PDA

View Full Version : Firearms Periodical



jetfire
06-05-2011, 12:01 PM
I was covering a class for a magazine articled that ended up never getting written, much less published. The class was billed as an advanced skills class, so I showed up with my USPSA Single Stack rig. I spent much of TD1 being told how competition will get you killed "on the street". Everyone else in the class looked like three pages from the Mall Ninja catalog. The rest of TD1 was spent explaining how 1911s were terrible guns that would get you killed "on the street"; as I was the only student running a 1911...you get the picture. I called my editor that night and said "I can't write an article about these people."

VolGrad
06-05-2011, 07:54 PM
I called my editor that night and said "I can't write an article about these people."
Not being critical of you Caleb but this IMO is the problem with most of the gun press. That article needs to be written. We need to know the good and the bad. We don't just need to hear about people that sponsor things.

Again, not critical of you, your work, etc. etc. etc. I just get frustrated knowing most of what I read in magazines has to be taken with a grain of salt.

jetfire
06-06-2011, 12:40 PM
Not being critical of you Caleb but this IMO is the problem with most of the gun press. That article needs to be written. We need to know the good and the bad. We don't just need to hear about people that sponsor things.

Again, not critical of you, your work, etc. etc. etc. I just get frustrated knowing most of what I read in magazines has to be taken with a grain of salt.

There are two schools of thought on that issue; one being that gunwriters won't write anything that isn't complimentary. That's not the case, as I'll happily pan a gun if it sucks. The issue, and the reason why I've not written articles before is if I can't find something of value to write about in the subject matter. If the class had some nuggets of goodness in it, I would have told my editor that I was going to write up the value parts of the class and also mention that the instruction was not good and to be prepared to get mocked if you bring the "wrong" gun.

I won't write a bash piece, because I don't feel like it's professional to do that, and if I had written that article it would have compromised my personal commitment to "good" reporting - it would have ended up being a bash piece.

I can't speak for other gunwriters, and I know there are guys out there that have never met a gun they didn't like and whatnot, but for me it comes back to the fact that I started writing on the internet before I wrote for traditional pubs; that means I'm not going to lie about a class and say it's great if it wasn't, but I also can't bring myself to just rip people for 1200 words. Even if they have it coming.

VolGrad
06-06-2011, 12:53 PM
I won't write a bash piece, because I don't feel like it's professional to do that, and if I had written that article it would have compromised my personal commitment to "good" reporting - it would have ended up being a bash piece.
I respect that. I do. It just sucks that there is info out there ... readily available, but not published ... that we could benefit from. So many people could use that info but instead will now spend their hard earned money and learn the hard way.

jetfire
06-06-2011, 01:21 PM
A lot of the time if I have an article I can't write for a magazine, it will find its way on to my website (http://gunnuts.net). This one didn't though mostly because I was trying to avoid the drama llama.

Wheeler
06-06-2011, 03:11 PM
I respect that. I do. It just sucks that there is info out there ... readily available, but not published ... that we could benefit from. So many people could use that info but instead will now spend their hard earned money and learn the hard way.

Volgrad makes a very good point. Many folks who have been around guns for awhile have learned to avoid gun magazines, both printed and electronic for the reason that the writers seem to gush over every new product no matter the actual quality or functionality.

It would be nice if there was such a thing as a consumer review testing for guns. Hmmm, that might be a potential business venture....

Caleb, not pointing the finger at you. I've taken a look at your site and can't wait to see the results of the Kel-Tec test.

Sorry for the tangent folks.

Wheeler

TCinVA
06-06-2011, 03:44 PM
When it comes to consumer reports for firearms, this is essentially it.

A forum with users from a broad spectrum of the customer base who see lots of stuff and talk about it honestly and dispassionately with personal integrity and no paycheck on the line is about as good as it's going to get, IMO.

VolGrad
06-06-2011, 04:19 PM
There is a gun mag that is like CR ... but for guns. GUN TEST maybe???

I subscribed for a couple of years but unfortunately it was a bit on the pricier side and most of the firearms reviewed weren't anything I was interested in. I did find a good article on cheap pump shotguns once that helped me secure a good deal. That's about it though.

ToddG
06-06-2011, 05:05 PM
The problem with Gun Tests is that most of their articles were submitted by people who were willing to shell out the cash to buy a few different guns for testing rather than by people who were vetted and actually knew what they were talking about. I remember one issue in which the Beretta 92FS and Taurus PT-92 went head to head and the reviewer chose the Taurus solely on the grounds that it could be carried cocked and locked.

jetfire
06-06-2011, 05:19 PM
I really think the future of honest gun reporting is online. I mean, what gun magazine would publish my planned feature where I run 5k rounds through a Kel-Tec? My hope is that more of the professional gunwriters will start to branch out online and run their own sites and blogs. I may not be able to write a "Taurus sucks" article, but I sure can say it on Gun Nuts.

Ed L
06-06-2011, 08:00 PM
As far as training classes for articles for SWAT goes, I only do articles on classes that I think have merit, period. This comes from a combo of what and how the instructor teaches, his background, reading AARs about his classes, talking to people who have attended them, etc.

As it stands, for reasons of time, money, and distance, I don't go to all of the training classes that I would like to. So I am certainly not going to go to one that I think sucks or even doesn't suit me.

When doing a firearm review, I have always pointed out when I encounter an issue, be it a malfunction or something else, or deeper problems.

In my article on the FS2000, I documented doublefeeds that sometimes occurred when you slammed a magazine in with the bolt locked back, causing the bolt to jump forward partially due to being jarred loose. I have not seen any other magazine mention this about the FS2000, indicating that they either did not fire it much or were not forthcoming.

In my article on the two American AUG clones, the MSAR S56 and TPD, I mentioned that both guns needed to be sent back to the factory for functioning issues, with the MSAR unable to get through a magazine without several failures to feed.

Joe in PNG
06-07-2011, 01:54 AM
There's many things I'd like to know before buying a gun:

-Is it reliable?

-How's the recoil? And let's ask a few people, not just the guy who thinks the .500 S&W is a "wussy's gun".

-Is is still reliable after a few thousand rounds?

-How's the ergo?

-Is it still reliable? Did they test the "gunmag special", or an actual off the shelf gun?

-Can I get crap for it?

-How's the reliability? Is there more than one gun being tested?

-What do the pro's think of it?

So, in my humble opinion, a forum like this is far more valuable- I can get some of these questions answered here.

John Ralston
06-07-2011, 02:13 PM
As far as training classes for articles for SWAT goes, I only do articles on classes that I think have merit, period. This comes from a combo of what and how the instructor teaches, his background, reading AARs about his classes, talking to people who have attended them, etc.

As it stands, for reasons of time, money, and distance, I don't go to all of the training classes that I would like to. So I am certainly not going to go to one that I think sucks or even doesn't suit me.


This is where the Internet Forums truly shine. You can google your prospective intructor and read AAR's or ask on a prefessional forum regarding the instructor. In a place like this (and many others), if you get some positive feedback from some of the staff and notable members, you can be assured that it is worth your time. As well, if they tell you to stay clear, then you can be certain that it would be a waste to spend your time and money there.

VolGrad
06-07-2011, 04:59 PM
One place/way the Internet doesn't shine is when a product, firearm, dealer, or training group develops such a cult following they can no longer do wrong. If anyone has any issue whatsoever, legit or not, they are ostracized for mentioning it online. Readers immediately assume the person making said claim is an idiot, a free-loader, a novice, etc and must have brought the issue on themselves. That person will never recover from the flaming they will be dealt by the masses.

There's no fix for that. I'm just throwing it out there as something I've noticed over the past couple of years.

jlw
06-07-2011, 06:29 PM
I think a piece that points out that the instructor spent a lot of time running down rabbit trails to the point that it detracted from the class is a very legitimate article.


As for using forums as the sole or predominate source for info on instructors, such AARs are only as good as the student's level of knowledge. This particular forum seems to have a cut above when it comes to membership, I can point to another forum where members gush over some very, very bad "training".

Wheeler
06-07-2011, 09:27 PM
It seems to me that we all pretty much agree that the gun rags are not reliable sources of information. Ditto many of the forums and internet sites. Where does that leave us?

I'm going to run with what Caleb was talking about as a starting point. Using the internet and internet radio as the preferred media. Set forth a standardized test for levels of use. Submissions would have to meet the criteria of the test ie. documetation, video,

The 2000 round test is a high baseline. What about gun buyers that don't shoot 2000 rounds in a 5 year period? Not everyone purchases a gun for defensive purposes. Consideration should be given to plinkers, occasional shooters, hunters, shotgun sports (although anyone that shoots shotgun sports can give us lessons about high round counts). So forth and so on.

I'm thinking that rather turn this into a bitch session about the failures of the industry and our small media, we should use this as an opportunity to do something positive.

Thoughts are welcome.

Wheeler

rsa-otc
06-08-2011, 05:26 AM
At this point I will pick up a magazine only if there is an article that interests me. Usually that article has nothing to do with a particular gun or gun review, they are by SME that I have come to trust or about trainers or personalities I'm interested in.

Let's be real, publishers of print media walk a fine line, they survive more on advertising dollars than subscription revenue. So they are going to be hard pressed to publish a total trash the gun/trainer article when two pages over is that manufactures full page add for that same gun. On the other hand they need to make the subscribers happy giving them something entertaining and somewhat realistic or else the publisher can't go to the advertiser and say hey run an add with me I have X,XXX,XXX readers.

Even if they were to run a article fully laying out the warts and all of the gun, it's a test sample of one, something we harp all the time at our posters saying their gun ran like a champ or constantly fails. If we believe what the writers/testers say that they are getting test weapons that haven't been cherry picked by the manufacturer, they could have gotten a lemon just as easily as the cherry.

The same could be said for any of the internet outlets that run a gun test. It is a sample of one. This is no reflection at all on the tester or his veracity, they can be the best of the best but it's still only one sample. And while being informative it is just one of the sources, not the only source of information I would use to consider my next purchase.

Reputable internet forums are probably as good source as any to find out whats going on in a class or with a firearm. Forums such as this, FTT and M4C that keep the signal to noise ratio at a minimum can be a good source on what happens with a class or gun. With our AAR's we can get a feel for a particular class or instructor. With guns we can see what problems people are having but we must keep in mind there are more posts asking for help with problems than there are posts praising a particular platform. All things we need to factor in to our selection process.

Fellow shooters you see at the range or a match. Either you have friends that you trust or you can get a feel about how switched on a person is when your talking to them, is also a good source of information.

Gun stores - Do I even need to remark. Leave them out of the equation entirely.

All these sources are what I used to make my decision as to what platform to upgrade to from my 2nd gen S&W 45 acp after 25 plus years of flawless performance (again a sample of one:rolleyes:).

Wheeler
06-08-2011, 11:21 PM
At this point I will pick up a magazine only if there is an article that interests me. Usually that article has nothing to do with a particular gun or gun review, they are by SME that I have come to trust or about trainers or personalities I'm interested in.

Let's be real, publishers of print media walk a fine line, they survive more on advertising dollars than subscription revenue. So they are going to be hard pressed to publish a total trash the gun/trainer article when two pages over is that manufactures full page add for that same gun. On the other hand they need to make the subscribers happy giving them something entertaining and somewhat realistic or else the publisher can't go to the advertiser and say hey run an add with me I have X,XXX,XXX readers.

Even if they were to run a article fully laying out the warts and all of the gun, it's a test sample of one, something we harp all the time at our posters saying their gun ran like a champ or constantly fails. If we believe what the writers/testers say that they are getting test weapons that haven't been cherry picked by the manufacturer, they could have gotten a lemon just as easily as the cherry.

The same could be said for any of the internet outlets that run a gun test. It is a sample of one. This is no reflection at all on the tester or his veracity, they can be the best of the best but it's still only one sample. And while being informative it is just one of the sources, not the only source of information I would use to consider my next purchase.

Reputable internet forums are probably as good source as any to find out whats going on in a class or with a firearm. Forums such as this, FTT and M4C that keep the signal to noise ratio at a minimum can be a good source on what happens with a class or gun. With our AAR's we can get a feel for a particular class or instructor. With guns we can see what problems people are having but we must keep in mind there are more posts asking for help with problems than there are posts praising a particular platform. All things we need to factor in to our selection process.

Fellow shooters you see at the range or a match. Either you have friends that you trust or you can get a feel about how switched on a person is when your talking to them, is also a good source of information.

Gun stores - Do I even need to remark. Leave them out of the equation entirely.

All these sources are what I used to make my decision as to what platform to upgrade to from my 2nd gen S&W 45 acp after 25 plus years of flawless performance (again a sample of one:rolleyes:).

All very good points. I just feel it's a shame that new shooters (we all were at one point) have no easily accesible, trustworthy source to turn to.

ranburr
06-14-2011, 01:57 AM
Jan Libourel and I met thru the dog world yrs ago. He is into crappy Japanese Tosas while I prefer the excellent South African Boerboel. At any rate, he freely admits that most gun writers know nothing about guns. Most of them are actually experts in other areas and write under multiple names in multiple publications for their publishing companies. Some guys know a hell of a lot about cigars or hotrods and nothing about guns. Unfortuneately, that does't stop them from writing about guns as if they are subject matter experts.

Al T.
06-14-2011, 10:12 AM
Don't forget the editors. Buddy of mine wrote for a large publisher and got completely outraged when the editor changed the numbers (velocity data) in an article. That was my buddies last article with that bunch.

Wheeler
06-14-2011, 01:11 PM
Don't forget the editors. Buddy of mine wrote for a large publisher and got completely outraged when the editor changed the numbers (velocity data) in an article. That was my buddies last article with that bunch.

Why would they change the data?

Al T.
06-15-2011, 11:36 AM
Wheeler, he was testing a 7mm Magnum and was not getting the velocity claimed from a "featured" ammunition manufacturer. We talked about the possibility of that rifle being slow, so both tested that load in another rifle and different loads in the test rifle.

When he wrote the article, he included the slow load with the others and suggested that the editor make a decision to include the data or not. Instead the editor just changed the numbers to match what the factory claimed. In a conversation after the article was published, the editor told my buddy that his chrono was bad - a diagnosis the editor made from his desk a thousand miles away.

Wheeler
06-15-2011, 02:35 PM
Al T.

Of course, that must have been it. We're back to the part about advertisement dollars aren't we?

LittleLebowski
06-15-2011, 02:46 PM
The worst and most blatant show of advertising dollars that I've ever seen was an article that was ostensibly on factory rifles with an accuracy guarantee. The author touched upon this as a good standard and proceeded to "test" Sako rifles which had a 1MOA guarantee from the factory I believe. They performed superbly and were such a good deal. He did this testing while wearing a Sako baseball hat. He wrapped up the article with more "testing" on a hunting trip with Sako employees while wearing another Sako hat. The whole thing makes you want to vomit.

I get tempted at times to scan it, post it, and shame him but I am a peaceful sort nowadays :D I don't remember who it was but have the magazine somewhere. God, it pissed me off.

JM Campbell
06-15-2011, 11:03 PM
The worst and most blatant show of advertising dollars that I've ever seen was an article that was ostensibly on factory rifles with an accuracy guarantee. The author touched upon this as a good standard and proceeded to "test" Sako rifles which had a 1MOA guarantee from the factory I believe. They performed superbly and were such a good deal. He did this testing while wearing a Sako baseball hat. He wrapped up the article with more "testing" on a hunting trip with Sako employees while wearing another Sako hat. The whole thing makes you want to vomit.

I get tempted at times to scan it, post it, and shame him but I am a peaceful sort nowadays :D I don't remember who it was but have the magazine somewhere. God, it pissed me off.


Did this said gentlemen also write an article on the Sako factory and shoot their new rifles with a pic of a moving moose target that he shot with a suppressed 308?

Al T.
06-16-2011, 10:19 AM
I thumbed through a gun rag 3 years back that someone brought to work. One of the articles talked about the superb accuracy of the test pistol. If you actually read the article, testing was done (IIRC) 12 yards or some such junk.

One thing I like about American Rifleman is that the accuracy results are just thrown out there with (IMHO) very little fudging. Charlie Petty is another decent source of information.