Are The Gun Rags Hurting?

[HankB]

The "problem" (and the benefit) of online forums is lack of vetting. This is a problem because you get a flood of "armchair shooters" who post about stuff they really don't know from personal experience, making a very poor signal-to-noise ratio.

They don't call this the "Errornet" for nothing . . .

But seriously, forums like this tend to be self-correcting; if someone posts something ridiculous - say, that 22 grains of Unique with a 240 JHP is a great .44 Magnum load - within a day, usually within hours, there will be multiple responses detailing the danger of such a load.

Likewise, when a new model gun is introduced, within months you're going to see a number of reviews from folks who purchased it through regular OTC channels . . . that's where you're going to find out if the pistol is having teething problems.

When gun writers screw up in print, seldom will the print medium issue a correction . . . well-intentioned whistle-blowers instead have to use Internet forums to discuss and critique their articles . . . and gunwriters positively hate this, that people should be unappreciative of their received knowledge.

Some gun writers have taken the "errornet" to task with snide comments and outright insults, and others have responded to criticisms with borderline profanity and scatalogical references, especially when large amounts of well-deserved criticism pop up in the forums - tough cookies. We're on to the fact that despite credentials and experience, not all of them walk on water, and even the best are prone to screw up now and then.

And in some cases, the "experts" . . . aren't so expert after all.

 

[Old Dog]

So, HankB, was it your intent, in your original post, when posing the question, to garner responses that would reflect some type of superiority of internet firearms forums over print magazines? Just asking. I mean, we all seemed to be pretty clear that over the past few years, given the ease of tapping media via the internet vice purchasing a magazine at a retail store (or waiting for one to arrive in the U.S. mail), print media is suffering a substantial decline in readership ... Did you wish to have proven the superiority of internet information over print media information?

By no means do I intend to provide any sort of defense for printed gun periodicals; it's just that gun magazines are what they are.

It's only on the internet that folks seem to believe that periodicals should contain only the truth, as written by experts, and edited by other experts ...I just kinda feel that sometimes on internet forums, we're just looking for stuff to criticize. They're only magazines, not the holy scriptures.

Just how much new stuff can any writer possibly come up with on a monthly basis when he's restricted to writing about a mechanical device, a tool, basically, with operating principles that haven't changed substantially over the past hundred years or so?

Oh, and "Ranger 40" --

So I don't need some "Green Horn" California transplant up in Left Wing Washington tellin me how to judge any thing.

-- you're a funny guy.

 

[Slamfire]

For decades, Gunwriters and their editors had monopoly control on content. There was no debate, and still is not, within the pages of a commercial publication. At best there is one scathing reply to a reader comment, but no reader rebuttal. However article tone has changed, and I believe it is because today’s gunwriters are sensitive to the fact that there are forums where their inaccuracies or exaggerations can be examined.

In fact, I have noticed that Gunwriters regularly troll the internet, picking up ideas, or creating false controversy to pontificate about in their columns. We have all read the stuff. It is mostly filler. I believe Sixgunner.com was created as an advertising platform for Mr. Taffin’s books. I suspect that business model was unsuccessful as that site is now off line.

I was an avid reader of commercial magazines before the internet was even an idea. Still have a few vintage rags stashed away. It is interesting to look back at the articles. I was looking at one in the 1985 Guns and Ammo Annual. This article was by Mr. John Lachuk, and was four pages back to front. Mr. Lachuk fills the first page of his article with the history of the pistol, names like Jeff Cooper fall on to the pages like rain drops.

Mr. Lachuk was given only 100 rounds to shoot, and was told by the manufacturer that “I might encounter some feeding difficulties. Their testing indicated a one percent probability of problems.” He does not comment that it should be totally unacceptable for a self defense pistol to jam once in every 100 rounds, and instead just blows off by saying he did not have jam. He does report ejection problems, does report that the trigger is awful, that his pistol shoots groups three times as large as the “one inch groups at 25 yards” that the manufacturer claims production models “routinely deliver”. All problems are just waived away, and after shooting only 100 rounds Mr. Lachuk predicts, to the end of time, that “The Bren Ten should meet with the approval of thousands of shooters in months and years ahead.”

Well there were a lot of similar period articles promoting the Bren Ten. And what most folks received for their $1029.00 pistol (in 2006 dollars) was a pistol delivered without a magazine (the ones that were available were $374.00!), a pistol that jammed frequently when shot semiautomatically, and a lifetime warranty that lasted for less than a year.

I have read a lot of similar articles promoting, extolling other jam a matics. AMT comes to mind. I am sure there are lot of others. All people have to do is dig into their pile of old magazines to find a infomercial on a failed product made by a failed company.

I have not been a subscriber to Gun Week, perhaps it is an objective publication. But my opinion on Guns and Ammo, Shooting Times, or anything printed or owned by Petersen Publication, is that the content should be taken only as a commercial entertainment. Most of what I read in Wolff publishing also falls into the same category.

 

[22-rimfire]

The gun writers are not "God Almighty" when it comes to guns. They shoot things and test things, write an article. I still enjoy reading them. As far as Mr. Taffin goes, I like the content of his stuff. He publishes load data in many of his books and it would take me a long time to workup data to the degree he does. That is one reason his books are worth the bucks.

Sixgunner forum was mentioned above.... is it permanently off line now? Or are they just having problems?

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

My biggest problems with gun rags:

1. Latest and greatest infomercial aspect---extolling the virtues---never the cons.

2. Never anything on stuff that just plain works---say an article on the Buck 110---the Surefire 6P---Marlin 336---Remington 870----things along those lines----stuff thats around everyday and gets no notice by the simple fact that it actually works.



Oh ya----and stop sticking all those stupid little cards in there----half fall out--the other half I have to rip out---nothing more than a waste of paper and it ticks me off having to go find them and throw them away.

 

[XD Fan]

2. Never anything on stuff that just plain works---say an article on the Buck 110---the Surefire 6P---Marlin 336---Remington 870----things along those lines----stuff thats around everyday and gets no notice by the simple fact that it actually works.

I do see this kind of thing occasionally. For example, I remember some time in the last year or so there was an article in Guns by Clint Smith (I think.) about using Plain-Jane hunting shotguns for HD. The 870 was definitely included.

 

[22-rimfire]

I respectfully have to disagree with you Omaha. There are many articles about stuff that works. Recent Shooting Times magazine has an article about the Smith Model 58 (41 mag) and there is a second article about loads for the caliber. It works and it certainly is not an info commercial.

Writers do like to write about new firearms. What do you expect? Gun is provided frequently by the manufacturer and it's shot and tested. Commerce makes this old USA work.

 

[Cosmoline]

Oh ya----and stop sticking all those stupid little cards in there----half fall out--the other half I have to rip out---nothing more than a waste of paper and it ticks me off having to go find them and throw them away.

Ditto that! It drives me nuts to shell out the $$ for a glossy only to have these #@% bits of advertising fall out. Even worse are the ones that have to be torn from the stupid thing before you can read the magazine.

 

[zeroskillz]

FWIW, all magazines have a life-cycle. They're born grow, grow old, and die off. And by all means, your subscription does little to pay for the magazine. All it does is up the total readership by 2 to 4 per subscription, which makes the mag more attractive to advertisers, and they are the ones actually paying for the mag.

Free issues sent to you does the same thing for the publisher, it ups the total readership number.

 

[ilbob]

I suspect there is a fair amount of pressure on writers to be generally positive about the stuff they review in any magazine. After all, most of the time they are reviewing things that their advertisers are trying to sell. It is very hard to be objective in such an environment. Advertising is the mother's milk of the magazine game.

I don't know how far it goes in influencing the actual reviews. I do know that in many magazines, the articles are often all but dictated by the advertisers. Virtually every trade publication is this way these days.

OTOH, as another poster mentioned, most modern firearms are well made. A lot of the things people rag about are really personal choices, and not actual deficiencies in the firearm.

I read the gun reviews in the NRA publication. Every now and then there is a negative comment about a firearm. They do seem to downplay the negative, but it does sneak in now and then. The only gun mags I get are the NRA and USPSA mag. The USPSA mag seems to be a maverick in that warts in products tested are generally noted quite prominently in the article.

I used to subscribe to several gun mags, but lost interest some where along the way. I think my favorite was the old Gun Tests magazine, the ones with the hillbillies trying to break guns. I enjoyed the style of the magazine.

 

[Zak Smith]

Coincidentally with this thread, I submitted an article with the following (names and attributes removed to protect the guilty.. for the time being):

At a MSRP of $-----, the ----- ---- ---- is priced almost the same as ---- ---- ---. The ---- ---- would be more compelling at a cheaper price point.

Overall, I felt the ---- left performance on the table. While I might expect a ---- with an --- ---- ----- to shoot --- moa with ----- ammunition, there's no excuse for a ----, ---- ---- to average over ---- moa shooting ---- ---- ----. The ---- has potential, with good --- --- and no --- ---, but needs to address out-of-the-box accuracy.

My editor didn't rebuke me when he read it, and I doubt it'll get changed during final editing-- but I guess we'll see.

 

[ilbob]

but needs to address out-of-the-box accuracy.

Just curious. Does anyone here think out of the box accuracy is all that important?

I would think a defensive handgun that can shoot 12" groups at 25 yards is about as accurate as is needed for a defensive pistol. the important thing would seem to be reliability. It MUST go bang every time.

 

[Zak Smith]

Wasn't talking about a pistol.

 

[jkingrph]

American Rifleman, Double Gun &Single Shot Journal. I'll pick up a copy of Rifle or Handloader if I see something interesting. I also like Shooting Sportsman and Sports Afield

 

[Slamfire]

My editor didn't rebuke me when he read it, and I doubt it'll get changed during final editing-- but I guess we'll see.

Zak: I will subscribe to a publication that tells it like it is. And hires authors who write the facts. Hope to see your article in print, you are saying the right things.

 

[HankB]

So, HankB, was it your intent, in your original post, when posing the question, to garner responses that would reflect some type of superiority of internet firearms forums over print magazines? Just asking. I mean, we all seemed to be pretty clear that over the past few years, given the ease of tapping media via the internet vice purchasing a magazine at a retail store (or waiting for one to arrive in the U.S. mail), print media is suffering a substantial decline in readership ... Did you wish to have proven the superiority of internet information over print media information?

Actually, I was curious as to what others thought - and I think we've gotten a fair cross section of opinion here; actually, there are more responses than I was expecting.

And as for the "superiority" of internet firearms forums . . . if you're in the market for a new gun, I believe the consensus of postings here, with the impressions of many shooters who are NOT given or loaned specially selected guns (with free ammo!) by the manufacturer for testing, WILL prove to be a superior buying guide as compared to the reviews in the gun magazines.

My own impression is that many of the gun rags (Yes, I did use the term "rags" in a disparaging manner) are not paragons of objectivity, and that they don't take to criticism kindly. This is not entirely new - even old timers like Elmer Keith had a tendency to exaggerate - but today's publications are in some instances little more than paraphrased press releases for some advertiser.

And with the Internet, more people are catching on.

I still get a few magazines myself - American Rifleman, Safari, Handloader, Rifle, American Handgunner, and (occasionally) Guns; judge for yourself if the order I listed them in is random or in order of declining credibility . . .

 

[mec]

Information and Misinformation is widely available both in print and on the internet. The notion of gun companies supplying " ringers" for review may have some substance. For the most part though, they simply send something out and you hope it will work. I've been writing or writing at gunzine articles for over a decade now. My preference is to write up guns I've used for some time and really known and like. I've been fortunate in that the "loaner" guns I've gotten have actually worked but have not been aware of any special selection. They tend to be a lot like guns bought retail from the same manufacturers. The trouble with any review of a new gun or relate item- print or internet- is that it's a snapshot of one sample. Variations in quality control might not be apparent nor how well the given gun will hold up over time.

 

[lance22]

I pray daily for the end of Outdoor Life and Field n Steam

Field n Stream SQUARELY backed Zumbo after he made his statement. As for 'gun rights, they think everything is ok as long as we have our Weatherby Over/Under's and rich dentists can still fly to Africa for Cape Buffalo. Field n' Stream's stance on guns differs only on minor details with that of the Brady Campaign. Why they don't just allow the Brady Campaign to have a regular section in their RAG is beyond me.

Outdoor Life wasn't firm enough, quick enough, or clear enough. I see how they bowed to public outrage but I didn't get the impression that they believe that the 2A is about 'security of a free state', but rather like Field n Stream they think it's about hunting with single shots. I will celebrate when/if Outdoor Life goes under

Field n Stream is for people who's car has never left the pavement, who's idea of 'camping' involves a hotel with spa and an indoor garage.

Outdoor Life was relevant back in the 1960's ... sorta ... but they've since lost track of what people do in the woods - so they continue to send idiots like Zumbo on ultra expensive hunting trips cuz - hey - aren't we all rich dentists?

Neither of these are 'gun' rags, but they are RAGS none the less.

 

[ilbob]

A couple of times people have subscribed me to field and stream as gifts. Just did not interest me one bit. Sometimes I did not even read the issues.

I concur it is just way too much about wealthy people spending way too much money on guided hunts and expensive gear that I just cannot afford, even if I wanted them.

 

[mec]

Here are some Audit Bureau of circulation figures for those magazine from 12/06:
Field and Stream: paid1,394,357 unpaid137,750 total 1,532,107

Outdoor Lifeaid 840,541 unpaid 104,225 total 944,766

from 1999:
Field and stream : 1,757,543
Outdoor Life 1,368,023
Guns and Ammo : 597,570
American Rifleman: 1,291,950 American Rifleman 12/2006: 1,339,358
(NRA has two or three magazines that are optioned by members)
American Hunter: 916,430

 

[22-rimfire]

I pay for subscriptions to both Field & Stream and Outdoor Life and I like them both.

If you are a writer, you like nothing more than to have your articles and photographs published in as many magazines as possible. Some of the large publishers will publish the same article in different regional publications and the writer gets paid for each article published. Rights are signed away. Photo rights are frequently one use only.

I think gun and outdoor writers SHOULD peruse the internet for ideas to stay current. Frankly, most don't have time. To call them trolls is an insult and only made by someone who is ignorant of the real world. Many do the writing part time because the "job" is more of a hobby than one that produces a liveable income. They do it because they enjoy it. How many hours do you work for $500 or $200 (gross) that you might get paid for an article. Remember, you have to pay all the taxes yourself for the money you receive and that usually means about 40% to the government.

Jim Zumbo is no idiot. But he did make a mistake. He's human.

 

[ilbob]

Jim Zumbo is no idiot. But he did make a mistake. He's human.

He seems to be making an effort to educate himself. That alone shows he is no fool.

 

[Dave Workman]

Allow me to speak up for Zumbo. I've known him off and on for more than 20 years, way back when I was still at Fishing & Hunting News, though we never really broke bread together.

I've been covering his story in the pages of GUN WEEK, and I believe he's making a genuine, honest try at "making things right."

When the civil war broke out about three years ago at the Outdoor Writers Association of America, Zumbo was a leader of the revolt, and after my first blistering op-ed ab out that fiasco was published in the Missoula newspaper -- where Zumbo read it in a restaurant -- he called me up to tell me how accurate he believed it was.

He's never questioned or challenged the accuracy of anything I wrote about his FUBAR, even when it didn't make him look so good. He went out and got educated, and in the few conversations we've had since that blog, hee's become as rabid as any pro-gunner I know, though a little better behaved than some of them

He screwed up. He's big enough to admit it and he publicly apologized for it, a ratheer humbling experience for anyone. Who out there has never made what might be considered a monumental mistake? (You have lived a very boring life, then, eh? Or perhaps you are the king of denial.)

 

[mec]

finally, August 07, the audit bureau of circulation figures for June, 07 are out for most of the reporting magazines. All but one of the magazines that are tracked by this service show gains in circulation

Guns and Ammoecember 06: 456,943...June 2007: 462,154
Shooting Times: December 06 174,659......June 2007: 175,526
Handgunsecember 06: 112,145....June 2007 Handguns: 118,843
Shotgun News: December 06: 104,523...June 2007 : 102,732

American Handgunner: December 2006: 104,599...June 2007: 115,063
Guns: not reported yet.

This pattern of slight gains has been going on for a year or a year and a half after several years of steady decline. American Handgunner/Guns attributes some of the previous slippage to resource allotment involved in moving into a building completely owned by the company. The American Handgunner circulation has shown sharp increases in the last two reporting periods. Both magazines increased page count over the past couple of years

Handguns (former Pederson company) has posted the first gain in several reporting periods.

All of this is happening at a time when the major News magazines and News papers have gone back into a decline and some key general magazines have failed to meet their projected circulation figures- 'though the shortfall is fairly small.

 

[coyote_jr]

Not if you measure how many are on the racks at B&N. There are at least a dozen at mine