Any Good Firearms Publications Left?

[6bg6ga]

After reading a number of publications I wonder how accurate their gun tests are and how much they are influenced by the companies placing ads.

[dbosman]

Very accurate and mostly anecdotal. But you'll never seen the results of the ones that might irritate an advertiser.

The NRA has been selling my name and address to lots of the remaining publications. (tracked via changing middle initial) and given the cheap price for a year, I've subscribed to most. A bunch of the writers lack publications CVs.

Will Mars Be Ruled By Earth's Global Government?

.

After reading a number of publications I wonder how accurate their gun tests are and how much they are influenced by the companies placing ads.

[EDG]

I had all the Handloaders and Rifle Magazines. I recently let my subscription lapse.
I complained to the magazines several times that Dave Scovill et al turned the magazines into a boring non-technical piece of carp.
I got tired of looking at the table of contents to only find one or 2 worth while articles.
If they ever really get rid of Scovill I might re subscribe.

[georgerkahn]

I received my copy of Handloader in yesterday's post, and immediately went to the article on Revolver Crimping. To me, to say this article is a disappointment would be an understatement! It seemed to be written NOT as a journal article about different crimps, the why's, why-nots, and methodology, and even two major manufacturers (the Lee, with their factory crimp die) and Redding -- both with their profile/taper crimp dies and their micrometer crimp die) were not even mentioned.
I would have envisioned article writer to have explored current crimp dies on market; do some actual lab measurements; give some field results gleaned from results at range of shooting with different crimps, and the like.
It was with extreme sadness I read that Ken Waters had passed... Mr. Waters' writings were what. imho, made the subscription more than worth while.
Having been a subscriber from both the very first issues of this publication, as well as Rifle -- with this trend of "fluff" continuing, hey -- I can talk- and learn more in discussions at the barber shop as well as range. My next renewal request may very well be tossed!
geo

[wmitty]

There are men posting on this forum who; in my opinion, write as well as the writers from the past. The level of their technical writing skill is excellent; I look forward to reading their posts and comments. Bought my first copy of Handloader back in '69 and have read and reread many of them a number of times. Sadly, with the passing of Ken Waters, I feel as if a chapter of firearms history has been closed and having spent the last year as a volunteer range safety officer, I am wondering where the young shooters I watched letting fly with their ARs are getting their "book learning" concerning firearms.

[Jack Stanley]

The only one I get anymore is Handloader and that because I bought a life subscription years ago . To compare the last issue I got to the first is just ....... unfair .

Jack

[scattershot]

I agree that they have slipped somewhat since the 60s and 70s. As others have said, most of them are glossy paper infomercials now. I like Guns and American Handgunner. Guns was pretty bad back in the day, but they have turned it around bigtime.

[winchester 71]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!! re writing other guys articles or proclaiming to be a reincarnation of Elmer Keith.......Egotistical magazine writers with a minor in journalism........Mike V. is the exception and makes a serious effort to find niches in
well beaten subjects.........................

[W.R.Buchanan]

Guys: I think you are missing a pretty important point.

There is not much new with guns.

Every once in a while someone comes out with a new caliber, which is usually totally unnecessary.

Most of the gun makers come out with new products yearly to keep you buying new guns. Some are interesting, most are not.

The high end gun makers build beautiful Rifles which are nice to look at, but impractical to own for most of us.

So what exactly are they supposed to write about?

I subscribe to both Rifle and Handloader Magazines, and I advertise in Handloader.

These are the two best gun mags out there by a wide margin. They have the most experienced writers on staff of any Gun Mag. But even so I find myself waiting for something useful to show up in their content every time one comes. Usually there is two or three articles that I find interesting but I read every single one in every issue to get my monies worth out of the subscription. I hope all of you have a magazine rack near your toilet?

Other than new guns, what is there to write about that hasn't been covered ad nauseum?

Brian Pearce did an article about loading the.44 Special in the last issue. I liked this because I like the .44 Special.

He had done an article on the .44 Special about 6-8 years ago that had loads from mild to wild and everything in between that pretty much covered every aspect of that Caliber. The twist for this new article is that it only had loads for SAAMI Spec pressures of 15,500 psi,,, but it had hundreds of them with every bullet and boolit known to man. All tested by Pearce and his Sons, so it was interesting and of value to me.

When you get right down to it, the only new piece of Reloading Equipment that has come down the pike that amounted to anything was my Hand Press. Not bragging here just stating a fact. What else has mattered enough to even warrant a review in Handloader? Haven't seen anything, have you? Occasionally Lee comes out with a new tool. RCBS, Redding, Forrester, Dillon, haven't came out with any new tools for a long time.

I sold more Hand Presses here on the first day, than in 6 months of advertising in Handloader and that even included the very favorable Review Article written by Brian Pearce.

There just isn't much new to talk about in the firearms world that amounts to anything spectacular, and as soon as "Pulse Weapons" are invented, guns like we shoot will be a thing of the past and there probably won't be anymore Gun Magazines. I see them lasting about 2-3 more generations, or until the Liberals finally are successful at taking the guns away. Then only the Police, Military and Criminals will have pulse weapons, and the people will be herded like sheep..

After that it won't matter anyway cuz we'll all be gone, and the country won't be worth living in anymore. See you on the next planet.

I'd say you better enjoy them while you still can!

You can say anything you want about the writers in these magazines, but what does matter is the fact that they keep your head in the game. They keep you thinking about guns and shooting and reloading and hunting. They keep you interested!

And that's what they are meant to do!

Randy

[jetinteriorguy]

I haven't subscribed to any magazines of any sort for so many years I can't remember the last time I've even read a magazine. So, for Father's Day my son got me a subscription to Guns&Ammo. I pretended to be excited because I love my son and appreciate the thought, but I would rather he spent the money on a brick of small pistol primers or some other actually useful thing.

[garym1a2]

I find it much better to watch you tube videos for more honest gun reviews.
Same with car reviews.

[Bent Ramrod]

A friend drops off his used gun magazines to me, knowing that I'm a print junkie and will look at anything that has words in a line. I was surprised to see that Firearms News (formerly Shotgun News) has well written articles on historical military guns, gunsmithing and air rifles and pistols. The last, I think, is a very neglected area of gun writing.

But, of course, the bulk of such writing today, there and everywhere else, is AR clones and boxy, ergonomic autopistols in 9mm and .40. The younger set certainly loves such stuff, but, frankly, I can't even tell them apart.

As Randy mentioned, firearms are a finite subject, so little that is absolutely new can be expected. A writer can have an interesting "take" on a classic subject, but eventually the fount of ideas is going to dry up. The only reliable "new" thing in firearms writing is the crop of youngsters that manage to resist the lure of video games and virtual reality and want to know about guns. Writers have to pitch their stuff to them, which bores and outrages us jaded oldsters.

[Murphy]

After 35 plus years of buying various gun magazines (at least 3-5 monthly), I finally broke my addiction to them. I was influenced to do so by several factors. One, the internet came about and I was finding more useful information online than in magazines. Two, egotistical writers who had nothing but good to say about any and everything sent to them for a review.

I don't even want to think about the amount of money I spent on them over all those decades. I recall once 'cleaning out all those old magazines' 25 years ago. I hauled off a pickup bed load piled high to the trash. The money I spent on those would probably shock me if I knew the true amount. $1,000's to say the least.

I mean no disrespect to any of the few good gun writers still out there, but they're just no longer worth the money for what you get.

Murphy

[Nueces]

I also spent a lotta bux on magazines (subscriptions mainly), but I derived a lot of pleasure and education from them. At one time, they were about the only source and repository of up to date research and wisdom available to most of us.

I have kept collections of Rifle and Handloader, as well as American Rifleman, complete back to 1946. Most others were allowed to pile up until I executed a triage with a razor knife and reduced the pile to stacks of articles and columns I cut out. The old ads are still interesting. I did keep intact a few of the very early issues from the late 50s and early 60s, such as Guns, Gun World and Shooting Times.

[Plate plinker]

American handgunner, mostly for ayoob files and Mike V

[williamwaco]

i don't subscribe to any, use to get them all. Quit for 2 reasons(1) the wanna bees that are now
the writers. (2) i got tired of 95% of articles on tactical weapons and accessories. When you add this up and factor in the advertisements, there ain't much reason to by them. When you grew up
reading kieth, skelton, jordan & o'connor- the new guys are a joke, they may as well be writing
about blenders and toasters.

amen!

[barnabus]

Printed media is dying, if not totally dead. Online reviews pop up all the time now. The issue is that the ones that try to be honest are almost laughably ignorant about guns and the ones that may know from what they speak, almost instantly get "bribed" to do favorable reviews. Imagine, you start doing youtube reviews that catch on. You get paid anywhere from nothing to almost nothing for your efforts. Then Schnizzle-Tactical sends you their latest double barreled polymer wonder AR to review and says...if you like it, you can keep it. Or, we'll include 5000 rounds of Super-Schnizzle magnum ammo for you to warm up on...well. You're now a Schnizzle convert.

Look at Hickok 45...when was the last time you saw him not like a gun? I enjoy his channel but really don't expect him to look into the camera and say "Life is good but this gun sux".

ur right he is nothing but a advertising pimp

[Bent Ramrod]

The reason Rifle and Handloader (and, for that matter The American Rifleman) were so good back in the Glory Days was pretty much the same reason that Internet sites are so much more interesting than the magazines these days. None of the three magazines cited had to pay much, if any, for their content.

The late, great Ken Howell was Editor of Rifle/Handloader for many years back then, and used to reminisce about it on the 24HourCampfire site. Both magazines were loss-leaders, underwritten by a syndicate of "angels," which included (IIRC) RCBS, Speer, Sierra, and probably a few other companies supplying reloading tools and components. Of course, they got a page of advertising out of the deal, but they were not paying just for the page, but for the whole magazine. Their return on investment, it was hoped, was the generation of interest in shooting and reloading among more and more potential customers.

Similarly, The American Rifleman, back in the '30's and '40's, was supported by membership dues, and any advertising revenue was gravy. Their professional staff were few, and most of the writers got a nominal fee for the stuff they sent in. Sometimes, it was a free membership, or extension of membership. Charles Askins, Jr. got a Life Membership for an in-depth article on the "dream team" for the current Pistol Championship.

The economics of gun writing was different back then. Jack O'Connor commented on the tough lot in life that anyone trying to make a living from gun writing had. Too many good and knowledgeable amateurs were sending in articles just to see their names in print, or because they thought what they had to say needed saying. As another pro griped to O'Connor, "It's like an honest hooker trying to make her living while the college coeds are giving it away for free!"

Most of the "gun writers" of the era, the ones we cite as The Greats, were actually working in fields from ranching to law enforcement to gun manufacturing to civil engineering, and wrote their stuff in their free time.

Howell was in the business at just the time more and more gun writers were trying to turn pro. Rifle and Handloader, like this site, had a lot of good info sent in by amateurs, and Howell's editorial skills were such that he could polish such stuff up so it looked like a professional had written it. But he was constantly at loggerheads with the publishers over the peanuts they were paying his editorial staff, who were getting better and more knowledgeable all the time, devoting more and more of their time to the magazines, and deserved a fair return for it, lest they find better pay elsewhere in the field.

Howell himself took a lot of the "classic" photos for the magazine covers simply because there was no budget for a staff photographer. Eventually the "angels" cut the magazines loose, forcing them to find ways to support themselves; the regular staff writers, whose names the readers liked to see, were demanding "a living wage," and printing and publishing costs were going up. Under the circumstances, they way they went was really the only way possible.

So I wouldn't be too hard on these Gunzines. Somebody is reading them, and if it eventually gets a few people interested in something besides the latest plastic double-stack, it's a fair deal.

[Shawlerbrook]

As a young man I loved Shooting Times with Skelton, Milek and the rest of those great writers.

[Geezer in NH]

Note all had other paying jobs.