Hmmmm.
I know Venola, still trying to work in the industry after two mistrials for murder pretty much killed his career.
Let me explain some things.
Close consultation with manufacturers, of course.
I frequently consult closely with a maker, when I have questions about a gun.
It's called research, not collusion.
I need details.
I need thoughts behind the model.
I want to know why they went a certain route.
I want to know what materials.
All of that so I can do an informative piece for the reader.
On occasion that process, involving feedback, can actually result in a better product for the consumer.
I've worked with Rugers for many years.
On four occasions my feedback about problem areas helped bring about production changes, notably in the early LCP, the initial 4.2-inch .22 SPs, the .44 Special snub GP, and most recently the 7-shot .357 GPs..
Most recently, with Savage's new 110 Scout, I was telling the Savage rep that they had a scope rail on the sample sent that obscured fully half of the sight picture through the iron sights.
A corrected rail was sent to me, and I was told it'd be standard on the rifles going forward.
And so on.
It's always been my opinion that a good mag article should provide solid info for readers.
In many cases, I've got sufficient background between military, LE, recreational, and hunting experiences, to be able to look at a new model, note features, figure out why those are there, detail them in the piece, and place them in context for readers who DON'T know everything, as so many forum members do.
The new Smith 2.0 pistols are an example.
When I did my Kindle eBook on the M&P 2.0 9mm, I talked to a product manager at S&W for details not immediately obvious.
While Internet forums were complaining about how hard the right-side ambi slide release was to operate, I was finding out it's deliberately engineered to be that way, and it's not intended to BE an ambi release, because one of the upgrades of the 2.0 was a re-engineered slide lock intended to reduce the 1.0 tendency to auto-close on a mag insertion.
I was also getting info on upgrades in the barrel/slide relationship to address consumer complaints of poor accuracy in the 1.0s.
This is being "cosy" with manufacturers.
This results in more info for me, and more info I can pass along to readers to both justify the money they spent on the mag and to help them make an informed decision on whether or not they may want to pursue the gun in question. Note I said HELP them make a decision, not make the decision for them.
You bet your ass I work closely with gunmakers.
I have to.
It's a part of the publishing industry.
I can't walk into a gunshop & buy every gun I write up, I'd go broke.
I HAVE to depend on loaners.
I can't, on EVERY gun, hold it against my forehead & psychically sense what's in it, what's behind it, why it has what it has, and how it came to be.
The interaction between me and the makers varies with the maker & with the gun.
Right now, I've got a Traditions/Pietta Peacemaker clone rotating around.
I know those guns.
There's very little info about this one that I need to get from Traditions.
On the other hand, much discussion with Savage on that Scout a couple weeks ago.
When Ruger's .44 Special snub GP came out, wildly variable chamber throats, and a LOTTA discussion with Ruger about those.
Problem corrected, and in the write-up I noted those.
LOTTA discussion with Ruger on the new 7-shot GP, resulting in production changes.
Noted in the write-up published.
On a recent three-gun .380 piece, talks with two of the makers got me info I didn't know in just pulling samples out of their boxes, the third I didn't need to.
None of this, with very few exceptions, kills off a working relationship.
Problems encountered & published are typically an "OK, we're sorry, we screwed up" thing.
In three cases in 29 years of doing what I do have the makers attempted to interfere with publishing results I found in testing their products.
One was the son of a builder in Arizona; who objected to my questioning certain features & performance on an expensive fantasy long-slide 10mm 1911 variant he'd sent, was not happy when I pointed out a box-stock Colt 10mm at less than half his price had previously shot twice as well, and who threatened to pull all of Daddy's advertising until the publisher fired me. They did pull their ads, I was not fired, but I did cancel that article as not being worth writing up.
The editor was nothing but supportive to me, and it was my decision to cancel the piece.
The second was a builder of tiny peashooters in Utah who took exception to my writing up the mediocre accuracy of a new model.
The gun was a prototype, quickly built for me to cover. In discussing with them, I said I was noting that it WAS a proto, WAS put together quickly for the review, and that production models should show the accuracy their products were known for.
Both general manager & the owner said they did not want that accuracy mentioned.
Joint decision was made between me & the editor on that one to cancel the coverage rather than submit to their attempts to influence the review write-up.
I'd previously written up at least a dozen of their products with no issues, I have never since then touched that company.
The third was an importer who was unhappy that I was going to note in a review that the model in question was not actually an authentic repro of a Patton gun, as they were claiming.
Article cancelled, no further business with that company.
And on the other side of the coin, most companies will just apologize about minor glitches & let it ride.
Gunmags do not exist to sell guns for gunmakers, any more than gun forums do.
ANY magazine & EVERY magazine does exist to sell something.
They are for-profit endeavors, in a business environment.
There is (and has to be) a symbiotic relationship between gun mags and the gun makers.
The makers produce stuff for us to write about, which sells copies; and we get the word out on products, which helps sell products.
It's not just gunmags, this sort of symbiotic pairing exists in many other fields, and there's nothing about it that's inherently evil or collisional.
This very forum is paid for by advertising.
It's dependent on ads to exist.
Don't forget that.
I'd take severe exception to Venola's use of the term "in cahoots".
I used to sell to him, I know him, I was sorry to see his decline.
But- his depiction there leaves an unfortunate and erroneous impression.
As I've mentioned repeatedly before, print space is expensive.
There's no room for a POS.
There are other issues involved, too.
If we publish a short blurb, saying "Was gonna do a write-up on Gun X in this issue, but it was so bad we gave up on it", we'll be inundated with cards, letters, and emails going in two directions: "We demand a detailed article on what was wrong with it", and "Mine runs fine, you're all idiots."
If we run a full-length piece describing it in detail, with lots of nice photography, as we normally try to do, and then end with "But it wouldn't cycle anything reliably & couldn't hit a barn from 10 feet out", we've taken space away from guns that actually do work just fine, and we'll be inundated by cards, letters & emails saying "Why did you waste so much of my time reading through that long article just to find out at the end that it's a junker", and "Mine runs fine, you're all idiots."
It's a no-win deal, all the way round.
No point in covering a total POS.
In rare cases, when I've thought a particular gun was important enough, I've returned a sample for the maker to either correct the issues, or send a replacement sample.
Years ago, when S&W sent a T&E sample on a new .44 Special model that was getting a lot of attention, I got one in that was so bad I returned it for another one.
The second was so bad I returned it & cancelled the article entirely.
Took two tries with Ruger's LCP, two with their 4.2 .22 SP, two with their .44 Spec GP snub, and three with their 7-shot .357 GP.
All four of those were high-interest guns, I went the extra mile on 'em for readers.
One Chaparral levergun years ago was so bad, returned & cancelled. I had no faith in the company's ability to do any better, as badly done as it was, so did not pursue a replacement sample.
Moderator on another gun forum has one he says was just fine.
Sample Of One Principle.
An early Nighthawk 1911 was so badly built it was returned & the article cancelled.
I've never gone back, but they have a following, so again- Sample Of One Principle.
And I discussed it in detail with them when I cancelled it, as I did with the editor.
That's the "cozy" relationship at work between maker & gunmag.
That's being "in cahoots" with the manufacturers.
Unfortunate that Rich paints such an exaggerated picture of the process.
Denis