American Rifleman magazine has become a corrupt joke.

[Trey Veston]

I'm a lifetime member of the NRA. I do think lately they are getting soft and, unfortunately, I think The American Rifleman is a corrupt propaganda piece and used to mostly generate advertising revenue at the expense of the truth and honest firearms evaluations.

They mostly test guns for manufacturers that pay them to run full-page ads in their magazines.

When is the last time you've seen a full-page Glock ad in the magazine? Now when's the last time you saw an article on Glocks in the magazine? Hmmm... When's the last time you saw an article on a Ruger in the magazine? Every damn month. Or a 1911... It's so blatantly obvious that it's pathetic. Now, their online edition did indeed run a few articles on Glocks. But I don't recall ever seeing a review of the Gen 5 Glocks, or the new 19x, or the G45, or the MOS Gen 5s; all very significant events in the self-defense and law-enforcement world.

And the biased accuracy testing is getting old.

The most recent blatant attempt to hide a gun's poor performance is in the latest issue.

AR is a long-time shill for Wilson Combat. They can print nothing negative about the company or it's products. In turn, Wilson Combat pays a lot of money for monthly ads in the magazine.

On page 78 of the January 2019 issue, they tested the new Wilson Combat EDC X9. Of course it got a glowing review complete with absolute lies...

"On the range, the EDC X9 proved to be every bit as accurate and reliable as any pistol we've tested - performance we have come to expect from Wilson Combat. As the accompanying table shows, this gun is a shooter with excellent sights a light, smooth trigger. More impressive than the groups from the bench, though, was how well the gun..."

Yeah... All lies. Because, if you actually look at the accompanying table, and see the 1.77" group, you would be impressed.

Unfortunately, that's at 15yds and not at the normal, standard 25yd distance that most of their reviews are at. A $2800 9mm pistol should be getting sub-2" groups at 25yds and 1" groups at 15yds. Nearly 2" at 15yds is what every single one of my Glocks will get. As well as my $200 Taurus. What a joke.

Why did they choose to intentionally mislead their members? It's all about the money and their personal biases.

I fear The American Rifleman has been corrupted for years now. And the NRA is becoming just another group of the rich and powerful elites in Washington DC that have little regard for the common American.

 

[Tommygunn]

I wonder how many other gun mags run reviews on guns .... and are beholden to the gun's manufacturer in one way or another?

I suspect more than one ..... ........ ......

 

[OARNGESI]

Along time ago I had a show car and was approached by a model who said if I hired her and her photographer she could get me into 3 different magazines features. Magazines are almost dead they are 10 yrs from being extinct same with normal cable tv. Ever watch a movie where everyone drove cars made by the same manufacturer. Besides most get there reviews on YouTube these days

 

[Slamfire]

I have been greatly disappointed in the content of the American Rifleman. I have read every issue possible, going back to the 1906 Arms and the Man which are on Google Books. Back then, the principle authors were Army Ordnance Bureau Military Officers, but even though their paycheck was paid by Uncle Sam, they played favorites with industry. The most egregious was their favorable treatment of Sedgley

American Rifleman Dope Bag August 1932

Sedgley Sporter Receivers are Strong

I have a Hornet rifle sold by Sedgley. The bolt and receiver have been taken from a Springfield rifle numbered between 300,000 and 400,000. It is my understanding that Springfield receivers numbered below about 800,000 are very brittle. Please let me know whether in your opinion it would be worth while to have this receiver changed to a more modern one.

I would appreciate it if you can give any information as to about what size group should be expected from this rifle at 100 and 200 yards –H.L.H.


answer: It would not be advisable to change the receiver of your Sedgley Hornet rifle to the modern type of Springfield receiver as the expense this would involve would not be warranted by the benefit derived from the change. You will find your Sedgley receiver strong enough even in the .30-’06 caliber, as Sedgley heat treats these rebuilt receivers with his own process, and proof-fires them with cartridges giving 90,000 pounds pressure. Of course in you Hornet caliber your pressures never exceed 45,000 pounds at the most, and have a normal mean considerably less than that with factory ammunition.

With a Springfield rifle, it would be different as the receiver could be changed at a small expense at the Springfield Armory. In case you have a Rock Island Springfield of serial number below 285,000 or a Springfield Armory with serial number under 800,000, it has the old “brittle” type of receiver. When sending such a weapon into the Armory for a new barrel, the receiver will be changed to the new modern heat-treated type without extra charge. All arrangements for barrel work, or receiver exchange, must be made directly through the D.C.M. office.

I would say that with your Sedgley Hornet your could expect 4” groups at 200 yards with good sights and from good rest, and of course this would imply 2” groups of smaller at 100 yards.

If you notice, the Army author is warranting the quality of the Sedgley heat treatment. What the heck does he know other than what he has been told by Sedgley?. This shows the conflicts of interest Gunwriters have, be they Army or Civilian. They are always looking for free bees from manufacturer’s, are always looking for future commissions, and the magazine wants the ad revenue. Basically, they are sock puppets, repeating what they are told by a Corporate Advertising Bureau. This also shows the incompetence of the author. Here, in this 1932 article, the writer spreads the fiction that burnt receivers can be reheat treated back to goodness.

Burnt metal can no more be made good through reheat treatment, than can burnt toast be made new by re toasting. Once steel is overheated, it is permanently ruined.

Incidentally, in this 1945 article, even though they won’t reveal just who is that “outfit in Philadelphia”, they confirm that all that Sedgley was doing was annealing single heat treat receivers. Annealing consists of heating the billet up, and letting it cool naturally. Annealing removes all hardness and in time, the head space would increase, and the case head would blow. The so called Sedgley heat treat was a sham. The 1932 author is proven to be a sock puppet with the Sedgley Corporation flapping his jaws. Sedgley did not make things better, removing any heat treatment from the receivers made things worse!

American Rifleman Dope Bag Oct 1945

“All old Springfields Weak”

A long letter written by gunsmith, R.E Simmons to Mr Ness, the editor of the Dope Bag, describes a SHT Springfield that had blown. This section was about midway:

:

“I just received a letter from George Vitt of the A. F. Holden Company. This company is one of the foremost heat-treaters in the United States and he says that they will not even think of accepting one of these old actions for reheat-treating. To quote him:

“The old Springfield receivers were made of cheap, almost plain, carbon steel, that was merely carburized and quenched. The type of steel used would not readily lend itself to good results from the best heat-treating practices, even though there are one or two outfits in Pennsylvania and elsewhere (Note: Sedgley was in Philadelphia) who advertise the so called reheat-treated Springfields for sale I would no more trust these receivers without making a chemical analysis and without testing them on the Rockwell machine that I would jump off the Empire State Building.

From the references I have, the reheat-treatment of these receivers amounts to the same thing as the so called double heat treatment that was practiced at the Springfield Armory prior to 1929 In other works neither of the two is much good for the reason of low-grade material used in the receiver” (End of Mr. Vitt’s quote)”

Mr Simmons, in a bridging section in his letter, states he had worked in the Ordnance Department during WW2 and that he had tested SHT receivers after rebuild with proof loads and Mr Simmons had not seen any break, making him skeptical about these receivers being structurally deficient, but he states

“it is best not to recommend these old actions for any of the more powerful loads”

“Incidentally, I noticed that you mention a well-known reheat job which is being done on these Springfield receivers by a well known firm. I wish to state that many of these old actions treated by this firm (which is like the one I sent you), are letting go in every direction. In fact, I personally believe these are about the worst in the bunch, because they simply softened the receivers, which would allow a very powerful proof load to be fired without any danger, but which allowed the bolt to gradually set back, increasing the head space dangerously.

Mr Ness, the editor of the Dope Bag adds a long section starting with this

“Comments: I agree with P.O. Ackley that the only good Springfield action is one made of nickel steel….

The attitude of the metallurgists is that the poor material in these Springfield actions makes any of the carbon steel variety undesirable, including those double reheat-treated at Springfield Armory in the series above 800,000.”

Ness was a book writer and had an independent income separate from the American Rifleman and did not need free bees from Sedgley.

The practice that Sedgley followed of annealing single heat treat receivers was verified in the May-June 1985 Rifle Magazine in an article titled : About Low number Springfields, Sedgley's and others The author was Hugh Douglas. Hugh talked to a Sedgley employee decades after Sedgley went out of business. The employee verified the statements in the 1945 Dobe Bag. Sedgley bought lots of rejected low number receivers and simply annealed the things. The "proof load" was a greased standard ball cartridge. If the receiver developed headspace during the "proof test", the barrel was removed, an extra thread cut, and an additional extractor cut 180 degrees from the original.

One thing that is missing today is the technical expertise that the Army Ordnance Officers brought to their articles, from the early 1900's to 1968. These Army Ordnance Officers had real technical day jobs. They guys had a gravitas that slowly, but surely, disappeared after 1968. What happened in 1968 is that the Pentagon, under SecDef McNamara, punted the NRA so far out of the Pentagon, that the NRA sold their old downtown Washington DC Headquarters. They made a mint doing so, as the location was close to the Pentagon, but since they were not welcome in the building, they wanted the money, and parking spaces! (It is impossible to find a parking space at the Pentagon)

It used to be, that the magazine only carried ads that were gun related. Now baldness cures, sexual dysfunctional drugs, jewelry, these ads appear all over the place. And as noted, the reviews of firearms are not stressing. It used to be that the rifle tests were forty shot groups with each load, now, five shot groups. Might be three of them. They are not trying to determine the actual accuracy of the firearm under test and I don't consider their results to be much of a guide towards accuracy, or function. Function used to be important, that is whether a weapon actual fed and extracted the round. What I read, indicates that the writers are firing the things single shot.

It is my opinion that there is very little difference between the American Rifleman and any other profit maximizing periodical. Gone are the days of interesting technical articles, what is left are infomercials published to push product.

 

[AlexanderA]

Yup. Years ago I used to save my American Rifleman magazines. Now they go in the trash after I give them a cursory glance.

What burns me most is Wayne LaPierre's constant editorializing against "socialism." It has almost nothing to do with guns. But, it appeals to some of the deep-pocketed people that might send him money.

The NRA is just as corrupt as the AARP. These organizations are mainly about making money for the people that run them.

 

[kheeka]

I'm a lifetime member of the NRA. I do think lately they are getting soft and, unfortunately, I think The American Rifleman is a corrupt propaganda piece and used to mostly generate advertising revenue at the expense of the truth and honest firearms evaluations.

You only just figured this out?

 

[Trey Veston]

You only just figured this out?

No. I've known this for years, and I have posted on other gun forums about it in the past. This latest blatant example just happen to raise my dander again. But nice attempt at a personal insult. Try harder next time.

 

[drk1]

Well, I tell you what. Why not just cancel your subscription to AR and your membership in the NRA? Then take all of your money and give it to the another organization that has done as much to save your right to own firearms. Or better still, just send all of your money to the Chuck and Nancy Party. Soros and Styer would appreciate the help!

 

[Trey Veston]

Well, I tell you what. Why not just cancel your subscription to AR and your membership in the NRA? Then take all of your money and give it to the another organization that has done as much to save your right to own firearms. Or better still, just send all of your money to the Chuck and Nancy Party. Soros and Styer would appreciate the help!

It sounds like you are attempting to justify their corruption and lying by pointing out the good works that they have done. It's a valid point. But corruption and lying are still corruption and lying even if our side is the one doing it.

 

[CLP]

It's no different with any other hobbyist/enthusiast magazines (e.g. Cigar Aficionado- only 2 Cuban cigars in the 2018 Top 25- really?!)
I give my monthly AR to my wife to put out at her store.
I'm much more aggrieved at what the NRA is failing to do legislatively than the content of one of their magazines.

 

[Riomouse911]

I receive at least 10 gun mags a month, including AR. They’re all commercial enterprises taking ad revenue from gun makers, holster makers ammo makers, etc.

Will they gloss over some shortcomings to keep advertisers happy? Sure they will. I still read them all cover to cover, still look at the pictures and the specs, and hope someday soon I’ll be able to retire and live in a State where I can actually buy 50% of what’s out there.

Nothing’s perfect, from Car and Driver to American Handgunner every mag has shortcomings. AR certainly has them, too, but at least the NRA is fighting for what’s left of your gun rights. Where I live those rights were taken away over the last three decades by flocks of media-supported, Uber-urban, smugly arrogant “Democratic Socialists” who have decided for me and my family what guns I can and can’t own, how many I can buy, what ammo I can and can’t purchase, what bullet I can and can’t hunt with, etc. And trust me, with a “Democratic Socialist” legislative supermajority and a San Francisco liberal in the Governors office it’s going to get worse for people like me.

Be careful what you wish for, because it can happen in an instant to your State, too.

Stay aware, and stay safe!

 

[readyeddy]

All magazines that accept paid ads are biased.

 

[Old Dog]

Now when's the last time you saw an article on Glocks in the magazine? Hmmm... When's the last time you saw an article on a Ruger in the magazine? Every damn month. Or a 1911... It's so blatantly obvious that it's pathetic. Now, their online edition did indeed run a few articles on Glocks. But I don't recall ever seeing a review of the Gen 5 Glocks, or the new 19x, or the G45, or the MOS Gen 5s; all very significant events in the self-defense and law-enforcement world.

The magazine is corrupt because it doesn't regularly review Glock pistols? Do Glock pistols even require print reviews anymore? If you're reading the gun rags to see articles and pictures of your pet firearms, aren't you simply validating the very existence of the magazines?

My beef with American Rifleman, and with the NRA, isn't that the magazine acts like every other gun magazine, it's purely because the NRA (and its mouthpiece publications) along with Mr. Lapierre, are major factors in the politicizing of gun rights. This organization is directly responsible for the labeling of the two major political parties as anti-gun and pro-gun, to the point where both parties totally bought into the concept, and persists in perpetuating the ridiculous hyperbole that facilitates the mainstream media in framing all RKBA issues as one of our utmost nationally polarizing flashpoints.

 

[hq]

The magazine is corrupt because it doesn't regularly review Glock pistols? Do Glock pistols even require print reviews anymore?

Well... if you have a safe full of Glocks, live, breathe and shoot them day in, day out, and are convinced that the gospel of the Plastic Fantastic needs the maximum coverage in print media, it might be irritating to read features of other makes and models of firearms.

I remember when Glocks were initially introduced and yes, back then I actually enjoyed reading magazine features about what then-brand-new boxy, plasticky lead-thrower with a staple-gun trigger pull was all about. It took me the better part of three decades to finally get one myself and realize that they seem to suit my shooting style very well, no problem at all. No harm, no foul; a bit of a confirmation of what Peter Kokalis already wrote in SOF back in 1984 and the novelty was what made me pick up the issue at a newsstand at the time. Personally I'm fond of higher end CZ75-based designs but, frankly, I'm not disappointed one bit if none of them are featured on magazines in several months or even years. I subscribe to magazines to find out things I don't know yet, not to repeat ones I already do.

This doesn't mean I haven't realized the general decline of journalism in print media during last decade or so, nor have I chosen to ignore it. That's a far more serious problem that not finding your favorite gun in every other issue of whatever you subscribe.

 

[DPris]

Readyeddy,
All Internet posters who post under that name are idiots, fools, dolts, and morons.

After which I'll say that your comment stating all magazines that accept paid ads are biased is every bit as valid as mine about all Readyeddy posters being idiots, fools, dolts, and morons.

Special interest mags are FOR PROFIT BUSINESSES.
It is impossible to BE a large-circulation for-profit publishing company WITHOUT "accepting" ads.
And the very act of including ads DOES NOT invariably carry bias within either the organization or the publication.

If you're unhappy with ANY special interest mag, don't buy it.
And then, with the money you save, go start up your own magazine, without advertising, and see exactly how far you get.
Denis

 

[Odd Job]

Magazines need ads for revenue. I think that's a separate issue from publishing misleading reviews (if they did, I can't say one way or another).

 

[RETG]

Hey, it is still good reading in the "library."

Think of it as a modern day Sear's Catalog; minus models.

Or just throw it in the garbage, or tell them to stop sending it. I believe you can read it online if you need.

 

[GBExpat]

... I think The American Rifleman is a corrupt propaganda piece and used to mostly generate advertising revenue at the expense of the truth and honest firearms evaluations. ...

So it is morphing into a true Gun Rag. A bit sad, IMO, but ... <shrug>

That is the primary reason that I stopped buying & reading Gun Rags about a quarter century ago.

American Rifleman keeps being delivered to me. I skim it and read the somewhat rare interesting article and then toss it. For me, it hasn't been a Saver in a very long time.

The political rants bother me more than the ad dollar chasing, quite frankly.

 

[Rembrandt]

I don't share the OP's premise. Life is full of choices and decisions....you have the freedom to support (or not) where to spend your money. Former Soviet Union residents had no choice, only had Pravda to read. You chose to support something you now are repulsed by and feel you were tricked. If you bought a car that turned out to be a lemon, would you hang on to it?....or complain until the lemon turned sweet? Sometimes we need to learn our lesson and move on.

 

[imashooter]

I read Armed Citizen, do a quick scan, trash it. Sometimes I pull out the Harbor Freight coupon page.

 

[Jeff Burgess]

Never did like that magazine r anyways

 

[John_R]

First, if you have a problem with our organization, tell them. Get involved. Be the change you want to see.

Second, every hobby magazine is simply a catalog of lickspittle reviews of their advertisers’ products. Always have been, always will be.

I see so much NRA bashing on gun boards it makes me wonder if some of them are leftist anti-gun plants, pretending to be NRA members just to divide us.

 

[Waveski]

I read Armed Citizen, do a quick scan, trash it. Sometimes I pull out the Harbor Freight coupon page.

"Armed Citizen" used to hold my interest but it became repetitious and boring. Now I go straight to "I have this old gun." .

There is a torrent of money pouring into liberal causes in general - including anti gun efforts ..... liberals beat out conservatives badly when it comes to persistent activism. If the NRA generates $$$ by means of ads in American Rifleman and applies that resource to the ongoing battle to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights , I can live with that. How many times have all of us purchased pizzas or baked goods we really did not want , but paid for anyway , in order to support a good cause?

 

[Steve S.]

The NRA is a business, Wilson Combat is a business, Ruger is a business; it is quite normal for any business to behave like a business which is to say, “make money” (period). Always refer to the definition of a corporation if things get confusing or muddied - “A mindless entity established for the sole purpose of maximizing profits”. Whenever we try to mix morals, justice, truth, fairness, etc with the behaviors or expectations of these large organizations, we are just kidding ourselves. These large entities very seldom blatantly lie, they control the image by simply not telling the whole story because they can’t - the whole story is distasteful.

 

[AlexanderA]

My beef with American Rifleman, and with the NRA, isn't that the magazine acts like every other gun magazine, it's purely because the NRA (and its mouthpiece publications) along with Mr. Lapierre, are major factors in the politicizing of gun rights. This organization is directly responsible for the labeling of the two major political parties as anti-gun and pro-gun, to the point where both parties totally bought into the concept, and persists in perpetuating the ridiculous hyperbole that facilitates the mainstream media in framing all RKBA issues as one of our utmost nationally polarizing flashpoints.

This bears repeating. As far as the American Rifleman shilling for the gun manufacturers, the entire gun press does it. I'm used to that, and take all gun reviews with a grain of salt.

What I'm not used to is the political slant. Actually, I've only noticed this in the last 5 years or so. LaPierre, by making the NRA into an arm of the Republican party, has diminished its effectiveness tremendously. There are pro-gun Democrats out there, especially in the rank and file. Such people are being lost to the gun-rights movement, because of LaPierre's political editorializing.