Gun Magazines You'd Read

[larryh1108]

How can a writer in a gun rag win? He writes a favorable write up and he was "bought". He writes a bad write up and he has "an attitude against company z". We assume the writer gets his test gun more or less like the same way we do.... by chance.

If the writer gets a lemon, and we know they exist, does he then trash what may be a very good line of guns? Does he ask the company to provide another gun to test? Does he, like we do, ask for it to be fixed and returned and then the review is done?

Would it be responsible journalism to trash a line of guns because he got that "1 in 100" lemon or is it his responsibility to test 99 more to see if that was the norm or if that was a fluke? If a prominent and respected writer does get a "1 in 100" lemon is it fair to say that millions of dollars in R&D and production are now wasted or does a responsible writer allow the company "to make it right"?

I don't see how a writer can ever win. I have no doubt he gives his honest evaluation of a particular pistol but is that particular pistol indicative of the entire line? Did he get the "good one" or did he get that odd ball lemon? Like the forums here, the vocal minority are the few who get the bad ones. I don't blame them for venting but by reading these very forums you would think most guns are jam-o-matic pieces of anchors.

I do believe that the gun companies use us as their beta testers and anyone who is wise knows to wait a year or so before they buy the newest, latest best gun ever designed. The gun makers do seem to fix the bad ones that made it out and they also seem to correct the problems with the next batch they put out. I personally believe that those who say they should leave the factory 100% in a new line of guns don't realize how much that would cost us when we want to buy them. The only way to work out the bugs is to shoot multiple guns multiple times. They can shoot the test sample all they want but to really get the kinks out they need to have thousands used as samples who shoot thousands of rounds. That, unfortunately, is us. We are the real writers. Not the guy who gets paid for his wisdom but the guy who buys the guns and then shoots them. Writer A or QC B may probably get the good ones because if 1 in 100 fail, the odds of them getting that one is... well, 1 in 100. It would be foolish to use a gun for self defense unless you've put hundreds of rounds thru it without it failing. In that testing period, we are testing the guns for the gun makers and giving our feedback on forums like this. Gun writers don't have an enviable job, IMO. They can never win.

 

[DPris]

Larry,
Is this really you, Mom?????
Denis

 

[larryh1108]

Personally, I like a mixture of the new and the old. I like seeing what the latest guns are. I like to see the options available and what makes these new gems special. The new wonder 9s are hot right now and I like to read how they made them so small, light and accurate. When the LCP came out I did volunteer to be a beta tester and I got one of the very first issues. It's been flawless almost 2000 rounds later. Yes, it was a KT with improvements but it was all the rage. Now we see the Kimber Solo making noises and hitting the boards as the growing pains show up. I like watching the copy cats come out a year later with improvements over the original. I like watching the newer guns come out with options, refinements and accessories. I like to see the aftermarket gadgets come out for the newest, greatest guns on the market. It's what makes buying and owning guns fun.

I also like to read about the 1911 line and how far we've come without changing a thing. A tweak here, a new fire control group there. Different loads and spring weights to get the most out of it. New and newer sights, guide rods, grips and lasers. Smooth grips, aggressive grips, laser grips, etc. Taller sights, night sights, sights with lasers, etc. It's all fun reading. We dream of options we can't afford and wait for the prices to come down.

Reading the magazines are what we wish to get out of them. If we read to dream, if we read to learn or if we read because we want to kill time, there are as many reasons to read them as there are different guns. How can everybody get the same thing out of a specific magazine? You can't. The same thing applies to how we choose our firearms. Everybody buys a specific gun for their own reason. What works for one may not work for another. I don't see how a gun magazine can cater to all types of readers.

 

[Confederate]

If the writer gets a lemon, and we know they exist, does he then trash what may be a very good line of guns? Does he ask the company to provide another gun to test? Does he, like we do, ask for it to be fixed and returned and then the review is done?

A gun writer can "win" by telling the truth. If he gets a lemon, he should say that. Then if the second gun works well, he should say that. What's the problem? If the first gun misfires and the second gun can't hit the broad side of a barn, that indicates a serious quality control problem. I recall buying a stainless Sterling .22LR pocket pistol years ago based on a magazine article I'd read. I bought three different pistols and none worked. I bought two .25 autos and they didn't work. Then I bought this self published magazine run by a bunch of California rednecks and they said the gun was junk and recommended not buying it. At least they were honest. Either that or their "production" gun was a ringer supplied by the manufacturer. Whichever was true, that was my first lesson in not trusting any magazine review that didn't also contain reviews trashing products.

Just tell the truth. Report. That's what it's all about. The self published magazine made me laugh when it stated that the magazine industry were "two whores short of Babylon." As the cowardly lion said, "Ain't it the truth! Ain't it the truth!"
.
.
.

 

[wlewisiii]

Meh, all I know is I'd rather read another article about Parker or the like than yet another bit extolling the latest and greatest plastic fantastic boomtoy. Yes, my CCW is a Glock 19, but that's a tool nothing more. I prefer to read about more As a result I read things like Double Gun Journal and Gray's Sporting Journal and ignore drek like Guns, Guns & Ammo & the rest.

 

[langenc]

The thing that is buggun me is the reviewing of guns that wont be available for 6-9 months and making it sound like you can just run out and get one..

Specifically--Browning 1911-22.

First saw it written up way back in April or so-still not available.

I realize that the writers dont make em, but come on. Maybe they could include a line in the box that gives the specs/prices--ie when available. And then NOT write something up that wont be out any more than 3 or 4 months, max.

 

[Confederate]

Focus groups. Come on....

Focus groups can be easily formed at ranges and via the Internet. Even this post has brought out many good ideas. I'm not a focus group kind of person, but y'know, you can't beat honesty.

The type of article you like? One article covering multiple handguns in apparently little detail & with one photo? I must be missing something. There ARE different types of magazines. Go look. If you can't find 'em, you're vision-challenged.

Actually I'd like to see articles on multiple handguns with several pages. Ed only had one page, so he did what he could with it. If I'd been the editor, I would have given him three. That's not the only reviews I'd have, but how much room to you need to have for comment on 1) fit and finish; 2) reliability; 3) accuracy (with chart); and 4) realistic cost? And a few paragraphs with personal notes on grips, comfort, etc. Articles are too long these days. And dry as Texas tumbleweeds! I can go to the store and look for such a magazine, but you know as well as I do that it's an establishment...like bad television. Everyone with any intelligence knows TV is bad, but they run in to people saying, "If you don't like it, don't watch it." *Sigh!*

No editor has ever bothered to find out what "we" like? You think they live in a vacuum? You think they don't read letters readers send 'em? You think they're totally clueless?

Clueless? No, but they do live in a vacuum. Like I said, they don't want it good, they want it Tuesday. If I were doing a magazine (for example), I'd fire the expensive layout and design people and hire someone who could do designs like:



You may not like it, but it would cause me to pick it up and read it. Most of the snazzy color and two-page layout leaves me cold. They all look alike. I used to like Combat Handguns, but I got to the point where I found Massad Ayoob to be dull and repetitive, and then there's his shameless knife recommendations. He recommends knives that are clearly nothing but thinly disguised ads.

Con, do you have even the remotest idea of the logistics involved in producing that photo?

I do, sir. It's not how the gun is obtained, but what happens to it once it's produced. And yes, roundups are tough. (Ed used his own Security-Six, which he'd altered to take rounded Pachmayr grips. He also inserted a red plastic front sight. But who cares?) But if doing reviews, that's part of the job. Many editors will have a stock file of gun photos, and many gun manufacturers will have a historian who also can provide stock photos of their own. When I worked for and edited some very fine Navy publications, I found ways of getting the photos I needed. The thing is, you don't need to have flashy color photos with a zillion dpi resolution.

I've done roundup articles involving six or eight guns, and I generally dislike 'em simply because of the additional time & effort required. Also done covers, and the more guns you have on one, the less detail's visible, with a corresponding decrease in visual appeal.

One of the things I liked about the gun publication above is that it had a full-size photo of the handgun on one page and the review on the facing page, as well as a chart of ammo tests. It was great layout!

Give you a magazine & some writers and you'll show me how easy it can be? I'm sorry, Con, but that's just too much of a reality disconnect to even address any further.

I knew you'd say that!

I can put 40 hours into one single article, as an example with one company, submit a 4000-word piece, and get paid less than $500. Same if I invest 15 hours & submit 2000 words. (That one, incidentally, I do more for the friendship than anything else.)

I believe that, and that's too many words. Since I'm a handgun guy, what I want to know can be put into an article of about two pages with photos? I don't want to know what the gun looks like and frankly, on most articles in most magazines, I stop reading once the pertinent information stops. If, like me, you have a friend who dusted a cougar with a Dan Wesson .357 with 4-inch barrel when it dropped from a tree and rushed him, that would be great. If you discuss whether a .357 can be used in hunting, that would be something you could address from just your experience.

Payola? Think about this (and when MLJ comes back later to bring up the hoary old "free guns" thing we'll address that one): A gunmaker is not a retailer of used guns. They don't have storefronts where they can dispose of returned test samples. They don't sell directly to the public and their distributors don't handle used guns.

But don't you see that if you're able to buy the gun at a greatly reduced price, that that could look like payola? People want honesty and people like me are puzzled when they read only positive reviews. No gun ever has to be returned. No gun is just plain junk. I know of gun writers who do sell their sample guns, and they make money too. They find storefronts, pawn shops, etc. Won't push this one too far, but it just looks bad, even if things are completely ethical. Many, many people feel, though, that what they're reading is not entirely honest or representative of what they'll get if they buy the gun.

Everybody's happy but those who feel envious that somebody's getting a better deal than they are.

Oh, c'mon. I don't think you could get that reading what I wrote.

Your bro-in-law never got you a deal on something where he works? Your buddy never got you a good deal where HE works? A lower price than the regular public gets? You never got a discount on something where you work?

No, but my Congressmen and Assemblymen do. Seriously, I think the problem comes from a higher level than the writer. I think the editors are the ones at fault. They pay writers so little than no one, not even me, could begrudge them the gun they're testing. I'd guess most writers buy the guns (unless the guns are crap), but most readers, as I've said, just want honesty. Despite all the varying opinions here, most agree that they can't trust gun magazines.

Why not write for both, old hands & new people? We do. You're not looking.

Hmmm...must have missed all those articles about the Security-Six, S&W 66 and other vintage guns. And I never saw one writer who thought the Security-Six was better than the GP-100 and said so. Maybe that's because all the gun writers think the GP-100 is a better gun than the Security-Six. And the Ruger Mark III is better than the Mark II. Or than recessed chambers are better than chambers that are not recessed.

And again, NEW is largely what sells.

True, but there's a huge second hand market, too. And then there are guys like me, who don't buy a lot of guns but enjoy reading about them. We make up a huge market...for magazines. I like looking at photos of older model 66s and I'd like to see a 1956 S&W 39 featured (with photos), replete with the dirty laundry that for the most part they didn't work. Or a 1953 Ruger Standard Auto. I never see any articles on these. Sure, I like to see articles about Ruger's LCR/LCP, the Rhino .357 with *shudder!* photos, but I like keeping one foot in nostalgia. Everyone does.

When Skelton & Jordan were writing 35 years ago, gun production was probably about 30% of what it is now. Accessories probably about 20%. There just wasn't a constant "NEW" to be writing about. Today somebody's putting out a new model almost weekly. Back then, it was more "folksy" because the times were more folksy. With fewer new products to cover, there was room for Me & Joes. Today, you'll see a few, but NEW simply crowds them out for the most part from competition for space.

Excellent points...outstanding, actually. But I'm in the South and we're still pretty folksy. I'd like to see a magazine or two try to be more folksy, but even if they don't like the rustic stuff, most guys like you have stories to tell. Elmer Keith had some great stories from his day, but anyone who spends anytime outdoors most likely has some stories to tell, even if it's about how fast blued surfaces take to rust in the pouring rain!

Things have indeed changed, and I'm not urging a return to retired border patrol agents who write. Just what I've said.
.
.
.

 

[DPris]

Con,
I think I've already explained why we don't cover lemons.
No room.

Why don't we mention it when a gun has to be returned & cancelled?
No room.
If a gun blows up, it's not mentioned because there's no room, and no real point.
Can't just toss in a blurb somewhere & say "Breaking News. We Blew Up A Gun."
Readers would want more details. Then if we expand, we're back into the no room again.
Added to which is the single sample issue already mentioned.
You're just asking for things that can't & won't happen.

Why don't we cover Gun #2 when Gun #1 goes bad?
In many cases, if not most, there isn't time for Gun #2.
You gotta remember most gunwriters are not in it for ego, groupies, or free beer. It's a job. I do it for money. Concurrent with that concept is the fact that I expect to end up making money, not losing it, at the end when the dust settles.

Most of the year I juggle 5 or so articles at any given point in time. When I'm shooting I may be shooting guns for three different articles, with other guns and/or accessories on the way. The following day I may be doing the photography on two other articles.
If I'm working a specific deadline, that gets priority. If I'm not, whichever article comes together first with product, photos, and shooting all being finished together gets done next.

Right now, a week after coming home from the SHOT Show in Vegas, I'm looking at 18 different articles between two publishing companies and five editors, covering guns, knives, and other outdoor products.
I have products requested, products arriving, I spent the day today doing the photography on four guns, tomorrow it'll be two more, the day after that I'll be shooting three.

I do not normally have the time to nurse an article along on a gun that doesn't work out. If it's a clunker on arrival, I rarely have time to bother asking for a second sample. If the gun fails halfway through a shoot, I may or may not have sufficient ammunition left to give a second gun a try. Yes, I do get "free" ammo from the makers & I won't apologize for it. I could not possibly do any kind of in-depth shooting evaluations if I didn't. But, even there, it's not an endless flow. I have to allocate what companies send and spread it out.
If I've used up the ammo allotted to a particular gun, it'd have to be a pretty special circumstance to go for Gun #2 & burn up more ammo on it. That does occasionally happen, but not often.

A magazine article is a produced item. As such, there are production costs involved.
Resources, including ammunition and time, have to be parceled out.
I will do an occasional article where I lose my shirt, because (believe it or not) I think readers would enjoy it, but I can't make that a regular occurrance.
Otherwise, the more time I spend in producing a given article, the less I get paid in terms of dollar-per-hour return.

Freelance writers do not get rich writing for gunmags. I expect to be paid a decent wage for my time & efforts, like any other job, and taking the case of a $500 article, if I put 10 hours into it I make $50 per hour. If I put 20 hours into it, I make $25 per hour. You can see how the progression goes downhill, and that's not even counting other expenses like long distance calls arranging for product, gas to & from the range, office supplies, paper targets, staples, tape, target backers, and so on.

If I have to do essentially two shoots (two guns) for the same article, that can substantially increase the time needed to produce the end result. Remember, on a fixed fee piece, the more time I have to put into it the less I make per hour when I get paid for it.
I expect a certain pay level for my efforts, if I get down to $5 an hour I might as well be working at McDonald's.

For me, if I can see a gun isn't going to make it up front, better to cancel, return, and move on to the next one waiting in line. No guarrantee Gun #2 would be much better. If a gun bogs down halfway through a shoot, I've already wasted time & resources on it, it won't make the page anywhere, the editor will not run either a two-liner saying "By The Way, We Busted A Gun...." or a 2000-word description of a busted gun session, so I cut my losses, cancel the piece, and return the gun.

Staff writers on salary have more leeway in waiting for a second gun, and freelancers who do it more as a hobby than a business do too, but a product normally gets one chance with me, and if it doesn't hold up, it's over.

Worked with an AR-15 pistol last summer, wasted several hours in photography first, another hour & a bunch of ammo giving it every possible chance to function at the range, then gave up & cancelled. That happened to be the second time over the years I've tried that company's products, they didn't work either time, I saw no point in wasting more time & ammo asking for a second sample.
It's a well-known name, though, and others seem to like ARs made by them. My results just didn't agree, and I won't be going back to them again.

I won't speak for anybody else, but I'll tell you most of us DO speak the truth, and in my case you can run with the idea that if you see it in print under my byline, it's worth writing about.
I've said before that I don't need the money bad enough to risk your cash or your life gold-plating a POS, and I meant it.Most of us feel the same way.


Otherwise, I refer you to an earlier statement about YOUR duty to do your own homework, and that we're NOT here to tell you what to buy or not to buy.
We can tell you what we find with a sample of one, the next one off the assembly line may be better, and very well could be worse.
Denis

 

[DPris]

Con,
Looks like we were typing at the same time.

Focus groups, not a chance. Not feasible.

If you fired the layout & design people in favor of somebody who'd put together a front like the one you show, you'd be out the door long before it ever had a chance to hit the newsstand.
You don't know how the process works in this commercial setting, and trust me- no publisher (who pays the editor's salary) would go for a boring cover like that one. Aside from Gun Tests, anyway.
Editors are responsible to people above them, and it can be a complicated inter-relationship between the top guy, ad people, layout people, and the editor.

You're also wrong on the photography. Stock shots from companies are often boring catalog-type images that are either incomplete, low resolution, or don't show the right background context.
Not knocking your Navy experiences, but yes- today you do need to have at least a certain percentage of "flashy color photos" and all in high resolution.
There are certain visual requirements imposed by the editor & others in the chain, and certain technical requirements imposed by the printing process itself.

Yes, 4000 words is too long, you've misunderstood me again. That was just to illustrate that no matter how much time & how many words I put into a piece, it's a set payment rate.

You don't want to know what the gun looks like? Well, that's become sorta obvious, but most readers kinda do. I don't think you're quite as much in the majority there as you may think you are.

Let's give the payola thing a rest, OK? I've explained the process.
If you insist on thinking it's rife with corruption, that's just something we'll have to disagree on.
Really if you believe the entire gunwriting biz is so corrupt and so useless, DON'T BUY 'EM! I'd fully support your decision, since reason & explanations can't do anything for you with your mind made up.

Yes, you've missed two articles I've done on the Security-Six. I don't happen to believe it's a better gun than the GP, though. You got your opinion, I got mine.
I've done articles on older Smiths and older Colts, your not seeing them (or those by other writers) hardly means that they're never covered. Just means you're not getting around much.

Stories? Already addressed that issue. By & large, editors don't want 'em.
We get in a couple shorter ones, as part of an intro or a foundation, but there just isn't room for much of it in most of today's gun mags.

Denis

 

[Mike OTDP]

Allow me to point out that high-resolution digital photography is pathetically cheap these days. Photo composition is an art form, but the cameras are cheap...and electrons cheaper.

As I've said, my big gripe is simply the sameness of the subjects.

 

[DPris]

Mike,
What kind of un-sameness would you like to see?
Denis

 

[Confederate]

I think I've already explained why we don't cover lemons. No room. Why don't we mention it when a gun has to be returned & cancelled? No room. If a gun blows up, it's not mentioned because there's no room, and no real point.

There would be room if some of the other articles and especially reviews were cut down. Not only could the text be cut, but the huge overblown color photos could be reduced to allow more photos of general interest. It's obvious that you and I have different opinions of this, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I just become bored with all the gaping color studio photographs stretched across the page. Couple that with all the similar color photos in the full page ads throughout the magazines and I suspect that most readers, when given the chance for smaller color and B&W photos, would take them in a heartbeat!

I just flipped through some recent Combat Handguns and Guns & Ammo magazines, and the huge, looming color photos throughout them just overwhelmed me. I wouldn't even want it for guns I liked.

Can't just toss in a blurb somewhere & say "Breaking News. We Blew Up A Gun." Readers would want more details. Then if we expand, we're back into the no room again. Added to which is the single sample issue already mentioned. You're just asking for things that can't & won't happen.

I've already addressed space issues. I don't see why, in just a paragraph or two, you couldn't mention that the first gun you had had issues and had to be returned, and explain what the issues were. You could even put it in a photo caption. Readers know that these things happen and would appreciate the honesty. (If I had someone write me an email about a gun I had just purchased, and if that gun had a catastrophic failure, say a forcing cone cracked in the first hundred rounds I fired and had to be sent back, I would feel obliged to mention it. If the second gun worked without a hitch, so much the better.)

Why don't we cover Gun #2 when Gun #1 goes bad? In many cases, if not most, there isn't time for Gun #2. You gotta remember most gunwriters are not in it for ego, groupies, or free beer. It's a job. I do it for money. Concurrent with that concept is the fact that I expect to end up making money, not losing it, at the end when the dust settles.

Yep, it's a job, and I realize that. So what do you do if you have a revolver you're reviewing, and in the first twenty-five rounds you get a crack in the forcing cone? Or, if you're firing an automatic, the gun begins malfunctioning. When you take the gun apart and clean up the frame, you find a hairline crack? That's Gun #1. Are you saying you don't get a Gun #2? Doesn't your editor assign you guns to cover?

I do not normally have the time to nurse an article along on a gun that doesn't work out. If it's a clunker on arrival, I rarely have time to bother asking for a second sample.

Okay, that question's answered. So what happens if it's a major gun like a Ruger LCR/LCP? Does that just go to another writer?

For me, if I can see a gun isn't going to make it up front, better to cancel, return, and move on to the next one waiting in line. No guarrantee Gun #2 would be much better. If a gun bogs down halfway through a shoot, I've already wasted time & resources on it, it won't make the page anywhere, the editor will not run either a two-liner saying "By The Way, We Busted A Gun...." or a 2000-word description of a busted gun session, so I cut my losses, cancel the piece, and return the gun.

I understand that and I see your point; however, some guns just cannot be ignored. The manufacturers that buy up all those pretty pages in advertising want their products reviewed. And they want the reviews done in such a way that readers will want to buy them. And some readers will balk if they read that your first gun had a cracked forcing cone. When you invariably have to get a replacement, I suspect that first gun will not be mentioned. Not because no one wants to hear about it (I assure you they most certainly would like to hear about it), but because of payola! The advertising gods would not like to hear about it.

Staff writers on salary have more leeway in waiting for a second gun, and freelancers who do it more as a hobby than a business do too, but a product normally gets one chance with me, and if it doesn't hold up, it's over.

And that precludes a totally honest report. Based on your own descriptions here, you do get faulty products. When you do, you pass it off back to the editor who then assigns it to another writer who never mentions the previous failure. That's why gun mags don't have credibility. Unlike computer magazines, the articles are advertiser driven. The computer magazine articles I've read many times will trash a product that has full page ads. I just say, why can't gun magazines do the same? I don't mean write a 2,000 page article on a defective gun, but a touch of honesty would help gun mags gain credibility.

Worked with an AR-15 pistol last summer, wasted several hours in photography first, another hour & a bunch of ammo giving it every possible chance to function at the range, then gave up & cancelled. That happened to be the second time over the years I've tried that company's products, they didn't work either time, I saw no point in wasting more time & ammo asking for a second sample.

And you don't think that would rate a small write up in, say, a "Clunker's Corner" done maybe once or twice a year? I think it would be of great interest to readers and I would publish it in a heartbeat!

I won't speak for anybody else, but I'll tell you most of us DO speak the truth, and in my case you can run with the idea that if you see it in print under my byline, it's worth writing about.

Yes, but most writers couch their criticisms very carefully. I realize that it's our duty to do our own homework and that your articles are not there to tell us what to buy. But you can help us in what NOT to buy; otherwise, what's the point? If a handgun malfunctions in a test, it's something that should be emphasized to new shooters looking for a reliable means of self protection. I recall reading a review of a Sterling pocket pistol when I was new to handguns. It was a pretty little gun and based on the review, I picked up three .22LRs. Of course none of them worked because they were junk. They should have been featured in a "Clunker's Corner." Not all cheap guns were junk, though. I still have a Jennings J-22 that works flawlessly. Some, however, were junk and couldn't be counted on. So they could be added to a "Conditionally Acceptable" column.



The Sterling, in both .22 and .25 calibers, were totally junk. But they
got favorable reviews, probably because the reviewers got ringers
from the factory.




The Jennings J-22, in the same price range, works like a charm,
at least for me.

.
.

 

[Confederate]

Focus groups, not a chance. Not feasible.

Getting a small group of shooters together and seeing what they want in a gun magazine is not feasible? Then it becomes a situation where the product becomes a take it or leave it proposition.

If you fired the layout & design people in favor of somebody who'd put together a front like the one you show, you'd be out the door long before it ever had a chance to hit the newsstand.

If I had the money to put together a magazine with a front cover like that, people would leave the other magazines in droves. Unfortunately, I can't prove it to you. All I can say is that if I were at a book store and saw a magazine with a cover like that, I'd pick it up in a snap! Yes, it has B&W photos inside. So what? To me, B&W is far more appealing than all the color I'm hit with inside a gun magazine.

You don't know how the process works in this commercial setting, and trust me- no publisher (who pays the editor's salary) would go for a boring cover like that one. ... Editors are responsible to people above them, and it can be a complicated inter-relationship between the top guy, ad people, layout people, and the editor.

And that's why they're doomed to mediocrity. You find the cover of Handgun Tests boring. I find it fresh and invigorating. It stands out, and many people who are new to guns and who are experienced shooters would see a cover like the one above and go for it. It's so different from the same stale covers done in professional studios. Perhaps we can get some views if people are still reading this!

You're also wrong on the photography. ...today you do need to have at least a certain percentage of "flashy color photos" and all in high resolution. There are certain visual requirements imposed by the editor & others in the chain, and certain technical requirements imposed by the printing process itself.

Ah, but if I were the editor and publisher, the technical requirements would be much different. You apparently think that if you don't have the flashy studio color photos, the full page color ads and so forth, that you can't make it in this publishing industry. I disagree. I think these magazines need a vast toning down. We're hit with too much color and too many photos. Maybe I'm wrong, but unless we sit some shooters down and get their opinions, we'll never know.

.
.

 

[DPris]

Con,
I think this'll have to finish it up between you & I.
I don't mean to be offensive, but your ideas are just not realistic.

I'll wrap it up.
The way I work, 95% of what I cover is self-generated, in other words I propose it, I'm not assigned it.
I do get an occasional assignment, and if the gun is something I'm interested in, I'll take the assignment. If not, as in the case of a certain .454 Casul /.410 revolver I was offered a few months back (one of the silliest guns around, in my estimation), I'll say no thanks.

If I take an assignment, as with the $2800 custom concept 1911 I mentioned earlier, if it turns out to be a no go, I cancel. In that case, where the company involved is more interested in ego than addressing the issue and jerks their ads, the gun's dead. In other cases, if the gun doesn't work, it can be dropped entirely or offered to somebody else. It varies.

Nobody forces me to write about anything, assignment or otherwise, and anything you see my byline over was either of some personal interest or curiosity to me, or if not, at least something I didn't mind writing up regardless of whether it appealed to me or not.
I've cancelled several, as mentioned, and turned down a few.

Regarding your Gun #2 question, I'm saying what I already said- in most cases no, and for the reasons I mentioned.
Again, there are exceptions, such as the LCP. I got an early sample, worked with it, told Ruger what I found, discussed it on a couple forums, Ruger corrected the problem, and since there was so much interest in that pistol, I did wait for #2, and covered the results of testing both pistols.
More often, just no time.

Payola fixation aside, you're just not getting it & I doubt you will.
You'd publish a "Clunker's Corner" in a heartbeat?
Do it.

The Sterling?
A buddy of mine had one in .22 LR. Functioned perfectly, and he later couldn't understand the big flap over them being "junk". Probably still has it.

Con, that's about the best I'm gonna be able to do for you.
I've tried to give you the reasons behind the way the biz works, but it's obviously getting us nowhere.
Denis

 

[Confederate]

No offense taken, Denis. We all have our views and druthers on what we'd like to see and read. I also wish you luck in your work. If nothing else, you've shed a lot of light on the life of a gun writer. All I can say is that some folks want to get rid of the sameness in gun magazines and just get down to business. I throw away most of the gun magazines I subscribe to today, but I kept the ones you don't think would sell today. Why? Because of the boring lackluster covers and cool B&W photos inside.

Magazines today lean towards autos and I can't complain about that. I even have some of those autos. But I and many others don't like big flashy photos in articles and ads. It's overwhelming. One gun magazine I have is a 1981 Shooting Times article entitled, simply, Handguns, and "The Only Handgun Guide You Need!" It's got a big, beautiful color photo of an old-styled S&W 686 and three cartridges. Inside all the photos are B&W and it was worth every cent of the $3.95 I paid for it. And I've read it over and over throughout the years because it was just what I like in a gun magazine. One article was a roundup of .44 magnum pistols of varying types by Dick Metcalf. It also included a couple of pages of information on gun manufacturers, including their addresses and history. The modern plague of sameness hit when cheap color and professional layout became available.

I don't know, maybe people like it. But maybe they don't. We'll never know as long as no one asks them. I don't think they'll bother to write "lettitors," but I think you'll see progressive drop-offs in readership. And it's not just guns. It's knife magazines and car magazines. You go to a book store and you're hit with the same styles of flashy color photos inside and out. If I told an editor to hold back on them and to use smaller photos as well as a wide range of B&Ws, he'd show me the door, as you said.

.
.
.

 

[azgunner]

Gun magazines are the thing of the past. Guns & Ammo , Shooting Times, Petersens Hunting. All these were great gun magazines at one time. Now they aren't worth the ink that is used to print them. Most are filled will advertisments. And there is no substance to what is left. All the good/great gun writers are gone. Or don't really write anymore. I have all issues of Guns & Ammo from 1973 thru 1987 and 1979 thru 1986 of Shooting Times. I also have Petersens Hunting from 1974 thru 1978. If I want to read anything on guns or hunting, I read them. And re-read them. I wouldn't give a plug nickle for writers today.

 

[murf]

you would think a laptop is perfect to wile away the time during the time spent sitting in the bathroom. that is not why they are called laptops.

the only gun rag that accompanies me into the bathroom is handloader. it's the only subscription i have.

murf

 

[Sam1911]

Con,
I think I've already explained why we don't cover lemons.
No room.

Why don't we mention it when a gun has to be returned & cancelled?
No room.
If a gun blows up, it's not mentioned because there's no room, and no real point.
Can't just toss in a blurb somewhere & say "Breaking News. We Blew Up A Gun."
Readers would want more details. Then if we expand, we're back into the no room again.
Added to which is the single sample issue already mentioned.
You're just asking for things that can't & won't happen.

I think there could be something here that many magazines are missing out on. Denis, I know you're saying "can't and won't happen" due to space constraints and such, but the magazine that found a way to SOMEHOW cover these things in some small degree of brief detail would instantly place itself a full step above its competition.

I know it can't be a full article on the gun that didn't work after 10 shots. And I understand why you can't make a living on selling this non-article to the magazine. But were I a magazine editor, I might very well consider a monthly, bi-monthly, or even annual "goofs corner." Just a spot somewhere that features a roundup of problems that the contributing reporters have reported. Very brief. Very factual. Yes, it would be painful, but let the chips fall where they may. Something like this:

Gun Boom's Goofs Corner
Hi folks, Jim the editor here. We know you love reading about all the pretty guns and how well they work, but you know, and we know, that things don't always go as planned. Not every gun we get for testing is a winner, and some examples turn out to be not worth writing about. So, in the interest of full disclosure, here is a list of what DIDN'T work out this month...

1) One writer received a Ruger Super Redhawk for testing but after 4 rounds of .45 Colt ammo, it seized up and we couldn't finish the test.

2) One writer received an Anschutz target rifle that had a badly gouged crown. Accuracy was very poor, and this rifle was returned and the review cancelled as this is beleived to be not a representitive sample of the company's products.

3) One writer received a S&W 686 revolver with an unsafe condition due to the improper number of flutes being cut into the cylinder. The revolver was returned and the review cancelled as this quality-control issue made it unsafe to fire the weapon.

4) One writer received a Les Baer 1911 for review that had a poorly fit grip safety which did not allow the gun to fire reliably. That pistol was returned and a replacement was delivered. That replacement demonstrated the same problem, and was also returned. This review has been cancelled.

etc...

The editors of Gun Boom Magazine present this information without further comment and with no intent beyond honesty and transparancy in reporting. If time allows and replacement test guns are provided, we may repeat these reviews and repost our findings at a later time.

Take care, and shoot well,

-Jim

Maybe that's just half-a-page every other month. Which ever publication figured out how to do this would elevate themselves to a level of legitimacy that very many of us perceive to be lacking.

Something perhaps to share with any editor you feel has the insight and the guts to do so.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I guess it's a balance between pleasing your readers and pleasing your advertisers. Obviously the advertisers win...

The readers would be pleased to know that gun "X" is unreliable or dangerous.

 

[MtnSpur]

Gun magazines are the thing of the past. Guns & Ammo , Shooting Times, Petersens Hunting. All these were great gun magazines at one time. Now they aren't worth the ink that is used to print them. Most are filled will advertisments. And there is no substance to what is left. All the good/great gun writers are gone. Or don't really write anymore. I have all issues of Guns & Ammo from 1973 thru 1987 and 1979 thru 1986 of Shooting Times. I also have Petersens Hunting from 1974 thru 1978. If I want to read anything on guns or hunting, I read them. And re-read them. I wouldn't give a plug nickle for writers today.

Exactly !!!!! All the gun rags are good for is to promote the advertiser with the biggest wallet. They are a worthless expense and one can garner 100 times the information from the internet.

 

[Samari Jack]

The free magazine/catalog that comes from Dillon. They have a few articles in each edition and ogling the pictures is worth the price.

 

[Confederate]

Gun magazine editors won't learn until it's too late. Photos are so oversized and Photoshopped that people are just sick of it. If they want to know what will sell, go back to the 1980s and see what the magazines looked like and then go back to it. Also go back to black and white photos and if you're going to use color, get rid of the snazz and instead of using a full page to show a photo of a woman with a gun, like the magazine I have here, put it on two columns upper right under the headline. That frees up an entire page to use for text and photos. It's not rocket science. There are too many full page photos of guns and people. Geez, are we blind?

Even with ads we're hit with huge guns and products. And feature gun ads...er, reviews often take up a facing page with a huge color photo of a gun with a light down the barrel (when will THAT get old?). All that wasted space makes me wonder why I fool with it. Indeed, when I get a Guns & Ammo, it takes me about seven minutes to go through it. But no one wants or cares what readers want. Again, go back to the eighties!

.

 

[Sam1911]

If they want to know what will sell, go back to the 1980s and see what the magazines looked like and then go back to it

Uh, strictly speaking, that would be the right path if they wanted to know what sold in the 1980s. Markets develop and change. Evolve and devolve. Mature and also grow more superficial. Sell the same periodical in 2012 that you did 32 years ago, and folks will flock to the stores to NOT buy it in droves.

A black and white newsprint magazine with a jumbled, pointless photo of 37 unrelated firearms on the cover does not look current, relevant, or INTREST-GRABBING as anything other than a nostalgia trip. Do you have to put on bell bottoms and a sportcoat with suede elbow patches to read it?

You keep saying that the editors aren't listening to what the readers want. I can't imagine why you would think that, except that they don't print what YOU, personally, want. But you're content to read back issues of magazines, some of which are out of print, about guns that have been out of production for decades. Hey, that would be fun sometimes. But good grief -- not every month!

I know you really like B&W photos. But that just isn't going to happen. There's no need and the target market will look at you like you're the Ford dealer who just rolled out a whole lot full of brand new Edsels. There's no market for that (besides you).

Every editor and publisher will do anything at all to sell a few more copies. YES, they ask folks what they want. YES, they listen to all the conflicting input and make very carefully calculated changes to their format and content. They have to to stay current and relevant. Because they want to sell as many magazines as they can.

But you AREN'T their target market. Really, nothing you've described seems to fit with the magazine buyer they're aiming at. Folks like big color photos that show the details. They like to see it big and up-close and then they want a little bit of text to basically tell them, "Yes guys, it's really all that cool!"

If the magazines can work hard to prepare a tech-head journal filled with great information, a few stripped-down photos, and the good, the bad, and the ugly -- and they can sell 5,000 copies --- OR --- they can work hard to prepare a glossy batch of "gun porn" long on drool-factor, lite on data, but they can sell 50,000 copies ... guess which they're going to print?

You want your 1980 version? Fine. Put your money into printing it. Or convince a publisher that you'll get 50,000 pals to buy it if they print it.

Look, it's just like why Ruger doesn't sell the Deerfield carbine any more. Or Marlin won't make the Camp-9 or the Model 99, Remington doesn't make the 788, and so on. They were neat. They developed niche followings, or were even very popular for a while. But times and tastes changed and those offerings don't support their own costs when in the market any more, so they are not made. No one is in business for the good of the world, or to make sure there are cool things folks like. If it doesn't sell -- a LOT, at a good price -- it's gone. If the competitor comes out with a more glamorous, full-color splashy version, you adapt to match or beat them at that game, or you close the doors and retire.

The old guys and the nostalgists and a few "in the know" will be sad and grumpy about it, but their dollars weren't going to keep the lights on, so you have to sell to the customers whos dollars WILL.

And there are a WHOLE lot of guys who really really like looking at the pictures. As a famous character once said, "I can read when I'm DEAD!"

 

[DPris]

Sam,
I know there's a widespread wish that the gunmags would cover a clunker as thoroughly as a non-clunker.
Your suggestion is a modification, and a more realistic one, of that wish, but still not worth the space.

Single-sample cancellations would be quickly denounced as being... single samples, the mag would get mail from brand-fans pointing that out, from others who'd demand more detail, and it'd be more of an all-round negative than a positive.
Double-samples are probably infrequent enough not to bother with, and I'll tell you that concurrent with the two unwritable Smiths I had there were other writers talking about how happy they were with their samples at the same time. With the two ArmaLite .30-calibers I cancelled, people were still buying & shooting them (or trying to shoot), despite feeding issues that were far from new. With the two Rock River products that did not work for me, those products were selling & there are many Rock River fans right now that'd say both were just a fluke, the writer didn't know what he was doing, the magazine hates RR, and so on.

In those three cases, how truly useful do you think it'd be to the reading public to see a couple samples from each company were unusable?
People get products that work fine, people get some that work "OK" enough, and some people get some that don't work well at all.
That's pretty much the nature of the game.
It's deemed not worth taking up space because it has insufficient benefit to justify it.

How many times do you see in a gun forum "I sent my Smith alloy J-Frame back to Smith & Wesson (not picking on S&W, just using an illustration) and they replaced it. The second gun has problems too & I'm returning it."
Does that mean all Smith alloy J-Frames are bad? Nope. Does it really make much difference to S&W fans? Nope. Does it slow down sales to prospective buyers much? No.
No sarcasm intended, but what would make that same information more valuable in a gunmag?

I still read 'em, as I've said.
If I saw a half-page Monthly Clunker section I'd glance through it quickly, if at all, think "Yeah, OK, stuff happens & lemons get out", shake my head sorrowfully twice, and I'd be on to the next page. As I do when I see a post to that effect on a forum.
And, it'd open up the gates to "Tell us MORE", or "Mine's fine, you just got a bad one, so what?"

I can't emphasize enough how space is hotly competed for. And that allocation isn't up to the writer, isn't even entirely controlled by the editor.

And, fully agree with your comments to Con.
I was thinking exactly the same stuck-in-the-80s thoughts myself.

Kod,
I see nobody anywhere saying how happy they are at the current prices of today's gunmags. I see occasional gripes about how much they do cost.
Re advertizers, they are a necessary part & parcel of the magazine industry.
Without them, the mags could not exist without jacking up the per-issue price to considerably more than it is now.

That's one aspect of the balancing act that the management has to do in each & every issue. Gotta have enough content to sell a copy to a reader, gotta have enough ad space sold so the reader doesn't have to pay $100 per magazine.

The mags could not exist without the advertizer, they also could not exist without the reader.
The mags sell info to the reader & ad space to the advertizer.
Fewer ads mean fewer pages, not more article room. Trust me on that.

Denis

 

[wlewisiii]

I think what gets confused is that there are two markets for gun rags. One is dying - that's the Guns & Ammo model. What's new, what's hot, let's get out there even before the ads. That kind of thing is getting it's lunch eaten by the internet and given the lies of 99% of those rags? Good riddance.

The flipside of that is the hyper specialized and/or collectors rag. My preference is "The Double Gun And Single Shot Journal" Expensive by modern standards (even with advertising) and only 4 issues a year. But it gives info and photos that you don't want to trust to the transient nature of the web. Reference material should always be dead tree and these magazines are reference materials.

Somewhere in between are the literary journals. Gray's Sporting Journal is the only one I know that is still around. (Good sweet lord, please give me more rags willing to print poetry about upland game hunting in every issue that goes to press. Amen) Once upon a time Field and Stream and the rest were like that, I've been told. But that was long before this old fart was born, alas.

So there it is. Free advice worth every penny you paid for it. 7