Forum: Author Hangout

These are some big money companies and they aren't going to throw money at an author who will only sell a few hundred copies.

If it was something like 'Don Pendelton' and the Mack Bolan series, there were more than a few hundred copies sold.

If it was something like 'Don Pendelton' and the Mack Bolan series, there were more than a few hundred copies sold.

Maybe Jerry Ahern?

He started in the early 1980's, and such speculation about his writings had been floating around since he first started writing. Almost all of his books would qualify as "gun porn", and he would go on and on about small obscure (but real) companies. And he was also a weapons consultant.

His best known series is The Survivalist, and They Call Me The Mercenary (which ironically is written both by him, and Axel Kilgore, one of his pen names).

And no, you do not need to make big money to get product placement money. Just enough of a following in a genre that a company wants to reach.

I suppose it's not impossible, but I would still be skeptical of anyone here claiming to personally know a professional author at that level.

I have a friend who is an author. He has been for almost 20 years, and is known among horror readers. Nowhere near NYT levels, but many would recognize his name.

And he has mentioned he has gotten what amounts to "kickbacks" for including references in his works. Basically free products, including a 3 day 2 night stay at a SE USA resort after he mentioned it in one of their works. But for him, it was all in response, he wrote about the resort in a book, they comped him in thanks. Same with the products (although I do believe a few were donated before he wrote).

And there are companies that specialize in connecting authors with companies that want product placement. Most are really nitch placements though, and placement depends on the average number of copies sold for previous works in the genre.

And unless you are a major author, that is normally how those deals work. No cash, but products. "Write about liking our Yorkshire Gold tea in your book, and we will send you a case of it". Or "Thank you for including our product 'Swedish Penis Pumps' in your book, as a thank you we are sending you one free of charge".

Some also just do it because of the "porn" aspect of dropping name after name into a story, or because that is part of the joke (ie: Josie & the Pussycats movie).

People on SOL's forum tell only the gospel truth.

Sorry for the delay - I've only just got back from doing aerobatics on my pink elephant - but I can absolutely confirm that assertion.

AJ

I recall part of that thread. Something about which would arrive first: the sound or the bullet.

I recall part of that thread. Something about which would arrive first: the sound or the bullet.

Yes, that was my thread. I'm sure it had thread drift, but I don't remember it drifting to how much technical information to "dump" on the reader. But maybe that was the thread.

There was a thread where the OP was asking about how much detail to include, but IIRC, that thread was more general and not focused on technical information.

I think that is the one I was thinking about.

I recall part of that thread. Something about which would arrive first: the sound or the bullet.

That should be obvious, the sound of the bullet.

With the rare exception when the person is using a subsonic round, at which they would appear to happen at almost the same time.

The bullet and the sound of the bullet (like a whip crack) would happen at the same time, followed by the sound of the shot (depending on distance). I literally have heard hundreds of thousands of rounds fired a few feet over my head, and it always drives me crazy when an author tries to describe it as a "whoosh", or some other similar sound.

The Seattle (Washington) NBA Basketball team used to be the SuperSonics. Named for fast aircraft, not bullets.

Not cartoon hedgehogs?

AJ

a video game hedgehog

SIGH!

a video game cartoon hedgehog

AJ

Nearly all modern rifle rounds bigger than a .22lr are super-sonic at least at the muzzle. Even my .30-30 hunting rifle is super sonic.

For something with a sub-sonic round in a rifle that is bigger than .22lr you would need to go back to 19th century period loads when they were still using black powder in cartridges rather than modern smokeless powder.

True, in general, most modern rifle rounds are supersonic and most .22lr rifle rounds are supersonic as well. There are some specially designed subsonic rifle rounds designed for quiet operations like .300 Whisper and the 220 gr .300 AAC Blackout. However, most subsonic rounds above .22 are designed for handguns, and you get some crossover long arms that use pistol rounds with most of them using subsonic 9mm rounds for less recoil or less noise with the 9x39mm being the most common in this regards with many rifles designed for that round in the last 25 years. Most subsonic rounds are rimfire cartridges without a shoulder, thus the actual bullet and case diameter are the same.

The main reason most modern hunting rifles are supersonic is because they're designed for hunting big game and the hunters want a bullet with the higher kinetic strike a supersonic round carries to the target, especially with the larger calibres.

BTW: There is sometimes a noticeable difference in the sound of the crack of a supersonic round passing nearby due to the calibre and type of round it is. The variation is rarely much, and most people can't tell the difference.

The variation is rarely much, and most people can't tell the difference.

I doubt most have ever had a chance to actually hear this happen. I have yet to meet a Marine who is not familiar with it, because of how we operate our rifle ranges. But most in the Army I have met have never heard this.

We once pulled a prank on a bunch of boots at my first duty station. We told them they were "pulling butts" at the pistol range, and had them lay behind the small berm below the targets. Then the Gunny and 4 others fired 10 rounds each well up in the air, and yelled out to them to "spot the rounds". None had noticed that the targets were not new, and at about then the CO (as arranged) came out and told the Gunny he should know that pulling butts for pistols was no longer required.

It was funny as hell for the next weeks, hearing those guys talking about having pistol rounds fired just over their heads. As far as I know nobody ever told them it was just a prank, and they probably still believe it was real to this day.

I doubt most have ever had a chance to actually hear this happen.

True. I doubt you'll find many people in a situation where the rounds passing by are very different to the rest. However, I once made the mistake of accepting the request to help out at a rural rifle range.

Like most rural Australian rifle ranges this one was built shortly after WW1 with the intent the locals would keep up their shooting skills in case of further need of good shooters. The ranges were built on the cheap and were simply flat stretches with a dirt backstop put up just outside of town. In most cases they took some council owned land then make it perfectly flat by using a bulldozer to push the dirty to the end of the range to make the back stop. Then they paced off firing lines from where the targets were set just before the back stop. Sometimes they dug a trench for range staff just in front of the targets, sometime the trench was just behind the targets, and sometimes the staff were behind the backstop.

On this range the trench was in front of the targets with targets about a metre or so behind the trench. Depending on the type of shoot the range staff either marked each shot or each set of shots. In either case, they waited until the range officer at the firing line gave the all clear on the radio before standing up to leave the trench, walk to the targets, and mark the holes with red dots. Normally all the rifles being used on the firing line were of the same calibre group - under .300, .300 to under .500, .500 and up.

Anyway, on the day I was helping in the trench they had a small group of shooters so they had them all shoot at once to get it all done early as the nearby pub didn't open the bar until after they were finished on range days. Anyway, as the firing line was setting up we walked down to the trench, and the regular local showing this poor visitor the ropes set me up in the middle of the line. As he did he said, "You'll get a treat today. Listen to the rounds going by." I had no idea of what he was talking about until later.

For some reason I never got told the shooters fired each round in order. Thus position one fired then position two as soon as one fired and so on. The result was you if you were at the line it was a series of bangs as the rifles went off, but at the trench end three hundred metres down range you heard a couple of round go by before the mode distant bangs were heard.

When the first set was fired I could hear a slight difference in the sound of the cracks as they went by, but I could never clearly state the difference in the sound, only that they were different. As we were marking the shots for the first set the local told me I was sitting at the spot where I had the .22 firing on one side and the .303s on the other side. A sat the other way round for the next set of shots, just to see if it was my ears, but there was the same difference. the best I can say is it seemed the .22 had a slightly higher pitch, but I'm not sure what it was. The local told me he sometimes heard a difference in the sound when another local was firing his WW1 .50 cal anti-tank rifle while the rest were firing their .303s. He also said he could tell a mild difference between a pointed round and a flat faced round - he was right on the others, so I take his word on that.

Later in the day they closed up to let the few guys who had legal pistols have their go, and they didn't have the crack of the rifles. Often you couldn't hear the round for the sound of the gun itself - but that was at twenty metres.

This was way back before the crazies got the government to disarm the people to leave them at the mercy of the armed criminals.

I've seen a US military range built something like that, but the targets were in the trench on very tall stands that allowed the targets to be lowered into the trench, marked and then raised back into position for shooting.

I've seen that arrangement at a fully commercial site. However, about 99% of the Australian rural ranges were small communal operations with a budget of nothing except some volunteer work. Thus they had the bare minimum to do the job as they couldn't afford to maintain any real hardware, let alone buy it. A target of paper stretched over some wood frames was all they had.

A lot of the ranges closed as the regular shooters aged and died and no new blood volunteered to keep them running. Then the government screwing the people over by disarming them caused many more to close. There are few rifle ranges still in operation today.

I've seen a US military range built something like that, but the targets were in the trench on very tall stands that allowed the targets to be lowered into the trench, marked and then raised back into position for shooting.

This allowed range personnel to mark targets without stopping shooting across the whole range.

They also had disks on long poles they could hold up in front of the target to make the impact point more visible to the shooter on the firing line.

If someone managed to miss the target completely, they would wave the disk back and forth across the target a couple of times.

This is the kind of range I ran for 3 years. Known as a "KD Range", for Known Distance. 200, 300, 500, and 600 yard firing lines.

My range was built back in 1911 when the base was the first Marine Boot Camp on the West Coast. And it was built for the .30-06 M1903 Springfield, so it was the last in the Marines that still had a 600 yard line.

But the funny thing is if you watch an old movie like "Sergeant York", a KD range is run almost the exact same way today as it was 100 years ago.

On YT there is a clip called "sargent york on the range", and the way it was run then (including spotting disks and paddle scores) is no different today.

While we only qualify at 200, 300, and 500 yards (meters), if we had extra rounds at the end we would let the shooters go back to the 600 yard line and blow off the extra rounds. The only ranges that had more distant firing points were those set up for sniper training.

But the problem for many of us writing a story is how much detail do we put in? If we leave too much out, then the "purists" scream at us for leaving out facts. If we give to many details, then those not interested scream at us for being boring.

I tend to try and find a medium between the two most times. Giving enough information to keep those not interested entertained, as well as letting those more knowledgeable know I am not just making things up.

It can be a difficult line to find. Myself, I only tend to get annoyed when somebody "speaks out of their ass", and basically makes things up because that is how they think it should be rather than doing at least minimal research.

describe it as a "whoosh"

The only thing I remember sounding like a whoosh was when my unit was being shot at by a battery of our own 105's. They'd laid their guns in literally 90 degrees off, and instead of shooting at THEIR range, they were shooting at the range I was at.

Came out of the range control tower without touching a rung, grabbed the radio on the back of the jeep, and hollered 'Check Fire, Check Fire, Mike Sixty range, we're getting incoming artillery'. Guys in range control went, what? Battalion commander took the mike from me. "This is Colonel (I don't remember) at the Mike Sixty range. We are receiving incoming live artillery rounds downrange, and they're walking them in on my position." Rest of us were about ready to dive into the creek.

You could see and hear the rounds flying overhead. They were like a 'whoosh', then BLAM! times three.

You could see and hear the rounds flying overhead. They were like a 'whoosh', then BLAM! times three.

Yea, have had that... is kind of a hard sound to describe.

One of our common field training areas at Lejeune was in between the firing point and impact area for a long distance artillery range. I remember my first evening there and hearing that sound, and wondering what it was.

"Oh, that's arty going overhead" they told me. Was nerve wracking at first, but got used to it after a bit.

More annoying however was when the AH-1 COBRAs wanted to use their night fire range. Impossible to sleep with them firing their 20mm cannons until 2 in the morning.

You could see and hear the rounds flying overhead. They were like a 'whoosh', then BLAM! times three.

Yea, have had that... is kind of a hard sound to describe.

One of our common field training areas at Lejeune was in between the firing point and impact area for a long distance artillery range. I remember my first evening there and hearing that sound, and wondering what it was.

"Oh, that's arty going overhead" they told me. Was nerve wracking at first, but got used to it after a bit.

More annoying however was when the AH-1 COBRAs wanted to use their night fire range. Impossible to sleep with them firing their 20mm cannons until 2 in the morning.

You were lucky they weren't doing it with A-10s.

Nothing quite like BRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

to see those jets come in low at full speed and then visibly slow down when they fire that insane Gatling canon.

Did you know the early attempts at firing from the plane's wings shot the plane down because it went faster than the bullets?

In any case I'd need to see a cite for that.

Actually, I can't find anything to cite what I was thinking. I had heard it was when they first tested it, maybe WW1. When I couldn't find it I thought maybe it was that they shot the propeller off. But I only found articles explaining how they shoot between the propellers. But I did find two articles in more recent times where a jet was hit by it's own bullets.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a27967/the-fighter-plane-that-shot-itself-down/

In 1956, the Grumman aircraft corporation was testing its new fighter, the F-11 Tiger, off the coast of New York state. The pilot fired a long burst from its guns and moments later suffered mysterious, catastrophic damage that caved in the windshield and mortally wounded the engine. What happened? The pilot had shot himself down.

and

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/04/dutch-f-16-takes-cannon-fire-from-itself/

The Netherlands' Defense Safety Inspection Agency (Inspectie Veiligheid Defensie) is investigating an incident during a January military exercise in which a Dutch Air Force F-16 was damaged by live fire from a 20-millimeter cannon—its own 20-millimeter cannon. At least one round fired from the aircraft's M61A1 Vulcan Gatling gun struck the aircraft as it fired at targets on the Dutch military's Vliehors range on the island of Vlieland

No, it was the British Navy, and being Brits, they didn't have to pay attention to silly things like conservation of energy and such crap.

Which is why in the days of wooden warships a 'broadside' was actually a ripple, not 'all cannons together' as the recoil would have wreaked the ship.

From my reading of how the ships fought back then the main reason for the ripple style firing was to do with aim. Unlike what Hollywood shows, the majority of battles were conducted by crossing in front or behind of the enemy ships so you could fire at their whole length and their fire was restricted to their bow or stern chaser guns which were smaller than the main guns. Thus the target was a lot smaller and harder to hit.

When engaging the enemy the captain would do his best to get his ship broadside on across the bows of the enemy ship and then open fire with the command for the gunners at each gun to 'fire as your sights bear' which meant the gunner was ready behind the loaded cannon ready to fire his gun when he could see the enemy ship was in his sights. Usually only one or two guns had the enemy ship in their sights at a time, so when you add in the slight physical delay of the aim and fire sequence there was a delay in firing which created the ripple effect. Since they were used to such a process it was continued in all actions. In the better managed ships the gunnery officer walked down the line and ordered the gunners to fire when he was happy with the aim.

When a broadside action was happening the captain would often designate a specific target on a ship and the gunners would fire as their sights came on the target, or when the gunnery officer was happy they were on target and ordered them to fire.

In short, the ripple fire was all about targetting the right spot and not anything to do with recoil at all.

Unlike what Hollywood shows, the majority of battles were conducted by crossing in front or behind of the enemy ships so you could fire at their whole length and their fire was restricted to their bow or stern chaser guns which were smaller than the main guns.

Called 'Crossing the T' and was the epitome of naval tactics. I believe the last reported time was the Battle of Surigao Strait (Leyte) in 1944.

The Japanese should have known better, having done the same to the Russian in 1906 during the Battle of Tsushima (Russo-Japanese War).

Sounds reasonable until you go aboard such a ship and duck your head because the gun decks were not exactly spacious.

That only applies to the between deck guns, and there were far more ships with only top deck guns on board. Yes, in the larger ships with multiple gun decks they had to provide target orders to the gunners before the battle or via runners during the battle. In the smaller ships with only top deck guns it was common for the gunnery officer to pace behind the guns issuing orders to the gunners as required; well, that was the case according to the diaries, journals, and reports I'd read about the issue.

The two main reasons the guns were only 'run out' when about to engage an enemy were: (1) the ship handled better with the weight of the guns fully inboard, (2) being fully inboard gave the crews room to load the guns before running them out as the guns were not kept loaded.

They also needed the space in front of the canon to load it.

which was the point I was making. Thanks for detailing the facts for those who weren't fully aware the guns were muzzle loaders.

The scene in question involved a cowboy getting his horse shot out from under him.

They would happen at about the same time.

Your classic "cowboy weapons" were almost always black powder, even the cartridges. And as such, were sub-sonic. So to have any accuracy, they would have been required to be fired very close, so there would have been very little difference in bullet and report.

I know with modern supersonic rounds, at 200 meters there is barely a difference, not enough to really know which came first (other than simply by knowing). But at 500 meters, it was a large difference and you clearly hear the bullet before you hear it being fired.

A good author who knows period guns would know this, and therefore instead describe it visually. The rider sees a cloud of dense white smoke rise from behind a bolder, and a moment later his horse screams, shot through the chest. Only then, would they hear the shot as the horse was falling to the ground.

Technical detail added to a story that doesn't support the story is a waste of words

In the paragraph about the motorcycle, it wasn't necessary. But it did add color to the story. I believe that's what the author was after. Or maybe to make it more real. Earlier he was talking about a station in London's underground with statistics on how many people used it in a year and how many would be blown up if the bomb went off.

A few pages later, the MC went into a room and got his weapons. Very technical about the pistols, rifle, ammo, knife, body armor, etc. I sort of skimmed it. But later when he killed his 16 targets, all the weapons were used. The knife was not only used to slit people's throats, but he threw it to sever the trigger wire of a suicide vest the woman was about to explode. Realistic? It's a thriller.

As to being technically accurate, the body armor was flexible but hardened when the bullet hit it. I have no idea if that body armor even exists. Again, I just went with it waiting to see what happened next.

But this author goes into a lot of detail. He's either very knowledgeable or does a lot of research or has a team of experts (or makes up a lot of crap to suit the story).

but yes, technically it exists.

Yeah, the author called it liquid body armor. I wasn't sure if I remembered it right and I didn't want to go back to check, so I called it flexible. That's the stuff.

As to being technically accurate, the body armor was flexible but hardened when the bullet hit it.

10-20 years ago "liquid" or "kinetic" body armor was all the rage in fiction (John Birmingham loved the stuff). If you look through a lot of fiction from that time period, it seemed to be everywhere.

But sadly, it never matched the hype, and is now a largely forgotten period of time. I just did a look, and saw some articles about it in around 2012-2015 or so, and it remains as impossible and "in development" today as it was back then.

Then again, I've seen Tom Clancy also dive into seemingly overly complex descriptions at times, too,

That was my point for starting this thread. Some people may not like it, but it seems to be the status quo for traditionally published authors, at least for those writing thrillers which is what I read.

I don't think they do it to add words. I don't think they do it to sound smart. I think it makes the story more real. I once read that instead of the character giving another character a flower, to make it a specific flower, like a rose or maybe even a red rose.

I think what's important is HOW the author provides the detail. In the paragraph I included, it wasn't a list of technical data. He included it in the flow of the action. Now the part where he was talking about the weapons, for me that was more boring so I skimmed it.

Then again, I've seen Tom Clancy also dive into seemingly overly complex descriptions at times, too, in some of his novels. But again, I think they were all factually accurate at least.

Here is the irony of his writing.

Most of what he wrote about at the time was classified "Secret" or higher. He is simply a very gifted analyst, and was able to work it out from combining multiple sources together and figuring out what was being hidden.

When Red October came out, he threw the US Sub community into a panic, wondering who had leaked so much classified information. He then showed how he took something from an article here, and an article there, and figured it out.

He was also an avid wargamer, even playing segments of Red Storm Rising to ensure that the scenario was actually workable. But he also wrote his books for the avid military buff and wargamer, never expecting them to become huge hits. His "dream sales" figure for Red October was 5,000 books. He never expected the 45k sales, and the contract being sold to Putnum (over 2.5 million units sold) because his small military oriented publisher could not handle the quantity being requested.

the price would be useful for those otherwise unfamiliar.

He did it with:

For most, this was an expensive toy that, fully racked out, would set you back about twenty grand.

Tonight, it was simply Robie's ride to work.

So he snuck in the price and, at the same time, differentiated the assassin from the everyday rich guy.

btw, his motorcycle helmet contained night vision capabilities.

For you weapons nuts, his arsenal was:

H&K UMP .45 ACP with 30-round mag box. (I think this is a rifle)
Twin M11s, each with 10-millimeter with laser sight (I think 2 pistols)
German-made KM2000 combat knife
Two M84 stun grenades

Though he did make a mistake here. the P229-M11 isn't available in 10MM out of the box. That said, there are plenty of custom gun shops out there capable of re-chambering a rifle or pistol for different ammo.

My fault. I wrote it as a short-cut. The actual line in the novel is:

But just in case, there were twin M11s, each chambered in ten-millimeter with a laser sight built under the barrel.

So I guess it was chambered for 10mm (I didn't know that meant it was modified).

When the cloud of dust settled, the rabbit looked around and then ran off.

I bet your NCO had a few words to say about the accuracy of that fire.

Sorry, but if I ever get around to writing another scene of troops in basic training I've just got to steal that story for inclusion, it's just way too good to let it slide off into oblivion.

I've just got to steal that story for inclusion,

I saw the same thing happen when we were doing an annual qualification, only it was with a duck in the pond NEXT to the targets.

Oh, and I omitted one detail from MY story. There was a deer running across the range that my troops were trying to hit with the M-60 (and missing pathetically). First three artillery rounds landed EXACTLY on top of that deer.

Ok, my rifle range story from basic training.

My father's tale from WW2 is:

At one stage we were taken out to the Rifle Range at Enoggera for target shooting. The rumour had gone around that the best marksmen were to be singled out for sniper duties (snipers were not considered good insurance risks), so it was remarkable how everyone's marksmanship suddenly deteriorated.

The rifle shoot was conducted at a number of targets, over varying distances with 10 shots at each target. One of Kanga's targets showed 15 good hits. Everyone was shooting at someone else's target, and I guess Kanga must have trod on too many corns recently. I may have been on the mound next to him, but he couldn't blame me. I was shooting at Honey's target.

edit to add: Most of these guys used .22s on a regular basis to shoot running rabbits for food - so most were decent shots.

Everyone was shooting at someone else's target

Well, here's another story. The targets were held up on wood frames. More than one person aimed at one leg of the frame to tear it apart so that the target would fall.

If you don't care about the size of your audience, then there is no such thing as too much technical detail.

I'm not sure I agree with that. If the reader starts skimming, there's probably too much technical detail or too much description or too much something.