Lancair Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 We must remember that gun writers are in the business of making money, and a gun writer who is constantly slamming guns simply won't get work. Also, gun companies aren't likely to send a crappy specimen to a writer. It's a harsh reality. The gun companies can live without the magazines, but the mags can't survive without the support of the gun companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gameplayer Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Won't go near a gun mag other than Front Sight. With that said, I started receiving a gun mag in the mail that I didn't even subscribe to. It either goes to the VA or VFW Hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiG Lady Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 "There's a peculiarly British thing called "damning with faint praise". Some modern gun writers have that down to a tee. Reading between the lines is critical for gun reviews." Which is why I still read HANDGUNS and manage to extract obscure information from it. Especially if I happen to know the writer... then I can REALLY read between the lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) There's a peculiarly British thing called "damning with faint praise". Some modern gun writers have that down to a tee. Reading between the lines is critical for gun reviews.Not to pick on him (you can find it in any gun review, but this one is handy), but go read this quoted article on McBane's blog and try to find the subtext on the KZ45... Years ago somebody came by the forums with an observation "those guys shoot the guns... you guys actually wear them out" "If the one you have runs right, it's a fine pistol." I think I found it, what do I win? Edited February 11, 2009 by North Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Guntests was the last magazine I read that was (at the very least) not simply a bunch of whores addicted to free loaner guns (such guns were probably all hand-selected "ringers" anyway). Frontsight is an exception, of course. Turned my back on Guntests years ago for the same reasons the Alex just listed. As for the other major magazines on the news stand shelves these days, they employ writers who can't shoot and they even publish pictures of themselves using things like the "cup and saucer" two handed grip. If you are going to shoot a handgun with two hands, at least try to do it properly. The pictures are just the beginning of the stupidity I see on those pages. As for the handloading magazines, I see little new and nothing novel in them. Rather, the only data given appears to be simply reprinted from reloading manuals. And some among the mainstream writers are the ones who spawned the evil myth that "Shooting IPSC will get you killed!" - it amazes me how wide-spread that myth still is today. That would be "Gun Tests."I subscribed to it for years (well, my well-meaning father kept renewing my subscription for me as a Hogsfatherday gift), but asked him to quit. They didn't compare apples and apples in their increasingly bizarre attempt to rate guns against each other, and really were not good shooters (or knowledgeable gun guys). This forum contains far greater depth of knowledge Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intel6 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I take most articles with a big grain of salt and feel that most of the time they favor the manufacturers that buy advertising. I look at articles with a biased eye and find it funny when they are obviously hiding the truth, just read between the lines. My favorite ones are where they test a new gun and talk about how great it shoots but don't have any accuracy data. Or they talk abotu it having good "combat accuracy" and don't list any data. Or "I didn't have time to accuracy test this but it shoots good." That is just blatant crap hiding the fact the the gun in question has crappy accuracy. Another funny on was an article on a revolver in .22 Hornet. I am a Hornet nut and will buy a gun just because it is in hornet. This artical talked about how great it was and would be a great feild/varmint hunting gun and it provided a chart with some accuracy results. I looked at it and thought is certainly isn't as good as my Anschutz or T/C in Hornet but it is not bad. Then I looked at the distance they shot the groups at, 50 yards? The accuracy was crappy for fifty yards and it was obvious they were geting real bad accuracy at 100 yds and decided to make it look better by listing the accuracy for 50 yards and put the distance in small print at the bottom of the chart. Neal in AZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Most reviews are just disappointing for those who really know anything about guns and shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sac Law Man Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I too voted 5. I am not interested in reading how well a certain author can shot.. Every time I see a picture of a nice tight group with the gun positioned just outsdie the 10 ring, I am thinking to myself.. "How many holes is that gun covering up"? The other day I read an article and there was a "shoot and see" target with a nice group in the middle, however there were several black pasters on the target as well. This leads to doubt in my mind. If an author is going to test a gun for accuracy, put it in a ransom rest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Hayden Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 IIf an author is going to test a gun for accuracy, put it in a ransom rest... +1 Unless they're into the shooting games (3 Gun, USPSA, etc).. they're opinion means nothing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.E. Kelley Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 First, thank you gentlemen for the kind words; you are the litmus test for my efforts. As has been pointed out “gunwriters” must get published to eat. I have a real job. I write because I want to, not out of need. I truly lose money on most every article. I have two very good reasons for writing for Front Sight. #1. I am/we are competitors first, and as such have a different view of what a gun or piece of gear must be able to do to be included in our stables. Front Sight is THE avenue for that kind of article. #2. It is an honor to write for THE magazine that is read by those who KNOW what is what. You see, you are the reason that I write for Front Sight. Our own Kelly Neal was watching me during the interview phase of American Rifleman TV’s program covering the Heavy Metal division at the 2008 DPMS Tri-Gun. I mentioned to the camera crew and to Kelly that I am prevented from excessive embellishment (aka B.S.) as I am held to a higher standard because of his and YOUR presence. You, the readership of Front Sight is the toughest audience to please and for good reason. You are exponentially above the average gun owner in skill and knowledge. You are a tough crowd, if I can please you, I have done well. To preempt the thought that only Front Sight would accept my scribing, both Shooting USA and Shooting Illustrated have accepted my work. Now, if this damn cold ass weather would break I could get out and complete my test and evaluation of Robert Wright’s (RnR) falling rifle target and collect additional data for a more inclusive look and AR muzzle brakes. Again, thank you for the kind words. May I continue to provide work so worthy. Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I voted a nice solid 2. Most of them get the spec. sheet right that came with the gun, you know weight barrel length...etc., but there is a reason that when we talk about shooting at longer ranges or speed of what we can do something in, we ask real yardage or "Gun Writer yards"! Real time or "Gun Writer time" After readfing through most of the guys who do "pistol" testing I came to the conclution that ALL of us competitors compete against the lame, weak, and lazy. There is just no way I can shoot a 1" group at 25 yards at "extream speed" for 10 rounds. Nor can I shoot 7 rounds weak-hand in less than a second FROM THE HOLSTER and get a "nice little 2" goup" at 10 yards, and I don't know anyone who can...see WE SUCK!! KurtM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chp5 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 In addition to Patrick, I enjoy our own Duane Thomas' articles too. Other than that - don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chills1994 Posted February 11, 2009 Author Share Posted February 11, 2009 I was perusing a "gunzine" at Wally World one time. The particular issue seemed to be dedicated to all things AR. There were a couple of articles on 3 gun competition AR's. This one article was very well written, concise and not verbose. I was like, "This is something Zak Smith would write." Sure enough, I flipped back to the start of the article and there was Zak's name. I have to wonder at what point all the "little guys" out there with blog sites will actually exceed the gunzines in readership. What I was hinting at earlier was at some point the gun TV shows and the gunzines are actually doing a disservice to themselves with all of their biased reports and they will turn away readers and viewers in droves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I didn't vote because the poll asked about credibility. There are good gun writers as well as bad and it is not fair to tar them all with the same brush. If the poll starter has a problem with an individual writer or TV show put your comments in the I Hate Forum and tell us who or what you hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chills1994 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 Now... now... I didn't say I hated anyone. Ya know if I do see somebody on TV that I think is full of it, if I have some time to kill, like while sorting brass or clipping my toenails, I will at least watch what the dude has to say just for the sake of being entertained. Definitely not for any educational value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-ManBart Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 There are a couple of guys that I honestly think know what they're talking about, have valid reasons for their opinions and seem to call it like they see it. A good percentage of those guys post here The other thing I've noticed is that some of the writers know a lot about one particular niche and not so much about others. If you pat attention to that you can quickly decide whether any one particular article is worth paying attention to. For example, I once read an article by Mike Venturino about Single Action Army forcing cones and cylinder dimensions. I didn't quite understand why my USFA SAA in 44-40 was as accurate as it is, but reading that article turned the lightbulb on and it quickly made all the sense in the world. I guess that goes back to knowing the source of any information before deciding if it's worth paying attention to. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konkapot Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Voted a zero; there are obviously exceptions to the rule. A well known "writer" came to this very forum not too long ago. Was asking about a particular match.......wanted to know what the weather was like, how the stages were, etc. He was writing an article about that match, but had not been to the match, either as a competitor or to write the article. He wanted info from people who had been.........that info would then have gone into "his" article. He was sent packin'. Still active on this forum with free advice.......just doesn't ask people to write his articles for him.......at least not here. In general, a gunwriter needs to be an active participant in *any* firearms discipline......not necessarily world champion......just an active competitor. FY42385 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Next, we ought to do "how much credibility do you give people on shooting forums". Naaaah...I think this had run it's course. CLOSED - Admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts