Talk:Jeff Cooper

message: 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)
thread_title: Conditions Rearranged

message: 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)
thread_title: History professor?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Safety rules section and a few other changes and questions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proper version of saftey rules 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Korea not in SE Asia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Guru, qualified or not? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Most significant and enduring contributions to riflecraft? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Cooper and Hunting

message: 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)
thread_title: Rule One, Cooper in his Commentaries vs. Gunsite doctrine

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Paranoid Dementia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jeff Cooper's Expertise on Survival Retreat Topics 

message: 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)
thread_title: Marine or Colonel?

message: 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)
thread_title: New Quotes section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Safety of Condition 2 with a M1911 or the like 

message: 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)
thread_title: DOB

message: 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.Cooper, Jeff, Principles of Personal Defense, Paladin Press,  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)
thread_title:  Incorrect source for first paragraph of Color Code section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Rule 3 added comments

message: 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)
thread_title: Mel Tappan

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bren Ten 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Gunsite Gossip source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Support from Francisco Franco? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Condition 2 and safeties 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ammunition Concept