More gunwriter nonsense...

[Hawk]

I recently was trapped in airport hell and snagged a dead-tree firearms periodical for the first time in a long time. I was admittedly skeptical about the conventional intertubz wisdom that the editorial content would be skewed due to who was buying advertising.

No more.

A subtle example was the Shooting Times review by Metcalf on the Marlin 1895GSS. It went into some length about the "guide" gun, the short barrel, the porting etc and managed to never once mention Jim West. Not a big deal, it would have made an interesting (I thought) sidebar on the genesis of the product but leaving it out was understandable.

However, I believe in the same magazine, there was an article on reloading evidently geared to the newcomer. Again it covers about everything and explains progressive presses, what they do, why one might want one, etc. This gets my attention as even the most rabid anti-Dillon partisans at least acknowledge that Dillon exists. Not here. We get info on all the competitors including Ponsness-Warren but nary a Dillon reference anywhere in an otherwise complete reloading equipment listing.

That's not subtle. That's blatant. And, sure enough, no Dillon advertising to be seen in the periodical. I didn't know it was possible to write an exhaustive treatise on reloading without even a sideways mention of Dillon but apparently it can be done.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Discussing barrel attachments for custom handguns: Darryl Bolke "TJ's Custom Gunworks Duty Guns"

"A "flash suppressor" or "muzzle break" is designed to reduce the flash signature exiting the muzzle of a gun when fired, with the intent to help hide the shooter's location."

[

The only muzzle attachments I have seen for handguns are compensators aka recoil brakes. The intent is to reduce recoil or kick. I have not seen a flash suppressor for a handgun (even though my CZ52 with 7.62x25mm SMG ammo could use one.)

Reads like some editor picked up boilerplate from a dictionary and stuck it in a pistol article where it did not belong.

 

[Hoot Gibson]

Problem with "most" outdoor mags and writers is....they live in NY City or some other urban dump, and have never experienced what they pretend to know.

I gave up on them about 1975.

 

[rhoggman]

Quote:
The FBI has basically claimed that most of what is put out in popular gun publications is propaganda used to sell products.
Could we have a reference for that? I truly doubt that there's anything even remotely like that quote in ANY LEO reference.

Quote:
HP are designed to devistate you physiologically & mentally. They are not designed to be "safe". The FBI & LE does not use hollow points because they don't pass through the human body.
Hmmmmm, and how would a hollow point devastate you mentally?

Quote:
Over 80% of shots taken by LEO completely miss their intended target. Using a a round because it doesn't penetrate the body is completely useless.
Got a link to a reference for that one, too? I somehow doubt that the actuality is quite that bad.

Quote:
They use ammo because it PENETRATES and causes large PERMANENT WOUND CAVITIES. This helps to stop people quicker. Larger cavity = larger wound = more blood loss = psychologically harder to deal with.
Oh, please. Psychology has nothing to do with exsanguination. It's a purely physical process. If you are referring to neurogenic shock, you'll have the Facklerites all over you in a minute.

You have a conundrum here.
Quote:
Less Penetration in HP rounds can cost you your life.
Yet you then quote the ammunition as creating a larger wound cavity, due to expansion. Even the FBI, whom you "quote" wants to see expansion, even after barrier penetration.

Some companies have designed ammo claiming it produces less penetration as if it were a good thing. The FBI says it is not.

Read this...
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm

 

[Ruggles]

"Just because somebody is an "expert" and has a bunch of publications, especially non-peer reviewed gun rag publications, does not mean the writer's words are gospel or that the writer's judgment is 100% accurate."

I agree but it does stand as proof that he has a strong understanding of the subject. Most of the folks trying to belittle him are anonymous "internet experts" who like to run their mouths (fingers?) off about how wrong everything is in firearms magazines. Pretty childish really.

I would take John's (or a number of other writers) word over what I can read on the internet forums. These forums have their place and serve their purpose but do not replace much of the other firearms information that is out there.

I still say these magazines are public pro firearms media and for that I think they deserve support and appreciation.

 

[Ruggles]

"roblem with "most" outdoor mags and writers is....they live in NY City or some other urban dump, and have never experienced what they pretend to know.

I gave up on them about 1975."

Give something like American Handgunner or Guns magazine a read. Those folks walk the walk and talk the talk about their subjects. Some of the foremost experts in their fields.

 

[Ruggles]

"Having said that, read Gun Digest Book of the 1911 Volume II by Pat Sweeney. He is definitely knowledgable and makes for a good read. He also has terrible grammar that wasn't picked up by his editors or ran thru spellcheck, and writes very biased reviews. He raves about the reliability and overall value of the lower-end 1911's but basically called the Colt Special Combat Government a piece of junk."

I also have both volumes of that series and read his review of the Colt to be on his disappointment with the fact that Colt no longer is the standard by which other production 1911s are judged. I think he expected more from the Colt and said while it was a good 1911 he felt it could have / should have been better. Overall I thought both volumes were good reads as well. If he writes a 3rd I will buy it as well.

 

[OleCodger]

Oooooooops, wrong thread!!! This gettin' old ain't what it's cracked up to be!