Another bad gun web site-"1945"

D

DaleA

New member
MSN.COM is my home page and I regularly see articles from a web site "1945" that discusses military hardware and guns in general. They have some interesting stuff on planes and ships, not just WWII stuff but modern stuff too and some articles about guns.

But they make mistakes.

Not awful/egregious/dangerous mistakes like another web site that was recently mentioned here (and I won't mention it again because I don't want to give it any more publicity) but just ignorant, uninformed mistakes that maybe should have been caught by a proof reader.

Today's offering on the S&W 500 revolver is what finally pushed me to mention them.

There's some awkward phrasing:

Just like Colt has improved their popular Python model to keep up with the needs of modern shooters, S&W has upgraded the 500 to do the same.

For one, Smith & Wesson recently developed the innovative “x-frame” to give you a better grip and help to handle the recoil that comes along with the immense power of this handgun.
Click to expand...

This is kind of true but I would say that the X-Frame was required to safely handle the higher pressures generated by the cartridge.

The Model 500 Magnum has a five-round capacity. It uses the Smith & Wesson .500 magnum cartridge, specifically designed to handle this high-powered pistol.
Click to expand...

Again, an awkward phrase. It would be more correct to state the pistol was designed to handle the high-powered cartridge.

And finally the real clinker in the article:

The 500 is a single-action/double-action pistol, which some people love and some people hate. It’s up to you to decide what you like, but I will say the trigger pull on the first shot is pretty different than all the follow-up single-action shots.
Click to expand...

I would claim at this point the write got confused between a single-action, double-action semi-auto pistol like a Taurus 92 and the double-action S&W 500 revolver, which is what the article is talking about.

The article can be found here:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...pc=U531&cvid=152920cfe1994d99ae2647f93c8c2566
 
I believe you've got what might be a double-edged sword there.

In general, people don't know guns *and* they don't know how to write.

Take, for instance, the use of phrases like "I will try and go to the store tomorrow"

No, you will not try "and" go, you will try TO go. "I will try TO go to the store tomorrow."

I read news stories every day. Rarely do I see one without obvious errors that a high school English student would (or rather, should) spot... and these are professional writers, supposedly.

Add in the notion that they are also writing about a topic which requires specific knowledge... there's not much chance of getting it right or coherent, and even less of getting both at the same time.
 
I've read several of their "articles" and mistakes are rampant, grammar is poor, and leaving out relevant information seems to be their stock in trade.

Both with firearms and history.

They also seem to have a habit of posing questions about "why didn't they do this???" when the answer is in the information they (intentionally or otherwise) left out.

I am not impressed with their work, and sometimes, I am irritated.

I do read some of their stuff but am now at the point where I do it only to see what they got wrong or left out, THIS time....:rolleyes:
 
and these are professional writers, supposedly.
Click to expand...

I got to thinking about this, and realized that its an example of the trap most people fall into.....

the idea that "professional" means expert, or even competent, it doesn't. All it means is that they get paid, and make at least part of their living doing it.

if you think about it this applies to about every profession. Some people are expert at it, and its what we all hope for, but reality is, some people are only good enough at their "profession" to not get fired. A management failure, usually......:rolleyes:
 
^^^ The late Ann Landers (Gussie Lederer) wrote on at least one occasion, "Remember, fifty percent of the doctors in practice graduated in the bottom half of their class in medical school."

And I think they all work at VA hospitals.
 
"I've read several of their "articles" and mistakes are rampant, grammar is poor, and leaving out relevant information seems to be their stock in trade."


And therein lies the problem. This statement is true about the vast majority of articles about anything you read on the internet these days. It seems to be written for the short attention span crowd and I guess editors just don't exist anymore.
 
This reads like a book report a high-schooler wrote the night before it was due, without having read the book.

For one, Smith & Wesson recently developed the innovative “x-frame” to give you a better grip
Click to expand...

The X-Frame is nearly 20 years old.

This new design features a rifled tube inside of the barrel, which makes it shoot even cleaner and quicker than it did in the past.
Click to expand...

I don't know what they mean by "cleaner and quicker," but it's always had a two-piece barrel.

It’s also a pretty top-heavy pistol, which gives it even more of a kick.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow this logic. The whole thing reads like a computer reading old promotional brochures and misinterpreting them.
 
I saw on an author's FB a chapter somebody had generated with an AI composer primed with the author's style. It read smoothly and correctly. Not very original, but correct.
Which I think shows there is no excuse for nonsense like the above.
 
Expecting the people looking for site hits and likes to be proficient in firearms and English composition is a bit much. Most people think more highly of their knowledge and abilities than can be supported by outside observers. I cannot even begin to enumerate the sheer number of idiotic and inaccurate statements I read on most firearms-related sites. Your quoted statement about the X-frame, for example, contain numerous non-factual items. For example, the X frame was not specifically designed to handle the power of the 500 S&W, it was an adaptation of the existing S&W revolver to handle the SIZE of the 500 S&W and 460 S&W cartridges. It has the same internal action works, and it has a standard design of the frame and crane, just bigger. In any event, I think expecting subject accuracy, good syntax and proper sentence structure coupled with an interesting and enlightening discussion of the merits of any firearm on a web site built to get people to click on it is asking a bit too much.
 
44AMP said: "
"....the idea that "professional" means expert, or even competent, it doesn't."

A "professional" is a person who works in an area of commerce where you do not. An "expert" is someone who may only have more knowledge about a subject than you do. In either case, the importance of their existence is coincident with the success accomplished by answering your question.
 
In this case the "professional" is a professional writer who recceived an assignment to write on a topic for which he is ignorant. Or the editor who is equally ignorant butchered the article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top