The decline of the Gun/Handloaders Digerst

[Bret4207]

A post made in the Hollywood Press thread got me thinking about Handloaders Digest and Gun Digest. I have almost all of the issues and there is a very marked and stark contrast between the days when John Amber had the editors desk and the modern incarnations edited by Ken Ramage I believe. Last I new Ken was employed by Lyman or Ruger back in the early 80's so you'd think he'd have been exposed to the quality John Amber , and later Ken Howell I think, brought to these fine publications. They've gone form truly important articles to 90% regurgitated pap. As noted in the Hollywood thread, even the commercial suppliers addresses are wrong. In the latest Gun Digest I see products and companies no longer in existance, mis-identified photos, etc. I just miss the sheer quality they used to have. The articles are going the way of Handloader Magazine under Dave Scoville- downhill fast. These used to almost be technicle books for the experienced gun nut or handloader. Not anymore. Thank goodnes for places like this where I can share and recieve up to date information with out the lead time and "one size fits all" approach.

[wills]

I noticed Handloader seems to be in a decline. Rhetorically speaking though, can you think of anything that has not gotten worse over the past twenty or thirty years? The old “lowest common denominator”, instead of excellence seems to be the standard for everything, and the “lowest common denominator” just keeps getting lower.

[floodgate]

Tpr. Bret:

I sure have to agree with you, especially on the Handloaders' Digests. I was asked when it came out in 2003 to write a review of HLD #18, for one of the Single Shot mags, and after going through it, I wrote back and said it was so badly edited I just could not recommend it to anyone. It had a couple of very good articles, but the rest was basically puff and junk, and the catalog section was hopelessly disorganized: text did not match illustrations, etc., etc. Sad, because Ken Ramage did some really GOOD editing for Lyman back in the 1980's, and we've had some good correspondence in past years. What I suspect is, the project to update HLD had been set aside, only partly done - and then someone at Krause Publications just gathered up what they had, printed it, slapped covers on it and sent it out. There was a bunch of HLD #18's being dumped on eBay a couple of months ago; not surprising. Amber was an opinionated old boy, but he laid a good foundation, and I am sorry to see it frittered away.

floodgate

[Timberlake]

Speaking of Magazines, I have about 125lbs worth of Handloader/Rifle magazines dating back to 1968. A smattering of NRA stuff there too. Anybody want them? You can pick them up in Lakeview Heights, Mo or in Waterloo, Iowa. They are free. You can email me.

TL

[Bret4207]

Timberlake- Private email sent your way. I'm interested.

[Bent Ramrod]

Tpr Bret, et al,

I think it's a combination of computer composition and proofreading and the marketer's need to get "product" out on schedule, be it ever so shoddy. The Handloader's Digests are a case in point. When it became an annual, the quality and interest level deteriorated. I never had the room for an extensive collection of Gun Digests, but picked up the Gun Digest Treasuries until they started repeating articles from previous Gun Digest Treasuries. I stopped subscribing to Rifle and Handloader in the mid 90's. When they started putting game animals on the cover, I knew the popular taste was beginning to diverge from my own.

[Buckshot]

............The publisher of both Rifle and Handloader admitted in real english words that they were dumbing down the content to make it appealing to a wider audience. Read that as the news stand crowd.

However, while I let my subscription lapse due to the above, I will buy the occasional issue here and there. If it made the difference between disappearing completely or merely watering down the content, I guess the later is better.

I may be wrong, but the American Rifleman was a much more substantial and interesting magaazine then the last 20 years. They HAVE improved it a bit in the past couple years, IMHO.

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

[felix]

Yeah, Buckshot, I have given these guys the benefit of my doubts. I still get Handloader for the occassional article, and for the hope of better to come. I agree with you about the American Rifleman. Everybody has to get that magazine for legal purposes at the very least. Precision Shooting is still my rag of choice, as it would be for any engineering personality type I suppose. ... felix

[Urny]

I'm not an engineering type, mearly a poor, dumb mechanic, but Precision Shooting has become my choice too, with the death of The Accurate Rifle. Some of the writers for TAR were special from my point of view, sad to see it go. Let Rifle, Handloader and the Gun Digest products slip away a few years ago.

[Bent Ramrod]

Even Precision Shooting isn't what it used to be. The Editor, Dave Brennan, used to exercise the uncanny trick of cajoling people who were expert gunsmiths, bullet casters and swagers, and bench rest shots into actually writing about the means and methods they used and what they thought was critical to being as good as they were. This generally took the form of a round-robin letter to ten custom smiths or top shooters. These guys were not professional (or, from the lack of their output anywhere else) even willing amateur writers, but somehow Brennan would worm the info out of them and edit the output into a really fascinating article. (For those who are unfamiliar, this was the pre-1990's Precision Shooting, which was thin, in volume, not content, compared to now, had few ads and didn't even have a table of contents.)

I started subscribing (as opposed to scrounging old issues at gun shows) when it assumed its present magazine format, switched to The Accurate Rifle when PS appeared to concentrate more on military shooting and SWAT scenarios than on what interested me, held on to the bitter end, and am now finishing out my subscription getting Precision Shooting again.

The latest issue has an article that is the quintessential reason, as far as I am concerned, to let the subscription lapse permanently. Something about "The Ultimate Secret to Being A Master Rifleman" or some such, by a guy named Gottfredson. Buy a premium barrel from A, a custom action from B, a plastic stock from C, a scope from D Co., send the works to Joe Doaks, Gunsmith to the Stars. Then buy as much Black Hills Ammo as possible and go to XYZ Shooting Ranch, where those tough-love instructors will either break your bad shooting habits or break your heart. And then practice. A lot. Lots and lots.

Well, yeah. I guess that would work. But as someone pointed out, you don't have to learn how to spend money; you just somehow know. An article on how the legendary shots of the past got as good as they did before this crowd of manufacturers, assemblers and service personnel hung out their shingles and started taking on orders and clients would have made interesting reading. Gottfredson's article was like reading a parts list with ads around the periphery. PS might average two articles a month I regard as worth reading. (I always read Ayoob's stuff, just like I always take chocolate fudge when it's offered, even if I don't really want to.) TAR might have had three a month. Not enough.

Maybe it's me. I'm a print junkie, no doubt, and maybe I've just read too much gun stuff. But I get more solid info out of sites like this (and the old Shooter's site, rest its electrons) than a out of a foot-high stack of the current paper publications.

[PDshooter]

Speaking of Magazines, I have about 125lbs worth of Handloader/Rifle magazines dating back to 1968. A smattering of NRA stuff there too. Anybody want them? You can pick them up in Lakeview Heights, Mo or in Waterloo, Iowa. They are free. You can email me.

TL

You should "Ebay" them.........Got rid of "Varmint hunter" mags.....all 43 of them....10yrs worth +.........$70 :) Just sitting and taking up space!

[fatnhappy]

Even Precision Shooting isn't what it used to be. The Editor, Dave Brennan, used to exercise the uncanny trick of cajoling people who were expert gunsmiths, bullet casters and swagers, and bench rest shots into actually writing about the means and methods they used and what they thought was critical to being as good as they were. This generally took the form of a round-robin letter to ten custom smiths or top shooters. These guys were not professional (or, from the lack of their output anywhere else) even willing amateur writers, but somehow Brennan would worm the info out of them and edit the output into a really fascinating article. (For those who are unfamiliar, this was the pre-1990's Precision Shooting, which was thin, in volume, not content, compared to now, had few ads and didn't even have a table of contents.)

I started subscribing (as opposed to scrounging old issues at gun shows) when it assumed its present magazine format, switched to The Accurate Rifle when PS appeared to concentrate more on military shooting and SWAT scenarios than on what interested me, held on to the bitter end, and am now finishing out my subscription getting Precision Shooting again.

The latest issue has an article that is the quintessential reason, as far as I am concerned, to let the subscription lapse permanently. Something about "The Ultimate Secret to Being A Master Rifleman" or some such, by a guy named Gottfredson. Buy a premium barrel from A, a custom action from B, a plastic stock from C, a scope from D Co., send the works to Joe Doaks, Gunsmith to the Stars. Then buy as much Black Hills Ammo as possible and go to XYZ Shooting Ranch, where those tough-love instructors will either break your bad shooting habits or break your heart. And then practice. A lot. Lots and lots.

Well, yeah. I guess that would work. But as someone pointed out, you don't have to learn how to spend money; you just somehow know. An article on how the legendary shots of the past got as good as they did before this crowd of manufacturers, assemblers and service personnel hung out their shingles and started taking on orders and clients would have made interesting reading. Gottfredson's article was like reading a parts list with ads around the periphery. PS might average two articles a month I regard as worth reading. (I always read Ayoob's stuff, just like I always take chocolate fudge when it's offered, even if I don't really want to.) TAR might have had three a month. Not enough.

Maybe it's me. I'm a print junkie, no doubt, and maybe I've just read too much gun stuff. But I get more solid info out of sites like this (and the old Shooter's site, rest its electrons) than a out of a foot-high stack of the current paper publications.

HOT damn Ramrod! I couldn't agree more, and not just about the gun rags but the hunting rags too. If it weren't for Barness I wouldn't even bother with handloader anymore.
If I read one more stinking article from Col. Craig Boddington, (formerly brigadier, what happened there?) about how I'm undergunned with my 06 out f-ing deer hunting, in every single Petersen publication of that month, then I'm gonna.......
I guess my point is that there are only 3 or 4 writers out there that are worth reading, without regard to the editing. Fat Mike, when he isn't pimping an advertiser, Barness, Jamison and Seyfried. Unfortunately Finn has passed, he was the best I've ever read, IMHO.

[45nut]

I was a fan of Bob Milek,he mentioned a gun a few times that really got me going,,the Contender. Not a wildly popular choice in the circles of gun folks I knew as I wandered the various gun ranges and shops.
I subscribed to a few paper lions over the years,G&A,ST,Guns,Gun World,ect ect. Seems that I always took American Rifleman for granted since it was foisted upon you as a NRA member,but a old fellow gunner gave me a PILE of them from the 50's,60's and 70's and looking through them I got a look at the times I missed. Days of the pre-68 mail order guns,Boyes anti-tank rifles,Colt DA 1917 45's,03's and beyond. Man,the things we discuss here harken back to the days I missed and I dont look but twice at many magazines now. Knowing the difference between a 9mm and a 45acp seems common here,but the folks that buy a rag for that article are really at a disadvantage.
Going forward,the WWW being what it is really makes the print stuff look like roman scrolls. I enjoy reading very much,but having it available to instantly discuss point-counterpoint makes this a much better "value".

[KCSO]

Yes and the magazines are no longer interested in critisism of any product or any controversy. Elmer and Jack wouldn't get 1/2 their stuff published today.

There are NO real gunsmitihing articles because of liability. No one is allowed to push the envelope in handloading. There goes another 1/4 of Elmers work and all of Nonte. Jack Lewis gave up and writes for the Marine Corp magazine. Dean Spier critisised Glock and now has dissapeared.

I would like just once to see an article that says don't buy this its junk!!!

[Jumptrap]

KCSO,

Stop and realize what these magazines are about from their inception:ADVERTISING.

Magazines are a form of advertisement that the public actually pays for directly. They are not meant to entertain or enlighten, but rather, to sell products. The bait is the article, the subject of that article is the product being hawked.

Ever notice the big advertisement pages in issues with a gaudy story on a new gun? Hell, yes.....all planned that way. Ever notice how this month, it's the latest from Remington (long guns). Next month, S&W's latest handcannon. Funny thing these companies have full page ads in those issues. It isn't coincidence.

They publishers don't give a damn for anything but advertising and the sale of ad space. The readers are nothing. Remington and all the rest are the Publishers bread and butter. You ever wonder how the hell they can offer Field and Stream for $9.95 a year? Easy. They can give the damned thing away for cost.....because the revenues are earned by the advertisers, not the readers.

I don't subscribe to any of them. All trash.



Yes and the magazines are no longer interested in critisism of any product or any controversy. Elmer and Jack wouldn't get 1/2 their stuff published today.

There are NO real gunsmitihing articles because of liability. No one is allowed to push the envelope in handloading. There goes another 1/4 of Elmers work and all of Nonte. Jack Lewis gave up and writes for the Marine Corp magazine. Dean Spier critisised Glock and now has dissapeared.

I would like just once to see an article that says don't buy this its junk!!!

[floodgate]

KCSO:

"I would like just once to see an article that says don't buy this its junk!!!"

Well, "Gun Tests" used to say just about that now and then. But they don't (or didn't when I last subscribed a couple of years ago) carry any commercial advertising, and the resulting subscription price was too high for me to keep it up.

floodgate

[Bent Ramrod]

To do it justice, The American Rifleman has gotten, and stayed, better since I first joined in the mid-70's. Back then, the NRA was dominated by people who wanted to "compromise" with the antigun people, and they apparently thought the Second Amendment said everybody could possess one flintlock musket. All the articles seemed to be about the romance of flintlock muskets; the romance of powder horns, the romance of cleaning patches for flintlock muskets, etc. It's much better now, with a pretty good overall balance of articles., times being as they are and all.

I would agree with KCSO about the legal liability thing being a factor in publications. I see a fair number of wimp loads being published as standard in magazines, and the recherche attitudes of the writers in the old Rifle, Handloader and pre-70's (especially 1930's)-era American Rifleman is just plain gone. You can still see it in some of the articles in the English magazine Classic Arms and Militaria, which, alas, is apparently on a rather shaky financial footing now with the "official" English attitude toward firearms. There's a lot of stuff about medals, swords, armor, battles, etc. as well as guns. But there still are occasional writeups by "our" kind of people: they make pinfire cartridge cases so they can shoot their ancient French revolvers, manufacture hollow-base plugs out of modern composites so they can see how "real" Minie-patent bullets shot, perform desperate expedients of one sort or another so they can get their Greener Cadet or odd-caliber Rook rifles talking again, and so forth. Just to see what it was like back then. Not a dime in any of it for an advertiser, and might be dangerous when performed by a careless person, but interesting nonetheless.

[JohnH]

I agree with Deputy Al, Bob milek was a huge influence on my early reloading, it was as much because of his writing that I started reloading. Several other writers could be mentioned here as well, but suffice it to say that none of todays writers leave me with the "I should be doing that" desire.

I quit buying magazines when I got online. These days all my info comes from boards like this and folks like ya'll. I've learned as much in 3 years of hanging around places like this as I learned in 30 years of reading the stuff published in the magazines.

I'd say that the next time you are disgusted with the content of a magazine, to take that subscription money and send it to your favorite board.

[HickoryCreek]

KCSO:

"I would like just once to see an article that says don't buy this its junk!!!"

Well, "Gun Tests" used to say just about that now and then. But they don't (or didn't when I last subscribed a couple of years ago) carry any commercial advertising, and the resulting subscription price was too high for me to keep it up.

floodgate

Gun tests still has no advertising in it, unless you count the one in the middle (1 page on gunsmithing videos). they regularly stil tell you not to buy something because it is low quality. Some of the stuff that comes up short would suprise you. I do not think it is that incredibly expensive. 24 dollars for 13 issues. 2 bucks a month is not that much even for this part time preacher on welfare. It is not perfect but the best magazine I have seen out there if you want to know which gun to buy.

[drinks]

I did a sub to Gun Tests, seemed very straightforward, no mealeymouthing, BUT, they test about 90% handguns and my interests are about 90% long guns, so I have let it drop.

[HickoryCreek]

I did a sub to Gun Tests, seemed very straightforward, no mealeymouthing, BUT, they test about 90% handguns and my interests are about 90% long guns, so I have let it drop.

I don't mean to be argumentative here, but for it to be 90% handguns there would have to be 9 handgun articles to 1 long gun article. I just don't see that being the case. They definitely do more handguns though, usually 2 handguns 1 rifle, and 1 shotgun per issue. They are also testing other gear now, such as holsters, weapon lights, binos, etc. and that has upset quite a few subscribers I know. With all this being said I do not want to appear to be the GT spokesman, simply put they seem to be a fair speaking magazine. I will not however in all likelihood be renewing. They simply review to many semiauto handguns for my liking, I strictly am a revolver man myself. I have never owned a semi auto that hasn't malfunctioned. I have never owned a revolver that has. The magazine is good for reviews, but many times you can find people on websites such as this, shooters forum, etc that can give you strait info for free. My money will go to the CBA this time. It takes me a lot of time to save up for a new gun, and I know exactly what I want, and do a lot, a lot of research on it. Any way thats my .02 or is it .03. :mrgreen:

[waksupi]

I got a Hand-me-down copy of the July 2005 Shooting Times magazine. In it, I was amazed to find an article by Scott Mayer, that had real, usable info on cast boolits for people.

Something tells me, he hangs out here, considering some of the info I saw in the article.

[9.3X62AL]

Well, Ric--even a gunwriter, one of the Anointed Elect, needs to get straight info SOMEWHERE. If cast boolits is the subject, this here is the place. That such info trickles down to the readership of the "mass distribution" gunrags is something of a miracle, and a step in the right direction for the involved gunrag.

[Swagerman]

Ever notice how some of these gun writers jump ship from one magazine to another one. Can't they find a happy home with the publishing house who cranks out that advertised dribble, cars, trucks, cigarettes, snuff, ******...and very littlle gun related reloading stuff we want.

I think Mikey went from Guns & Ammo to Shooting Times to Guns magazine, he may have the record jumps. He is know at Guns as the Duke.

Is it correct to say that one cannot make a living as a gun writer for those magzines...in other words don't quit your day job.

Swagerman

[Ed Barrett]

After spending around the newspaper and magazine bussiness, the problem I've seen is the software to make layout and editing easier also killed the quality of most published material. At one time a layout man for a magazine knew the magazine and the content. He had one or two assistants who were really apprentaces they spent the whole month doing manual paste up and another person was brought in to do proof reading. (If you make a mistake you will pass over it and not catch it.) They took pride in their work and you might spend you whole career on one publication.

Now with the layout software that's available "the pimply faced can layout a magazine in one day, he doesn't have to know the content, but he's cheap compared to the high priced layout man and the bean counters love that. They can milk the cash cow for a while then watch the circulation slowly drop after a few years then throw up their hands and say they just don't understand it. By this time the magazine has been through three publishers, four editors, and ten "pimply faced kids". And another good publication bites the dust.

Just my opinion from spending 25 years around publishing companies.

[McLintock]

I've got the complete collection of Gun Digests, but only buy the latest issues to keep the collection up to date; don't hardly even look through them anymore. But the ones prior to about 1990, I use a lot for research and looking up articles I remember in them on new things I become interested in. Dropped my subscription to Guns & Ammo after 30 years due to nothing interesting to me anymore and plan to do the same with Shooting Times when the subscription laspes; took it out due to Venturino, but he left. Dropped Shotgun News after 30 years or so and took up Gun List and will probably keep it for a while. Best magazine I subscibe to now is Black Powder Cartridge News and it has a lot of articles on cast bullets and casting, but it's pointed at BPCR and Cowboy Action type stuff. Took Handloader Magazine years ago for about 15-20 years and was thinking about re-subscribing to it but sounds like it isn't worth it anymore either. I do get most of my information and new knowledge from forums like this one, so probably don't need too many mags any more. Oh well,
McLintock

[Bent Ramrod]

You have my sympathy, McLintock. I eagerly collected Handloader's Digests up to the twelfth edition or so. Then it became an annual, and now I just keep buying it to keep the file current, although it will take about 5 years' worth of annuals to accumulate the number of interesting articles that one of the earlier Digests.

I'd be willing to agree totally that it's me that's changed, not the quality of the written material. Except for the fact that I can go back to a 1980's Handloader, a 1970's Rifle or a 1930's American Rifleman that I've read a half-dozen times already and still be struck with how interesting the subject matter is and how good the written descriptions are.

[Buckshot]

...........Of the gun related magazines out there, even in their 'Dumbed Down" versions, I think Handloader and Rifle are the best of the lot. For me, my own opinion anyway.

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

[jethrow strait]

Yup, Buckshot H&R are the 'best of the lot,' but the 'lot' is no more than an 'infomercial' garbage dump. In a perfect world, we'd ignore all of em just out of self respect.

The problem is much worse than them just 'dumbing down;' the expression somehow makes it ok, we can go on feeling smug and superior. But, the fact is those media whores have marginalized us all---shooters and hunters---with their trash, like never before in American society. We are sorely diminished by them!

Ed Barrett, thanks for your insights. --------------jethrow

[Bent Ramrod]

I only subscribe to Black Powder Cartridge News, The American Rifleman, Precision Shooting (for now) and the Single Shot Journal. Everything else is a newsstand choice, depending on content.

A new low the other week. A friend lent me some back issues of a magazine called (IIRC) "The Shooting Sportsman." It mostly covered fancy shotguns and the uses of fancy shotguns: grouse shooting on moors and the like. Some pretty good gunsmithing and collecting articles, though.

But one of the articles was called "Building an Arms Library." Hey, right up my alley! I've been collecting gun and sporting books for thirty (Thirty?!) years! I plunged into the article, eager for whatever learning I could glean.

Whoops--"Don't expect to ever be able to build a decent arms library by going to used book stores and gun shows; it would take forever. Besides, the prices charged by these people would ensure that you would get burned. Established dealers in sporting books, are your best choice; they are in the business of attracting repeat customers, so their prices are, by definition, fair."

"Oh, and don't get any silly ideas of the value of your book collection as an investment. When you croak, your widow-to-be will only realize 50% of wholesale when she sells your books back to that eminently fair book dealer. Sorry, but that's the way the market is; just enjoy the reading and owning, and let those good old dealers worry about making the money."

"Here's a personal triumph of my own in the book-collecting field. I recently found a mint copy of Berthold Schwartz's 'Gunpowder and Guns,' published in 1260, (I forget the actual book, but this is close enough) for $25! Great, huh? And I found it at a gun show! (But, of course, do as I say, not as I do.)"

I like to have thrown up. I've found almost all my gun and sporting books at used-book stores and gun shows. It's the few times I've bought them from dealers that I've gotten burned. What do the writers of articles like this think they are accomplishing?

[NVcurmudgeon]

The author of the book collecting article is, without a doubt, a used book dealer. He is exhibiting the same journalistic integrity that gun writers do when promoting the latest wondergun!

[KCSO]

Hey I just went to the Omaha Public Libray's used book sale and picked up a half dozen good gun books for $1.50 to 75 cents each. I got a copy of Outdoor Life's History of Guns and Hunting in America, still in the hard case for $1.50, Dunlop's Gumsmithing for 75 cents.

[NVcurmudgeon]

KCSO, You snagged acouple of real good books there. The pictures in the Outdoor Life book alone are very worthwhile. Dunlap on gunsmithing is another good one.

[Bent Ramrod]

KCSO,

That is exactly the way to collect gun books. Not so much even the bargain prices that may be encountered; it's the thrill of the chase that is the basis of the collecting of anything. Letting a dealer do your looking for you (and charging you up the wazoo for the privilege) has all the sporting quality of bribing a zookeeper to let you in at night to knock off some exotic animal in its cage.

That Dunlap book is a good reference for any gun tinkerer, and he's a good writer, too.

[McLintock]

I got some of the last issues of Gun Digest I was lacking off E-Bay, couldn't seem to find them at Gun Shows or any normal type sources. My earliest ones that I actually bought myself at Newstands or Magazine Stores was from the mid-50's. Sold stuff at Gun Shows for about 7-8 years and picked some up there, but not many. Also got some hard to find books on Rugers off E-Bay, but you have to watch closely how the biddings going and not get drawn in and pay too much.
McLintock

[Bent Ramrod]

McLintock,

It must be different in different areas of the country, but here in Southern California there's old Gun Digests at every reasonably-sized show. Unless they're really old or the seller is really proud, they generally go for $10 or less. When the dealers at the shows find themselves overstocked with GD back numbers and table space is needed for the next year's issue, even they start discounting them heavily. If they're over two years old, generally the $10 price shows up on them.

I'd get them just for the couple articles in them and to keep abreast of new stuff (GD infomercials are at least quick and clean and don't pretend to be serious articles) but I just don't have the room anymore.

[versifier]

Speaking about GUN TESTS, I have a lot of respect for Todd and the boys. They test enough rifles to keep me interested, and they tell it like it is. If it's junk, they don't mince words. Best deal around, for my money. They don't edit letters from their readers, either, even when they're a bit on the controversial side. I remember a review several years ago of three bolt rifles in the $1000+ range in the same issue with a look at some old Russian Nagant rifles. The old warhorses all together were bought for less than half of what the shiny new ones were, and all of them shot right around MOA. The best group from the fancy new trio was just over two inches, the worst around six (if memory serves). The next month a reader wrote to say that "I can pee straighter than any of those top dollar rifles can shoot. They ought to be ashamed. I'd be some upset if I shelled out that much cash for a rifle that wouldn't even shoot MOA."
As to the current gun mags, there's way too much pimpery. I enjoy Mas Ayoob, Jamison, sometimes Petty, and always McManus. I miss Finn and Askins. When I read an article, I want to LEARN something, or at least laugh a little. I do enjoy reading the old GUN DIGESTs, but I've considered the new ones a waste of money for more than ten years.

[saintdel]

From time to time I consider my twenty to forty year old editions of GD and HLD and think now why am I keeping these. Then I'll take some down and begin reading the articles and then I know again why I keep them.

[Kevin Rohrer]

This is an OLD thread.

Yes, I have all the HLDs, and the latest one isn't new at all; nor is it as good as the ones that came before it.

In addition, I own some of early ABCs of Reloading, edited by Dean Grennell. I also have the two newest versions and the latter suck mightily in comparison to Grennell's works.

Lastly, the Handloader mags published over the last 10-years or so are sadly lacking when compared to those that came before them.

60128

[saintdel]

I see many old friends in that photo. Grennell's work was always tops.

[saintdel]

I think what happens is that a given process, the tools used in that process, and the literature describing and expounding that process and it's tools reach a point of maturity after which there really isn't much new to be written about it. At that point most subsequent literature on the subject will be either a rehash of previously published material or, worse, be a superficial treatment akin to an infomercial for currently available products. This is the inferior information most readily available to new entrants to the hobby. What should happen is that the existing literature attain the status of true reference material and remain readily available; however, being that most of the literature dealing with reloading is published in a periodic context, either monthly, annual or, in the past, every so often, what happens is that the old literature disappears from the market place. New folks to the hobby are not aware of it's existence and value and even if or when they do become aware of it, it is by then hard to find. This is a loss to the hobby.