idiot gun writers

[Reloadron]

Tark, with all due respect if you are not going to name the magazine or author why should I believe your post? People love to do that, a magazine which shall remain unnamed or an author who shall remain unnamed? Since you are covering the credibility of a story why not name the magazine and author? Beyond that I have no reason to believe your post. Again, and with due respect but why fail to provide the names? Why should I believe your post?

Ron

 

[grter]

I received my CMP surplus M-1 today, and it shot 1/2 inch groups right out of the box!

Riiiiight!

If you shoot a man with a .45 ACP, he's going to go down!

Riiiight!

Most of them write to sell magazines. The outlandish crap they write is designed to sell the client's product advertised on the following page.

And I thought maybe I was crazy for thinking like you.

 

[cheygriz]

ReloadRon,

Perhaps Tark didn't name writers because he knew he would immediately get flamed by the fans pf those writers.

Put up a post critical of the greatest manure shoveller of all time, Goofy Jeffie Cooper and see how fast you get 10 posts flaming you.:banghead:

 

[Reloadron]

ReloadRon,

Perhaps Tark didn't name writers because he knew he would immediately get flamed by the fans pf those writers.

Put up a post critical of the greatest manure shoveller of all time, Goofy Jeffie Cooper and see how fast you get 10 posts flaming you.:banghead:

While I see your point a good way to handle it is when you read BS then email the magazine or more specific the author. Then post a copy of your email and their response. Should they fail to respond then note it.

THR is an online forum for gun enthusiast, those who enjoy the shooting sports. It is a place where we exchange ideas and information about guns. There is no disputing what was posted, I think we agree on that. So since it is not even disputable why not share the author and magazine? That said I do agree with what you are saying and how some of these writers are viewed as a holy grail but I would not play the anonymity game and if Tark took heat for using a name I would be the first to defend him. I just like to see writers and magazines held accountable for what they publish.

Additionally while a Scout Rifle's definition may suit some I never did care for it! So there!

Ron

 

[C0untZer0]

What was bad in the past was that the group of people who wrote about guns was a fairly exclusive club.

Now anyone can write gun reviews, they can create blogs, and make You-Tube videos.

There are more bad gun writers now than at any other time in history. The big difference is that gun writing is no longer an exclusive club so the good reviewers now have an opportunity to put out their information also.

 

[DPris]

I can maybe help a little with the +1 thing.

It's become fashionable for editors & layout people to include that +1 in Spec Boxes lately.
I'd suspect that's where that came from. Just an automatic inclusion.

Remember- the author doesn't have final say over anything that makes the printed page.
And, those who do are occasionally not quite....knowledgeable about the subject matter.

Re the M60 cook-offs, when I went through M60 training in the AF (to be a designated gunner for a year or so while stationed in England) in 1975, it was the first time I'd ever heard the term, and it was covered by the instructor.

Why, I dunno.
It does seem impossible to get a cook-off from an open bolt design, but he considered it important enough to mention.
Denis

 

[tark]

I didn't mention names or publications because I didn't know if I would get censured and or reprimanded fo doing so. But..... if you want names .....

Leroy Thompson was the writer who apparently never handled a 97 trench gun. Military Surplus, or something like that, was the publication. I think it was a "Guns" magazine publication.

Current issue, Dec. 21st, Shotgun News, page 27, Reid Coffield states that all you need to do to convert a 1903 Colt pocket auto from 32 to 380 is swap in the barrel and magazine. Sorry, Reid, it is a little more complicated than that , for reasons I stated in my OP.

Shot show, 2001, New Orleans, Mike Venturino, Jim Wilson, Charlie petty, Mas Ayoob and a couple of others were asked the 3000FPS question, by me. All were sure they knew it was the 250 savage. After all they had read that all their lives....

There are three examples. I can't find the Leroy issue of the mag, but when I do, I will post the name, date and page of the offending prose.

 

[DPris]

Leroy's pretty good about knowing his stuff, and I have no doubt he's quite familiar with the 97.

If he wrote something in error, coulda been a momentary oops in transfer between brain & keyboard.

Despite our best efforts, it sometimes happens.
Denis

 

[tark]

Well, I cant find the "Leroy" issue to back up my claim, so that will just have to be some egg in my face.

Upon Reflection, I tend to agree with you, DPris. Leroy Thompson is a pretty well respected name and the guy has been around the block a few times. I have to believe the pic of the left cartridge stop button, which was referred to as the bolt release, could have been an editor's goof. But I still wonder about that statement about pushing forward on the pump handle will unlock the action. It certainly doesn't of my 97. Oh well. The goof in the current issue of Shotgun News can be easily verified by any one. And this guy is supposed to be a GUNSMITH!

Let's see....I'll just take the barrel and mag out of my 1911 38 Super and swap in a 45 barrel and mag....and then I"ll have a 45.....

 

[DPris]

Denis

 

[Reloadron]

I didn't mention names or publications because I didn't know if I would get censured and or reprimanded fo doing so. But..... if you want names .....

Leroy Thompson was the writer who apparently never handled a 97 trench gun. Military Surplus, or something like that, was the publication. I think it was a "Guns" magazine publication.

Current issue, Dec. 21st, Shotgun News, page 27, Reid Coffield states that all you need to do to convert a 1903 Colt pocket auto from 32 to 380 is swap in the barrel and magazine. Sorry, Reid, it is a little more complicated than that , for reasons I stated in my OP.

Shot show, 2001, New Orleans, Mike Venturino, Jim Wilson, Charlie petty, Mas Ayoob and a couple of others were asked the 3000FPS question, by me. All were sure they knew it was the 250 savage. After all they had read that all their lives....

There are three examples. I can't find the Leroy issue of the mag, but when I do, I will post the name, date and page of the offending prose.

Thanks and there is no way you will get "censored". Some of those writers go back a long way, had no use for them then and don't now.

Thanks again for sharing.
Ron

 

[cheygriz]

ReloadRon,

I, too, would like to see them held accountable for slinging manure, but it "aint agonna happen."

A writer doesn't dare tell you that the newest Remchester belchfire magnum is a real POS according to his testing. He'd lose his job as soon as Remchester pulled their advertising.

I don't trust any of them, not even the American Rifleman. Especially now that Wiley Clapp is there.

 

[Al Thompson]

Had a buddy who wrote a few articles for a popular hunting magazine some years back. He quit that (in disgust) when he found the editor making his recorded velocity numbers (for a given rifle/cartridge) higher. That wasn't just altering words, it was creating false data.

Seems it's not just the writer...

 

[jim in Anchorage]

All of us posting here are gun writers.

But not paid for it. Or invited out to company shooting ranch's to try out new products. A professional gun writer should have fact's down cold.

 

[Sarge7402]

Sometimes I am so shocked by some of the stupid things I read in gun publications that I wonder if the writer has ever even touched the gun (s) that he is writing about. Just today I read a letter in A major (I will mention no names) publication asking if it was possible to convert a colt pocket pistol from .32 auto to .380. The reply was (again, no names) SURE! Just swap out the 32 barrel and mag and substitute the 380 parts and...... What is wrong with this picture?? A little something called the breech face cutout in the slide.... A .380 will not fit into the breech face cutout on a .32 slide. You would have to change the slide, also, not to mention the recoil spring..... At least an attempt to do as the writer suggested would result in a harmless failure to function.

I have seen an article on the Winchester 97 trench gun where the writer referred to the Left cartridge stop as the bolt release, and then stated that the easiest way to release/ unlock the bolt was to push forward on the slide handle, which would then unlock the action. Not on my 97 it doesn't!!

Some of the advice is downright dangerous, like saying it is ok to convert a Webley Mk IV to 45 ACP. A nice way to invite disaster. The ACP round operates above proof levels for the Webley.

Then there are the old myths that got started years ago, and they have been repeated so many times that everyone is sure they are true. "Why they must be, so and so said so and HE knows what he is talking about" Or "I've read that for years, repeated by so many experts ...why, it MUST be true." But if you ask some of those "experts" they will always give you the same answer....Well...I have read that for years..." Number one on this list, for me, is the myth that 7.62X25 Tok ammo is loaded to higher pressures than .30 Mauser ammo, and must NEVER be fired in a broomhandle Mauser, and if you do that the bolt will shear the bolt stop and come out the rear of the gun....and go through your head....and three trees, a stray dog and an aluminum bodied F-150 and finally bury itself in a block of granite.

Don't tell that to my broomhandle, it has eaten thousands of Tok rounds. The Russians copied the round exactly, there was no need to soup it up. There is no such thing as 7.62 by 25 sub-gun ammo. Ask JohnnyC.

Moving along in this vein, how many times have you heard that the 250-3000 A.K.A the 250 Savage, was the first commercially loaded round to exceed 3000 FPS?? You have read it all your life so it must be true...right?

Wrong. It was the 280 Ross, in 1907 145 grain bullet at 3145 FPS.

See what I mean? What examples of inaccuracy have you noticed?

Tark

On this you are wrong. With the Colt 1903/1908 pocket hammerless pistols just changing the barrel (and sometimes the Magazine would work for both) will convert the .32 to .380. How do I know? Back in the 90's I owned a 1903 and purchased a 1908 .380 barrel. Slide off barrel out new barrel in and slide back on and bang bang bang. Not a problem - at least for the Colt?

 

[Reloadron]

ReloadRon,

I, too, would like to see them held accountable for slinging manure, but it "aint agonna happen."

A writer doesn't dare tell you that the newest Remchester belchfire magnum is a real POS according to his testing. He'd lose his job as soon as Remchester pulled their advertising.

I don't trust any of them, not even the American Rifleman. Especially now that Wiley Clapp is there.

It isn't just guns. When I had my gun shop we joked about it. For a number of years I moderated on and helped with a forum for a large computer magazine. The same BS goes on with computer hardware. Magazine reviews are biased. Figure a manufacturer is paying you $12,000 a month in advertising. You review a piece of their hardware. You are not expected to say "it sucks" even if it really does suck. The same was true of guns in gun rags. A gun being released could be complete garbage but was reviewed and hawked as the greatest gun ever released.

Ron

 

[Grumulkin]

Sometimes I am so shocked by some of the stupid things I read in gun publications that I wonder if the writer has ever even touched the gun (s) that he is writing about. Just today I read a letter in A major (I will mention no names) publication asking if it was possible to convert a colt pocket pistol from .32 auto to .380. The reply was (again, no names) SURE! Just swap out the 32 barrel and mag and substitute the 380 parts and...... What is wrong with this picture?? A little something called the breech face cutout in the slide.... A .380 will not fit into the breech face cutout on a .32 slide. You would have to change the slide, also, not to mention the recoil spring..... At least an attempt to do as the writer suggested would result in a harmless failure to function

You don't mention which gun.

A couple of months ago I saw a semi auto in Cabelas with 3 interchangeable barrels; 25 ACP, 32 ACP and 380 Auto. I was almost tempted but couldn't think of anything useful to do with a 25 ACP or 32 ACP.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Re the M60 cook-offs, when I went through M60 training in the AF (to be a designated gunner for a year or so while stationed in England) in 1975, it was the first time I'd ever heard the term, and it was covered by the instructor.

Why, I dunno.
It does seem impossible to get a cook-off from an open bolt design, but he considered it important enough to mention.

The M60's predecessor, the M1919, fired from a closed bolt and the instructors, not understanding the subject they were teaching, simply parroted the cautions for that weapon.

 

[cheygriz]

ReloadRon,

I think you and I are on the same page!

 

[DPris]

Ron,
Not interested in playing the game again on these periodic writer-bashing threads, and I won't, beyond taking issue with one of your statements.

You paint with an overly broad brush when you say "Magazine reviews are biased."
Every bit as much as if I were to say all Internet gun forum participants are idiots.

Some are, most are not, in both venues.
Denis

 

[tark]

Would somebody explain to me how a 380 round will fit into the breech face cutout on a 32 ACP slide? With all due respect,Sarge, you are telling me that you did something that is literally impossible.

But.... I have made a fool out of myself more than once on this forum and I will doubtless do so again.... So somebody tell me...is there something magical about a 1903 colt pocket auto? Can the slide for this 32 auto pistol somehow , magically, adapt itself to to a 380 cartridge. Does the extractor magically position itself for the much larger 380 round?

Adjust my thought processes if necessary!

 

[Reloadron]

Ron,
Not interested in playing the game again on these periodic writer-bashing threads, and I won't, beyond taking issue with one of your statements.

You paint with an overly broad brush when you say "Magazine reviews are biased."
Every bit as much as if I were to say all Internet gun forum participants are idiots.

Some are, most are not, in both venues.
Denis

Dennis,
In all fairness and the best interest of accuracy you are correct. I could have worded that much better. It is pretty hard to place any number or percentage. Your "Some are, most are not, in both venues" would be right on target.

Something I do feel is important is when bad dope is out there in a current magazine or publication it should be shared in the forum community.

Thanks
Ron

 

[Reloadron]

Would somebody explain to me how a 380 round will fit into the breech face cutout on a 32 ACP slide? With all due respect,Sarge, you are telling me that you did something that is literally impossible.

But.... I have made a fool out of myself more than once on this forum and I will doubtless do so again.... So somebody tell me...is there something magical about a 1903 colt pocket auto? Can the slide for this 32 auto pistol somehow , magically, adapt itself to to a 380 cartridge. Does the extractor magically position itself for the much larger 380 round?

Adjust my thought processes if necessary!

I can't speak for the Colt and while I have never owned a Heckler & Koch HK4 it does come with 3 barrels for 3 calibers. I have no clue how the breech face scheme is handled? This may have been the gun mentioned earlier in the thread. Other conversions done have involved the .32 NAA which is a custom round, a sort of .380 ACP necked down to .32 caliber. That makes sense. I haven't a clue what the HK4 internally looks like.

Ron

 

[.455_Hunter]

A more popular myth during the Vietnam War was the M-16 bullet tumbled in fight.

So it was already a buzz-saw when it got there!!

I've heard Army NCO's state it in training to a couple hundred troops at a time!!

rc

Luckily, that seems to have worked itself out of the Army training vocabulary.

If I would have EVER heard an NCO spewing such [censor] to soldiers, he would found time to complete the error of his ways in the front leaning rest.

 

[DPris]

Ron,
I have no problem whatever with somebody pointing out errors, that's fair game, in print or online.
Broadly condemning EVERY gunwriter as an idiot & biased, I do have a problem with.

Most of us run an honest game & do try to be as accurate as possible.

Hunter,
My basic training instructor did, as it happens, tell us the bullets tumbled.
I took it at the time to mean in flight (being young, un-educated, and unwilling to risk a thousand pushups by questioning it).
Took some time to figure out he probably meant on impact, which is more applicable.
Denis