No more Sig ads in Guns & Ammo?

[Redcoat3340]

Just finished reading the Feb issue of Guns & Ammo. I'm still not impressed with its content and for me that magazine is simply "the best horse in the glue factory."

But what caught my eye in this issue was both the article on the new Sig Legion line and the editorial about it. If I were Sig's marketing manager, I'd be pulling all my advertising from this rag. Here's why:

The headline of the article was "With Your Shield Or On It." First thing I thought of was S&W's Shield, not Sig's new pistol. And even after I read the author's tortured analogy about the Roman Empire's Legions and the name of this new pistol line, all I could think about for the first two pages was the 1,000,000 Shields Smith and Wesson has sold. Of all the words in the English language, why did they pick the one that highlights one of Sig's biggest competitors? Really a dumb move. There are about a million ways to introduce the "Legion" concept other than invoking a competitor.

To add insult to injury, Eric Poole's editorial compares the new Sig 225-A1 at $1,200 or so with the 225/P6 he bought for $350. His conclusion strongly questions the value of the new gun over the old one. And he doesn't seem very happy that none of the parts from the old gun will fit into the new one. He asks, "The P225-A1 may be impressive enough that it can its price over an M11-A1 or used P225/P6, but I don't think it can." Now there's a ringing endorsement of an advertiser's new product. (Oh, and his editorial comes way before the article...so going into the article he's got readers asking the same question, is it worth the money. Not a frame of mind I'd want prospective buyers to be in.)

Like I said, if I were Sig's ad manager or marketing director, I'd start advertising in G&A about the same time the Brady bunch or Bloomberg's herd or some other anti 2A group took their first ad in it. Like never.

I think I'll do a it of internet research to see if anyone else picked up on this. But I thought I'd ask the question here.

 

[Sam1911]

Hmmm. And the funny thing is we have people here all the time grousing that there's never anything but the most absurdly positive reviews in the gun magazines and that those blankety-blank gun writers would swear a rotten potato was filet mignon if the potato farmer advertises in their magazine.

Guess it could be refreshing to hear a paid magazine writer say, "Eh...this ain't the greatest thing since foie gras, save your money."

 

[nettlle]

And just because a gun mag rates a gun good or bad doesn't mean it is or isn't. I have had some of my best guns rated poorly by a gun magazine. Many times they test a sample of one. It's better to read multiple reviews on the same firearm and forums like this are a good place to do so.

 

[yugorpk]

ALMOST sounds like an objective review. Ive never read one of those in a gun magazine.Generally they are just fluffed up ad copy.

 

[bannockburn]

Sam1911

I was thinking the same thing. Back in the day it seemed like the majority of gun magazine writers were like the Will Rogers of the gun world: in other words they never met a gun they didn't like. It is kind of an enlivening approach for a gun writer to actually say that hey, this latest XYZ offering isn't the greatest thing since slice bread.

 

[Tirod]

If I read the OP's tag line, I expect to see where SIG is dropping their advertising and made it a public announcement.

I'm not reading that, just someone's critique of someone else's review of a new gun.

Is SIG no longer advertising in G&A, does somebody have a link to their news release, and why?

Right, didn't think so.

 

[antiquus]

Good for G&A for having the courage to print something other than the glowing fawning BS all the mags print. If Sig pulls there ads, I'll go buy G&A which I don't do currently (because of what all those other gun mags do).

 

[TarDevil]

I washed my hands of all Intermedia (the magazines are now owned by someone else) when Jim Bequette fired Dick Metcalf but stayed in his cushy VP office. Bequette still works for the organization, so I still don't buy.

But hats off to Eric Poole for his candid editorial. I might have to buy that copy.

And I also thought this thread title was misleading.

 

[evan price]

The fact that Sig deliberately made sure that none of the parts interchanged between old and new P225s was deliberate so the old ones can't get parts anymore. So disappointing.

Honestly the fact that a gun magazine isn't drooling over unobtanium vaporware products or some boring new interpretation of a common gun like it was something JMB himself penned is refreshing.

Not that it matters, I just read the gun mags in line at the checkout, I never buy them anymore.

 

[seeker_two]

The fact that Sig deliberately made sure that none of the parts interchanged between old and new P225s was deliberate so the old ones can't get parts anymore. So disappointing.

I thought it was because the new 225's were actually 239's with some cosmetic changes.....

 

[Plan2Live]

Of all the words in the English language, why did they pick the one that highlights one of Sig's biggest competitors?

Did I miss the announcement? Is S&W offering the Shield in a DA/SA hammer fired configuration? Sig is primarily known for their hammer fired guns and only recently getting into the striker fired market. I doubt Sig views S&W as a major competitor.

With that said, if I followed the advice and opinion of the gun writers and bloggers I would be carrying a pistol made in Austria and nothing could be farther from the truth. If this writer can't appreciate the value in a traditionally configured metal semi-auto that's a his problem.

 

[jmorris]

ALMOST sounds like an objective review. Ive never read one of those in a gun magazine.Generally they are just fluffed up ad copy.

+1.

 

[tomrkba]

The Legion still has the problem of the DA to SA transition and the huge training requirement to master it. Meh.

 

[Plan2Live]

The Legion still has the problem of the DA to SA transition

Transition problem? Did I miss the memo? Where does this "problem" occur? Is it in rapid fire competition shooting, slow fire recreational shooting, are the Military Police, Coast Guard or Special Forces experiencing "transition problems" during combat or are you referring to civilians during real world self defense shooting with examples and case studies cited? Just curious since I missed the memo.

 

[Coop45]

After checking out some of the bbq joints that Texas Monthly rated highly, I've decided that I could care less about writers recommendations. Some of those places were real slop chutes..

 

[larryh1108]

I won't buy the gun rags because they cost $9 or $10 and are 98% ads when you consider the write ups as being an advertisement of some kind.... kind of like an infomercial. You are paying a lot of money to see ads which is stupid, IMO.

The other day my wife went out for something and was happy because she spent $9.95 for a magazine, for me, that was specifically centered around guns easy to carry. It was one, big ad. I didn't have the heart to tell her she wasted her money.

They should pay us to see ads, not the other way around. $10 is a box of 9mm ammo.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Sig and G&A both lost any of my business long ago

 

[Ohen Cepel]

So they didn't give SIG glowing reviews, that is not a reason for SIG to stop all business with them. I think it's good when a mag gives an honest review! I get tired of all the sugar coating which goes on when a mag tests a firearm saying it is the next great thing and then when they really hit the streets they have a ton of issues.

SIG are big boys, they can take a little criticism.

 

[Old Dog]

Actually, all the reviews I've seen of the Legion so far have been overwhelmingly positive. Indeed, several writers have noted that they've bought them.

Poole's editorial on the new "P-225" would appear to be spot-on.

As far as G&A goes, if the reviews are lukewarm, it's a negative review, and most readers I'm sure have figured that out. Which means that magazine is almost working toward more honesty. American Handgunner and SWAT, though, will call out the negatives in guns they T&E.

Um, this:

The Legion still has the problem of the DA to SA transition and the huge training requirement to master it.

"Huge training requirement?" Have you actually shot this pistol? The DA pull is superb, and the Grayguns SA pull is spectacular. This pistol is a winner. And by the way, most people I introduce to SIG P-series pistols haven't yet seemed to require "huge training" to become proficient at shooting them. I just wish the Legion guns were offered without the doggone rail.

 

[Nuclear]

As much as I own and like Sigs, their DA trigger pulls are insanely heavy, for no good reason. Perhaps they have lightened them on some recent guns. I sincerely hope so, as that, and a choice of non-railed models, would make them near perfect.

 

[Tirod]

As for magazines that tried to objectively rate guns without the fluff, there was one.

It failed miserably because the public doesn't like hearing the truth. We can complain about mags and their constantly glowing reviews but when it comes down to the bare knuckles evaluations we don't really want to know.

Kinda like the way some treat the NRA, or like the bumper stickers say, don't complain about farmers with your mouth full. Gun rags that embellish how great the product is survive and prosper, gun mags that tell it like it is die on the vine.

Who's deciding that?

Gun buyers aren't putting down money for their guns based on empirical testing standards. They buy them because they are Icons of Power. You carry a Brand and model because it's Lethal, Cool, and has credibility with other shooters, who then upgrade their assessment of your character and worth. You are a Member of the Club.

The actual recipient of the firearms discharge won't care in the least - to them, it's all about the ammunition. Same situation fishing - anglers brag on their rods (with all the subliminal suggestions included,) fish only see the bait.

Nobody is going to buy a magazine that says your overpriced polymer pistol is just another cheap commodity gun. Hence the continued groping upscale by shooters for $1,100 1911's. It's a barbecue gun market.

 

[230RN]

I saw a pretty much less-than-positive review of the Smith Model 351C (.22 Airweight) in the American Rifleman (AR), April 2014. The article ended on a kind of halfhearted upbeat note, but was generally negative.

I have noticed that the AR tends to avoid emphasizing negatives, but sometimes does point them out subtly in photos. They kinda didn't like the first .410/.45 Judge when it came out, but showed a picture of the cylinder star, which looked like it had been haggled out by Dremel tool. They went on a bit about the shallow rifling*, and mentioned that some of the .45 bullets keyholed. With a picture of the targets showing the elongated holes.

The most recent issue had a review of the new Kimber Micros (.380 locked-breech) which imitates the full-sized 1911 with some exceptions. One of the exceptions was what they called a "hinged ejector." They (AR) didn't say much about that ejector, but from the picture, it looked pretty obviously fragile, Not like the staked-in solid block of "good ole arn" (iron) of the 1911 ejector's design. One can only presume it had been properly designed for the forces involved, despite its looks. But I also noticed <grin> that they had two pictures showing that particular part.

So you sometimes have to read between the lines in those reviews, and you've got to bear in mind that sometimes the firearms tendered over to the writers are <ahem> "selected" specimens.

I read them mostly to see what's new mechanically and look at the accuracy tables they print**, but I distrust reports loaded with glowing enthusiasm. I know where the publishers are coming from in terms of advertising revenue, but I've seen examples of damning with faint praise (and photos) in the AR's reviews.

Terry, 230RN

*Shallow in order to not spin the shot charge too much when firing the 410 shells.

** One nice thing is that they actually chrono the ammunition out of that particular test gun, as opposed to merely regurgitating the ammo makers' specs.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

But what caught my eye in this issue was both the article on the new Sig Legion line and the editorial about it. If I were Sig's marketing manager, I'd be pulling all my advertising from this rag.

Interesting ... I never gave a previous thought of whether or not marketing manager should be happy or sad and what his administrative decisions should be when it comes to gun rags.

God help us when we start complaining that the gun rags are not pandering to gun companies enough and might actually express some of their own perspectives. Of all the problems we have as gun owners, this has to be at about the bottom of the list.

 

[TarDevil]

God help us when we start complaining that the gun rags are not pandering to gun companies enough and might actually express some of their own perspectives. Of all the problems we have as gun owners, this has to be at about the bottom of the list.

Ayep!

 

[1KPerDay]

Hmmm. And the funny thing is we have people here all the time grousing that there's never anything but the most absurdly positive reviews in the gun magazines and that those blankety-blank gun writers would swear a rotten potato was filet mignon if the potato farmer advertises in their magazine.

Guess it could be refreshing to hear a paid magazine writer say, "Eh...this ain't the greatest thing since foie gras, save your money."

+1. Rags are danged if they do and danged if they don't. First time I've heard someone complaining about a gun rag finally telling the truth.