Annoying Articles

[Holgersen]

I don't know if it is just me, but I every time I pick up a gun magazine they either praise every single peice of **** gun in the magazine or they have a review on a gun that might be worth having but the picture they show is a gun that has had $300 worth of customization on it.

Example:

The Harris Outdoor Group Presents #57 issue of "Concealed Carry Handguns"
has a picture of a standard new in box Springfield XD .45 compact of the cover. But...when you got to the article the writer has had his XD .45 compact customized with a fully stippled grip? and rounded off trigger guard?

The question is...Is it really appropriate to rate a gun that you have had personalized yourself, and couldn't you just do this with a dremal tool and saved the money?

It seems very misleading.

 

[danprkr]

I myself have noticed the tendency of gun mags to at best gloss over less than complimentary factors in the stuff they test. Especially when that manufacturer buys 3 full page ads a month in the mag.

There use to be a magazine that didn't accept gun makers ads, and bought the guns off the shelf. It was more expensive, but if you wanted the straight dope it was invaluable. At this time I can't remember the name, and am not sure it even still exists.

 

[loop]

As someone who made a lot of money and got a lot of cheap guns writing things like that I understand your skepticsim.

But, you also need to understand the position of the writers.

I have one of the first six Remington 870 turkey guns ever made. Is it special? You bet it is. There were six prototypes. Each one was a little different from the others. They invited six gun writers on a hunt on a game farm, wined and dined them and let them shoot the guns. If they wanted them they were available at a ridiculous price. If they didn't want them they were sold to other gun writers who weren't invited on the trip for an even more ridiculous price.

It happens that this "custom" gun is incredible. I have never touched another pump shotgun anywhere near as nice. Did I know it wasn't what you would buy over the counter when they went on sale - um, heck no!

I gave it a glowing recommendation. But, it wasn't the only gun I received that month. It wasn't the only gun that I was offered cheap.

My main concern wasn't whether I liked the gun or how good or bad it was, but it was writing my story and making deadline. I worked for an editor. I had to arrange to get the gun in my hands in time to field test it and make deadline or my boss would be mad. A common myth is reporters work for the people - they work for editors.

Was I fooled by a gun maker about the product that would hit the shelves versus the "test model" I got - you betcha!

Just this week I traded off another gun I got "back in the day." It retails for $880 today. I paid $25. Was it the best one they had to offer and had features you can't buy - yup...

I didn't know that. I had a deadline to meet. I took delivery, headed to the field, got some fellow shooters to play with it, went back and wrote the story. Then I went to work on the next story.

It's a job. You do it and go on to the next task.

I even got a High Point that was incredibly sweet. As a matter of fact, I got a pair. The 9mm pistol and the carbine to match. They were both awesome performers. Were they factory tuned before I got them - you bet!

I traded them off real fast even though I probably only spent about $75 on the pair.

I don't write about guns anymore, but I have an extensive collection. Most of it primarily funded by guns I paid incredibly low prices for.

The only company I can say was completely legit was Kimber. I had to send them the money to cover the manufacturer's cost on the gun. They sent me a certificate that I could redeem at any Kimber dealer for a gun out of their stock. More than a decade later that is still my competition gun. And I just went to the local dealer and said "Give me one of this model."

Cut the gun writers some slack. They really don't make a lot of money and they work under a terrific amount of pressure. They also are victims of gun makers' schemes to get them a "special" gun for every review they write.

The job has a lot of perks, but I've made a lot more money writing about Wall Street than I ever made writing about guns.

 

[Tim the student]

Not that it's without reason, but I also dislike seeing custom guns tested, and malfunctions glossed over etc etc.

 

[flying_gage]

Ya know I haven't read many gun mags of late, but publications in general seem praise whatever they are testing. What comes to mind mostly for myself is bike mags. Every year they praise the newest version of whatever motorcycle to be the best without fail. That is why I belong to a ton of different forums and get my info from people who own the product.

 

[Holgersen]

Loop,

I understand what it's like to work under deadlines. Although probably not as intense as what you are talking about but I did write for military papers while I was in the service and have acted as an editor for The Globe at Camp Lejeune for a short period of time before I was discharged.

I have an idea of what you are saying, but why should I cut a gun writer slack that is going to give me biased reviews on something a person my stake their life on?

Aren't guns serious things that people use for self-defense? I don't really care how little money gun writers make. The writers at any local paper probably make just as little or less and they still seem to try and be impartial.

Also just to clarify I meant customizations that the writer had done himself on the weapon not that it was tuned by the factory.

But, based on your response I will definitly not be buying anymore gun magazines. I think that should solve the annoying article problem.

 

[kirkcdl]

danprkr said it,the magazine is Gun Tests,and a lot of people like to point out flaws in some of the tests they do,sometimes due simply to the writers inability to know everything about every gun ever made.As an example,they rejected a Saiga model AK because the dust cover had not been properly seated,and flew off with the first round fired.But overall,they do okay.They buy guns off the shelf,and test them,then give their opinions about those guns.If they think it's a piece of crap,they say so.Now,that's just opinions and they're not perfect,but much better than some of the more flashy magazines that have nothing bad to say about any gun...

 

[danprkr]

Thank you for that title, I was hoping someone would remember it. I've been thinking of resubscribing if I could find them and they still exist.

 

[aka108]

I simply quit reading any of the gun mags. Nothing but commercials a product.

 

[Cannonball888]

They're getting paid by the manufacturer to praise their tested gun. It's just another advertisement.

 

[22LRFan]

I quit buying them when I realized just about all the mags pretty much have the articles for free online. Especially the ones they praise. Are their still advertisements in the borders? Sure, but you can't beat the price.

 

[kirkcdl]

danprkr,I actually got kind of obsessed with GT.I now own every issue ever printed,except one.I look on Ebay occasionally for that one...

It's kind of nice to be able to go back and read how the tests went for an older gun I see and may want...

 

[BossHaug]

danprkr, Gun Tests is still in business, I just finished reading the May issue. Their website is http://www.gun-tests.com and their toll free number is 1-800-829-9084. Hope this helps you.

 

[Bezoar]

if you pay attention, when a new handgun gets tested in a particular magazine, if that guns maker has more then 3 full page ads in the same issue, that gun will always be the ultimate need to have weapon.

Best example is this. When Para Ord came out with a new little wonder 9 5-6 years ago, the writer said it was the best most accurate gun with perfect "combat" accuracy of 6 inch groups at 25 yards. In that issue, Para had 3 or 4 different full page ads.

In the same issue, a new 4 inch barrel 1200 dollar kimber was tested. It had standard "combat accuracy" of 4 inch groups at 25 yards. They had 2 full page, and 3 or 4 small ads in the magazine.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

This pretty much sums up my thoughts: I don't know who posted this where first, but...

Instruction From The Editor To The Journalist:

Frangible Arms just bought a four page color ad in our next issue. They sent us their latest offering, the CQB MK-V Tactical Destroyer. I told Fred to take it out to the range to test. He'll have the data for you tomorrow.


Feedback From Technician Fred:

The pistol is a crude copy of the World War II Japanese Nambu type 14 pistol, except it's made from unfinished zinc castings. The grips are pressed cardboard. The barrel is unrifled pipe. There are file marks all over the gun, inside and out.

Only 10 rounds of 8mm ammunition were supplied. Based on previous experience with a genuine Nambu, I set up a target two feet down range. I managed to cram four rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. I taped the magazine in place, bolted the pistol into a machine rest, got behind a barricade, and pulled the trigger with 20 feet of 550 cord. I was unable to measure the trigger pull because my fish scale tops out at 32 pounds. On the third try, the pistol fired. From outline of the holes, I think the barrel, frame, magazine, trigger and recoil spring blew through the target. The remaining parts scattered over the landscape.

I sent the machine rest back to the factory to see if they can fix it, and we need to replace the shooting bench for the nice people who own the range. I'll be off for the rest of the day. My ears are still ringing. I need a drink.


Article Produced By The Journalist:

The CQB MK-V Tactical Destroyer is arguably the deadliest pistol in the world. Based on a combat proven military design, but constructed almost entirely of space age alloy, it features a remarkable barrel design engineered to produce a cone of fire, a feature much valued by Special Forces world wide. The Destroyer shows clear evidence of extensive hand fitting. The weapon disassembles rapidly without tools. At a reasonable combat distance, I put five holes in the target faster than I would have thought possible. This is the pistol to have if you want to end a gunfight at all costs. The gun is a keeper, and I find myself unable to send it back.

 

[Lightninstrike]

^^ LMAO