Todays gun rags are just that. Crap.

[GBExpat]

Todays gun rags are just that. Crap.

IMO, that has been the case for most of that genre for a couple of decades. I gave up on them in the late '80s.

 

[dogrunner]

I still do Handloader,Rifle and the AH.....all the rest are carbon copy publications of fat guys in cowboy hats that say little in long form. No thanks!


One that I'd really like to see regain it's legitimacy is the American Rifleman.........for those that haven't had the opportunity to see some of the stuff from the 30's thru the mid 50's I'd strongly recommend a look see. Real data from REAL writers.

 

[Green Lantern]

I got a G&A subscription from Stag Arms. Liked it okay, but not enough to renew it.

I do subscribe to Gun Tests and American Handgunner. The former is more of a "Consumer Reports" than a gun mag, but I enjoy both of them a lot.

I quit reading them 15 years ago. I hate them for what they don't say as much as for what they do.

Sounds like you need to check out American Handgunner. They get crap from the left on a regular basis about how "extreme" they can be for wanting to *gasp* defend gun rights.

I stopped reading them several years ago when two writers in two different stories complained about their "old eyes" and how hard it was to see the sights. What, aren't there some young guys who can write about guns?

I can see if it's an every-article thing, but my eyes are younger than many, and if uncorrected? They SUCK. Bad.

The Ayoob and John Connor pieces are worth the cost of the magazines.

+1. I also enjoy stuff from John Taffin, and yes, Duke.

 

[Drail]

About all you can say about them is that some of them have very nice photography. Other than that they are simply marketing tools for the industry. I stopped "reading" them around 1990.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

^ I'm with Drail. If nothing else, its good gun porn when on the crapper.

I do enjoy Handloader magazine, but the rest, I'm just in it for the pics.

 

[BSA1]

I quit reading Shooting Times, Guns and Ammo, Guns and all the other mags years ago after I realized that Gun magazines publication costs are paid for by advertisers. If they upset the advertisers with critical / bad reviews of their guns / products they will pull their advertising from that company.

The only two magazines I read regularly are American Handgunner and Handloader. Of those two I find Handgunner to be the most factual as they can not fudge on reloading data and I think that honesty plays a role in their gun articles.

 

[LiveLife]

I think it's a reflection of the societal trends that's prevalent in other aspects of our lives.

I used to read Consumer Reports magazine and based some of my purchases on their reviews/ratings. Now, I often find myself reading reviews on amazon or other online review sites (gun forums for shooting related items) before I make my purchases. I feel I can get better, more truthful "first hand" experience reporting good or bad from hundreds of reviews instead of one "slanted" review.

Nowadays, I read less magazines and browse more online forums and view more youtube channels as there are aspects of shooting that traditional print media cannot express.


Shooters like Jerry Miculek is better represented in live action videos than any still photos/article in a magazine -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChSazF41q-s

The Ayoob and John Connor pieces are worth the cost of the magazines.

I follow Ayoob's articles in an online magazine - http://www.backwoodshome.com/author_index.html

Writers like Massad Ayoob can engage in 2-way discussions with their audience on various topics in real time and you can't do that in a magazine article (you would have to wait for the editorials/reader feedback in the following month issue and that is IF they will print your comments) - http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=256


Online articles like "The Rifleman's Journal" provides valuable shooting/reloading information at your finger tips instead of having boxes of magazines - http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/p/articles-index.html

If nothing else, its good gun porn when on the crapper.

Online e-books/pdfs like one by Glen Fryxell provides comprehensive information that can be readily viewed on a tablet instead of bookshelf full of books (and yes, you will catch me sitting on the toilet viewing shooting related forums/pdfs on my tablet ) - http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell_Book_Contents.htm

Decline of gun magazine content/writing may be a simple reflection of the trend away from print media to online/social media. As many posted, if the revenue from print media advertising is decreasing, the quality/objectivity of writers they can attract may be decreasing too.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by BSA1: I quit reading Shooting Times, Guns and Ammo, Guns and all the other mags years ago after I realized that Gun magazines publication costs are paid for by advertisers. If they upset the advertisers with critical / bad reviews of their guns / products they will pull their advertising from that company.

That is true of virtually all magazines and newspapers and all network television programming.

And it has been for a very long time. One's choice was always to read magazines and newspapers or to not read them.

It is the decline in advertising revenues that has led to the decline of print media.

Consider the demise of Colliers, Look Magazine, Life Magazine, Newsweek, The Saturday Evening Post, and US News and World Report, just to name a few.

 

[Mainsail]

I quit reading Shooting Times, Guns and Ammo, Guns and all the other mags years ago after I realized that Gun magazines publication costs are paid for by advertisers. If they upset the advertisers with critical / bad reviews of their guns / products they will pull their advertising from that company.

It’s true of those local news stations and their “investigators” as well. Your local news may have a team of investigative reporters (one of ours is called The Problem Solvers) that will supposedly investigate local businesses that rip off consumers. Try calling them about one of their advertisers and you’ll never get a response, no matter how great the injustice or how much proof you have that they ripped you off.

 

[skoro]

I lost interest in the gun mags a few years back. Oh, on a rare occasion I'll still buy one from the newsrack if it has something of particular interest. But that's probably less than once/year lately.

The so-called reviews seem to follow an irritating (to me) formula: LOTS of uninteresting background filler on the manufacturer and/or caliber. Minute details of the manufacturing process. Overly detailed explanation on the mechanism's functions. Comments on accuracy and reliability. The inevitable "buy" recommendation.

That, coupled with at least 50% of the magazine's interior space devoted to ads, has left me very apathetic towards them.

Of course, maybe it's just me...

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I like Rifle and Handloader, but they've gone downhill since they dropped Ross Seifried.

 

[Warp]

I haven't found a gun magazine that is worth taking the time to read.

I thought I had one in S.W.A.T....but no, it went full on silliness and some of the articles just make me facepalm, so back to square one.

 

[Jaywalker]

dogrunner: One that I'd really like to see regain it's legitimacy is the American Rifleman.........for those that haven't had the opportunity to see some of the stuff from the 30's thru the mid 50's I'd strongly recommend a look see. Real data from REAL writers.

+1 on that! I kept my AR from the 1970s; while not done by name writers, the staff who wrote the articles had things to say. All they say in it now is that "the liberals are coming for you." I miss articles like Settled Land Varmint Hunting," that didn't try to sell me a particular manufacturer, but rather sell me on the concept of shooting 22 Mag and 22 Hornet among farms so as not to alarm the populace.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It is on the rise actually. Especially among women.

That is great news. Just keep them out of Arizona zones 2B, 20A, and 31

Mike

 

[SleazyRider]

It is on the rise actually. Especially among women.

I'm curious, Sam, does that number take into account population growth? Last time I checked the population clock ( http://www.census.gov/popclock/ ) it was at 318 million, so I'm wondering if that figure is simply a numerical increase, or an increase based on the percentage of our current population. I, too, was under the impression that hunting was experiencing a slight decline.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I really miss Cooper's Corner. Then again I miss the Popular Mechanics Tool Girl centerfold in the von Braun days . . .

 

[rdhood]

The problem exists with most print magazines... in general. Pick up any "hobby" or "sport" magazine, and here are the multitudes of problems:

1) the magazine has to be geared towards newbies as well as experienced. For the experienced practitioner of said hobby/sport, that newbie stuff is just wasted space. For the newbie, its interesting. But:

2) the magazine rehashes articles about once a year. You notice this if you keep a multi year subscription. All the newbie articles get rehashed over and over again.

3) magazines are not beholden to subscribers. They are beholden to advertisers. Product review reflect that bias. Virtually nothing bad is ever said against a new product. Unless it is really a recall-worthy flaw, you won't hear about the drawbacks, shortcomings or failings of a product.

4) magazines are "put to bed" months before they come out. Thus, they are (most of the time) old news.

1, 2, 3 and 4 means that neither the experienced nor the newbie will be satisfied with the mag after about 6 months. Almost nothing truly interesting happens in print anymore.

When I used to read magazines, I would get a subscription for a year out of every 4 or 5 years. Now, I don't bother. If I want a review of a product, I can go online and get plenty of hands-on reviews by folks (you and me) who are NOT beholden to advertisers. These reviews pull no punches.

 

[taliv]

guys, some perspective...

for you old timers who remember the good ol days, ask your self one simple question. as a kid, how much time did you spend reading the friggin sears catalog?

compare that to how much time you spend today looking at catalogs. heck, the last catalogs i read regularly were from victoria's secret catalogue in the late 1990s and that's because i worked there. (ok maybe that wasn't the only reason)

why would i wait a month to get info from ONE GUY when i can get it from everyone anytime i want it?

saying gun rags are crap today is like saying buggy whips don't work as well as mashing the accelerator

 

[Doc7]

I still enjoy magazines (field and stream, American rifleman, first freedom) because I don't spend a lot of
Time just sitting and reading about these hobbies without going ADHD all over the internet, and having a magazine and a cup of coffee is a great way to spend a quiet morning or evening.

 

[RustyShackelford]

The US gun press

I read a few major gun press magazines as a teen in the 1980s. I found most of the writing & content droll. The writers were mostly hunters or cops so they were not PhDs in Lit, .
A few articles in the 1990s, tended to sour me on the gun mags.
By the 2000s, as a adult, veteran & gun owner, I rarely purchased or picked up a printed magazine. A few times Id buy it if it had useful material or websites/company details I needed to save.
I did see a few times gun press articles would repeat or have slightly different captions/titles.
I also saw many police & gun magazines with the same dull stock photos.
One issue of Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement about the new versions of the Glock 34/35 pistols showed 2 patrol officers from AL holding HK P2000s.
A few writers/instructors like Massad Ayoob, Edwin Sanow & Leroy Thompson stood out but many were not worth buying a printed magazine.
Rusty

 

[PT92]

I guess I am getting older as I too think "it was so much better" back in the day so to speak relative to much including gun mags. That said, we have more access to an almost insurmountable/voluminous amount of data via the internet that looking back it's surprising we weren't "illiterate" ...I still do read Gun Tests and take it for what it is, namely, another opinion--honestly, the main reason I like Gun Tests magazine is due to the omission of solicitations (I have grown to abhor unsolicited advertising be it via TV, Mags, Radio etc...).

 

[PointOneSeven]

I'd rather read opinions from professionals than random people on the internet. I don't always agree with their conclusions, and the link to advertising is so strong that you won't find a bad review, but they handle more guns than I could ever play with on my own. I pick up any articles that look interesting.

That all being said, I still spend a lot of time here too .

 

[itsa pain]

Stop and think for a moment.

The print media once played a major role in our society. We got our daily news from major newspapers, and many cities had two of them; there were almost half a dozen weekly news magazines; there were magazines for homemakers, hunters, fisherman, model airplane enthusiasts, shooters, amateur photographers, amateur builders, auto enthusiasts, and on and on.

There was a lot of demand for the print media, and to meet that demand there was a large, varied industry, that industry was funded in large part by advertising, and that industry provided livelihoods for a large number of reporters and writers.

All of the great writers of old are dead and gone, and only a very few of them have been replaced by people from a new generation. Why? The industry is a thing of the past. Why? The demand is gone. Why? New technology has largely replaced the printing press.

Are there writers as great as Jack O'Connor? Maybe, maybe not, but if there are, does anyone think for a moment that their employers would have a business reason to fund hunts with the leaders of foreign governments, as one remembers with Jack?

No, of course not.

Want to know what's going on today? Well, if Newsweek and Life Magazine were still printed, you wouldn't wait for them, would you?

Want to know about the latest about auto pistols, or automobiles? You can find out before the coffee has finished brewing, and by the way, you can brew coffee more quickly today, too.

The world has changed. There is no way for dozens of magazine authors, the thousands of newspaper reporters, and the hundreds of photojournalists to make a living in those professions today.

There were quite a few gun magazines, and there were even more "outdoor" magazines, each with its own gun editor. Now there are very few indeed.

I saw an ad for a new auto pistol in a recent and very thin edition of The American Rifleman. That's all there was on it --one small ad. But it caught my interest, and I was able to find out all I wanted to know very quickly without waiting for a magazine article about it.

Welcome to the new world. It is a world largely without major newspapers, with few magazines, and therefore, without many well known writers. If you haven't noticed, it is also a world without service station road maps.

Things have changed.

Things have changed but the type of men have really changed . Most media are sellouts to the highest bidder as our leaders pastors generals etc. The media played a big role getting us into Iraq so don't count them out. Ross Seyfried was the best writer I ever read. A wimpy girly boy like david Fortier gets me sick

 

[Red Wind]

I'm still loyal to Guns Magazine.John Taffin,Duke Venturino,Holt Bodinson, John Barsness,Dave Anderson, Massad Ayoob, and John Connor are still informative and entertaining.

But since 2000, Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, RifleShooter and American Handgunner have all gone by the wayside. At one point I had over 1500 gun mags in my closet!

Sold them all off at yard sales and exchanged at old mag shops. It can become a pack rat thing. It did with me. I'm cured now,I believe.

Gotta just take one day at a time.

Also still get American Hunter through my NRA Lifetime membership. It has improved immensely in recent years as has my sons NRA, American Rifleman.

 

[Sam Cade]

I'm curious, Sam, does that number take into account population growth?

It is an increase in percentage of population.


Re: Population.

The fertility rate in the US is 1.89. Just over 2 is required for a stable population. It is roughly half of what it was 50 years ago.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_09.pdf


Like other industrialized nations, without immigration our population would be decreasing rapidly.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility