Are gun mag editors ......dolts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lavan

New member
I'm personally SICK of gun articles where the various authors go out to test a gun and then put some stupid disclaimer in like, "unfortunately I picked up the wrong bag and didn't take the ammo I wanted for this test."

or

"We had good intentions, but the weather was really awful. However we did our best and expect you to draw some conclusions from our faulty test."

This has gone on for years. From forgetting to bring equipment or ammo to making excuses for an obviously defective gun, it just galls me.

If I were the editors, I'd send crap like this back for revision. :mad:

Then (not as errors....but still) I'm a bit put off by accuracy evaluations that state the group that covered a football field should nevertheless be quite adequate for many defensive purposes..

:D
 
It's true that I can't recall reading a gun writer who was likely to be in the running for a Nobel Prize or a Pulitzer. But I think the OP might be engaging in a bit of hyperbole. I really can't recall anything as outlandish as he suggests.
 
I can't recall anything as egregious as the "Forgot my ammo bag" example, but I have certainly encountered reviews of the "We had good intentions, but the weather was really awful. However we did our best and expect you to draw some conclusions from our faulty test" variety.

Usually they take the form of a report with photos of really lousy "groups," followed (or preceded) by layers of excuses as to why the author's best efforts didn't live up to the gun's obvious potential.

I'm sure we could ALL retire in comfort if we each had a dime for every review in which the writer has commented that the gun turned in great accuracy "If I did my part."
 
Gun magazine(s)...

I read the wide-spread gun publications on occasion. I bought & read them more in the 1980s/1990s, pre-internet.
They are a value for the articles from writers like Leroy Thompson, Massad Ayoob, Clint Smith & Dave Spaulding.
I don't put too much stock in the weapon reviews or T&Es.
I recall how one well known gun magazine about Glock duty pistols used "stock footage" print ads of uniformed officers with the HK USP, :confused:.

I've also read how some columns were rehashed/copied nearly word for word, :rolleyes: . I guess these publishers or editors think gun owners/license holders/armed professionals have memory problems or toss out the printed mags after a few weeks.

Id add that the photography & displays are top-notch in some publications. Also, the quality of the writing/reviews have improved greatly since the 1980s.

Clyde
 
The actual articles in the gun rags really don't matter much to me. I subscribe to them because I like to look at the pretty gun pictures while watching Monday Night Football! The pictures help my fantasies flourish. Keep the gun mags coming, as far as I'm concerned!
 
generally speaking gun writers have a deadline to meet for article submission. I don't know the exacts on how this works but, if writer A is told to do a review of the usual 1911 tripe....and that its due at point X, I would figure the right ammo, a descent selection of ammo and a contingent rain day at the range would be part of the planning.

it seems a lot of gun writers have poor ammo selection, perpetual rain, sleet, high wind, and bitter cold; yet they never get a lemon of a gun. at least somebody is doing their homework. :D
 
I have to agree with the OP.
I do not remember which gun but in Gun Digest a few months ago there was an piece where the author stated he forgot the ammo he wanted to test in that particular gun and had to use what they sold at the range.
I have seen many where weather was an issue.
Rain, wind, cloudy, ect....
MHO is if the weather is an issue, reschedule.
You are there to give an accurate report on your findings; well and help sell a product.
 
Funny, yet very true....

Talk about gun publications reminds me of a article I read in the early 1990s.
A retired police detective(who got a PhD) was writing a glowing review of a well known firearm brand & then stated how he "preferred" using open bolt style weapons over other models. The fact that he was a paid company advisor/LE sales rep, didnt have anything to do with it, :rolleyes: .
After that bit, I pretty much quit reading/following that gun-writer/firearm authority.

Clyde
PS; Even the gun magazine's editor took issue with the ex-cop's claims. :D
 
Gun magazines used to be worthless. Can't remember the last time I bought one. It sounds like they haven't improved.
 
For decades, many magazines have been well known for their pictures more than the written word. National Geographic comes to mind... :rolleyes:

It seems like that is still going strong in the 21st century. Some things never change. It's not called gun eye candy for no reason.
 
In defense of gunzines (this is rare for me!) they do have deadlines, and that can affect tests. If a new gun is to be tested and the deadline won't allow all the testing the writer might want to do, he may well fire fewer rounds or use ammo other than he wanted. The alternative would be to let the article slip a month, which means his paycheck slips, too.

But that doesn't mean gunzines get forgiven for stuff like reporting a group at 25 yards when the target is pictured and clearly marked "25 feet", or the stories that tell how good and reliable a gun is, then casually mention that the first 3 guns they tested wouldn't work and had to be sent back until they got one that could be fired.

Jim
 
I ALWAYS welcomed the incongruous when I was associate editor for American Rifleman magazine.

My favorites were the articles that reviewed a new rifle, but went into GREAT depths as to why the new rifle wasn't nearly as good as the author's 75-year-old 1911, which which his granpappy had killed Nazi prototypes in World War I.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
I can't recall anything as egregious as the "Forgot my ammo bag" example...
Click to expand...
I can. There were at least two examples I read, just this past summer. The magazines are packed right now, so I can't look up issue numbers; but they were in Handloader and (possibly) Rifle.

The one I recall in Handloader was, quite literally, "I grabbed 6 boxes of ammo... but it was from the wrong stack." :rolleyes:

I believe the author did apologized, promise further testing in another issue, and swear to give himself more time to beat deadlines in the future.

Writers are people.
People make mistakes.
And, readers make mistakes, by letting the writers believe that they're gods. ;)
 
In the past I used to subscribe to gun magazines and look forward to each issue. I can't say if it is because of the internet or just me getting crotchety but I rarely buy a gun magazine any more.

The only time I will buy one is when there is an article on a specific firearm which I am interested in. Even then I am only looking for the facts. I skip the writer's opinion about reliability, handling, etc. Once in a while I will buy a magazine for the photography.
 
Oh the 1990s...

In the early/mid 1990s(pre-internet), I read a gun press item that suggested gun owners/license holders subscribe to magazines or buy the books to document where they learned a tactic or gun related point(before a lethal force event).
It's not bad advice when you consider it, but with today's web services & youtube.com videos it's somewhat dated.
 
Here's the deal... automotive journalists have this same problem... but this also goes for anything reviewed these days from camera equipment, mountain bikes, etc.

If you tear the NEXT BIG THING apart, there's a chance that the manufacturer may not let you have their next product to review--or even stonewall you from ever dealing with them again. They also pressure you if something is defective not to report it, but rather send you a brand spanking new one from the factory that has had every flaw and imperfection fixed and looked over--good luck getting the same treatment if you're Joe Customer.

I think gun reviews are mostly trash for this reason, and the same reason I'm leery of automotive reviews. I tried to get honest input on several guns I've bought over the past few months by researching on the internet and I've found that gun reviewers could put lipstick on a pig and make her look like the brunette from the Robin Thicke video.
 
I've failed to see mention of the cost of these magazines. When I travel, I liked to grab a G&A or other similar magazine to read on the trip. I stopped buying them when the cost came close to $10 after tax and this was for a magazine that is 80% paid advertisement. I feel that is too much for too little.
 
As far as I'm concerned, the only information I really want in a gun review is the following:

Caliber
Size HxWxL
Weight
Materials used: Polymer, composite, Steel (grade steel would be good), Aluminum, etc.
Mfg process: MIM, Investment Cast, Forged, etc.
Capacity
Rated +P, ++P
Action: DA/SA, DAO, SAO, Striker, as well as a brief description about how the gun operates.
Surface treatment / finish, rust/corrosion resistance and scratch resistance
Malfunction details for 300 rounds fired

What I really don't care to read about:
Accuracy - way too subjective and dependent upon the shooter
What the trigger feels like: I already know it'll feel like crap unless it is a custom gun or had work done to it.

Gun writers tend to drone on about a bunch of nothing when reviewing a gun, but rarely do they ever provide the information I really want. That's why firearms forums, such as this one, are important when it comes time to spend money on a new piece of machinery.
 
Last edited:
Left handers are right....

Another major gripe I have(as a left handed shooter) is that many gun press articles only show or display the firearm from one side. :mad:
A few gun writers or authors(correctly in my view) include pictures of the gun from the sides, the rear(sight picture), maybe the front & the grip/trigger guard area.
It's good to know if you can fire or use it with either hand. Or if you can shoot the firearm with gloves or in different conditions.

Showing pictures of targets & ammunition to me is pointless too. To T&E a weapon is fine, but the reader is not there. Different shooters have different levels of training or marksmanship.
Gun writers or authors should be honest & state if they have malfunctions or problems related directly to the weapon(not a bad after market magazine or reloaded test ammunition).
Many US gun magazine writers should be realistic & practical. I read a major gun magazine where the writer stated the Guncrafters .50GI could be used for sworn LE work. :rolleyes:
I highly doubt any working cop in CONUS would be rolling around with a .50GI caliber SAO pistol or even get authorization from a sheriff/chief/SAC.

Clyde
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top