If I read another "I wasn't impressed at first..."

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wardog

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Messages
673
Location
Colorado
article in a gun mag I'm going to puke. :barf:

Anyone catch the PX4 Compact article in Guns & Ammo?

This style of writing seems to be a broken record as of late. The gun writers are really reaching for ways to try to make their stories interesting. Just test the gun!

Anyone with me?

(Oh, I know, I know, don't read the gun mags. Hey, G&A was $5 for the year from bestdealmagazines.com, so what are ya gonna do? :) )
 
LOL . . . .I had quit reading G&A quite awhile ago but I bought two boxes of ammo last year from Natchez and they gave me a free complimentary subscriptions . . .which it had been "Guns" instead. :)

I guess it says something about how desparate G&A is that they're giving away free subs with two 20 rounds boxes of ammo.
 
Well, they ought to change their name to '1911s & Ammo'...That's what 90% of their coverage is anyway. Now that there's no more Jeff Cooper, it just isn't worth reading...
 
They don't really "test" the guns anyway, it seems more like an ad.

What I'm really sick of is that the gun writers now won't tell you anything bad about a firearm or a gun related product. Maybe they won't get stuff for free anymore or something so they're afraid of saying anything bad, but it doesn't really give you positive and negative feedback to make a decision on whether you want to buy something or not.

It's like watching a comedy roast on TV where the comedians just kiss the ass of the guy that they're supposed to be roasting. It's enough to make you retch violently in disgust, or at least it does that to me anyway. :barf:

Even magazines like Gun Test seem like they're getting that way. If I wanted to hear a bunch of people kissing ass and sucking up to someone I'd go to Thanksgiving at my rich father in law's house and listen to my brother and sister in laws as they verbally maneuver to be the dog that gets the most scraps after the meal is over with.

If I want an honest opinion on a certain gun, I've basically gotta wait and go hang out on Saturday at my local mom and pop gunshop. Today being a gun writer just seems like you need to string together a bunch of nice and over used phrases together to describe something that you've gotten for free to be successful at it.

It doesn't matter if it's true or not, afterall they've already gotten it for free they aren't out anything no matter what.
 
The gun writers and gunmagazines are in the business of selling "product". In that, they are not different from the other specialist magazines, such as audio and photography. It hasn't been about giving an unbiased opinion or working for the public's interest for may years now. They seem to have "sold out". Everything's just one long "special advertising feature" now.
 
You ever notice that many gun mags have a big full page ad near the review??? The last thing I'll trust is a gun magazine review that is afraid they'll lose money if they pick apart one of their clients products...

Gun makers like Taurus spend millions in advertising -losing their rtevenue would be a drag for a magazine.

I'm not saying they're all dishonest - I'm just saying that there is reason to be scepticle
 
I don't read these

The last "review" I read was some years ago in SWAT and Denny will tell it like it is.
SWAT, is going to write a review, and does not play this "ad dollars for mucky-muck review " game.

Being more honest, I only put stock in only certain folks when they share about a firearm, be these persons in public, or Internet Forums.

Basically I am a party-pooper, fuddy-dud, curmudgeon, and pain in the backside to "gun rags".

Did they ever settle the debate about 6mm vs .243?
Just wondering, as I have some Field and Stream from the year I was born - 1955 - and this debate was in print then, and has been since.

You'd think after 52 years they would have settled this? :D

Then again I don't buy TV guides, no need, I don't personally own a TV either.

:neener:

Use Enough Curmudgeon hood
 
I honestly can't remember any negative reviews in the several magazines I often read.

I mean, think about it, it's a fact that basically all guns these days are accurate and reliable. So, other than some information about the grip angle or a slide release that's in a different spot or something, they say the same thing about every gun. The gun writers enjoy shooting, and all guns these days are basically good shooters, so that's pretty much all they say.
 
It's The Money

Read some of these "testers" are re-cycling articles with a little touch up here and there.

Don't be upset, it just the money talking.
 
"the Ultimate..."

ought to be banned from a gun magazines lexicon. i quit buying them when every gun they tested was THE ULTIMATE whatever. when i went to school the ultimate meant there was only one of them and all others fell short. gun writers seem to think that whatever the company sent to them to test is the "ultimate' nowadays. blegh
oc71
 
Whats just as bad is when they test the REALLY high end guns like all the common joe's out here could buy one.

The only rag I get anymore is the American Rifeman and only because it comes with my NRA membership and its just as bad as the others.

As my dad would say. "...they talk and say nothing"
 
Another fun remark:

"The serious X shooter..." combined with some disparaging remark about some kind of add-on. This is all over writings about 1911s- the author is usually trying to score points with the purists. Personally, I'd think that if you shell out the cash for a gun and ammunition and you take the time to practice, you're serious, no matter what is on the gun.
 
Yup, magazines are paid for by advertising. Without it, there wouldn't be a mag. Your subscription cast doesn't do a whole lot to support the cost of manufacturing the mag. So there is always going to be a level of pandering to the advertisers. Just a fact of the magazine industry.

I've taken to looking at tech specs and pictures. Some guys opinion of what the gun was like, fired offhand at 25 yards, means nothing to me. Felt recoil was mild...another meaningless remark I always see. Read one story it seems like you've read them all...

BTW my other job is magazine publishing...
 
Recently one of the rag-writers had an article about a pistol with glowing sights you had to shine a light on to charge them. Basically glow in the dark paint, which he took great pains to point out was much better than "glow in the dark paint". Then talked about how some "moron had said yeah he'd have time to draw and charge his sights". The alleged writer then went on to say that "serious operators" would understand how usefull these tools could be.

So the company wouldn't put night sights on the gun to keep prices down, now we're going to tell you how tactically cool and usefull sights are with glow in the dark paint.
 
Of all the rags out their, I think Shotgun News has some of the best reports and articles.
Plus they have all the sales ads so you can allocate you gun and ammo allowance months if not years in advance. :D
 
Gun rag lexicon

"Shoot little carry a lot" = It is a POS that will fall apart after 1000 rounds. But it has a lifetime warranty.

"Minor problem at first, that smoothed out after a while." = It failed to feed reliability the first 500 rounds then we had a smith work on it.


"Company X had a bad rep from model Y but this new Model Z fixes all that" = Company just repacked the same pistol but it is now a polymer frame. And they just bought a ton of add space
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top