Hawk
Member
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.
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.