Handgun Magazines........

[mec]

Two recent examples that appear honest:
jeff johns- this months G&A Handguns. - He tested a Ruger Single Six that threw 25 yard groups in the 3" range. The velociites of both Hornady and the CCI rounds spread out over 200+ feet per second.

This is honest reporting. He did voice the opinion that this was a nice, accurate trail gun but it was clearly an opinion unsupported by the shooting results leaving the reader informed enough to make up his own mind.

Clapp in the American Rifleman a few months ago: Wrote up the then new Ruger Super RH in .454. The ammunition clearly showed that the test revolver was about as accurate as and old lady with the hives throwing a baseball. You don't right up results like this if all you are trying to do is hump the advertisers.

( My 9.5" single six frequently groups magnums into an inch and less at 25 yards and a friends super redhawk .454 does about the same.)

 

[Sean Smith]

This is honest reporting. He did voice the opinion that this was a nice, accurate trail gun but it was clearly an opinion unsupported by the shooting results leaving the reader informed enough to make up his own mind.

You've got a funny idea of what "honest" is... all the data indicates the gun is a turd... and the writer whores himself out by saying it is great... and you call that HONEST?!

 

[mec]

"Honest" is reporting the turdaform groups the guns shot and the comodatrophic massive velocity variations of the .17 rounds is "Honest"

The statement that the gun is " an accurate trail gun"{sic}
is clearly an opinion. In my opinion three inches at 25 yards is not at all accurate for a varmint cartridge. In somebody else's opinion it might be accurate.

" Dishonest" would have been to say that the thing shot one inch groups and the velocity spreads were less than 50 feet per second.

 

[mec]

1 .this, on the other hand, is a .17 tracker from Taurus - one of the first to hit the country. It is accurate and the measured velocity of the hornady cartridge was 2170 fps.
2. It is an accurate Trail gun.

1. Fact
2. Opinion

Fact: If the article on this ever hits print ( and I hope to God it DOES'NT), nobody will believe it because the Rugers, Reeders and Smiths are all so spazmodic that nobody will believe this sort of perfomance from a Taurus.

Encarta Dictionary:Honest- 1. morally upright: never cheating, lying, or breaking the law


2. truthful or true: expressing or embodying the truth


3. impartial: presenting information in an impartial way


4. reasonable in a particular situation:

 

[Sean Smith]

Mec,

Your posts are a classic example of the difference between "informative" and "pedantic."



Data: gun is inaccurate.
Statement: gun is accurate.

Thesis #1: Writer is a liar and an advertising whore, and hopes you are too stupid to interpret the numbers.
Thesis #2: Writer is too stupid to know what constitutes "accurate," in which case he should be fired for imbecility.

I don't pay money to sift through disingenuous articles for what passes for "data" in a gun rag, sorry.

 

[mec]

writer has possible set his sights high and does not particularly care to write for those who are unwilling or unable to reach their own conclusions.




Apologies to the board for feeding the flames.

 

[Moondancer]

Combat Handguns - like it and read it cover to cover.
American Handgunner - love the pictures. Love the Ayoob Files. There isn't enough other articles that interest me to keep me buying.
Shooting Times - haven't bought one since Skeeter died.
Guns & Ammo - haven't bought one since the Survival column was axed (or did the author die; I can't remember which).
Never bought enough of the others to know if I liked 'em or didn't.

Since you have this question in the Handguns: General Discussion forum I assume you are interested in our preferences in magazines having to do with handguns.

 

[mec]

The Guns and Ammo Survival guy could have been Dr. Mel Tappin. He wrote a book titled " Survival Guns" and was very informative and entertaining. He did die at least a couple of decades ago. The book is hard to find now.

 

[22luvr]

I subscribed to GUN TESTS.....

for one year. They do not advertise and their tests give little margin for error. If the example they are testing has any sort of mechanical malfunction, they just flat give it a "don't buy" rating. Love'em or Hate'em, but the folks at GUN TESTS don't seem to have an agenda beyond giving the most unbiased test results they can.

 

[C. H. Luke]

Combat Handguns & Handguns mags.

 

[Ironbarr]

I was asked to check out S.W.A.T. since it has a new owner and motif. Trouble is, I can't find it anywhere where I live.

Has anybody any opinions on S.W.A.T.??

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

I have the best of both worlds. I don't buy any gun magazines, don't have to. Get the American Rifleman with my NRA membership & that's the closest I come to buying. But ooohhh yes I do read them. 'Cause my long tall, cool lookin, brunette, female type barber, with the softest touch this side of fantasy land, stocks her waiting rack with Guns, Field & Stream, Sports Illustrated, Hot Rod, etc. Gee, most of her clientel is male & most don't mind reading or just watching her cut hair.

And no, selfish pig that I am, I'm not going to wait for a cut any longer than I have to.

900F