Rifle Mag article on the 99 Savage [Archive]

KYCaster

08-06-2005, 01:26 AM

This may belong in the rants section but you guys started it here so I'm blaming it on you.
"Rifle" and "Handloader" are just the most recent victims of a downward trend in the gun rags. Since they became available off the rack at Krogers, they've been on a downhill slide that seems to be gaining momentum monthly. I guess that's what happens when you try to appeal to the masses.
I haven't paid for a "Guns & Ammo", "Shooting Times", "Handgunner", "American Handgunner" or "Gunworld" in many years, and the few times that I've seen what's in them I consider it money well saved. The last time I bought "Guns" was because the cover showed a new Keltec .223 rifle and promised a thourough test of it. Their test consisted of a couple of half page pictures and a page and a half of text that ammounted to "I got this rifle from Keltec and shot a box of ammo through it." No useful info at all. The same issue had an article by Mike Venturino, apparently a regular contributor. It had a picture of him reclining behind his desk and six or eight column inches of text about the best way to approach a gun show. Now, I respect Mike for his knowledge of BPCR and he often branches out to subjects of interest to me, but I don't want to take money out of my pocket just to hear him chat about gun shows. If he will come to my house I'll give him all beer he can hold and chat with him till the cows come home, but I'm not going to buy the mag to get a one sided conversation.
The entire issue had two articles that ran more than one page of real text and nothing more than three pages. The best thing I can say about "Guns" is Ichiro Nagata is the best photographer in the buisness. He could probably make a Webley MkV look good if he tried!
When I was a lad, just a little late for Jack O'conner and Elmer was getting a running start, "Guns & Ammo" hired Jan Libourel as Editor in Chief. He may have been a great journalist, but he didn't know as much about guns as I did, but unlike me, he married the publisher's daughter. Thus began the era of "Top Ten Handguns for Self Defense". Now he's at "Gun World" and the only editorial of his that I read was a rant about the new British ownership of the gun rags(Guns & Ammo). He still uses the "Top Ten" theme two or three times a year. I can't help but wonder if his FIL sold the mag out from under him or if it was a particularly nasty divorce.
Well I could go on all night. I call it the "Family Circle" phenomenon. When I'm sitting in the Dr's office and the cover catches My eye I spend most of an hour trying to find the article featured on the cover and then it's just a little blurb on page 86 under the half page ad for something I don't need and every article that's more than a half page is broken down with sub-headings because the average reader's attention span can't handle three hundred words it just makes my blood pressure go outta sight. No wonder I'm on all this medication!
Thanks for listening.

Jerry

StarMetal

08-06-2005, 01:34 AM

Jerry,

What do you read when you're home on the ****ter?

Joe

Frank46

08-06-2005, 04:04 AM

I have to agree with you all. I have most gun digests, handloaders digests and rifle and handloader mags from the mid 60's. I used to pick up rifle and handloader from a local gun shop every month.The old issues were really interesting as they had a lot of
how to's and great articles. Sadly the quality has gone down the tubes big time. Sure widh they'd get their act together, but it appears thats a lost cause. I have not bought guns and ammo or any of the other gun rags in years. But precision shooting and the lamented accurate rifle are the best out there. Dave Brennan does his best but should include mors cast bullet articles. Frank

Bret4207

08-06-2005, 06:44 AM

KY Caster- I think the Webley looks just fine even without the sexy pics! One of the beauties of modern life is that things taken in retrospect always seem better I suppose. I have to say though, that I can read an Elmer Keith article in an old Rifleman from the 30's or a Townsend Whelen article form the 20's and love it for the style even if the material is dated. O'Connor came along in the late 40's or 50's along with guys like Pete Brown, Warren Page and a lot of other whose names I forget. The back issues are still out there and make good reading. Guys like Fred Ness, Phil Sharpe, Clyde Ormand, Bob Milek, Bob Hagel, George Nonte, Ed Crossman, etc were of another breed apparently compared to the modern guys. I mean, jeeze, Handloader is running Clair Reese! Why not just have Martha Stewart start dropping in a few articles? He's just not TECHNICAL enough. It's gotten so I'd almost rather pick up a copy of "Guns Of The Old West" and read Jack Lewis's drunken ramblings about his 2 seconds of Hollywood fame than risk buying any of the big name mags.

I'd like to see a couple things happen: The Rifleman should start the "In my experience" back up and encourage guys to send in articles, The Cast Bullet Asoc (got to remeber to rejoin) should publish ALL of Frank Marshalls article in book form. The mainstream mags should encoourage their writers to do the old style, in depth articles in the spirit of Ken Waters. They're loosing the upper classmen, so to speak, to the "look at the pictures" crowd. They're going to loose more as the internet sites like continue on.

9.3X62AL

08-06-2005, 06:25 PM

Bret et al--

There's more real content in a week's worth of posts on this site than in a year's worth of subscriptions to the leading gun press--including "Rifle" and "Handloader". I agree that the gunrags and all involved shooters need to recruit new folks to the hobbies and recycle the "Getting Started" subjects, but for the hobby interest to expand the press product needs to expand with the hobbyists. That happens here, but very seldom in the gun press.

The difference? The content here is not advertisement-driven, the content is poster-driven, and is two-way traffic. Traditional gunrags communicate in a one-way fashion that has become largely obsolete. The Net is affecting the magazine publishing business in a number of ways, and I suspect that unless the gunrags adjust to the new reality of daily discourse--as opposed to their monthly pontifications--that gunrags as we know them now will die of natural causes in a rather short time.

Ichiro Nagata is a bright spot, for sure. If he could make my raspy old Webley look good, he'd be a magician.

StarMetal

08-06-2005, 06:36 PM

MT Gianni

08-06-2005, 07:36 PM

John Barsness wrote recently that with the many powders out there a new "pet cartridge" article would take about 8 months to develop and far to long for todays publishers to wait, let alone pay a writer for the time expended. While we hae had the information magazines dumb us down we have had the powders, surplus and canister, military arms, mfg's and components that have never before been available. I don't mind losing the mag's info if I can get it here or on other sites as what we miss the most was people writing in and saying "I did this and this was the result." Sounds more like this board every day. Gianni.

drinks

08-06-2005, 08:56 PM

I have tried to read a few magazines, but a quick flip through at the news stand has always confirmed my suspicions, they are now just printed info mercials.
I have written American Rifleman several times about the fluff, cheerleader type of articles they are turning out now, I get the magazine with my membership, but would not buy it at all.Gun World, Guns and Ammo, SWAT, Handguns and the rest of the bunch seem to address only adolescents and emotionally retarded who want nothing that does not hold at least 20 rounds and can fire all twenty in 2.3 seconds.
Being raised on ss, sxs and lever actions, I am much more interested in how well a fire arm functions, how accurate it is and how comfortable and durable it is .
Oh well, I am too old for the crap they publish now, O'Connor and Paige were actually informative and entertaining, Elmer mostly entertaining.
Don

Stray Round

08-06-2005, 10:07 PM

I think most of today's gun writers are only that. Just a writer and not a shooter, if they couldn't sell a "gun" article they'd be sending articles to "Fine Cuisine", GQ, or Teen Magazine.

Tell me that Yawn Librouel, or Clair Rees in their spare time likes to go to the loading bench and load up some rounds or step out back and pop some primers? Nah, they are preening in the mirror with their new cowboy hat or posing with a pouty look and some kind of AR and a tactical knife or two.

I think the gun magazines are being layed out by somebody that does their websites. Notice how they have a page with a dozen pictures and mini blogs of only a paragraph or two? Is that for today's youth who have short attention spans?

Took the wife shopping today and browsed Books A Million for gun mags, I'm all caught up now. Let's see, a .500 on a 1911, some kind of 325 Midgit Mag,
using your AR for home defense, Clair Rees in a new cowboy hat shoots a dozen shots with a Ruger .22 handgun and.....

NVcurmudgeon

08-07-2005, 12:27 AM

Like many of you I dropped Rifle in 2000 and Handloader in 2001. For me the decline came with the emphasis on lavish color photography. I had been discontented since the mid-nineties, but a combination of hope that the rot would be reversed, and waiting out the end of my subsciptions, kept me around a little longer. Once the photographers began competing with Arizona Highways, I knew the handwriting was on the wall. It seemed to me that excellent technical information and beautiful pictures were mutually exclusive. Today, I receive the Rifleman, (life member) Fouling Shot, and picking the best of the supermarket rags, (IMO) Shooting Times just to keep up with the latest product introductions. Ever notice how every new product is wonderful? Finding Shooters in 1999 more than made up for the feeling of loss caused by the demise of the Wolfe publications.

waksupi

08-07-2005, 01:25 AM

With fanatics really pushing the NCAA to change team names from the ones that borrow from Native American, thinking they are insulting, I have to wonder how long it will be before they pounce on the Savage Arms Company.

Joe

Joe, Savage has this covered like a fat lady on a pot. I may have a couple details confused, but here is the gist of the origin of the marketing of Savage arms.
When they first developed thier logo, they figured they needed something for a real advertising hook. So saying, they gave the Navaho, Apache, and Comanche tribes something like $1500 to each tribe, plus a free rifle to every male tribal member who wanted them. So, the name is bought and paid for. I've sometimes wondered if any of these firearms were used in the last Apache uprising back in around 1938. The time period coincides pretty closely, I believe.

jethrow strait

08-07-2005, 07:07 AM

Yep, haven't spent a dime on any of em in ten years---a glance at one or two while getting groceries or at the range office is more than enough. And to make things worse, none of their contributors can think or write worth a damn, excepting perhaps John Barsness, who is not above going turgid from time to time himself.

Figure I'm right about where NVCurmudge is on this, but it still hurts, as a long-time reader of Handloader and Rifle in the past, to watch that egotistical lout Scovill carry on, while H&R contributors publicly lick his boots on a regular basis. Sadly, Waters and more recently Miller. have gone the way of all flesh, and should have been put out to pasture long ago, with the grace and style they deserve.

Turning the mirror inward, I'd say the current board, although it's getting better, still doesn't hold a candle to the late great 'Shooters' in terms of civility, content and wit. Nonetheless, it is a a cut above the vacuous chit-chat of the milsurp, 1911, or Ruger forums. Perhaps it would be most productive to just 'cultivate our own garden'!------jethrow

Bret4207

08-07-2005, 08:20 AM

Re Savage- I don't think the injuns got a thing to say about the Savage brand name since the designer was named ARTHUR SAVAGE. I'm pretty sure "Savage" is the English version of the French 'sauvauge' or something like that and the name has been in existance for hundreds of years at least. As far as the trade mark goes and its demeaning, non-PC style our local band of Mohawks (aka-The smuggling drug dealer band) has all sorts of ads and signs on their businesses and vehicles showing indians (I ain't calling them Native Americans and you can't make me, nayh, nayh) holding scalp locks or weapons. Certianly not PC, but not a word said about it. I guess it's the old double standard where those Native Americans and more equal than this Native American. Oh wait- When refering to myself it should be native American. I only get to captialize the A they get to do the N and the A therby being more equal than me. Can you tell the PC Indian crap strikes a nerve? Must be I hold grudges towards people who shoot at me.

On the mags- I can sit a home and peruse the various websites available, and there are a LOT of them, on guns. I can find info on the latest gear and gadgets, opinions and results on most everything and some of the best and worst writing around. I still miss having that paper in hand, writen by an apparent pro, with the backing of the magazine to say his material is both upfront and safe. The days of Skeeter Skelton, Elmer Keith, the young Ross Siefreid pre-ego, Mike Venturino back when he actually wrote about his experiments, even Rick Jamison and Jim Carmichael's younger days are gone. Finn Agard, Bob Milek, John Jobson ( there's a name you haven't heard in a while) Bob Hagel were hunters first and shooters second, but they knew their stuff and could write. Nowadays it's Craig Boddigton (how could they give his column the Gun Notes name!?! sacralige), Clair Reese, David Fortier, Layne (god help us) Simpson, and Jon Sundra. Snore. I pick up Shotgun News sometines just for the Paul Scarlotta articvles on the Milsurps, not that he's a great writer, but at least I get some info backed by somebody.

Thats the one problem with the web- it's anonimous and there's no saying that any of what is written is even close to correct. Of course you get the same thing with magazines now. I read an article on timber framing the other day and the author didn't even know the frames were put together in bents on the ground and hoisted into place. Yet his article might be taken as gospel by some. I've seen plain out and out lies on the web and some darn unsafe loading info too. That's why we pick and choose and hang out here. It's still sad to see the once vibrant and soild core of gunwriters become no more than salesmen with overblown egos, writing as though they were come on men at a carnival. Hope they mounted Townsend Whelen and Keiths, O Connors and the other old timers caskets on ball bearings 'cuz they gotta be a spinin'.

Buckshot

08-07-2005, 09:26 AM

.........Heh, heh, our old departed rangemaster Kenny had every Rifle and Handloader magazine from day one. Several years ago he'd bring a 4" stack every Tuesday for me to take to work, and I'd copy articles and stuff if interest. I filled 5 three ring notebooks with stuff, and wish I could do it again as I now recall articles I didn't copy and should have.

I have a couple articles on 22 rimfire rifles, one by Bob Milek in particular that made you want to jump up off the pot and go out in the boonies with your 22, a couple hundred rounds and a canteen.

Another I have is by Al Miller and is on wringing out the 30-06 Springfield and cast boolits. There's a couple black and white photos along with the article. One has this old beatup Jeep wagon in the background and he's in old kinda baggy jeans holding a -03 at the balance point. The background is some rocky desert ravine and they're out potting distant rocks of opportunity.

I have several articles copied that appeared over several years on low velocity cast boolit rounds for high powered rifles, by several authors.

Several articles on alloy and pressures. Several on lubes, velocity, alloy and loads in wheelguns.

One of the best writers around, so far as I'm concerned was Dean Grennell. The guy was a crack up and not at all impressed with himself. He was interested in and dabbled in so many facets of the shooting and reloading hobby as to be mind boggling. Pictures of his humble garage where he did his loading and fooling around showed a freaking disaster area of jetsam and flotsam.

I mean it was his GARAGE for gosh sakes and not some fancy room with a formica countertop and handly shelves. I have a couple photos of it and it's just crazy stacks of cigar boxes and tomato sauce cans brimming with brass and boolits and this and that. Now HE was a gunwriter!

Somehting is missing, for sure. Yep the oldtimers seemed to have it all over the current crop of writters. No more Skeeter Skeltons, Bill Jordans, O'conners, Gates, and the rest. Something has just flat sucked the living juices right out of stuff we get these days, and it's a flaccid limp thing by comparison.

I sure wish I knew what the answer was. It may be very similar to what has happened to the likes of Hot Rod magazine. Technology has just flat steamrollered over what was the bread and butter of the like, up into the 70's. Look at a Hot Rod magazine form the 60's and look at one today. See anything in the new one of real interest to ya?

...............Buckshot

floodgate

08-07-2005, 12:00 PM

Curmudgeon:

"...and picking the best of the supermarket rags, (IMO) Shooting Times..."

Yeah, I think Rick Jamieson, Dick Metcalf and Layne Simpson of "Shooting Times" are still real shooters and reloaders, and that is the only "mainstream" pub I take (besides the "Rifleman", which I am stuck with as a Life Member). But there is still good writing and info out there: "Fouling Shot" is good, as you say - but if they ran out of Frank Marshall stuff to reprint, they'd be in a bit of trouble, too. In the BP / Single-Shot field, I still get a lot out of the ASSRA's "Single Shot Journal", Col. Bret's "Single-Shot Exchange" and, of course, Steve Garbe's "Black Powder Cartridge News". Their writers ARE all DOERS, and to my mind Steve Garbe ranks with the best of the old-timers. There's hope!

floodgate

Pilgrim

08-07-2005, 12:13 PM

I just firmed up my mind a couple of days ago that my current subscription to both Handloader and Rifle will be my last. Scovill has been getting more egotistical by the issue and this last rant in Rifle was more than I could stomach. I wish I understood what he was trying to say, other than "I'm good...". I enjoy Barsness and would love to meet him and sit down and chat. I've talked with many of the other "famous" writers and for the most part they were enjoyable conversations.

I have every issue of both Handloader and Rifle magazines from #1 to present, every Handloaders Digest, and every Gun Digest from '56 or '57 to present. I passed on the opportunity of buying those GD's I'm missing as I didn't like the format of those earlier issues. I use 'em for reference. Between those "magazines" and my regular library, I usually can find the info I want. FWIW Pilgrim

Bass Ackward

08-07-2005, 12:23 PM

I don't know. I have read a lot of stuff from the experts that has proven out later to be counter to what I have observed. The killer for credibility for any author of any day, is when they printed something to be a "fact" that someone else knows or "believes" differently. There are a lot of trends but very few "facts" in this sport. Think about some of the facts that are gone from discussions today. Things like lock time, cryogenics, tip pressure for example. 40 years ago there could NEVER be such a thing as an accurate semi-automatic?

No, I think the biggest difference was the time with which these older guys were permitted to develop testing, gain knowledge, and provide independent thought. This was supported by the gun industry. This set them above my biggest complaints for today writers, that they are simply pimps for the industry running from deadline to deadline. And today's gun industry is even starting to be anti handloader. Different environment altogether.

45 2.1

08-07-2005, 12:43 PM

40 years ago there could NEVER be such a thing as an accurate semi-automatic?

Around 1910, an accurate rifle, bolt or semi, would shoot into 3" at 100 yds. 50 years later either would do 2" at 100 yds. Allot of these so called accuracy problems was actually having good ammo that was capable of shooting better. Take these old rifles now, with the attendent wear and tear and they will do better than the old standards with new ammo. Accuracy has more to do with the shooter and what you feed the rifle than most other things. Just how accurate did a rifle have to be to kill an animal within its effective range. The old iron sighted rifles did rather well within that range even with the poor ammo they had to contend with.

StarMetal

08-07-2005, 01:04 PM

Bass,

You have some valid points. I use to be a big trailbike rider. Had my share of the two cycle bikes. I use to subscribe to a magazine called Dirt Bike. It told it how it was because they said they didn't receiver any money from the big bike manufacturers to survice so they told the truth. One issue I remember is when they put some model of a Honda bike on the front cover and it was in a pig pen with a caption coming out of the headlight saying "oink". Basically calling it a pig. I don't see this in todays gun rags. Oh they praise all guns and if they don't shoot real good they use that old cliche of "that is only representive of this gun and your's may perform different". Fact is that particular gun probably is junk, but they won't ever tell you that for fear of repraisal fromt he manufacturer.

Alot of us grew up with the old timer writers and were use to them and respected them. Then come change, that is some of the old timers passed on and new people took their place. Well it was hard to accept them as we had become set in our ways. Technology changed alot of things too. Semi-auto's didn't shoot that good, but today they do.

I still get some gun rags simply because I'm not sitting on the ****ter and reading Readers Digest or Family Circle. I'd rather be perusing a gun or car magazine. Not alot today is like it use to be in the old days. Gotta accept that.

Joe

carpetman

08-07-2005, 02:29 PM

The top enlisted grade(E-9)in the Air Force is Chief Master Sgt. In the late 50's,all branches had E-8 and E-9 ranks added---my understanding this was to replace Warrant Officers---which the Air Force did,other branches still have Warrant Officers. The Chief Master Sgts were called Sgt as their title for many years and I don't remember when,but their title was changed to Chief. In my books that was a mistake as it separated them from other NCO's and many seem to forget that an NCO is what they are. It was not common when I was in,but today many of the Chiefs have busts etc of Native American Chiefs in their office. The E-9's in their quest to be separate from the rest of the Air Force established Chief's groups and many of these groups use a replica of an Indian Chief as their symbol. This practice is now coming under fire in today's politically correct world. Recently the top Chief,the Chief Master Sgt of the Air Force sent a letter to Chief groups etc that this activity needs to be monitored. Talk about a mixed message. He said he only has one Chiefs bust(statue)in his office and afterall this is ok as it was a gift to him when he was promoted to Chief and has special meaning. He did mention he was in one Chief's office that had atleast 38 such items. Guess the message here is it's ok to piss folks off a little---just don't do it in such a big way as to get them on the warpath. If it offends some people it's offensive---if not,why address it at all? The Chief Master Sgt of the Air Force went on to say he has six other statues etc at his home----surely he is not "eat up" with being a Chief as he doesnt have 38. I haven't heard this thrown into the mix,but when it does-----watch out. The Air Force ofcourse has lots of female E-9's. Native Americans didnt have female Chiefs---they were just squaws. Besides being politically correct to have to please a race,when the females think about this,there will probably be a very loud rumbling. I was a Master Sgt. Let's say as a symbol I adopted a symbol once associated with "Master" maybe of a slave owner with a whip and a couple of slaves???????? Would it be ok if I ONLY HAD ONE? Having said all this,being PC has gone way too far and people seem to dream up ways to be offended. For example,why is it so bad for a Non Native American to use the term Indian,when Native Americans do it themselves? They refer to themselves as Indians. Are they so offended that they don't cash checks they receive from the Bureau of INDIAN Affairs? They have AFFAIRS---HMMMM? Air Force use to have Retiree Affairs office then I think someone decided that was just wishful thinking on us old geezers part and changed it to Retiree Activities.(Who knows with the advent of ****** they might change it back). Along the same lines, years ago COLORED was an accepted term and now people of that race consider it offensive-----yet their organization---NAACP has not seen fit to change it's name? Us old geezers from the South can remember when public places had two drinking fountains. Here in Texas one would be beige or rose colored and would have a sign"Colored". The other would be white and have no sign. Now being the very PC type person I am,I did some recent research. I have a black neighbor about my age. We were discussing the old days. This subject came up. I asked him if he ever drank out of the "colored" fountain. I suspected he had and indeed he had. I asked him if they had it on water or if they had Thunderbird hooked up to it? He said it was water.

Bass Ackward

08-07-2005, 02:46 PM

Around 1910, an accurate rifle, bolt or semi, would shoot into 3" at 100 yds. 50 years later either would do 2" at 100 yds. Allot of these so called accuracy problems was actually having good ammo that was capable of shooting better. Take these old rifles now, with the attendent wear and tear and they will do better than the old standards with new ammo. Accuracy has more to do with the shooter and what you feed the rifle than most other things. Just how accurate did a rifle have to be to kill an animal within its effective range. The old iron sighted rifles did rather well within that range even with the poor ammo they had to contend with.

Bob,

The comment was to show what gun rags of the period were saying.

If I had to pick a writers theme by decade, I would call the 60s the handload decade. The 70s was the bedding decade. The 80s became the stainless steel decade. The 90s was the decade of the synthetic stock and cryogenic treatment. And this decade is shaping up as the improved cartridges decade.

StarMetal

08-07-2005, 03:34 PM

Ray,

It's hard to keep up with what the Afro Americans want you to call them. From childhood to present it's been Negros, colored folks, Blacks, to Afro Americans. Yeah there has been some nasty names during that time also. Why do they have to have a name? What's wrong with calling them by their given name? Why are they and Native Americans still, well, segregated? I don't see the nation referring to the Italian populace, the Irish, the Germans. Why is it too that those nationalities I just mentioned don't have their offspring born here in the states called Italo Americans, Germo Americans, etc.? Off subject alittle, why is it that if the Gays want their own flag, that all the other nationalities getting their flag too. Why isn't everything equal for everyone? Part of "segregation" is because of the political parties. The Democratics segregate parties so they can get votes. That's why they've always carried the Afro American populace (which is starting to change tho). Yeah the Republicans aren't immune to this practice either. BUT, you don't hear either the Dems or Reps going after the Italian, German, Irish, etc populace for votes. Yeah I know, they lump them together as "white". Maybe we will have to segregate according to colors.... white, off white, yellow, red, brown, and black.

Joe

longhorn

08-07-2005, 11:13 PM

John Jobson! An article of his entitled "A Pair of Aces" (Gun Digest, I think) made me need both a 300H&H and a 375H&H so bad I almost couldn't sleep until I owned 'em. The 300 was a Remington 721 whose stock just pounded me-soon went down the trade trail. The 375 was a Ruger #1-which I finally traded for something else I didn't need. I was just trying to decide whether Skeeter Skelton, Ross Seyfried, or Venturino has cost me more over the years-pretty depressing line of thought. But I have owned some pretty spiffy custom revolvers!

Ed Barrett

08-08-2005, 01:34 AM

To go back to th NCAA Indian naming stuff. Will you be able to drive a Pontiac Automobile to the playoffs????

drinks

08-08-2005, 11:20 PM

BA;
45 years ago a feller in Laredo was making 1911s, .45acp and .38umcs that would do 1" at 25 yds , a friend in the Border patrol had a pair of them,

Four Fingers of Death

08-09-2005, 05:07 AM

I get an Aussie mag as a subscription to SSAA (sorta aussie NRA) and buy a couple more. As to yankee mags, I used to subscribe to Shooting Times in the mid-late 90s and loved it. I got poor for a while there and didn't renew. It doesn't pop up much now. I like Rick Jamieson's reloading column, the stupid crook line up, which I contributed a few things to and Mike Venturio. I was never all that keen on Guns and Ammo, althougth I remember it seemed ok many moons ago (maybe I was less sophisticated). I currently buy Shoot! I think it is called, its a Western Action mag. I mostly bought it for the articles on Ruger Single Actions. It is almost $A19 here, so I don't think I would have bothered if the ruger articles where not there. It will be interesting to see if I buy any after they are finished. Other than that I buy the odd one which has an article that catches my eye. The 'Guns of the Old West is ok too, but is well over $20 bucks here. I have a quick 'Scothcman's read' as my father used to call it and buy it if it has a really good article.
Every month or so I tell myself to cut it back, but the new ones seem to come uot within a week or so of each other and I can't help myself.
Mick

omgb

08-09-2005, 07:21 PM

In the early 70s when I first started handloading, I read G&A, ST, Guns and Gun World. Gradually, I out grew the simple stuff they were writing about. Occasionally, there would be a feature on a classic firearm but mostly it seemed to be nothing more than shilling for manufacturers and basic, really basic stuff. Then I discovered Handloader and Rifle. I was in heaven. Here was the meat I had been longing for. No more milk for me. Sadly, over time, these two have begun to slide into the pablum abyss. Today, I never buy GW, Guns, G&A or ST. I may yet cancel or fail to renew my subscription to HL and Rifle. For now, the only mag I ever look foreward to is Black Powder Cartridge Rifle put out by SPG. Even American Rifleman is falling victim to the dumbing down of America. Any of you guys subscribe to Gun Test? I did but not too many of the guns tested are my kind of guns.

R J Talley

jim4065

01-09-2007, 02:21 PM

Lord, am I glad that I found this board.
Some of this stuff is really great reading:
"Something has just flat sucked the living juices right out of stuff we get these days, and it's a flaccid limp thing by comparison."
How about "posing with a pouty look"? my nomination for Best Descriptive Phrase.
It seems the answer is obvious - a gun book the size of a "Cast Bullet Handbook" and loaded with articles written by people who are shooters first. If Richard Lee can self-publish, why not "Cast Boolits"?
Maybe two or three articles about each and every factory cartridge out there, and include an article on every wildcat that anyone cares to write about? How about four sections - reloading, casting, guns and outright lies?
It's tough to lug a computer into the bathroom - but I need SOMETHING to read.

Bigscot

01-09-2007, 05:34 PM

OMGB,

I too am curious about Gun Tests. I recently received a subscription invite.

I also find myself yawning at some of todays mags.

Bigscot

versifier

01-09-2007, 06:49 PM

I have been a subscriber to Gun Tests since its first issue. Like any other publication that doesn't run on advertizing, it is a breath of fresh air. Not all of what they write about are "my kind of guns" either, but enough of them are and its a really good way to keep a finger on the QC pulse of the industry today. If they aren't happy with the way a firearm performs, not only do they tell you, but they do so in such detail as to make the execs in the industry squirm. Not only that, but they publish letters by readers that don't agree with them without those snide little condescending comments you find in a certain mag with firearm centerfolds.
There was a memorable letter some years ago in GT after an issue with new bolt rifles from the big3 that all cost right around $1000 each and a used gun test of five Nagants. None of the fancy new bolts would even shoot into 2" @ 100yds, while the old warhorses with surplus ammo were all printing between 1/2" and 1". The reader responded something to the effect of: "Hell, I can pee straighter than any of those fancy new rifles can shoot. Why should I spend $1000 for something that can't even approach MOA when I can shell out less than $100 and have a better rifle that's way more accurate than anything they're turning out today?" You'll never see a letter like that in anything the "gun press" puts out.

floodgate

01-09-2007, 07:02 PM

omgb:

A friend and I alternated subscriptions to "Gun Tests" for several years, and found them a refreshing change from the usual run of gun rags. The only problem was the relatively high cost of subscriptions - but that was because they get no advertising revenue, so it was a fair trade-off. Also, of course, they were able to test only one or two examples of a given gun. I'm pretty well out of gun-buying mode these days, and he is off in other directions, so we let the subscription lapse a couple of years back. One other "plus" is that once you get on their e-mail list, they offer subscribers a chance to buy the test guns at a substantial discount.

floodgate

omgb

01-09-2007, 10:43 PM

Wow, talk about a long-lived thread. I hadn't written on this topic since Aug of 05 almost 18 months ago. I never did renew that Gun Tests subscription. I did renew with both Rifle and Handloader and of course, the American Rifleman. I let ST laps and refused a gift offer of G&A, geez what a rag that has become. I still get the BPCR and Shotgun News but that's about it.

26Charlie

01-16-2007, 11:17 PM

I have subscribed to Rifle & Handloader since the beginning, and they were great initially. Of course I was much younger. I recently went back through some issues in the middle range, 1970's, 1980's, and found one or two interesting articles per issue, never more than that. The Handloader that came today is the same - two things of interest.

There is an article on case shape - a barrel was chambered for .300 H&H, some loads chronographed and groups measured. The barrel was then shortened at the breech and chambered for the .300 WSM of same case capacity, throat in the same place, and the same loads were tried. No statistical difference, so case shape doesn't matter. They showed pressure as well as velocity, so there is some way of taking pressure data as well as velocity and accuracy data, which I also didn't know.
The second bit of info was in an article on the .32 Winchester Special, in which the 1902 Winchester catalog is quoted as to why they introduced the cartridge. They said they wanted a cartridge a little more powerful than the .30-30 but not as powerful as the .30 Army (.30-40 Krag), that could be reloaded with black powder, which the .30-30 was not suited to. BP ballistics were about the same as the .32-40 for which the M1894 was also chambered, 165 gr. bullet at 1385 f/s. You see a lot of gunwriter BS on this point, so it is good to see the original catalog info. What goes unstated is that at the time, 1902, there was plenty of reloading going on but with black powder, bulk measured. Smokeless powder was new, and I'm not sure if the average reloader could obtain it, or had a scale to weigh it out or set his measure by, or if there was published charge data for the powders and cartridges. The author of the article (Venturino?) tried some jacketed bullets with Goex black powder, and then with some old (at least 50 yrs.) Dupont FFg from a tiny-top oval can. The latter powder gave 100 f/s faster velocity, less fouling, and was right on specifications - 1383 f/s.
As to the other gun magazines, I take whichever one comes out with a special offer of less than $10 for a year, just to keep up on the new stuff on the market. I don't renew, just take the next offer. Think it was Shooting Times for $8 last month.