Gun Magazines Just Aren't What They Were

[Divernhunter]

I enjoy reading them.
Being able to think and make your own choices helps if you buy them.
Often there is some good info on reloading or a new cartridge I can compare with other data.
Yes much of it is advertiser driven but I can sort that out from the facts.
Sometimes there is a new product that catches my eye. Other times I find out a source for a product I have seen or want.
I also enjoy some of the articles on older firearms and the older Mil firearms.
Reloader mag often has good info for me as does some others I get or buy at the store.

I guess it is just a matter of what you are looking for in the ones you buy that makes them good or not good to you.

As far as the internet I found you need to be careful as to the info given especially by so called keyboard commando experts. That also goes for the personal opinions that some share as facts when they may not be.

Maybe it is because I am from the older generation and have a different approach to things compared to much of the younger set. I learned many years ago to sift the important things/facts from the BS/opinions both from printed material and now the internet. The internet is far worse than the mags and such.

[Bigedski]

The only mag I pay for now Is Reloader.

[noylj]

See if you can find a pre-80s NRA magazine.
Guess what? They did TESTS and EXPERIMENTS and DID THINGS. It was completely different back then.
Many gun magazines actually had FUN and also tried things and reported success and failure.
When "Duke" Venturino (sp?) retires, I'll know the name of ZERO current gun writers off the top of my head.

[knucklehead0202]

The depressing part is that you look at a bunch of pistols you can't get here, lol, not to mention the crappy, boring articles that are basically all cookie-cutter.

That said, i'm mostly interested in old gun anyway, and nobody really writes about them. Is Venturino still doing his old gun articles? That was really all I ever found worth reading. I don't really care about the new Glock 73 or whatever the latest-greatest fad pistol is. Or how about the newest rifle round in an at that duplicates some other cartridge that's been around for 100 years? Never thought i'd say this, but it almost seems like guns bore me. Except the weird old ones...

[Briancnelson]

Now that California has limited their content to 10 pages they all stink.

[robert101]

Gun magazines. What is that? I don't buy them and don't read them anymore. They have become out of touch with my needs. Too much advertising and to little content on what I want - which is unbiased opinions on guns. some minor maintenance/repairs, and reloading information.

[bruss01]

I do like to flip through them and see what is new.

But I will share the dislike for backside-kissing the advertisers and never having a bad word to say about a gun.

One of the frequent criticism of the ATF is that they don't have standard definitions and standard testing methodologies that have been reviewed for relevance and accuracy by experts. The exact same charge can be leveled at these gun writers, who allegedly LOVE guns... they can't be bothered to come up with, as a group, some kind of standards regarding terms and testing methods. Otherwise, everything is totally subjective. I imagine it is kept this way so OF COURSE "we really love this new gun!" plays better to the payers of advertising dollars than "It shot 3 shots into a 2" group from a cold barrel, and threw two fliers that opened the group to 8 inches, from a mechanical firing device" of course explaining the exact ammo used for the test.

I remember the Remington R-52 which all the gun magazines were literally salivating over. It looked great in the pics, but the gun turned out so BAD that the maker took it off the market for TWO YEARS while they took it back to the drawing board and re-worked it so it would be at least "ok". Flaws so bad the mfr took it off the market, and took 2 years to fix... and they "loved it". Well, you may have sold a few guns to a few suckers, but it cost you your credibility, writers... hope it was worth it.

I still like to look at the pictures and daydream... not that I'll ever actually believe anything I read there. I'm still looking for a Kel-Tec Sub-2000 Gen2 with Springfield XD mag compatibility, which they announced, what, 2 years ago at Shot Show? Looks like it's still vaporware so far.

[LynnJr]

I don't even know what half of the guns listed here in the classifieds are even used for and I have probably put more rounds downrange than most shooters.
The current gunshows are a waste of time and money.
The current magazines have no real info because the writers for the most part are not shooters just a bunch of media majors looking for a pay day.

[Carcassonne]

Nothing new under the sun.


Back in the 1980's I was new to guns. I read many different magazines. There was never anything bad said about any gun - especially if the company bought advertisement space. I bought several different pistols and rifles that had rave reviews. The guns were complete pieces of poop. I talked to different people at gun shops and gun shows. They told me not to believe what is written in gun magazines. I learned not to trust magazines from that day on.




.

[Ugly Hombre]

http://www.darkcanyon.net/skeeter_skelton.htm

Here ya go- Gents..

Su Amigo- El Skeeter-

That's world class gun writing- never equaled IMO.

[tonyjr]

My subscriptions are mostly presents . Their ads are sent to my by manufactors , so why pay for a magazine that is tore up by the time you get it . ?
The only thing they are good for is on new powder .
I did juat renewed gun tests .

[jyo]

Sadly, I too have pretty much given up on gun publications and again, sadly most gun shows as well---especially here in Kalifornia---very little of substance in each...