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.

Go Back

Comment