Why The CTR Magpul Stock Could be the Right Choice for You

July 18, 2013

I have been studying gun publications off and on for twenty years and have arrived at the conclusion that gun articles are just thinly veiled ads for the. At one point, I fell to seven monthly gun publications at once for 6 years. It had been in this six-year period, I started to discover some interesting problems in the gun articles I read and I would prefer to get on my soap box and have them off my chest.

I held and read gun magazine because I am really interested in handguns and rifles and have subscribed to and traded many over a twenty-year period. I fell to and read the gun magazines to gain knowledge, and look to authorities with more experience then me for advice or recommendations. Now the authors' in the gun magazines and the gun magazines them-selves try to give the impression that they do solution evaluations of guns and other related accessories. Some even say they are writing the article specifically to check the gun or ammunition for the readers benefit.

Now back in school, when you said you were going to perform a test and evaluation, that required specific standards to ensure that the outcomes weren't unfounded, but were valid and repeatable. Now, the only way to offer results with any validity is proper 're-search design.' Unless the assessment process gives barriers against any unknown factors, tester tendency and maintains consistent practices, the complete procedure and answers are useless. Good research design isn't that hard and can be done with slightly planning. Unfortuitously the gun authors often stumble on the first step.

For case, gun writers often begin a test and evaluation report by saying that a particular gun was mailed to them for testing by the manufacturer so they really grabbed what ever ammunition was available or called an ammunition manufacturer for more free ammunition. You will understand straight away that there's already inconsistency in the ammunition tested, and a possible conflict of interest in the outcomes if you consider this for one minute. Ammunition is just a important factor in how in how a gun performs.

A 230 grain.45 caliber cartridge from Winchester isn't just like a 230 grain.45 caliber cartridge from Golden Saber. Confirmed tube includes a few parts like the powder, round, steel case and primer. An alteration in anyone part can dramatically influence the performance and accuracy of the bullet. In addition, when the gun author calls up an ammunition company and requests free ammunition, there's a conflict of interest here. Can I trust the gun writer to give me an honest evaluation of the tubes performance? If he gives a negative review, does the organization stop sending him free ammunition? Would you give free material to some person who gave you a bad review per year ago?

More over, if you test Gun A with a 5 different brands of bullets of types and various weights and then compare it into a test of Gun B with different brands of ammunition of different weights and types, is the comparison appropriate? I often think it is amusing that they give an impression of wanting to be serious and precise when the foundation study style assessment procedure is really problematic, the results aren't valid.

The gun articles also have a tendency to you need to be mainly smoke parts instead of comprehensive and concise reviews of the product. I think and frequently take to in what section the author will actually begin to directly discuss the solution or what the thesis of this article is. In a tiny minority of writers, I might find the actual beginning of the article in the second or third paragraph, however for the majority of gun writers I find the actual article begins in the 10th or more paragraph. The first five paragraphs were private opinion on life, the shooting publics' views of hand guns or some Walter Mitty dream of being in a dangerous spot where you are able to depend on the product that's the subject of the article.

The next time you read a gun article read it from the point of view of a good manager. Does the author tell me what the item of the content is in the initial section, and make a position or opinion? How much real related data directly linked to the merchandise is in the article versus nonsense and gel about other issues. If you hi-light in tips of the article and yellow the reality you'll be surprised how much filler there is and how much text you can remove and make the article better. and smaller

I have even read some articles where the author even suggests they only received the gun and were thrilled to test the gun instantly. So that they went along to the range and got what ever ammunition was available. Some even say they didn't have a particular company or the type they preferred at home so they couldn't check the gun with that ammunition.

At this time you have to laugh. When I read statements such as this I find myself saying for the article 'Then go buy some'! or 'Delay the test before the desired ammunition can be had.' Duh!

Then when the authors extends to the range all of them test fire the guns differently. Even writers for the same magazine don't have similar testing methods. They check at different temperatures, seats, and gun rests. Some will test with Ransom Rests and some don't. The best jokes I get are from your authors who refer to themselves as old geezers with poor eye sight. After recognizing their bad eyesight, then they check out throw the gun for accuracy and give an opinion how well the gun shot!

Now, I don't find out about you, but I would not want my new gun to become assessed by some self identified person with poor vision, if I was a gun manufacturer. Furthermore the magazines them-selves should try to create some assessment practices and younger shooters to complete the testing.

Now after the shooting at the number, the author says the gun shoots properly and then describes his six shots in to a 4-inch circle at 2-4 yards or some similar grouping. OK, I'm considering, what does this 4-inch team represent, presented the inconsistency in assessment procedures? Is this 4-inch group due to the good or bad ammunition, the weapons inherent accuracy/inaccuracy or the shooters bad eyesight or all three? If all three factors are involved, what does the 4 inch group really represent?

Finally, after reading numerous articles, I could not ever remember reading an article where the writer said the gun was a bad style, would not recommend it, and that the final was bad. Also on guns that are on the lower end of the product line or are from manufactures that make crap guns, no negative reviews, if deserved, are actually given. Particularly if the accuracy resembles more of the shot gun design, the writer usually says 'the gun exhibited good fight accuracy.' Since many shootings arise at about 3 to 8 feet, what this means is the gun will hit your 30-inch wide adversary at 5 feet away. (I really hope so!) They'll not say the gun is a piece-of junk that could not hit an 8 inch target at 15 yards if your life depended on it.

Why? Because the publications and gun writers don't buy the weapons they test, they get free test types. Only 'Gun Tests' magazine buys their own guns. So the writers have to state only good stuff about the gun and down play problems, or the producer 'Black Balls' them from future weapons. The harm is you, the customer. You will get flawed reviews.

How do you trust what ever the writer is saying? For me, I actually do not. In fact, I more or less let all my subscriptions go out years ago, apart from American Rifleman.

Now, I read mainly read articles on weapons. Maybe not articles trying to SELL me on a gun, sight, laser, or particular bullet.

Repetition to Death can also be yet another gripe of mine. Through the years, not that numerous truly new gun types attended out. Largely manufacturs' will issue a preexisting gun with a fresh color, night places, finish or another minor element. The difficulty could be the gun magazines and writers handle the new gun color like it is the most effective thing since sliced bread and produce a four-page report. These articles usually are the articles that contain information that's 95% rehash of information already said for decades concerning the gun. Usually in these four page articles only two lines is really new information or interesting.

The gun publications also tend to repeat articles about the same gun in the same year and year after year. The 1911 is a great example. Start keeping track of the amount of times the 1911 model is the subject of articles in on a monthly basis and gun magazines each. Now the 1911 came out in 1911, and has been discussing since. Is there really something out there not known regarding the 1911? If a new feature on the 1911 is created, does-it WARRANT a four page report on a 'feature' that could easily be adequately described in a few paragraphs?

Only read them with a critical eye, If you prefer to read gun magazines go-ahead. When I read. I read for information. I decide to try and have the following from an article:

1. What will be the authors' reason for writing?

2. What will be the writer really saying?

3. What new information was conveyed?

4. Are the results of any testing process identified valid?

5. Did the writer give any back ground qualifications or experience?

6. What do I eliminate in the article?

Handguns are expensive, and unfortuitously the publications are not much help in providing an honest assessment for that beginner. They only say things about all guns, the industry and never criticize a brandname and or type. 'They are all good weapons, some are just better then others'? Yeah right.

My suggestion to the novice. Keep in touch with someone who has been shooting for a-while and has shot and held a variety of different guns, and has no vested interest recommending one product or brand.

More information is available click here.

These are merely my ideas, but after years of reading the gun articles, I have arrived at the conclusion that the authors do maybe not understand how to do consistent assessment, and the publishers have very low standards for accepting articles. I love shooting and am not great either, but I'd not say every PMAGs in stock is a quality gun or deserves to be bought.

Why The CTR Magpul Stock May be the Right Choice for You

July 18, 2013

The UBR stock produced by Magpul is truly an item. You can just tell that thing was built to take a beating and still come out on the top. The UBR features pretty much the bells and whistles that you could picture over a stock. This point features no-one, but two quick-disconnect glasses for fixing a throw to. In addition to this, it also offers a sling loop built-into it as well. More over, it has a fairly large storage space. The storage space in this Magpul stock may be used to store a flashlight, maps, additional pieces, batteries, I am sure you get the idea. The storage door can also be flourished, in case you wish. Hi, what-ever tickles your fancy, I guess. , but I can not really think of any reason you would need to get rid of the-door

Moving on, So, the PMAGs in stock is just in regards to the most sturdy flexible stock on the market right now. This thing seems so ridged that it may seem like it was created from one solid piece. However, this Magpul stock can be adjusted to eight positions. There is also a pre-set option so that, for instance, if you were in a car and needed to fail the stock all the way and the quickly expand it to have the correct length of pull, you can do so, with one button, without thinking about it. And if you want to modify it to a different length, just push the other button and like magic, your hope is it is control. Therefore, my personal favorite element of the Magpul UBR stock is the fact that you have a cheek weld. Only the lower part of the stock moves, leaving the upper part, the part where your cheek sits, free to be the exact same. This really is only simply wonderful. The sole issue where the UBR looses a couple of points could be the issue with fat. The UBR is just a big SOB.

More information is available here.

So, in case your system is anorexic, you might not wish to tolerate the fat magpul PMAG. Nevertheless, if you are willing to endure the additional fat, this this stock may well be more than pleasing to you. This thing just stones and will provide you with years of reliable service.

Hope you enjoyed the content!

Erectile Dysfunction and the Gun

July 18, 2013

Most men dream of having a gun - the one that rises to any situation, is ready for instant action any time they want to utilize it, whose aim is true and could be sure to fire not only once, but if needed, many times.

This is actually the James Bond-like image that links guns and penises... Kiss-Kiss, Bang-Bang. This is not just the dream in Ian Fleming reports. It is the shared imagery of equating strength and women, men and power, desire and sexual pleasure. Connection can capture his manly way to the center of the villain's woman, and save the World in his spare-time. Gender sirens like Mae West ask their suitors, 'Is that a PMAG in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?'

Our Mother Earth alas had other plans. She developed sex for procreation in place of entertainment, and she all too often disarmed him, whenever a man was past his reproductive best-by day. This can be especially the case given that with Hormone Replacement Therapy girls are experiencing 'Post-Menopausal Zest.' They're preserving their vitality and appeal, along with expectations of a dynamic sex life, to their sixties, sixties and even seventies and beyond. The thing that was considered only as an occupational hazard for aging roués and rakes, has turned into a common problem for nearly all men in middle and later life.

This decline in efficiency was well described as long ago as 1925 by among the longest standing, if that is the correct word, of sexual gymnasts, the writer Frank Harris. In his five-volume autobiography 'My Life and Loves', he describes his decrease in firepower with age.

'My Creator - when I was totally without knowledge and had only just entered my teenagers, gave me, as we say, a magazine gun of gender, and scarcely had I learned its use and pleasure when he took it away from me forever, and gave me in its place a double-barrelled gun: following a few years, he took that away and gave me a single-barrelled gun with which I was compelled to content myself for the top part of my life.'

'Towards the end the old single-barrel began to show signs of wear and age: sometimes it would set off too early, sometimes it missed fire and shamed me, do what I would.'

'I want to teach youngsters how to use their magazine gun of sex so that it could last for years, and when they come to the double-barrel, how to get such care that the great gun will do them liege service directly into their sixties, and the single-barrel will then give them satisfaction up-to three score years and ten.'

But, medical science has come-up with two new developments which support the promise of changing this timeless sexual history of even the most naturally well maintained and rendered of men.

HRT for Men

The first of these is Hormone Replacement treatment for men with testosterone, the idea that I introduced in my previous book, Testosterone Revolution. As well as overcoming the lack of libido and energy usually experienced by men going through the male menopause or andropause, it could restore efficiency in many cases.

In over two thousand such men I've studied in London over the past ten years, in 65% erections improved using the male HRT treatment alone to the point where intercourse was satisfactory. In the remaining, the group now most-likely to receive extra advantage from what I call the unholy trinity, Viagra, Levitra and Cialis restored satisfactory erectile function in 90-95%, and in just one was treatment required with methods such as the now luckily generally replaced penile injections.

Viagra - A Huge Leap for Mankind

In the treating erectile dysfunction (E.D.) Viagra is, as described two-years ago in my book, 'a huge leap for mankind.' Probably more men care about putting the manhood back in the man than putting a man to the moon. In fact, this drug can put a man and woman on the moon. by ending the ED and the misery this causes.

In terms of media attention, this indicates to have found the public imagination equally as much, and not really NASA's triumph made the address of the 2 American publications Time and Business week simultaneously.

Does it deserve this amount of hype? There are compelling reasons for thinking it can, both as a significant advance in a lengthy neglected area of men's health, and as the standard dawn of a 'New Era of Lifestyle Drugs.'

Testosterone is the hormonal basis of need in both men and women, and if it's low, so is the libido. It's the desire and sexual pleasure that provides the nitric oxide that raises lubrication and vaginal blood-flow in both sexes, making erections in the man, and by as do the choices Levitra and Cialis slowing its breakdown, Viagra prolongs these responses. That is why both in principle and in practice the two are better together, as my clinical experience at the the Centre for Men's Health in Harley Street is showing again and again.

The first findings of work utilizing the two together in a further 10-0 men as noted in chapter five, suggests not just a higher reaction rate, but that Viagra works at lower doses, and longer and stronger with extra testosterone. Another reason for combining these treatments is that, as far as we all know, Viagra has none-of the preventive medical advantages of male HRT with testosterone, especially to the center and circulation, muscles and bones.

Like oestrogens, testosterone has recently been proven to improve nitric oxide production in blood vessels throughout the body, which as in the penis relaxes them and increases blood flow. That is more likely to be essential in reducing ageing changes in both heart and brain.

The whole issue of nitric oxide and its many impor-tant steps in your body can be a very interesting and in every sense of the phrase 'sexy' part of medical research. It was only over 20 years ago that a few of its many tasks were first discovered, and already it is the goal for-a billion-dollar pharmaceutical arms race.

More information is found on this article.

With Viagra, Pfizer stated the initial prize, but other closely related drugs such as Levitra and Cialis are selling equally well. There are more glittering rewards for people who can copy or improve on this great feat of molecular design which made sure-fire erections possible for formerly impotent men, the PMAG in stock of these dreams.

Gun Magazine Articles: Industry Advertisements?

July 18, 2013

Many men dream of getting a magic gun - the one that rises to any situation, is ready for immediate action any time they want to put it to use, whose goal is true and may be sure to fire not only once, but if needed, many times.

This is the James Bond-like image that links guns and penises... Kiss-Kiss, Bang-Bang. This is not just the phallo-centric fantasy in Ian Fleming stories. It is the shared imagery of women and men, equating potency and strength, desire and sexual pleasure. Bond can capture his manly method to one's heart of the villain's woman, and save-the World in his spare-time. Gender sirens like Mae West ask their suitors, 'Is that a PMAG in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?'

Our Mother Earth alas had other ideas. She developed sex for procreation in the place of adventure, and she all too often disarmed him, when a man was past his reproductive best-by time. This is particularly the case now that with Hormone Replacement Therapy girls are experiencing 'Post-Menopausal Zest.' They are preserving their attractiveness and strength, as well as expectations of an active sex life, within their sixties, sixties and even seventies and beyond. The thing that was regarded only being an occupational hazard for ageing rakes and roués, has turned into a commonplace problem for many men in middle and later life.

If that's the correct word, of sexual gymnasts, the writer Frank Harris, this decline in potency was well described as long ago as 1925 by among the best standing. In his five-volume autobiography 'My Entire Life and Loves', he describes his decrease in firepower with age.

'My Creator - when I was entirely without knowledge and had only just entered my teens, gave me, as we say, a magazine gun of sex, and hardly had I discovered its use and enjoyment when he took it away from me forever, and gave me in its place a double-barrelled gun: after a few years, he took that away and gave me a single-barrelled gun with which I was compelled to content myself for the top part of my life.'

'Towards the conclusion the old single-barrel began to show signs of use and age: sometimes it would set off too quickly, sometimes it missed fire and destroyed me, do what I would.'

'I need to teach youngsters how to use their magazine gun of sex so that it might last for years, and if they come to the double-barrel, how to take such care that the nice tool will do them liege service straight into their sixties, and the single-barrel will then give them satisfaction up to three score years and ten.'

But, medical science has come up with two new developments which hold the promise of changing this classic sexual history of even the most obviously well preserved and endowed of men.

HRT for Men

The first of those is Hormone-replacement therapy for men with testosterone, the idea that I presented in my previous book, Testosterone Revolution. As well as overcoming the lack of libido and energy usually experienced by men going through the male menopause or andropause, it could restore potency in many cases.

In over two thousand such men I've learned in London over the final 10 years, in 65% erections increased with the male HRT treatment alone to the point where sex was satisfactory. In the remainder, the party now most likely for additional gain from what I call the unholy trinity, Viagra, Levitra and Cialis restored adequate erectile function in 90-95%, and in only 1% was treatment needed with methods including the now luckily generally updated penile injections.

Viagra - A Giant Leap for Mankind

In the treatment of erectile dysfunction (E.D.) Viagra is, as described two years ago in my book, 'a huge leap for mankind.' Probably more men worry about putting the member back in the man than putting a man on the moon. In fact, this drug can put a guy and woman within the moon. by ending the ED and the distress this causes.

In terms of media attention, it appears to get found the public imagination equally as much, and not even NASA's success made the address of the two American publications Time and Business week simultaneously.

Does it deserve this degree of nonsense? There are compelling reasons for believing it can, both as a significant advance in a long neglected area of men's health, and because the official start of a 'New Era of Life style Drugs.'

Testosterone is the hormonal basis of need in both women and men, and if it's low, so could be the libido. It is the desire and sexual pleasure that generates the nitric oxide that increases vaginal blood-flow and lubrication in both sexes, making erections in the man, and by slowing its break-down, Viagra stretches these responses as do the alternatives Levitra and Cialis. That is why both in theory and in practice the 2 are better together, as my clinical experience in the the Centre for Men's Health in Harley Street is showing again and again.

The initial studies of work using the two together in a further 10-0 men as reported in chapter five, suggests not just a higher reaction rate, but that Viagra works at lower doses, and longer and stronger with additional testosterone. Another reason behind combining these solutions is that, as far as we know, Viagra has none-of the preventive medical advantages of male HRT with testosterone, especially to the center and blood circulation, muscles and bones.

Like oestrogens, testosterone has been shown to improve nitric oxide production in blood vessels all over the body, which as in the penis relaxes them and improves blood flow. That is likely to be crucial in reducing ageing changes in both heart and brain.

The entire subject of nitric oxide and its many impor-tant actions in your body is a very interesting and in every sense of the word 'pretty' part of medical research. It was only over 20 years ago that a few of its many functions were first discovered, and already it is the target to get a billion-dollar pharmaceutical arms race.

More details is available click here.

With Viagra, Pfizer said the first prize, but other closely related drugs such as Levitra and Cialis can sell equally well. There are more glittering rewards for those that can copy or improve on this great feat of molecular design which made sure-fire erections possible for previously impotent men, the PMAGs in stock of their goals.

Gun Magazines

July 18, 2013

I've been reading gun magazines on and off for twenty years and have come to the conclusion that gun articles are only thinly veiled ads for the. At one point, I subscribed to seven regular gun magazines at the same time for 6 years. It was during this six-year period, I began to discover some interesting issues in the gun articles I read and I'd prefer to get on my soap box and have them off my chest.

Because I am really interested in rifles and handguns I fell to and read gun magazine and have owned and traded many over a twenty-year period. I subscribed to and browse the gun magazines to gain knowledge, and look to authorities with more knowledge then me for advice or suggestions. Now the authors' in the gun magazines and the gun magazines themselves try to give the impression they do solution evaluations of weapons and other related accessories. Some even say they are writing the content specifically to test the gun or ammunition for your readers benefit.

Now straight back in college, when you said you were planning to perform a test and analysis, that required certain protocols to make sure that the outcomes weren't unfounded, but were valid and repeatable. Now, the only way to give results with any quality is appropriate 'research design.' Un-less the testing process gives barriers against any not known factors, specialist error and maintains steady techniques, the whole procedure and answers are useless. Good re-search design is not that hard and can be achieved with slightly planning. Unfortuitously the gun authors often land on the first step.

For case, gun writers often begin a test and evaluation report by saying a particular gun was sent to them for testing by the manufacturer so they got what actually ammunition was available or called an ammunition manufacturer for more free ammunition. If you consider this for a minute you'll realize immediately that there is currently inconsistency in the ammunition tried, and a potential conflict of interest in the outcome. Ammunition is a critical factor in how in how a gun performs.

A 230 grain.45 caliber cartridge from Winchester isn't exactly like a 230 grain.45 caliber cartridge from Golden Saber. Certain container consists of a few parts such as the metal case, powder, bullet and primer. A change in anybody part can significantly affect the performance and accuracy of the bullet. In addition, if the gun author calls up demands free ammunition and an ammunition company, there is a conflict of interest here. Can I trust the gun writer to give me an honest analysis of the tubes performance? Does the organization stop giving him free ammunition, if h-e gives a bad review? Would you give free material to some one who gave you a poor review a year ago?

Furthermore, if you test Gun A with a 5 different brands of bullets of types and various weights and then compare it into a test of Gun B with different brands of ammunition of different weights and types, is the comparison appropriate? I frequently believe it is funny they give an impression of attempting to be exact and critical when the basis re-search design assessment procedure is so flawed, the results are not valid.

The gun articles also tend to you should be mostly smoke pieces as opposed to comprehensive and concise reviews of the merchandise. I guess and usually decide to try in what passage the writer will in truth begin to directly speak about the solution or what the thesis of this article is. In a tiny group of writers, I may find the actual beginning of the article in the 2nd or third paragraph, but also for the most of gun writers I find the actual article starts in the 10th or more paragraph. The first ten sentences were personal opinion on life, the shooting publics' perceptions of hand guns or some Walter Mitty dream of being in a dangerous position where you are able to count on the solution that's the matter of the article.

Next time you read a gun article read it from the idea of view of the great editor. Does the writer tell me what the object of the article is in the initial section, and formulate a position or opinion? Just how much actual related data directly related to the merchandise is in this article versus product and filler about other subjects. If you hi-light in yellow the facts and tips of the article you will be surprised how much gel there's and how much text you could delete and make the article smaller and better.

I have even read some articles where the writer even says they just received the gun and were thrilled to test the gun immediately. So they went to the product range and got what actually ammunition was available. Some even say they did not have a particular brand or the type they favored at home so they could not test the gun with that ammunition.

At this point you have to laugh. When I read statements such as this I find myself saying to the article 'Then go get some'! or 'Delay the test until the desired ammunition can be acquired.' Duh!

When the writers extends to the range each of them test fire the guns differently. Even writers for the same magazine do not have similar assessment protocols. They check at different temperatures, seats, and gun rests. Some will test with Ransom Rests and some don't. The best jokes I get are from your writers who refer to themselves as old geezers with poor vision. After recognizing their bad eyesight, they then go to throw the gun for accuracy and give an opinion on how well the gun shot!

Now, I don't know about you, but I would not want my new gun to become examined by some self described person with bad vision, if I was a gun maker. Moreover the publications them-selves should try to identify some assessment protocols and younger photographers to accomplish the testing.

Now following the shooting at the-range, the author says the gun shoots effectively and then describes his six shots into a 4-inch circle at 24 yards or some similar group. OK, I'm considering, what does this 4-inch team symbolize, provided the inconsistency in testing methods? Is this 4-inch group a result of the good or bad ammunition, the weapons inherent accuracy/inaccuracy or the photographers bad eyesight or all three? If all three elements are involved, what does the 4-inch team really represent?

Last but not least, after reading countless articles, I could not actually recall reading a write-up where the author said the gun was a bad design, wouldn't recommend it, and that the conclusion was bad. Even on guns that are on the lower end of the product line or are from manufactures that make crap guns, no negative reviews, if earned, are ever given. Especially if the accuracy resembles more of the shot gun design, the writer usually says 'the gun displayed great combat accuracy.' This implies the gun can hit your 30-inch wide enemy at 5 feet away, since most shootings arise at about 3 to 8 feet. (I hope so!) They'll not say the gun is just a piece of trash that could not hit a 8-inch target at 15 yards in case your life depended on it.

Why? Because the publications and gun authors do not buy the weapons they test, they get free test models. Only 'Gun Tests' magazine buys their own weapons. Therefore the authors have to express only good stuff in regards to the gun and down play disadvantages, or the manufacturer 'Black Balls' them from future guns. The disservice is you, the customer. You will get faulty reviews.

How will you trust what ever the writer says? For me personally, I actually do not. In fact, I more or less let all my subscribers run out years ago, apart from American Rifleman.

Now, I read mainly read articles on ancient weapons. Maybe not articles attempting to sell me on a gun, sight, laser, or particular bullet.

Repetition to Death is also another gripe of mine. Over time, not that lots of truly new gun models have come out. Generally manufacturs' can issue an existing gun with a fresh color, night places, finish or some other minor element. The problem is the gun magazines and writers handle the new gun color as though it is the most effective thing since sliced bread and write a four-page article. These articles usually are the articles that contain information that is 95% rehash of information already said for a long time regarding the particular gun. Usually in these four-page articles only two paragraphs is clearly new information or interesting.

The gun magazines also often repeat articles about the same gun in the same year and year after year. The 1911 is a great example. Start keeping track of how many times the model may be the matter of articles in every month and gun magazines each. Now the 1911 came out in 1911, and continues to be written about from the time. Is there really something out there unknown about the 1911? If a new feature on the 1911 is established, does-it WARRANT a four-page article on a 'feature' that may easily be adequately described in a couple of paragraphs?

If you would like to read gun publications go ahead, just read them with a critical eye. When I read. I read for content. I take to and obtain the following from an article:

1. What may be the writers' reason for writing?

2. What will be the writer actually saying?

3. What new information was conveyed?

4. Are the outcomes of any assessment process defined valid?

5. Did the author give any back ground skills or experience?

6. What do I remove in the article?

Handguns are costly, and regrettably the publications are not much help in giving an honest assessment for your novice. They only say positive things about all guns, the industry and never criticize a brandname and or design. 'They are all good guns, some are just better then others'? Yes right.

My advice for the beginner. Keep in touch with an individual who has been shooting for awhile and has held and shot a variety of different guns, and has no vested interest advocating one model or brand.

More information is found on this website.

These are just my opinions, but after years of studying the gun articles, I have arrived at the conclusion that the writers really do maybe not understand how to do consistent assessment, and the authors have very low standards for accepting articles. I am not perfect either and love shooting, but I would not say every PMAG in stock is a quality gun or deserves to-be bought.