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

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.

Go Back