Writers of firearms topics monthly columns

One year, ten matches, and 5000 rounds later would undoubtedly be nice to read, but you're waaaaay over the line into Hobbyblog Land there.

No salaried mag writer could get that much time out of an editor, no ammo company could provide that much product on a sustained basis, no salaried or freelance writer could afford to buy that much ammo, no publisher would budget for such high ammo costs, no freelancer could possibly make any money.

All that, to sell the resulting article for $400-$600?
Denis

Not the way it works in the gun world.

If you're willing to spend all that time & money with a gun & that much more than it'd pay, I invite you to go for it.

Realistically, a gunwriter does the work first-hand, writes it up as first-hand experience, and expects to be paid for both that work and his ability to write effectively about it.

In that realm, any writer who expects to make a profit, and I again emphasize this is a business, has to balance production costs vs return on those costs.

Denis

It's far from a perfect system, but it can't work as you described.
Denis

I suppose it's the market you're targeting. The current articles seem to be aimed at the competitors, and "wannabe" competitors.

Law enforcement, home defence, self defence CCW folks, would, IMHO be far more likely to buy a magazine that emphasized reliability and terminal performance rather than shooting match performance.

I am, of course, a bit biased coming from a law enforcement perspective. I don't care if the new "Schmidt und Walter" is the most aesthetically pleasing pistol ever made, or if it's benchrest rifle accurate. I don't care if the new ammunition shoot all rounds through the same hole.

What I do care about, is that it goes 'bang" every time I press the trigger, and what happens when the projectile strikes the target. And I really don't think I'm the only one that feels that way.

Maybe we need a new magazine to appeal to the LE/SD/HD market.

I come from an LE background, too.
But, have to go with trends & what the editors will approve or assign.
Most generalized gunmags try to balance for a broad appeal.

Start one up!
Denis

Anyone remember Pistolero magazine? That's one magazine worth spending the money on. They didn't hold ANYTHING back and utterly trashed brands that didn't perform!
Also a lot of other stuff that we'd be interested in today:

Check this small archive for some scans:
http://www.atomiclabrat.com/Handgun Tests Magazine.htm





As far as the future goes, it's all new-media clickbait "around the web" Taboola, Outbrain malware-loaded garbage now. Whatever gets the public's attention and can make a quick shekel. (see The Truth About Guns)
Or a 60 minute YouTube video by nutnfancy talking about nothing and acting like the longer his video is, the more he gets paid, so he rambles about stupid stuff while pretending to be a serious reviewer.

No, it really can't. Not commercially.

There are several reasons why, including ability of your average hobby guy to write it all up in an interesting fashion, limited WIDESPREAD reader interest in that much detail (honest), editorial scheduling, newsworthiness (old news after something's been out for a year), hobbiest motivation (it'd be more ego than professional, if the money paid out fell so far below the production costs), and so on.

A periodical with space to fill has to have regular turnover in material.
A group of "regulars" (staff or freelancers) who either work at it full-time or at a high enough production rate as a side job can keep content flowing on a reliable basis.

A guy who takes a year on just one gun can't keep the pages filled.

If every issue consisted of year-long gun reviews, it'd bog the process way down.
Even if several contributors each worked with three or four guns to the extent you're talking about, editors would fall short on material for monthlies. A single annual issue could work, but it'd require a much larger pool of contributors to keep a monthly going, at that rate.

If each issue contained info only on guns & products already a year behind the times, that mag would not be bought by a substantial market segment more interested in what's new than in what somebody's been doing with a product for the past year.

There are peripheral aspects that'd be involved with each of the above facets that I won't waste time going into.

Another issue, as I've pointed out numerous times before, is that some expect the writer to do ALL testing for the reader.
Can't be done.

We can give you an overview, including general characteristics, performance in limited (and it has to be limited) testing in our hands, and we can toss in our impressions & conclusions based on our experiences & standards.

The rest, you gotta do.

The gunmags are a business, both for the publishers AND the writer.
That dictates certain realities.

The model you suggest can't be pulled off in a general interest gunmag market, where there are simply certain limitations involved in some areas, and certain requirements involved in others.

I'm talking about a commercial market, not a technical field for insiders.
You're talking about something more appropriate to a low-circulation annual, or a blog.
Denis

Denis, you're probably right about the generalized audience.

Unfortunately, Americans today have become addicted to the "sound bite." If you can't say it in one short paragraph it won't get read.

Just like the TV so-called 'newscaster" or "Anchor." He gets about three sentences and moves to the next topic, (unless it's Trayvon or Mike Brown of course)

Anyone who tries to get "in depth" loses the audience after 20-30 seconds. Joe Sixpack goes to the fridge for another beer.

The day when a writer or speaker tried to explain "who, where, why, when and how" are gone forever.

Every hobby magazine has the same problem:

Tal,
May be commercially viable in whatever field you were in, but still unworkable in a commercial gunmag.

Chey,
What you point out is a major factor in today's gun world.

Denis

taliv said:

you can come up with all the reasons you want for why you think it can't be done, but it looks kind of silly when others are actually doing it. perhaps we're talking past each other, but since I made well into the 6 figures on the content generation side for those articles and there were dozens of contributors like me and that company now has over 120 websites with 13 million subscribers... i'm pretty sure it's a commercially viable model.

Click to expand...

Do it then. If you really think that is what the market wants, you have a background writing, you have a 6 figure income stream. What is stopping you?

one thing you will notice is that the companies that pay for advertising are the ones that have articles written about them, and they're all favorable.

other than the mid 80's, have you ever seen an article dedicated to a Seecamp firearm? that's because you haven't seen a paid advertisement from Seecamp.

I write technical procedures as part of my job. But my job as a nuclear engineer has quite a bit of variety in it when compared to what firearms reviewers write.

The reviewers have a limited amount of stuff to write about when all they write about is firearms for the "average" firearms owner or enthusiast. Unlike a novelist, reviewers aren't writing an entertaining storyline around the gun, so reviews tend to be more cut-and-dry.

Also, a review of any given firearm, for it to mean much, has to contain certain fields in its anatomy in order for it to be both meaningful and consistent. Hence the inclusion of things like accuracy, reliability, consistency, etc.

As for the pictures...it takes a lot of pictures to capture a handful of decent ones which are clear, show attractive features, and look good. But even so, there are only so many ways the pictures can be taken.


Reviews for new guns, I should imagine, necessarily involve a rather limited amount of testing as opposed to guns that have been around a while and which the writer may have had a lot of experience with. What does a reviewer have to do for a new gun review? He has to get his hands on a new gun, he has to buy ammunition (maybe a variety) for the gun, and he has to run enough rounds through the gun to be able to comment on its performance and handling.

It takes time and money to be able to do all these things...and it's going to cost the writer's employer to support this. I'll let people like taliv and massad comment on how all this is accomplished; but if a writer has to put X number of hours into all this, what he gets paid had better cover this...in addition to his writing and editing during and afterwards.

"Formula" writing makes it simpler. The writer already knows what things he needs to write about and therefore already knows what paces he needs to run the gun through and how much time it takes. The employer already has a good idea what it takes to test the gun in resources as a result, and they know what format to expect the article to be written in. This streamlines the process and makes it more efficient and cost effective.


Personally, when I'm reading some kind of technical review of a firearm, I'm more concerned with the basics of its performance and some pictures on what it looks like. That's what grabs my interest in a gun which I may or may not be considering as a possible future purchase. A performance review of a firearm is different than, say, an article on the history and development of a firearm.


If you want a review on a firearm, an article from someone like Massad Ayoob is what you want to read.

If you want a lively story built around firearms, a book by someone like Larry Correa is what you want to read.

In order, it's teaching, writing, expert witness work, but you were close.

Cheygriz - cudos. I was once asked by editor X to write a piece about NDs. So I did - touching on the technical aspects of what leads to such. Well, editor X left and editor Y took over. Despite X saying the piece was fine, Y decided it didn't have enough 'excitement' in it and was too dry. Wasn't worth my time to redo as X was a friend and Y was rather rude. It wasn't a major outlet anyway and I was doing it for my friend X.

I've found the writing quality in Gray's Sporting Journal, Small Arms Review, and The Shooting Sportsman, generally, quite good. They cost more than regular publications but, in humble opinion, it is worth the price of admission. The Double Gun Journal is excellent too, but it may not be of interest to most readers. The more common rags you find on the newsstand are, with few exception, outright drivel. It is at best paying for an advertisement, at worst it is time wasted reading poorly written nonsense. YMMV.

I've found the writing quality in Gray's Sporting Journal, Small Arms Review, and The Shooting Sportsman, generally, quite good. They cost more than regular publications but, in humble opinion, it is worth the price of admission. The Double Gun Journal is excellent too, but it may not be of interest to most readers. The more common rags you find on the newsstand are, with few exception, outright drivel. It is at best paying for an advertisement, at worst it is time wasted reading poorly written nonsense. YMMV.

Click to expand...

Having previously subscribed to Gray's and DGJ, and being a current subscriber to S.S., I agree. Most folks here have never heard of these publications and only know G&A, ST, etc......whole 'nother type of shooter and a different demographic....

Tal,
There are a number of problems inherent to your model when applied to gunmags.

One is credibility.
If I write an article & use somebody else's experiences & data, I'm not the primary source & I lose "standing".
I'm no longer a first-hand authority, I'm just a guy who sits on the outside, writing about what somebody else did.
Readers don't want "My buddy shot this cool new gun, lemme tell you what he told me" stories.

One is veracity.
If I give you first-hand impressions, first-hand accuracy results, and first-hand chrono results, I will absolutely stand by those, and I can do that because I was there when it all happened.
If I rely on all that from somebody else, I can't. You know the inherent risks of second-hand info.

One is liability.
If I give you hand-load results, I've personally worked those up myself, and I again will absolutely stand by my own figures.
If I get those from some other body, I can't.
There are, and you may have noticed, some writers who do independent material that have posted that (YouTube, et al) material under an LLC copyright, for that exact reason.
Even our own material is vulnerable to lawsuit, if somebody follows something we wrote, gets injured, and sues.
However competent & trusted a third party may be, I won't risk that.

One is sustainability.
You can't expect a hobby guy, no matter how dedicated, to continue contributing material for somebody else to write up regularly at a necessary volume to fill mag space requirements.
Even a "bank" of regulars will burn out.
Split the paycheck? Did you see my note previously about a standard $400-$500 payout? You do not get rich writing for gunmags, it's an already thin profit margin.

One is control.
From the editorial standpoint, you need guys or gals who can reliably turn out articles on a dependable basis for years.
With those for whom money is a motivator, you retain at least loose control over those writers by dangling money.

Those of us who do this as a business endeavor tend to enjoy keeping that money coming, and consequently we both try to keep submissions flowing AND to meet the dictates of whatever editor we're working with.
Your average hobby guy (and I am NOT knocking anybody in using that term) who'd be participating for free has no incentive to keep on providing material, year in & year out, or to meet editorial demands to tweak this or tweak that, on a continuing basis.

One is longevity.
A for-free content hobby guy will not stick around long.
I could cite one dead CAS-oriented magazine of the past that depended substantially on unpaid submissions, but I won't.
I've gotten much-appreciated help from a couple close friends over the years, but those were "Hey, wanna come & help me wring this thing out? Can't pay you, but can get your picture on the page."
Even there, burnout's a factor.

One friend was a great .45-70 fan, black-powder competitor, loved to work up loads for his guns, was happy to spend hours tweakin' & twonkin' his pet rifles.
Asked him to help me shoot a rifle sample for an extensive hand-loading write-up in a .45-70, using my loads. Knew it'd beat me up, didn't mind sharing ( ), thought it was right down his alley.
Came out for exactly one of about 8 sessions, and that was it.

One is ability.
A hobby guy may be absolutely great at spending a year with a gun, but lousy at writing it up.
Or may be capable of writing well, but unwilling to keep doing so at the volume required, either paid or unpaid.

These are all reasons, not excuses, why your model doesn't work with gunmags.
There are others, but these'll do.
Denis

If you want a review on a firearm, an article from someone like Massad Ayoob is what you want to read.

Click to expand...

With all due respect to Mr. Ayoob, that is simply not true; I do not doubt his ability to review firearms of a "tactical" (I HATE that word) nature, but I do not think he can give me a reliable review of a David McKay Brown, or even the new Benelli O/U.......For those, I will read Bruce Buck or others from that vein................

YMMV, but to all those who think a gun is only good for SD, it simply isn't true.....get over it.......