How gun magazines write articles...


September 15, 2004, 08:55 PM
Thanks to Lyman Lyon of the API List for permission to reproduce his example of how gun articles are written.
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.

If you enjoyed reading about "How gun magazines write articles..." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Bullet Bob
September 15, 2004, 08:58 PM
Thanks, I needed a laugh tonight.

September 15, 2004, 08:59 PM
Hahaha, very funny "article"... :D

September 15, 2004, 09:13 PM

September 15, 2004, 09:59 PM
Ooooh I want one!

September 15, 2004, 10:38 PM
So what magazine did you find that article in. Does it have night sites and front slide serrations:p :D

Old Dog
September 15, 2004, 11:20 PM
Reads just like the cover feature article of every issue of "Handguns."

Standing Wolf
September 15, 2004, 11:33 PM
How come the price isn't listed? No web site? How can I get one of these ├╝ber-tactical technological marvels?

September 15, 2004, 11:54 PM
Ow. My face hurts from laughing so much.!aQ6DyeMqRbkfSbkFZdMwG1ts*cvXzMeKi!qvGgsrGO1SxZ6uTEPW!HC701SZzb!CCLxbIRmW10k0XIOxno/rofl%20smiley.gif?dc=4675386027906636774

Lt. G
September 16, 2004, 12:20 AM
A SCREAM !!!! Thanx

September 16, 2004, 12:26 AM
Not funny. I own five Frangible Mark V Tactical Destroyers, and they are all fine weapons. Each one reliably made single hole groups, right out of the box. In fact, I left them in the boxes and threw them at the target - one very big hole. I have carried one or the other of them for the last two years, and I feel confident and safe when doing so. I hope to fire them some day - bet that there would be fun!

September 16, 2004, 02:00 AM
8mm ammunition

For real authenticity, the gun would be chambered for 45 ACP, function like a Colt 1911, and cost at least $3100! :rolleyes:

September 16, 2004, 06:48 AM
Sounds about right.


September 16, 2004, 07:37 AM
That could have been lifted right out of American Handgunner. That's why I mostly just read the magazines for the ads, to know what's out there atm. Come to think of it, most of the articles essentially are ads.

September 16, 2004, 07:48 AM
That brought tears to my eyes.:D

September 16, 2004, 10:43 AM
Thanks for the laugh. So close to the truth that it's downright hilarious:D

September 16, 2004, 10:48 AM
I would say the same methodology applies to most news stories. :uhoh:

May 18, 2006, 02:46 PM
Whew howdy, mercy me, tears they are a-runnin'. Funniest damn thing I've read in a long time! :D :D :D

May 18, 2006, 03:21 PM
That was funny, I don't care who you are.

May 18, 2006, 03:21 PM
I am amused.

Don't Tread On Me
May 18, 2006, 03:32 PM
Ha, precisely why internet gun forums have rendered gun magazines obsolete.

While there is some seriously bad information on forums, idiot posters, massive BS, myths, lies, and downright exaggerations...there's also some 100% truth and expert advice from 1st hand experience.

The key is, learning to separate the bull from the good stuff. I think I do a pretty good job of that when I am researching what to buy. It is more of an art, than a science. You can tell who's a fan boy of a brand, who's regurgitating inexperienced info, who's really into something or just throwing around $0.02 just from the tone of some posts or the posting habits of some people. You can also gain an idea from the general concensus of opinions.

You can't do that from a magazine. It is whatever you think/analyze vs. what the gun writer spoon feeds you. Without a doubt, most articles are far too favorable due to the manufacturer advertising or paying for a postive article. This is a conflict of interest. Gun rags are pretty much only good for being gun porn. Look at pictures, skip the articles. Heck, some picture threads on the net are far superior to what's in a gun magazine.

I admit, when going to a new forum, or researching something I have little knowledge of, it can be VERY difficult early on figuring out what's up. But that beats just being told how great/wonderful something is from an advertisement article.

May 18, 2006, 03:42 PM
I will agree that, since I started here at THR, and spending time on the Internet (Thanks to some neighbor for the free wireless connection), I haven't bought a gun magazine in months. Sad part of this is that I had some hopes of maybe writing some articles and picking up some side cash so I can buy more guns. :(

May 18, 2006, 05:47 PM
That's funny! Thanks for sharing. :)

May 18, 2006, 06:06 PM
Too Funny :D

And perhaps all too true.

The weapon disassembles rapidly without tools.

That is the line were I went from amused to ROFL.

Thanks Preacherman

Standing Wolf
May 18, 2006, 09:11 PM

May 19, 2006, 12:22 AM
LOL! But, I guess there is a measure of truth to that, too... herewith, an excerpt from a reply from a gunzine editor to a question I asked about reviews... edited to remove names only...

As far as those "We never got a gun we didn't love" reviews, I can speak for many magazines, since I used to write for most of 'em. For certain big name mainstream gun magazines (Quck, what name comes to mind first?), there is a very definite corporate policy that non-advertisers don't get features. Period. And you don't say ANYTHING bad, ever.

My policy is that we often put guns on the cover where we'll never see any advertising from the maker. The (EDIT) and virtually any custom gun are classic examples. And as far as saying bad things, we do indeed. I poked (EDIT) in the eye pretty hard not long ago. But, if we get a gun that's crud, we simply don't review it. If it ain't in (EDIT MAGAZINE) there's a reason! I've found it doesn't serve much good to feature a gun and then simply say what a piece of trash it is. Why waste the space? Better to feature something of quality.

So... there ya go...

May 19, 2006, 12:50 AM
Haha, thanks for the laugh :D

May 19, 2006, 08:34 AM
That is blatant Tactical Destroyer bashing. Shame on you for tarnishing the reputation of a pistol that personifies perfection.:cuss: Next thing you know you will be saying that a $2500 tactical pistol should be accurate and reliable without breaking it in with 400 rounds!:scrutiny:


4v50 Gary
May 19, 2006, 09:30 AM
Mercy Preacherman! That's the best "spin" I've read yet. Thank you.:D

May 19, 2006, 09:42 AM
Thats just beautiful. I havn't laughed like that in a long time.:D

May 19, 2006, 10:04 AM
Hey! I love my Tactical Destroyer. I keep it (all of the pieces) in a box in my gun safe. And you just don't know how much money I've saved not having to buy a bunch of holsters for it.

You're all just a bunch of gun snobs who don't appreciate a nice, low-cost firearm.

My next acquisition will be a Hi-Point, I think.

May 19, 2006, 10:33 AM
Just too dam funny!!!! Places like this have almost eliminated my need for gun magazines. If I only had internet access in my bathroom, I could cancel my subscription to Shooting Times. ;)

May 19, 2006, 01:19 PM
Hey! I love my Tactical Destroyer. I keep it (all of the pieces) in a box in my gun safe. And you just don't know how much money I've saved not having to buy a bunch of holsters for it.


I especially like "engineered to produce a cone of fire", a much-valued feature of special forces, as a spin for unrifled barrel made from pipe.

May 19, 2006, 02:17 PM
The article does not say if it comes with 'da switch' so it can fire full auto:D

May 20, 2006, 12:16 AM
Never met a gun I didn't like (as long as it is safe). That one doesn't sound safe. In fact, it sounds like a bunch of bull. I believe most of the gun writers have a bit more integrity than suggested.

May 20, 2006, 01:17 AM

Still sounds better made than an AK. :neener:

May 20, 2006, 12:55 PM
I seriously just had a great time reading that. I laughed very hard, my co-worker came over to read it and he had a great laugh too.

May 20, 2006, 02:11 PM
What? No 'utterly reliable' and 'one ragged hole at 3 yards'?

May 20, 2006, 04:00 PM
"...based on the classic <fill_in_blank> design..."

"...handled <x> rounds of mixed ammo with nary a bobble..."

"...outstanding for personal protection for properly credentialed individuals..."

"...proper ear and eye protection..."

"...Ransom Rest..."

"...proven design..."

"...although it was windy at the range..."

Wayne D
May 20, 2006, 07:43 PM
I was unable to measure the trigger pull because my fish scale tops out at 32 pounds.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Tom Servo
May 20, 2006, 08:57 PM
Preach, you owe me a new keyboard :D

May 20, 2006, 11:57 PM
Thanks, that WAS funny!

I can tell you that I used to own a manufacturing company, non-gun, and spent a couple of grand a month advertising in trade magazines. I told the editor it was time for a review, he agreed and told me to call the old-timer who did all their reviews.

I called him and told him what was going on and started to make arrangements to ship the product to him (it was large and bulky). He interrupted me and said "kid, I'm too old to fool with that crap, just send me some nice pictures and I'll take care of the article."

Needless to say I don't pay much attention to magazine reviews any more.

May 21, 2006, 06:19 AM
That's why the only magazine I pay any attention to is Gun Tests because they don't take any advertising and do say negative things about firearms that don't meet their standards.

If you enjoyed reading about "How gun magazines write articles..." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!