Useless Information

[Char-Gar]

A fellow picks up the December issue of Handloader Magazine and finds an article on Lyman Classic Hollow Point Molds by Mike Thompson. The article is festooned with picture of Keith hollowpoints and good classic sixguns.

Here it is, thinks the fellow, some good reliable information on these molds from the past. Let's see what these bullets will do, won't do and were designed to do.

Thompson cast sold and hollow points versions of the famous Keith bullets in both 38 and 44 and loads them in sixguns at 38 Special, .357 Magnum, 44 Special and 44Magnum speeds. So far so good.

He casts these bullets out of wheel weight, with some of them he water drops. He shoots and he concludes; Ahhh... excuse me!!!

1) The WDWW shoot better than the ACWW.
2) He digs a few out of the dirt back stop and some of them show expansion, with the higher velocity showing more expansion than the slower ones. He admits that is is not any kind of meaningful text of expansion.
3) These bullets probably won't expand on soft skin game unless they are really big like hogs.

So that is it... Classic Hollow Points bullets tested and now you dear reader know the skinny on these bullets.

Now the rest of the story... What he doesn't mention or know is that these bullets were designed to expand with binary alloys (lead and tin) and will expand even on small game when the ratio is correct.

Lymans new line of "Devestator" HPs were designed for WW metal. They have a much bigger cavity and thinner nose walls.

So what does the reader learn..nothing...absolutely nothing. He has no idea of what these bullets were designed to do and how make them perform as designed.

I have no idea who Mike Thomas is, but I scratch my head at how such an article got into print in Handloader magazine. Is is just dumb and the editors just as dumb. Who knows! But I do know the general readership is not well served with this drivel and misinformation. No useful information is imparted and nothing is learned.

Mike gets a check, a by-line, and the publisher has put out another issue. The guy who forks out money for the rag gets the shaft.

In years gone by, I thought how neat it would be to have an article in Handloader as it was THE place for authorative information. That is where the "big boys" hung out. Now, it appears having you name in such a magazine would just be a source of embarrassment.

BTW...If anybody really want the skinny on these and other HP cast bullets read the stuff by Glen Fryxell... You can take the information you get from him to the bank!!!

[mooman76]

This was discussed on another BB site about other gun magazine calling most of them worthless! I never really though about it seriously until it was mentioned, I just though maybe it was me but I mostly read these articles at work to pass the time. I agree and think most of them now a days are just trying to wow the acknowledged gun owner that doesn't know any better. I have since started thinking a little more in depth about the articles and came to realize they talk allot but don't really say anything. All they do is really talk around the subject but don't have much of a point and it is partial or half information.

I think most of these writers have lost track of the real issue. I sometime wonder abut their actual knowledge about guns and wonder if they were a gun enthusiast that became a writer or a writer that got into guns a little because it was a writing job!

I too have started picking up the hand loader mag. but have found very little info that actually helps me to be a better loader. I am relatively new to reloading only having reloaded for 4 years but I learn more from web sites like this one than I could ever learn for some of these gun magazines with the 4 wheeler and truck articles!

[Char-Gar]

I guess my issue with the gunzines these days, is they don't see to have a sense of responsbility to their readers. The don't feel the need to impart anything that is useful or even correct. They don't add to the corpus of knowledge and don't move the shooter down the path in the right direction.

I notice on this board, we get newer folks, who have taken a wrong turn in knowledge and practice, because of stuff they have read in the pulp magazines. Sometimes those notions they get in their heads, are all but impossible to remove, because they got it from some "expert" in some magazine.

I remember the days when the American Rifleman and Guns magazine were the only publications on the subject. I was so eager to get each issue as it was a flood of knowledge that I soaked up like a sponge. It was information that could be trusted to be correct or at least a very informed opinion.

These days the writers that can be trusted are fewer and fewer.. John Taffin and Brian Pearce are on the short list and after that they get few and far between.

I really don't mind the dirth of information, as I can buy or not buy, that is my decision. It is the wrong, partial or misleading information that bothers me. Such stuff does not serve the long term interest of the sport.

[versifier]

I submit articles, they get returned with comments like "too technical", or "doesn't feature the latest......(that advertises with us no doubt so we want his a$$ kissed)". They don't care what they print, and they don't have any real concerns about accuracy. I have pretty much given up on the popular gunzines. There are other appreciative outlets for my work. Several years ago, I wrote a firm but polite letter to the one with all the shiny pictures like "Penthouse For Guns" after I read one of their articles instructing readers to install Leupold rings in a sight base using the scope. I recieved in reply a nasty personal attack from the editor praising the writer up and down and condemning me as some kind of lowlife bum for pointing out a seriously verboten move and trying to save a few newbys from ruining an expensive scope by following the writer's incompetent directions. To be fair, I also got an email from the writer in question agreeing with me, but complaining that "time is money" and they don't pay enough to warrant the time to do thorough and in depth research. Needless to say, I let the subscription expire and now return their offers to sign me back up in their postage paid envelopes left blank, the same as I do with all my obnoxious junk mail. I'm down to three now: Gun Week (for news), Gun Tests (to know what to buy and what to avoid), and American Rifleman (My dad passes on his American Hunter to me when he's done with it.) And with the NRA mags, all I read is The Armed Citizen and the historical articles. I can learn more in one hour reading threads on this forum than I can perusing a month's worth of every rag out there, and here, when I have something to say, I can do it without getting S%!T on by some pissy editor with a size 50 ego and a 2"....well, you get the point. Rant over.

[NVcurmudgeon]

Versifier, not glad to see, but ruefully nodding in agreement at your experience being so similar to mine. In submitting an article to a formerly prestigious magazine that formerly used to print a lot of reader submissions, I got a reply that said "we have too much on the older cartridges," "the writing isn't too bad," "the photos need to be better," and concentrate on the photos." All of these seem to be the same sort of drivel you received. "Photos" forsooth! Any editor of a specialized ammunition creating magazine who harps about "photos," and minimizes written content is just not worth hanging around with. Bread, circuses, and pictures for the illiterate masses!

[danski26]

Isn't it interesting that the gun rag writers rip on the "internet experts" in there magazines and we rip on "gun rag experts" online?

[357maximum]

I am down to two subscriptions for all the above reasons....

My remaining two are:
Fur-fish-game...I get it for..fur market report, and they have an occassional arcticle that actually makes sense in the hunting/reloading/fishing dept...I also like the "End of the line" pictures of kids holding their first trapped critters...It makes me remember a feeling you have to have had to appreciate..


I also get american rifleman...for obvious reasons...

[Bass Ackward]

Ah common now. Are you really that upset?

If the mags handled all the education, then where would we be? And I will go one step farther. Had those magazines not educated you, me, and alot of others so well, you couldn't tell that the article was bogus or not. The fact you did, says you pass this test. But I understand what you are saying. Still, your assumption is that firearms education is endless. And with our level of understanding, maybe it isn't. Ever think of that?

Too many new inovations. Too many new guns and calibers to be proficient in everything. Just like gunsmithing today. You need to specialize if you are going to be anything above average, because there is just too much to have to remember and too much stay up on to try and do it all.

And expansion testing is a very personal experience anyway. Not everyone obtains the same results for a variety of reasons. Expansion testing really should be done by the guy using it. Many times a guy say that he is getting velocity X, but in truth, he has no idea WHAT he's getting. Or his tester say hardness Y. If you don't know, then when you expansion test and are disatisfied with your results, you either adjust your velocity up or down and / or soften/ harden your mix. So everyone needs to test.

At least the magazing bothered to includ an article on casting. It may get someone else into casting that otherwise wouldn't have. Eventually, he may find his way here.

[44man]

AH, it is wonderful to hear all of you thinking the way I do.
I have learned more about deer and their actions then almost anyone. I can fool them and play with them. I wrote a book about it, rejected by every publisher. All the crap I read is wrong. I am the first to be able to tune a compound bow for broadheads very fast and easy. It took a lot of work and thinking. I sent articles to magazines and manufacturers and was told zip. Now all of a sudden, my tuning methods are being used. I found out what the problem is! I HAVE NEVER TAKEN ANY TROPHY BOOK ANIMALS, BOTTOM LINE!!! I am a meat hunter and don't like to eat horns. I am poor and can't afford trophy hunts. I hate to kill any animal because it is just bigger then someone elses. I will take the fat doe any day!
I invented the lighted bow sight and it was stolen from me just like the bow tuning. I have the original ones if anyone wants a picture. I was poor and could not afford a patent search, etc.
I shoot groups at 50 yd's and 100 yd's with revolvers that are 1/4 the size the gun rag shooters get at 25 yd's.
I listen to all of you and appreciate every word. I try to help pass along what I have learned free! I have been ripped off all of my life but have never been in better company then all of you.

[Char-Gar]

Bass... Well, I don't know how upset a fellow has to be in order to be "that upset". The magazine has not ruined my day nor will it cause me kick the dog or lose any sleep.

It does offend my sense of morals and justice. I feel the folks that buy the magazine are being had. They are being used and treated with disrespect. They are used as a source of income without appropriate value being given.

I am of the old school that gives and expects to receive a dollars worth of value for the dollar spent/received.

It is not about gun knowledge being finite or infinite or the possibility of a caster wandering in here. It is a basic issue of right and wrong. I feel the writer an editors cheated the readers who bought the gunzine.

I am aware that some will consider this a nickle and dime issue. However my experience with humans, teaches me that folks who don't consider the morals in a nickle and dime issue won't consider the morals in a million dollars issue.

Many folks don't worry about these issues considering anything that is legal must be also moral. "If it ain't a crime, then don't sweat it!". Well there are many things that are legal that are not either moral, right nor just.

So how upset am I..well you be the judge~

[felix]

44man, ripped off? Naw, just your imagination. Turn 180 degrees, and face the Light at the end of the tunnel. And then send your flipper into the direction you were facing. ... felix

[357maximum]

I think the issue is more of a

shooters who write ..V.S.. writers who happen to shoot....thing


But that being said I agree whole heartedly with chargars/versifiers posts....I have often bought a zine for one arcticle ...and I indeed have felt cheated on more than a few occasions....did they steal from me....not really...but kinda...depends on how one looks at it....and NO Bass it does not upset me enough to make me angry...I would call it more of a buyers remorse type thing....and cannot help thinking.....damn I should have just leafed through the rubbish arcticle while still in the cereal isle...


and 44 had it dead on about the habits of deer...wanna learn it go sit in a tree for several years...it is THEE only way to get the "real" skinny on them magnificent critters...alot of "deer hunting" arcticles are nothing more than garbage regurgitated between authors.......also.....wild deer do not act or behave anything like the livestock most of the "writer hunters" profess their knowledge of hunting with...

BTW>>>I forgot one subscription...N.A..Fisherman...Life member...decent mag...but there is alot of ads...and I never have yet "field tested" anything with a purchase price over a 6 pack of brew...anyone need a bunch of assorted plastic worms?

Michael

[Bass Ackward]

Chargar,

Well based on right and wrong, I understand. Consider, those are records for all time now. All that is necessary is the desire to read and obtain it.

But on the other hand, just exactly what has all that fine information gotten for us? I am arguing from a purely theoretical standpoint here. After all the time and money we spent, we still don't know what truely happens in a fired round. What .... makes .... a good or accurate barrel. A superior case design. And the list goes on and on of what WE don't know. And .... we, and the sport have survived and are getting by. So will those of the future, if the sport is based on fun.

Maybe, we as a mass don't HAVE TO know everything. Would P.O. Ackley make it today? I doubt it. Even reloading has passed it's zenith. As a result, there are less, and will be even less, resourses directed at it. Even the companies we grew up with are disappearing now because of economic reality.

Will our sport survive in a world where "NEED" is not a basis in the equasion? The answer is probably not. That is why I push this board.

[felix]

You got it, BA! It's just a hobby anymore, and we must treat it as such. We can all witness the fate of the Catfish fishing, which was once a commercial river endeavor. Better tasting (don't really like that word) Catfish are farm raised nowadays, and actually I like them now. A delicacy in 5 star resturants in Paris where the majority of these fish are sent to market (from AR and MS). ... felix

[Char-Gar]

BA... If I get your drift, and I am not certain I do, you posit that we still don't have the answers, so we should relax and enjoy the current state of knowledge or lack thereof.

Good Dr. Mann started out trying to understand why bullets did what they did and dedicated most of his life to the study. This was about a century ago. He didn't solve the puzzle, but he did move the ball down the field.

The fact that we don't yet know, doesn't mean that we can't know, or shouldn't strive to find out.

But all of that is a side issue. My original issue with the writer of the article was failure to communicate what we do know. The notion is to allow owners or would be owners of the classic molds to have the knowledge to use them with good results.

[Bent Ramrod]

I also wonder sometimes whether my jadedness with the present crop of gun magazine articles isn't related to the fact that I've been playing with guns and reading about them for so long that I'm like an old junkie that the street cut doesn't satisfy anymore. There are new people coming along, of course, who need to know how to sight in their deer rifles or get started reloading or casting. Somebody has to take care of their needs.

And then I go back into my collection of 1930's vintage American Riflemans, 1960's GUNSports, 1970's Handloader and Rifle Magazines, old Gun Digests and the like, and am amazed all over again at the informativeness and interest level of the articles, even though I've read them over a dozen times already. Even the more mainstream magazines back then like Guns and Shooting Times had frequent nuggets of good stuff in between the "Which is Better--9mm or .38 Spl???" articles. Even the How-To's for the Beginner stuff were worth a look.

A lot of the old articles mention products and brand names, but the articles aren't written around the products or brand names. There is also the fact that the writers' personalities came across better in their writing back then than most of the writers do today. I can't really explain it, but everything now seems kind of homogenized, like news reporting used to be. The current writers are pros, no doubt about it--very competent in the writing trade, mostly knowledgable (with glaring exceptions) reporting and describing their topics. But it's like time is money to them; they only have so much time to make up an article in a cost-effective manner. If something isn't covered adequately or they get on the wrong track, well, there's next month or next year.

The old writers were enthusiasts, and they transmitted their enthusiasms along with the information they wrote about. About the last of those in this category in recent times are Paco Kelly and the recently-deceased Col. Jeff Cooper. You might not appreciate what they liked, but they make it obvious that they did. There wasn't this sense of "If this is March, you must be the 6.5mm WSSAUM." Even if it's a 1000-yard shot at (or for) a trophy, it comes across as just another day in the office.

Of course, in the old days, you generally couldn't make a living on gun writing alone. Nowadays, if you hustle, you can do so. Maybe that's why the Internet sites are so interesting by comparison--nobody has a meter running as they test or type.

[9.3X62AL]

Bent Ramrod--

You nailed it, I do believe.

[PAT303]

The thing that makes me laugh is the gun writers carry on that the latest magnum,the latest kevler stocked rifle,scope,BC improved bullet blah blah blah is the best hunting combo period,yet most blokes shoot timber stocked rifles and 100 year old cartridges. I'm convinced writers think game animals are bullet proof.Pat

[Bass Ackward]

BA... If I get your drift, and I am not certain I do, you posit that we still don't have the answers, so we should relax and enjoy the current state of knowledge or lack thereof.

My original issue with the writer of the article was failure to communicate what we do know. The notion is to allow owners or would be owners of the classic molds to have the knowledge to use them with good results.


Chargar,

Let me see if I can explain this better.

Your origional issue assumes that the author "KNEW" more information than he wrote. My guess is that he didn't. He probably didn't have that kind of time to spend on research for one article. He is probably out there happy as a lark that he found out something and passed it along. You probably got exactly what he had time to research and experienced during that research. Welcome to the future .... "without" .... the internet. And as cheap SOBs, shooters / casters migrated to a less expensive medium than magazines. So if your argument moves to the fact you like magazines more than the net, you've got a valid argument.

In this case you already know more, .... so .... you were disappointed. If you want a shocker, go back and re-read some of the older articles and see if you can and won't spot some .... goofs or things we "know" (really believe) are or are not true today. In the end, there are no laws or rules because we have NOT established ALL the facts. Much like we do here. Here is another option to think about. No rules, just styles. The important thing is that we understand there "ARE" other options to try and we explore them.

Felix got it right with one line. A hobby. That is the new direction for most. And I am not saying that we should stop learning. I know I haven't. Dr Mann's work and a lot of the old articles can still be found if a person is interested enough to be a "student" of the sport. A lot of the students of cast will be here.

Will anyone feel the dedication to spending their life continuing Dr Mann's work? Someone wealthy maybe. 99% of shooters today would ask, who is Dr Mann? Does his work need to be continually updated to be relavent? It does as long as guys like us are still around to complain.

But when we are gone, you are looking at what will remain. A hobby. Much like math. We learned to do it on paper. Or you can cheat and break out a slide rule. Today, they just punch it into a calculator. Is something lost? Yes. Does it matter? Heck yea and .... not really. Has "everyone" stopped working on math theories? Advances may just be .... slower.

[sundog]

Chargar, at your urging, I goggled Glen Fryxell and a bunch of his articles are here:

http://www.lasc.us/ArticlesFryxell.htm

Good reading, especially the one about the Devastator boolits.

I'll have to admit, alot of the rag material is pretty shallow. A little is very good. So I keep subscribing and sort it out when it gets here. sundog

[Char-Gar]

bass... I didn't start with the assumption the writer KNEW more than he communicated. Like you, I think he was dumber than a box of rocks. I fault the editors of the magazine for allowing stuff in print that is patently misleading and doesn't serve the readership well. I fault the writer for taking money for a poorly researched and sloppy piece of work. He has no pride in his work or much concern for his reputation.

I still don't understand your's and Felix's point about it being a hobby. Yes..of course it is. It is a hobby for you and for me. Is the thrust, that folks shouldn't get so spun up about misinformation about a hobby?

Is misinformation about a hobby more acceptable than misinformation about a non-hobby? I am a amature/hobby historian and my wife is a professional historian. When we read history that is incorrect, we both get unhappy. Should that misinformation have less impact on me because it is a hobby and a greater impact on her because she is a pro? Should we have different responses?

I am not trying to be contentious, just understand. I can't figure out how a writer and publication ripping off the readers about a hobby to be of any less concern that folks ripping off others in non-hobby matters. Color me clueless on this issue.

Bent Ramrod... You observations have the ring of truth with me. I concur!

[Char-Gar]

Sundog.. Glen shows up on this site from time to time.

[Char-Gar]

Bass... I went back and reread your posts and perhaps have seen a little light.

You are saying that the article in issues, is reflective of what handloading and bullet casting has become in these days. These activties have morphed into a hobby from something more serious.

Is that your drift?...if so, then we are singing off the same page, but it still doesn't make me any less POed about the rip off.

[9.3X62AL]

Chargar--

The shallowness and misinformation annoys me, too. When contrasted against writers like Ken Waters, the fluff in many current "Handloader" articles falls short on several fronts. Some portion of this bad info makes its way into common knowledge/urban legend, and can be difficult to debunk.

Being here has spoiled me rotten. If I have a question about a given boolit casting matter--or just about anything else--I can get responses from a number of people with varying perspectives. Most of these folks are "hands-on" with the matters being inquired about, and real-time/real-world information gets shared.

With component and ammo prices going through the roof currently, you can rest assured that a lot more people will be exploring the subject of cast boolits.

[felix]

Typically, we can say a hobbiest is an end consumer, and a professional is involved in production and distribution. A book/magazine writer is in the latter group, and a note taker is in the former. Seldom can an individual person remain in the middle without destroying one or the other granulation. Hence the idea of "going pro". ... felix

[Uncle R.]

I remember my childhood and early teen years. I had a subscription to Outdoor Life and dad got The American Rifleman. I thought (or at least suspected) that Jack O'Connor could walk on water, and I pored over the technical articles in The Rifleman like a monk studying holy scripture. When I discovered Dean Grennell's books a few years later I practically memorized them all. I learned a lot, and those writers helped to fan a fire that's never stopped burning.
It's unavoidable that after nearly 40 years of shooting, reloading and reading voraciously about them, as well as 30 years of casting, the standard "gun rag" article won't have much to teach me. Those editors have to shovel the copy where it will do the most good, and anything that I'd find interesting would probably be over the head of most readers.
That said, there IS a decline in the quality of most articles today - and the thinly veiled huckstering that passes for writing is truly disgusting. All of my experience and hard-won knowledge has made me a curmudgeon, and the whooping and hollering over the latest Remchester Super Dooper Shorter-Than-Yours Magnum doesn't impress me at all. I believe it was Colonel Cooper who said "If you can't do it with a .30-06 it can't be done" and that's essentially true. But that kind of truth doesn't sell much advertising.
The saddest example today is The Rifleman itself. Once the pinnacle of gun magazines for its unbiased testing and thoroughly researched technical articles, it's now one of the worst for shallow articles carefully matched to the ad layout on the adjoining pages.
:(

[felix]

Yep, the rags must sell to stay in business. The readers/buyers of today are about 3 I.Q. levels below the same 50 years ago. Our school system used to be a representative of what we wanted as a nation without regard to costs. Wasn't it Carl Marx who stated that if and when everyone was finally thinking sports as an objective of competition that every other objective would slide and then allow the country to be ripe for takeover? ... felix

[44man]

Felix, it was my fault I was ripped off! I made the mistake of going to night target shoots with lighted sight pins. (What were called "owl shoots") Of course many guys seen what I had and it was only a short time before they hit the market. I also hunted deer with them when the pins could not be seen in morning and evening light. My first pins used fiber optic strands from Radio Shack and a light bulb that fit a 1/16" hole. I was a part time TV repairman and found tiny diodes that would light with 1-1/2 volts and made them that way.
Here is a picture of the original lights. Yes, the bulb would fit in a 1/16" hole. I drilled out the 6-32 screws by hand, end to end with an electric drill. I had a piece of red plastic in the end of the sight with the fiber optic moving the light from the bulb to it. There is a home made battery container too.
The diode sight was easier to make and I paid 13 cents apiece for the diodes.
That sight is 46 or 47 years old!

[44man]

Then I sent my book on deer and bow tuning info out to magazines, etc. Nobody was interested. Real funny how my information is now being seen more and more. I did copyright it but I am told other people discovered how to do it. It is a losing battle unless you are rich!
Every one of you could put more useable information in magazines then what is published today. But unless you are rich or famous, you will get what I did, nothing! I have only my pride left, knowing I was smarter then the boobs writing the junk in magazines.

[Bubba w/a 45/70]

All in all, doesn't it make you guys happy knowing that, for the most part, we tend to understand our craft better than the "professionals" that disseminate the information to the masses? Either that or the maxim that one needs to write for the "least common denominator" type of reader nowdays has downgraded the articles in all the magazines to one degree or another. Remember, most writing is geared towards a less than HS reading ability.

[Bubba w/a 45/70]

Should have added "notwithstanding getting ripped off" to the feeling happy part of my comment.

Sorry about it, but that kind of crap has been happening since humans started walking upright.

[44man]

One of those writers I get sick of is Mike Venturino. I can go back to his original article and move foreward through all of them and learn nothing. He pushes the same old thing over and over and it seems like all he is doing is pushing SPG lube. He has repeated so many things I just ignore anything he writes.
I was getting disgusted with Handloader and got ahold of them as to why they didn't work loads with certain guns and calibers, why they stuck with only Freedom arms and some Rugers. I told them I can go back and find hundreds of articles on the 45 ACP and Colt but nothing on the new larger calibers unless they are in a Freedom. I got a nasty response.
Ken Waters did a good job but there is nobody capable of taking his place.
Advertising is what drives the magazines now instead of knowledge. Same as the sick Rifleman now. If I didn't belong to the NRA, I would never buy the magazine!
Maybe if none of us bought any of the books, they would wise up or go away.
But then you have the armchair shooter that never takes his gun out of the closet until opening day. He is looking for the biggest, nastiest, most powerful gun he can get, to shoot 90# whitetails. He will eat up anything printed about what he thinks will kill faster and blow a little deer to pieces.
I'm glad I am here with all of you. I learn something every day and hope I can pass something along. We don't always agree but that is good.

[9.3X62AL]

I hear ya, 44 Man. Advertising revenues seem to drive a lot of what we see and hear, so I am reflexively skeptical of most media-generated information. Subtracting ad revenues might work, but one look at PBS broadcasting shows that bias creeps in anyway. Ken and Willie have built a better mouse trap, and I'm proud to be a small part of it. I couldn't ask for better people to be around.

[robertbank]

I sure would hate for bullet casting and shooting to be my "JOB". It is a great hobby. Enjoyable and relaxing. I have more friends in the US and across Canada that share my hobby than I can count. Guys I have something in common with and enjoy bantering on about my favourite hobby. It serves one of two sports I enjoy Golf and IDPA style shooting. Hunting for me is an enjoyable diversion more often best described as a long walk in the forest and not much more.

So what do I think of the poor slobs who have to do this for a living, Well I feel sorry for them. They have all the toys or at least access to them. They never lust for a Para LTC to match up with their SSP, they don't dream of picking up an old Wichesterer 94 in .38-55. Hell they probably have two in the rack. They are missing what we hobbyist take for granted.

So I continue to buy my Handloader. I only load about 10 cartridges anyway so when they discuss at great length about the 460 bolt action African game blaster and make errors in doing so bully for then, hell I wouldn't know if they did make a mistake. What I know is that 5.3 gr of 231 makes IDPA PF and is as accurate as I can shoot my 1911's. If potpouri Powder shoots 3/4" groups using 200 gr bullets at 50 yards for the author I say great. Good on him. If I could hold steady enough to hit a 12" circle at the same distance with my 1911 I'm a happy camper but you can go to your grave knowing 5.3 gr Win 231 will be under my next .45acp cartridge and be sitting beside my Handloader with the picture of my lusted Para LTC on the front cover.

I should add I retired from a job I loved but I didn't retire to gain another job.

Take Care

Bob

[500bfrman]

BTW...If anybody really want the skinny on these and other HP cast bullets read the stuff by Glen Fryxell... You can take the information you get from him to the bank!!!

Didn't I see something where there was going to be a publication of glen's writings? Or was I deliriously dreaming in my sleep?

[Char-Gar]

500 ... Glen and Bob Applegate are involved in a book. I don't know the status of it.

[Bent Ramrod]

:drinks: Robertbank,

Too, too true. How'd you like to be a writer who's coming down with a cold, with drizzling rain predicted for the only weekend you have free to test the latest whatever, and the magazine deadline looming and the whatever due back to the manufacturer Monday morning for the next writer in line to test? Fun hobby, what?

Of the current writers, I think John Barsness is pretty good. He experiments, is careful with his data, and is interested in finding out things rather than repeating old lore. Ross Seyfried also wrote about stuff he experienced personally, and of course was interested in some pretty fascinating old rifles and methods. He must have a gold mine to be able to afford that stuff. I read Venturino and Pearce because they're interested in a lot of the stuff I'm interested in. But it's not enough to make me want to subscribe. The rest of them kind of blur together. American Rifleman should have more gun stuff in it. I hear enough about Shumer, Feinstein, Mrs. Clinton, Gore and Kerry from other sources.

On the Gun Writers' wire, somebody opined that a compendium of loading data like Ken Waters' Pet Loads would be impossible to do in this day and age. He cited the cost of all the guns, all the factory loads, all the powder, all the bullets, all the molds, all the notes, all the time, etc. Like old Disney feature-length animation, Mauser pistol manufacturing, quilt making and pyramid building, it's just not economically feasible anymore, which I guess means it's impossible.

Fortunately, there are a lot of bumblebees on places like this one that fly anyway:mrgreen: .

[longhorn]

Dear Bent Ramrod: I checked twice to make sure I didn't write your post! Only thing is, I'm not quite convinced on this Brian Pearce whippersnapper. Sure seems to me he's rewriting a lot of Skeeter Skelton. I've been reading Handloader and Rifle since the '70's, and suspect they were always very low circulation mags. I used to find them fascinating, now mostly just entertaining--which is probably what Wolfe wants, as entertainment = newsstand sales.

[singleshotbuff]

Gentlemen,

I too tire of reading how a writer "hunted" on XYZ ranch and shot his "trophy" at 700 yards with the newest super duper really short ultra mag. Do these guys ever shoot real "free ranging" deer? Or shoot a cartridge more than 2 years old?

I've just about quit buying gun mags. Now mostly buy Handloader and Rifle, but get more disappointed with each issue. I usually only buy when something on the cover grabs me, like "303 British loads", only to buy it and find the same old, same old.

The last writer I liked, who wrote some fairly technical articles, was Ross Seyfried. However, a lot of his articles dealt with guns I'll never be able to afford.

I do have a collection of older mags, which I re-read frequently. The state of the art seemed higher back then.

Oh well, that's why we have the cast boolits board. For real world knowledge and info.

SSB

[Bass Ackward]

Bass... I went back and reread your posts and perhaps have seen a little light.

You are saying that the article in issues, is reflective of what handloading and bullet casting has become in these days. These activties have morphed into a hobby from something more serious.

Is that your drift?...if so, then we are singing off the same page, but it still doesn't make me any less POed about the rip off.


Chargar,

When computers hit the scene, people hung on the latest developments. People were interested in any new processor, and when the next generation was due out? How large a hard drive could one possibly get? IBM or Mac?

Now the market has changed a little. Imagine going into a computer store today and asking what kind of Bios is running in the newest boxes and expect the clerk to have an answer. Or .... better yet .... you going in and asking for a "new" 20 year old, IBM 386 because after you have learned everything you have, a 386 with windows 95 will do everything you would EVER need a computer to do.

Now imagine trying to stimulate interest in a 100 year old cartridge. What! You already own two of those? :grin: And you BUILT the last one instead of BUYING?

How bad is the market environment? Just follow this board, how many times have you heard the cry for ultimate accuracy go out? Or read a discussion on top end guns? Experienced gun men all around and you can't even sell experimentation or accuracy here .... for free. Subjects about Handi's garners more attention. That is what the market has come to.

So .... you .... end up with a void in your life. You're a big boy, you'll get over it! :grin: Bite the bullet and end your subscription! If it helps, wonder what magazines Dr Mann and Mr Pope had? :grin: If you want a heavy discussion start one. I'll jump in if it ain't over my head. On second thought, I'll probably jump in anyway, otherwise I would never post!

[Bret4207]

Oh my pet peeves! The problem today is that MOST of the gun writers are shooters/hunters, not techy types like us. They don't seem to want to know the WHY, just shoot it and sell the article. There are a few good guys left- Al Miller still puts out the occaisonal article, Brian Pearce is coming along (If he's the modern day Skeeter so much the better!), Barness and couple others do good work. But face it guys- other than keeping up on the latest new products, (and thats questionable since Winchesters lever guns were still appearing in some mags recentley) todays mags give us nothing.

I loved the old Rifleman, especially "In My Experience" where members would write in and report what they'd done. Thats what we have right here. More info, more up to date and usually correct info too, than any mag ever published.

I get Handloader, Rifle, The Rifleman (Life Member) and Fur-Fish-Game. I'd let all but FFG go, but I'm scared I'll miss something. Tried Precision Shooting, The Accurate Rifle, Varmint Hunter, etc. No good for me. I will resubscribe to the ASSRA Journal and probably Single Shot News, maybe something else. But without this place I'd go nutz!

Oddly I find myself picking up Shotgun News at the super market more and more often. At least you get something out of the ordinary with them, and it's usually mil-surp!

[dahermit]

I have stopped subscibing to the gun mags that I have read since 1963.
Reasons:
1) They consist of mostly advertisements...I will not buy advertising; if they want me to read it, they will have to provided to me for free.
2) The articles are themselves mainly an advertisement...I am outraged that they will do a test on a new Ruger MKII and declare that it has a good trigger pull.
3) The content is too shallow, does not present any iformation that that has not become cliche'.
4) Technical information often incorrect. For instance: The older 38 supers headspaced on the small rim recess cut in the barrel shroud. (Note: the 38 Super extractor picks-up the rim as the round is stripped out of the magizine...therefore it may be headspacing on the extractor and not touching the small ledge on the barrel shroud at all depending on tolorances).
5) I have little interest in what is new and trendy...What is new and trendy today is obsolete and unobtainable tommarow. .256 Hawkeye, jyro-jet, etc., etc.
6) Bigger is not always better. Only a few shooters I have seen can handle the recoil of a .44 mag. let alone anything bigger. .460, .450, .50 pistols are for madmen who must have small (deleted).

The only magizine I get now is The American Rifleman...because I am a life member.

Regards,
dahermit

[monadnock#5]

A talking head type on TV said years ago that the sole purpose of television was to sell the five minutes of commercials in every ten minutes of broadcasting. So what do you get when the whole program is a commercial? It's called an info-mercial. Now, what do you get when you have an info-mercial with commercial breaks? It's called a gun magazine. I can tolerate commercials as long as the program I'm interested in is interesting. When I get the idea that the only useful information being given is that I need to shell out big bucks to be happy, I'm gone, whatever the source. That's what I like about this board, nobody twists my arm to buy buy buy, and when I'm befuddled, I can search previous posts or ask a question that gets me pointed in another direction. Interactive knowlege gathering and dissemination. It can't get better than this. Thank you for letting me be a part of it.

[Bent Ramrod]

Pope and Mann, of course, had Shooting and Fishing for a magazine. The reprint edition of the whole issue, brought out by Broadfoot a dozen years or so ago, represents my only "big ticket" purchase in the gun line. I just had to have it.

It was a very peculiar magazine, by today's standards. There were relatively few "articles" and regular feature writers as we know them now. A. C. Gould, the editor, who was a tireless crank at the range and in the shop, wrote some of them under the nom-de-plume of Ralph Greenwood. There was the indefatigable gunsmith/cartridge/mold designer and maniac squirrel hunter Reuben Harwood, who wrote as Iron Ramrod. A lady from Maine, who wrote as "Fly Rod," either invented the term "speckled beauties" or at least printed it indelibly on the national consciousness. The relatively small number of big articles in an issue would range from technical topics to match reportage to hunting and fishing tales. There would be editorials, many against market hunters and game hogs, insisting that three deer and fifty ducks or trout a day should be a sufficient bag for any "true sportsman." There would be new product notices, but some of these would be patents, designs or developments by individuals and given similar space and treatment as the latest offering by a large company. The latest military developments would generally be given the most thorough treatment, probably because there was more technical information available in the first place.

But the bulk of the magazine was made up of snippets such as stringers send to newspapers and lots and lots of "correspondence," i.e., letters. Some of it was from "names" and acknowledged experts in their lines like Pope, J. Francis and others. Much of it was from anonymous people whose expertise might or might not grow as they continued to send in stuff to publish. Many of these people barely knew what brand rifle they were shooting, let alone the latest mechanical and ballistic theories, but what they did know, they knew well, and integrated together (with the proper signal-to-noise damping) they added up into a wealth of information.

Oh, and advertisements were on the front and back pages, so you didn't have to go on a safari to find the rest of the article you'd started. It was also a visual delight, with woodcuts, steel engravings and odd type fonts, that I'd rather look at than most of the color photography and morphing of today.

Of course, Pope, Mann and everybody else corresponded endlessly with each other and everyone else; more letters. The ASSRA just published a CD of the correspondence between Horace Warner and William V. Lowe. Somebody was supposed to have glommed onto Harvey Donaldson's files after his death; I wonder if I'll live long enough to see that published. He said he corresponded with everyone of consequence about everything of importance in the shooting line.

But now it seems to have gone full circle; the bulk of the good stuff is the compendium of correspondence available on the Internet, with a relative few magazine articles still being worth reading. The signal-to-noise problem is, I think, much less because the responses are so immediate, so we have an advantage over the readers of the old magazine correspondents that way.

[Texasflyboy]

The signal-to-noise problem is, I think, much less because the responses are so immediate, so we have an advantage over the readers of the old magazine correspondents that way.

Bingo.

I've long suspected that dissatisfaction with gun rags and writers has always existed, even back in the "good ol' days". What was missing then was for a reader to quickly voice their collective displeasure with an article, in lieu of the usual “letter to the editor”.

But what has changed for us is communication, like this forum. In 1962, we had to wait weeks or months to all get together at the annual gunshow, bar-b-Q or the barber shop to discuss that latest article, and we had to remember to bring it up.

Today, that's all changed. Critiques begin with the arrival of the issue, and consensus is reached within hours of publication, in places like this forum.

That wasn't possible 30 or 40 years ago, it was barely possible 10 years ago.

The Internet and how we can now all reach each other is changing the publishing world. Newspapers are dying, and the rest of print media is going with it.

Folks like Glen Fryxell to name one, and others have their own publishing forum, and with it, their own voice, which was not an option years ago.

Magazines don't know how to deal with this, and they blindly push on, and can't, or won't adapt to the changes in which we all communicate. For them, the world is a 30 day print cycle, 12 times a year. That’s too slow for us these days…we can request, and receive information in minutes.

It may very well be that we are seeing the beginning of the end for traditional print media.

To me, I certainly place more faith in topics discussed here than in any gun magazine. The vetting of information that happens here normally cancels out any errors that can creep in, a distinct advantage that magazines with a single line of communication can't, and never did have. Magazines don’t have the “edit” button on their post…:-D

Just my thoughts on a rather interesting topic…

[500bfrman]

I have stopped subscibing to the gun mags that I have read since 1963.
Reasons:
1) They consist of mostly advertisements...I will not buy advertising; if they want me to read it, they will have to provided to me for free.
2) The articles are themselves mainly an advertisement...I am outraged that they will do a test on a new Ruger MKII and declare that it has a good trigger pull.
3) The content is too shallow, does not present any iformation that that has not become cliche'.
4) Technical information often incorrect. For instance: The older 38 supers headspaced on the small rim recess cut in the barrel shroud. (Note: the 38 Super extractor picks-up the rim as the round is stripped out of the magizine...therefore it may be headspacing on the extractor and not touching the small ledge on the barrel shroud at all depending on tolorances).
5) I have little interest in what is new and trendy...What is new and trendy today is obsolete and unobtainable tommarow. .256 Hawkeye, jyro-jet, etc., etc.
6) Bigger is not always better. Only a few shooters I have seen can handle the recoil of a .44 mag. let alone anything bigger. .460, .450, .50 pistols are for madmen who must have small (deleted).

The only magizine I get now is The American Rifleman...because I am a life member.

Regards,
dahermit

I'm not the brighest light bulb, but didn't the 44 mag used to be new and trendy? Wasn't the 308 new and trendy at one time? wasn't the beloved 30-30 new and trendy? Why is it if you call me out as someone with a small (deleted) its okay. But if I come off saying that I would probably get banned from the board? It's not who you know.

[44man]

New and trendy is OK. It is just when they publish a few loads with a few components and powders and then repeat over and over for years, the same old crap.
Then the comment on the .44 and larger guns was a little off, I love the bigger guns, ( Also the .44.) small (deleted) not withstanding of course, but have any of you ever read a full, extensive testing and loading article on any of the larger revolvers? I think the gun rag writers are afraid of them. How many of you have ever read anything at all about the BFR revolvers with extensive load testing? I seen a flash article on the S&W .500 but no work done with it at all. Factory loads at 25 yd's, big deal.
The new crop of writers are not shooters, can't shoot, don't know how to work loads but they sure know how to sell stuff. Then any load work will have a long page of results saying "good results in such and such gun" or "hot, reduce a little" but there is not a single word on actual groups shot. We don't know if he was happy with 6" at 50 yd's or whether that was his idea of extreme accuracy or not.

[9.3X62AL]

I don't know either of you personally, but we can all do without the Freudian references.

[44man]

Well said, Deputy, but I was only repeating what may or may not be true about me! I'll never tell---HEE-HEE.

[Dale53]

I guess I come from a bit of a different perspective. I am a "small time" gunwriter. I am a Contributing Editor of ASSRA's "Single Shot Rifle Journal". Most of you here know that. Actually, we have several really good gun writers out there and active NOW. John Taffin on the Big Bore Handguns comes to mind. I also have a great deal of respect for Jim Wilson, and frankly, I think that Mike Venturino does a pretty dern good job. Steve Garbe, Editor and Publisher of "The Black Powder Cartridge News" does a fine job. Each of these fellows have their own areas of concern and within those areas do a very credible job. I wouldn't look to Steve Garbe for information on the latest, hottest varmint rifle but talk black powder cartridge guns and you have a bonafide expert. The same is true of a lot of others.

I do agree with most of you that some of the magazines have slipped seriously in quality. It seems that the writers are held to small "sound bites" instead of lengthy, in depth articles. Frankly, that has to be Editorial Policy's responsibility.

Don't forget that just because most of us are long time shooters, casters, and reloaders, that a whole bunch of fellers are beginners. The magazines have to address the beginners and a lot of what they do is necessary and THAT will not be terribly interesting to a fellow or gal who had been in this game for twenty years or more (in my case, MANY more:mrgreen:.

I have little interest in military stuff in general (I did my share of playing with those toys when I was in the military) but that does not mean that the interest is not there for a bunch of other folk. That must be addressed, also.

It is kind of a dilemma for us and I try to solve it by being discriminating about what I subscribe to. Sometimes I take a flyer because I get a great deal, and sometimes I wish I had paid them to keep the dern thing.

As a writer and photographer I try to give something interesting to the bulk of my readers. Sometimes I hit the nail on the head and sometimes I probably do not. I DO keep trying. I recently did a series on starting "casting without selling the farm" and was gratified when several long time casters approached me at a recent match and thanked me for helping them solve a problem or problems that they had tried to solve for years. That is MOST gratifying. If I have learned anything in my "playing with toys" over the past many years, I intend to share it with my fellow shooters. After all, most everything that I know has come to me from someone else (if we are honest with ourselves most of us would agree with that). Sharing is something that I dearly love to do.

If you have something to contribute, put it on paper and try to get it published. Rejection is a part of writing just as sure as daylight is part of tomorrow. It is helpful if you are a good photographer and can illustrate your articles. It is also helpful in getting published if you write well (good grammar, etc). Elmer Keith reportedly didn't punctuate, didn't use capitals, had poor grammar but his information was so valuable that Editors would do a lot of his writing for him. Well, you won't find that today. Today, you write the copy, rewrite the copy (and maybe rewrite it again) then have it proofread, put it on a CD and illustrate with professional grade photographs and you too can get published. Oh, don't expect to be paid big dollars, either. Few gun writers make big bucks. I enjoy doing what I do and the few dollars that I am paid helps towards my shooting, acquisitions, and reloading. Writing successfully also lets you meet a lot of VERY nice folks and see lots of VERY fine rifles, etc that you would never have a chance to see. I find it rewarding but rather hard work...

Dale53

[NVcurmudgeon]

Tpr. Bret, I would like to "pick up Shotgun News at the supermarket" about once a month. However, SGN cost about four bucks per issue that way, so I would be in for $48/year. Better is a subscription, you can get SGN three times a month for $25/year!

[Scrounger]

Tjere were very few gun mags on sale at markets in SoCal; the only place I ever saw Gun List or Shotgun News was at a 7-11 near Angeles Shooting Range. I had to kill a little time last week in Smith's waiting for a prescription so I checked out their magazine rack. Bonanza! They have 21 different gun magazines for sale, including both Gun List and Shotgun News. I haven't subscribed to any mags in years, I do get American Rifleman because I am a life member. Ninty percent of the time it gets dumped as soon as I see the cover.

[Bret4207]

Tpr. Bret, I would like to "pick up Shotgun News at the supermarket" about once a month. However, SGN cost about four bucks per issue that way, so I would be in for $48/year. Better is a subscription, you can get SGN three times a month for $25/year!

True, true. But since I take a peek at the atricles first I only end up buy maybe 4 issues a year. Thats 4X as many as I used to. I used to subscribe to The Gun List, now know as The Gun Digest, but plaes like Auction Arms and Ebay pretty much killed the classified type paper IMHO. The bad part is 10 years ago I could get a Lyman Super Targetspot for $300.00 or a 358009 for $35.00 or a 10 cavity H+G for $50.00. Ebay killed all that. Such is life.



Dale- I think you know I hold you and a few others like Green Frog in a whole 'nother class of writers. I was refering to mainstream glossy type mags, not the "specialty" types like ASSRA Journal Single Shot Exchange, Muzzleloader, etc. If I offended you I am truly sorry. I know what used to be involved in trying to get stuff published. It sounds like now, in addition to finding and article that'll sell, you have to be a school marm too! I'd love to write. My boyhood dream, one of many, was to be an outdoor writer like Ted Trueblood, Elmer, Joe Brooks or Jack O'Connor, Tom McNally, Gordon MacQuarrie, Gene Hill. I don't think we have men of their caliber today writing for the mainstream publications. We may never have them again. Surely no one can fill Gene Hills shoes for instance. But, we remain hopefull that we can get our fill on the web. Maybe thats the furture.

[robertbank]

Was a time up here when you went to the Drug Store or Supermarket and you could browse through a dozen or so gun mags and pick and choose. Today, after a couple decades of Liberal Gov't and the work of the anti-gun crowd you are lucky if there is one or two. Skin and soft Porn take your choice - Upper shelf of course - but those terrible gun mags forget it. I now subscribe to Handloader and usually find one or two articles worth reading. I pick up shooting Times occassionaly for an article that catches my eye. The only other mag that I see regularily is Guns & Ammo but there seldom is anything of interest in it, mostly ads anyway.

Personally I think the Web has or will kill off the gun rags comletely as the industry moves to websites for their advertising.

Take Care

Bob

[omgb]

My take: "Guns & Ammo" ...a Dick and Jane book for rank beginners. "Shooting Times" ....another simple, boring platform for advertisers geared at very young shooters and Bubbas, "Rifle" ..a better mag with at least one meaty and useful article per issue but the quality and technical advice is slipping, ditto "Handloader". "The American Rifleman"... if you are looking for male enhancement products, the latest black ops gear or if you want lots of photos of your favorite pro gun politicians, this is your mag. However, if you are looking for lots of good technical writing or experimentation or classic guns, well, this dog ain't gonna hunt. "Guns" ... cheaply made, cheaply written makes you wish Dean Grinnel was still with us. "Gun World" .... same as "Guns". "The Blue Press" ... great photos of large breasted women and machine guns. Of course, that's exactly what Dillon sells, duh! "The Double Gun Journal" ....an excellent mag but, it's only for the well heeled. "Black Powder Journal" ... a great mag, lots of stories, articles, history. Too bad it only comes out 6 times a year. Well worth the money. OK, that's my take

[Bent Ramrod]

My comments also were about the large-circulation magazines. The smaller enthusiasts' publications are the only ones I subscribe to, which includes the Single Shot Rifle Journal, the Remington Society and Antique Reloading Tool quarterlies, and Black Powder Cartridge News. I used to get Handloader, Rifle, Precision Shooting and The Accurate Rifle until they stopped being enthusiasts' publications and went mainstream.

Ken Howell wrote a very interesting piece on another forum about the inception of Handloader and Rifle, saying the effort was underwritten for years by Fred Huntington of RCBS and other reloading industry people. It was a nearly nonprofit labor of love for them, for the writers (who were paid peanuts) and for the editorial staff, (which included Howell), who scrimped along, hand-to-mouth, for years. This situation, of course, was not described in the pages of the magazines at the time, so we all in our happy ignorance bought our subscriptions, thinking, finally, somebody had figured out how to do it right.

I have a big file of old Handloader and Rifle magazines, and comb the stacks at gun shows for missing issues. I subscribed for years, but when Wolfe retired and sold to the new people, I got a (to me) rather insulting letter saying the New Order had decided to blow off their "aging subscriber base" (ouch!!) and make the magazines more appealing to a wider audience, by which I assumed they meant newsstand sales.

Soon after came the pictures of animals on the covers, overlaid by boxes with exclamatory hawkings for the feature articles inside the issue, the color photos inside and the ever-increasing reliance on such bling and on their regular stable of writers, to the exclusion of the occasional writer who waits until he has something compelling to say. And they were right, the magazines were then more mainstream, and more indistinguishable from all the other newsstand gun fare. I dropped my subscriptions (just as their business plan had predicted) and picked the couple issues a year that interested me off the newsstand until the last place in town that carried them went out of business. I understand their sales are up, so marketing wise it must have been a good move.

The same thing, a little more subtly, happened with other publications. Precision Shooting and the Accurate Rifle changed from How To stuff to larger slicker formats and What To (buy) stuff, with maybe one article, of the type that used to fill the publication, every month. Black Powder Cartridge Rifles eventually had to merge with its sister The Buckskin Report to stay viable. The mountain man types then had to be outraged at all the newfangled cartridge stuff and the rest of us had to endure a lot of mountain man articles, many in mountain man language, until the magazine finally went out of business. At some point in a publication's history, economics, market share and the bottom line take over. If the point is to keep the magazine viable and profitable, there is really no other way.

I realize guns and shooting are, on the average, a kind of finite topic. If you devote your magazine only to antique rifles, or to ballistics, or to rimfire position shooting, or to cast boolits, you will certainly generate a rabid base of enthusiasts, but it might not be enough if your printer has to switch to environmentally-correct ink which doubles the printing costs. Diversification is necessary. Jack O'Connor, in his Last Book, mentioned that there is no one so intolerant as the hobbyist for someone else's hobby, and I guess I fit that description. But I can be made interested in something else, sometimes, if the writer can convey his enthusiasm and interest sufficiently. There is where the assembly-line efficiency thing breaks down for me.

[Dale53]

Tpr.Bret;
You did NOT offend me. I am not easily offended:mrgreen:. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion here. Actually, I was not trying to defend myself (I am what I am, I am, nothin' more) but rather trying to say that there are still some good writers working today. However, your disappointment in the current offers (aside from the specialty magazines) is shared by me. I subscribed to Handloader and the Rifle from its inception but finally had to call it quits. Dave Wolfe was a real shooter (bench Rest) and when he sold out the magazine has suffered. However, I recently subscribed to their on-line magazines. The price is right and there is occasionally a nugget of worth there. In fact, I believe that they are getting a bit better. You might want to check them out online.

I do think that excellent forums like this one will either make it more difficult for the magazines or maybe, possibly, a couple will "see the light" as a result, and will improve. One can only hope...

The magazine that I am particularly upset with, tho'. is The American Rifleman. That used to be THE technical magazine out there. The likes of Al Barr, Elmer Keith, etc started me on my path to "shooting with the stars". I learned a great deal from the reasoned, careful, examples of "how to do it" written by those folks. Now, it is just an advertisers platform. The Dope Bag, which used to be the first thing I would head for, is a joke. You know, tho', I may be a part of the problem as I have never complained to the NRA about the magazine and have never tried to write for them. Maybe I should get off my "butt" and do one or the other. Think maybe?

Dale53

[dahermit]

I'm not the brighest light bulb, but didn't the 44 mag used to be new and trendy? Wasn't the 308 new and trendy at one time? wasn't the beloved 30-30 new and trendy?

What about the other 5 points?
Regards,
dahermit

[dahermit]

I don't know either of you personally, but we can all do without the Freudian references.

My sincere apologies...it was ment as tonge in cheek. Sadly, I was raised by wolves resulting in no social skills.

Regards,
dahermit

[500bfrman]

What about the other 5 points?
Regards,
dahermit

I'm not going to defend the mags, I don't buy em either. It makes me laugh though how everybody is always critical of new cartridges that come out. They say (insert custom gunsmith here) already did that 30 years ago. Then they turn around and complain about the articles all being the same in the mags. Personally I love all the options we have for guns, the more the better is my opinion. Even if all you ever want to shoot is a 30-30. Choices are good.

[LAH]

Took Handloader till 18 or 20 months ago. Brian Pearce always gave my bullets a fair shake......Same for Dave Scoville. Finally stopped the mag. though.

Took Guns a while. Always liked Taffin and like Pearce, he gave my bullets a chance. Just took on G&A and Shooting Times because they were so cheap. First issues arrived but no time to read them yet. We'll see.

My gripe all along is every body claiming new and improved while in real life they work no or very little better than what we've had for years.

And like some of the above I can learn more here than most anything I've read in the rags. Just my 2.........Creeker

[500bfrman]

I find it very interesting what people call an improvement. I would think something that shoots flatter than what we have currently is an improvement. But then there's always a group saying "doesn't kill a deer any deader than my 30-30,30-06, insert your favorite here" . Which is true, the new cartridges won't kill the animal any deader than the old. But then the (insert your favorite here) won't kill it any deader than a bp gun will.

[9.3X62AL]

Hermit--

Being raised by wolves ain't necessarily bad. It didn't hold back Romulus & Remus much.

[Char-Gar]

Firearms are "durable goods" and with proper care will last a several generations. Unless the firearms makes tweak things and call them new and improved, they won't have anything to sell. The must create a market,

That used to bother me, until I realized that it just creates a large pool of fine used firearms as the folks who just must have the newest and most improved do their thing. I figure it a fellow is such a dolt as to fall for the hype, he deserves for the firearms makers and sellers to seperate him from his cash.

[Bret4207]

Dale- You think the NRA has any interest in publishing articles about guns anymore??!! Not unless it brings in bucks. Sad.

I think the thing that most of us lament is that the mags today are telling us what to buy. What we tend to want is articles telling us how to make what we have work better, or a new trick to help the loading or casting or accurizing process. Thats what we get here, and no coporate sponsor either!

That reminds me- I haven't done it yet, but I think it'd be nice if everybody sent Willie a couple of bucks to help maintain this place. Sort of a Christmas present to ourselves. All in favor?

[500bfrman]

I think the thing that most of us lament is that the mags today are telling us what to buy. What we tend to want is articles telling us how to make what we have work better, or a new trick to help the loading or casting or accurizing process. Thats what we get here, and no coporate sponsor either!



Not everybody already has something right now. It's been my experience that anyone who falls in the camp of just starting out and wanting something new will get ridiculed if he buys the new super mag. I mean if you've already got grandpa's 30-06 and that works for you, great. Don't moan, groan, complain, and run the new guy out because he gets the new one though. Unfortunately I find more ridicule than support when thinking outside the conventional box.

[LAH]

Mr. 500bfrman I'll agree it's easy for the oldtimers to say fooy on the new stuff. It's like the old S&W revolvers. They are great. We know what to look for and I pick one up every year or two. They suit my needs perfect. But what about the new guys. They need equipment also.

I look back at my first press and think I sure wish it had been a Dillon 550 or the LNL but neither was to be had in 73. So I'm not totally turned off by new & improved.

I think loading equipment, casting equipment, some rifles & sixguns have improved and that's great. Also because of the new comers I tend to stay away from the Old Star is better than New Star and Pre-Lock is better than Post-Lock threads. But when we come to cartridges the line become thinner.

So yer correct in "Not everybody already has something right now." New stuff is needed and I'm not against that, only the "means" used sometimes to sell it. And I freely admit to liking the "How To" stuff better than the "What's New" list. Guess I am getting old, gezzzzzzzzzz................Creeker

[NickSS]

I quit buying most gun magazines 20 yars ago. When I find one at my club I brouse through it and find that i have not missed anything. Most new gun articles go something like this. I got the gun, it is beautiful and accurate. I shot it with several different factory loads and it shot great. I then went hunting an killed a deer and it died.

In my youth I used to read this stuff then I went and did and found out over time that almost anything that goes bang will kill a deer. Elk are a little harder so you need something maybe a touch stouter than a 30-30 but then again maybe not it you shoot straight and get close enough. The only magazine I subscrib to now in Single Shot Exchange because they print articles not written my experts but people who really did whatever the article is about and besides you learn all about some neat old guns.