo magazine. By 1979 he was writing for the National Rifle Association's American Rifleman magazine. In 2015 he received the John T. Amber Literary Award from Gun Digest for an article which appeared in their 69th annual edition (2014) and that was titled, "The Holsters of Arvo Ojala." According to Gun Digest Editor Jerry Lee it was, "...a well-written, well-researched, and beautifully photographed profile of a man whose leather creations were as much a part of the golden age of Hollywood westerns as the guns they carried."

His books on the topic include "The Muzzleloading Hunter: Being a Complete Guide for the Blackpowder Sportsman" published in 1988 by Outdoor Life Books, and "50 Famous Firearms You've Got to Own: Rick Hacker's Bucket List of Guns" published by Gun Digest Books in 2015.

He has also written firearms-related articles for other periodicals including Shooting Illustrated, Sports Afield, Outdoor Life, Safari Magazine, Handguns Magazine, Rifleshooter Magazine, Playboy Magazine, Robb Report, and Sporting Classics. Concerning the latter, here is a link to an article that appeared in their December 4, 2024 edition and that is titled "22-Caliber Christmas." No, it's not one of those, "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" stories, but, rather, a poignant coming of age tale with some interesting biographical insights.

Enjoy!

 

[Sig]

I'm sure I've read plenty of his articles. I was a gun magazine junky before the internet, and before magazines became advertising brochures with an occasional article.

 

[OzPiper]

A few authors had other strings to their bows.
Prolific wine author Hugh Johnson was a noted gardens expert and author before he started dabbling in vinous pursuits.

 

[sablebrush52]

All things considered, Hacker should have stuck to writing about guns.

 

[huntertrw]

Mr. Hacker has been writing for a long time. If memory serves, he will be 83-years-old this year and he's still at it!

 

[warren]

In deed, he is a hack. But, his books, in places, can prove informative. He does his research.

 

[daveinlax]

RCH was my introduction to the hobby. I had no idea that pipes were collectible before a tobacconist handed me the a new book called The Ultimate Pipe Book that had just arrived. I had a letter out to Tom Dunn of the Pipe Smokers Ephemeris a few days later.

 

[newbroom]

My Dad and I went to 'the sand bank' and set up some readily available targets with which to test 'drive' a Thompson muzzle loader a co-worker had given me to try and to get me to buy it.
He'd told me how to load it and so forth and gave me all the stuff, which included a small measuring cup.
He was specific in the amount of gun powder, suggesting that 3 drams was the proper load.
Assuming the cup was one dram, I dutifully loaded three small cups of gunpowder down the barrel. I completed the recipe and took aim at a can or a bottle, I don't recall. I had offered Dad the first shot, but he declined.
My co-worker had praised the accuracy of this long rifle and I was hopeful that I could verify it.
I fired. The target didn't move. I didn't see where the ball had impacted and asked Dad.
He said it had hit about a foot or so above the can.
We both tried it a couple more times and couldn't hit shit.
Imagine my chagrin when Monday at work, my buddy tells me that one cup is 3 drams!?!

 

[huntertrw]

newbroom:

You are fortunate to have survived the firing of that over-charged rifle. Black powder is measured in avoirdupois drams. 16 drams = one ounce, therefore three drams = 0.1875 ounce. By comparison you loaded nine drams or 0.5615 ounce - three times the recommended load!

If that was a .50 caliber Thompson/Center, then I am guessing that, with that over-charge, it kicked like an angry mule!

 

[agnosticpipe]

Well you can call him a hack if you want, but to me he was a wealth of information when there was so little to be had back in the early 1980s. No internet, little other written works with that kind of information to easily be had. I see now that we have so much more information available that his works might seem less significant, but for me I loved reading about pipes that I didn't even know existed and some of the history of pipe smoking. I got some information from the pipe and tobacco shops I went into, but reading his books was wonderful for me. I met him a couple of times at different pipe/cigar functions back in the late 80s and early 90s and he was fun and informative to talk to. I can't think of a disparaging word to say about him. Maybe your experience was different than mine that you feel the need to call him a hack, I don't know.

 

[Alejo R.]

It's curious that, having written the best-selling book on the hobby, he has completely ignored it in recent decades. I suppose he doesn't take well to criticism. That said, of the pipe books I've read—which aren't all, but certainly quite a few—TUPB is by far the best written, with the best prose, and the most entertaining.

 

[sablebrush52]

Well you can call him a hack if you want, but to me he was a wealth of information when there was so little to be had back in the early 1980s. No internet, little other written works with that kind of information to easily be had.

No doubt Hacker did pioneering work, and I've always acknowledged that. That said, when you are telling any sort of history you can rarely speak in categorical terms. If you're going to be accurate you have to admit to conditionals, such as "to the best of my knowledge", "may" etc. Hacker never does that, it's always "is" or "is not", and that's a problem, especially when he's factually incorrect. It's not about easy, it's about accuracy.

One of my favorite instances is where Hacker goes in how strange it is that Barling never issued a catalog until their 150th Anniversary catalog in 1962. An early catalog, circa 1914, showed up on eBay, I bought it, restored it, and published it, so that people would have access to this information, rather than it going in the safe. Jon Guss found references to a 1904 catalog, though I don't know of any copies of that one having turned up.

As for the lack of Internet, internet goes back to the 1970's and was available to universities and research centers, among others, in the form of bulletin boards. I was using it in the late 1980's and onward. I liked it better then. The information was better, access was far more open. If I wanted images from NASA's library I just set up an account and searched and downloaded to my heart's content at no charge. I used a lot of that material on Mars Attacks! The Internet wasn't completely crapped up and gamed by tech companies striving to addict you, to monetize you and lie to you.

But even if the Internet wasn't widely available, there were Research libraries and Special Collections, where anyone with the credentials, or just about everyone, could go to do research. I spent a lot of time in Research Libraries and Special Collections, doing research for the movies I was working on.

A lot of what Jon Guss and Ben Rapaport have done to reveal so much has come from these same Research Libraries and Special Collections that existed when Hacker was writing.

The information was there, it was just much much less convenient, kind of how the internet is becoming. As a populizer, Hacker was very good. As a scholar, not so good.

 

[warren]

As I observed, in my opinion, he's a hack writer. Goes where the money might be. But, as correctly observed above, he probably did turn some folks onto the pipe. But, accurate research was not his forte, write quick, publish, take the money and turn to the next lucrative subject. I actually have a bit of admiration for his working style. It made him some money after all. So... a successful hack writer. I rarely disparage success.

 

[jpberg]

He never seemed curious or humble.