Have you learned more for the internet or from reading gun mags?

[albanian]

Simple question. What information (mis-information) source do you feel has taught you more?

I starting reading gun mags before the internet even existed but I feel that I have learned more in the past 5 years on various gun forums that in all the years I spent reading gun mags.

On the net, you can ask a spcific question and get an answer. Gun mags just tell you what they want to, you have no input.

On the net, you can get 20-30 responses so you don't have to take just one person's word for something.

On the net, you cross check any info to see if it is legit by looking it up. In the days before the net, all we had were books and more gun mags.

On the net, nobody is paid to tell you which product to buy. There is still plenty of bias but it is not paid bias.

 

[real_name]

I have learnt the most from my Father-in-law.
Then the internet.
Then mags.

I am treating the information I get online as useful if it can be verified, I cross-reference when it is something vital (eg I obviously wouldn't trust one answer regarding CCW laws).
I see mags as brochures mainly, lovely to look at but not interactive enough to compete with the internet.
My FIL is a goldmine, we may disagree about some guns (Glock) but he knows what he knows and that's a LOT more than I know.

 

[Fire4Effect]

I have learned more from being in the military as far as position, sight alignment/ picture, breath and trigger control and stance. But as far as gun information, especially where my milsurps are concerned, the internet forums are a wealth of knowledge and information... Thanks to THR and others.

 

[Ala Dan]

Definitely the web~!

 

[Tom Servo]

Gun mags have pretty pictures, but they're not a great (or impartial) source of information.

Outside of a few great folks I've known over the years, I've learned alot more from this site, as well as SigForum. The nice thing about the internet is the ability to ask a specific question and get:
a) two posts making a joking answer,
b) one post saying, "d00d! Get a GLOCK, thye r0x0rs!"
c) several well-thought answers from people with real experience.

I'd be hard pressed to find somebody of the likes of Tuner anywhere else. That, and in case you don't frequent other forums, trust me on this: on a wild, wooly, often unpleasant, self-important, ill-informed but opinionated internet, THR really does live up to its name. I'm continually amazed by the high standards of civility and helpfulness here.

 

[Mizzle187]

For me 80% of what Ive learned is from the Web!

 

[cosmonick]

Web.

Both sources offer a lot of data (I find both the facts and opinions useful), but I like the web for comparisons and contrasts you'd never see in a magazine (like Bobo's handgun comparison or model "x" vs model "y").

Also, the web offers a ton of testimonies of personal experience with almost everything gun related.

Mo

 

[HSMITH]

90% of what I know has been learned from the school of hard knocks, doing it myself and figuring it out. The rest comes from a few good books and the net. I have never seen much other than commercial blather in the gun magazines.

 

[bumm]

I'm one of the tiny minority that voted "gun mags," but I suspect there's an age effect here. I'm 56, and didn't get internet access until about 1998, when I was 48. I'd been shooting for a long time by then, and most of what I knew I'd read, whether it be in magazines or books.
Now, I get most of my information from the web, but aside from new products, which I seldom buy, I already have a pretty good grasp on the basics.
SO ~ the web is a great source, probably the best there is, but us older guys have been around awhile before it arrived...
Marty

 

[sm]

Being Brutally Honest

Magazines:

I grew up reading Field & Stream simply because of the works of Ruark, works of others such as Cory Ford, Tarply's Tips, and Bob Brister.

I quit taking F&S when Brister stopped doing his pc. One can still go back and 1) the same beneficial information applies today. 2) Same agruments being hashed.

I learned a lot from the old magazines.

Internet :

I met some great folks, great friends and learned a lot of real world information that I do not feel always is respresented in magazines sometimes today. Exceptions such as SWAT and certain authors excluded. Understand I do not currently have any scripts to magazines.

The Internet allows faster communication for sure.
We have always had those persons that argued and stirred up trouble. Always had bad respresentatives of RKBA and attitudes. These are the ones that disgust me as they divide WE The People in RKBA efforts and do more harm than they realize.

Only now with the Internet these digusting supposed Pro-Gun folks can reach globally, and faster others to tear down RKBA and aid in Negative Sterotypes that Tyranny uses against RKBA folks. All it takes is Uncivil, Unpolite Postings, Attacking other members instead of ideas...totally disgusts me and as an aside goes against Mission Statements and Rules Of Conduct Members agree to in Registering.

At least in the old days it took 3 days to send a letter to disrupt RKBA, now it takes 3 seconds...

So the Internet has taught me more about - and revealed many more disgusting folks there are hiding behind supposed pro gun ideas than I ever thought I would find out about.

Just being brutally honest.

Steve

 

[Tigerseye]

I've learned more from books by Hatcher, Keith, Nonte, Cooper, Hebard, Ezell, Smith & Smith, Grennell, Askins, Jordan, Wilson, Hogg, Taffin, Skelton, Suarez, etc., than from either the internet or gun mags.

Tigerseye

 

[mbs357]

I don't read gun magazines...soooooooo...
Winnar by default.

 

[MSgt B]

I basically take anything from 1911Tuner as gospel and go from there...

 

[Black Majik]

Magazines are just REALLY long ads that you have to read. Its like reading the articles in a Playboy, who would do that?!

I've learned mostly from internet forums, same goes for my other hobbies. If I was still only reading magazines, I'd probably still call magazines ~> clips, rounds ~> bullets, and .45 Long Colt

Magazines all have positive reviews usually, how else would we really get opinionated, subjective, utterly biased information other than the web?

 

[LadySmith]

I've learned more from the net.
I can research and price the guns I want efficiently from almost anywhere.
I can read objective and subjective opinions.
I can get almost instant feedback about what I'm interested in.

I thumb through magazines mostly to look at the pretty pictures.

 

[Vermont Carry]

You have to ask?

The glossy gun publications are 99% a waste of time, and 99.999% a waste of good ammo money.

How many more times can you read about their ".45 DA ROUNDUP," or "Beretta VS Sig?"

I can't be the only one who is sick to death of the quasi "catalogs" that each periodical does where they pretend to attempt to list EVERY model/brand/price

When I'm at the market, I don't even leaf through them anymore. They have to stick some expensive novelty gun on the cover to get fantasy land guys to buy them.

At BEST, the glossy publications are good toilet reading (unless you have a computer in there too . Wait, that would be a HORRIBLE idea, and not just because of the steam )


EDIT: Shotgun News is handy, but then I'm speaking from the perspective of a BUYER and not a fantasizer.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Actually, I think my best education regarding firearms has been from reloading manuals and the NRA firearms education material. The hunter education course in Ohio is also very good. I'm an NRA certified instructor for Basic Pistol and Personal Protection in the Home, and a Hunter Education instructor in Ohio.

Cooper's book _The Art of the Rifle_ is also very good.

So, on the whole, I would favor printed books and quality training over the hobbyist magazines and internet sources. Not that the hobbyist magazines and internet sources are always wrong, but the information needs to be carefully considered and checked with other sources.

Michael Courtney

 

[JoseM]

It ranges...for specifics, I learn more from the web, for generality, I learn more from the magazines.

For example, I'm on three main forums...this one, S&W, and 1911forum. If I had a question about a S&W or 1911, I'd go there and ask. So for the specifics of those items, I have learned more from the net.

However, I read most of the articles in my magazines when I get them. And they have a wide range of interest. Some things that I would of never looked up on my own on the net. So in that general case, I learn more from magazines.

 

[Deanimator]

I've learned more from gun magazines, because when I first got interested in guns, there WASN'T a net. Not even ARPANET. I first started buying gun magazines when I was in 5th grade in the '60s.

Since the mid-'80s, I've learned a lot off of FidoNet, then usenet and finally mailing lists and discussion forums like Bullseye-L and TheHighRoad, especially from people like Ed Harris and Ed Masaki.

The nice thing about venues like this is that I can save the important stuff and not end up with 30 banker's boxes to pack every time I move!

 

[LAK]

More from books than anything else.

Random thoughts; magazine articles tend to be on the superficial side - they often lack depth and detail. The internet is obviously a great forum for developing and sharing ideas among a great number of partcipants. Unfortunately I think it is a poor substitute as a learning tool in place of a good collection of excellent and well written books.

-------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Working Man]

#1) My father....

He got me started right. Without that base all else would be moot.

#2) Trial and error

#3) Web

#4) Magazines

 

[Mikee Loxxer]

The only gun magazine (even though it calls itself a gun sales publication) that ever seems to render any useful information is Shotgun News. All the others seem to be useless and have what is often less than accurate information. Gun magazines seem to all tow the same line when reviewing a product, which would be "this is great you should go buy one!" I can understand why they do this due to who advertises with them.

 

[Black Dragon]

I learned about hunting from my Grandfather. I learned about firearm safety
from my father and learned about breakdown of firearms from my father-in-law
and books on the various firearms.
The gun rags are good for day dreaming.

 

[USSR]

On the net, you can ask a spcific question and get an answer. Gun mags just tell you what they want to, you have no input.

Oh, yeah, you'll get an answer all right -- just not necessarily a correct answer.

On the net, you can get 20-30 responses so you don't have to take just one person's word for something.

Getting 20-30 responses means nothing if they come from ignorant and/or misinformed individuals. There are thousands of keyboard commando's out there in cyberspace. Simply mouthing a canned response to a question does not make someone a knowledgable individual. There are several individuals on this particular website whose in depth answers to questions show that they have BTDT and you can take what they say to the bank; but 20-30, no way. I think that there are several other sites that offer a far great knowledge base than what is to be found here. As noted earlier, older shooters are more likely to have initially gotten their knowledge by way of magazines since the Internet has only been around for a little over 10 years. In any case, you soon learn how to sort out the BS from both media.

Don

 

[Mizzle187]

USSR is right which is why I backup everything I believe to be true on the web from another source or two. My problem is I never had anyone to take me shooting as a kid. So I basiclly started shooting seriously about 6 years ago around 20 years old so you see why the Web is my main teacher. As far as how to shoot probably 80% trial and error but for information about ballistics,history,models,service,etc.. the internet has been my main source. I just recently started to read gun mags religously and I learn alot but it is no match to the web for me and Im not just talking about forums either.