View Full Version : "Gun Rags"
There have been a few threads here and there over the years, and in the interests of some of the other threads we have trying to consolidate things, I thought I'd see if we can start one on this topic.
What magazines do you like? Which ones don't you like? Why?
Do you read at the store, buy occasionally, or subscribe?
What would you like to see more/less of in the articles?
If you could ask a gunwriter a question, or make a suggestion, what would it be?
Full disclosure, I have written articles for several print publications over the last two years or so.
I haven't bought or even picked up a gun magazine in over 20 years. And I wouldn't even have to buy them...they're sitting around the various waiting rooms where I work, as well as at my barber.
I have always been suspicious of the effect of the relationship of advertising to the general objectivity of articles found in all such hobbyist/technical magazines (not just gun rags).
tracker722
01-26-11, 11:56
***************************
I have a subscription to G&A and American Rifleman(from NRA membership), neither of which I really care for. I think I'll let the G&A lapse.
The only ones that ever catch my attention for more than just looking at the pretty pictures are the Surefire presents magazine & SWAT. Both have some good articles from my experience.
ETA: BTW Rob, I enjoyed the story on why gas pistons suck.
I currently subscribe to Guns & Ammo. It's alright, but it shares the same problem all gun magazines I'm familiar with do: they seem to exist solely to stroke the egos of gun and gear manufacturers. I've yet to read a negative review of anything in a gun magazine. I think this is partly the culture of gun magazines and partly that it seems most reviewers shoot just a few boxes of ammo and consider their job done. Basically, I've been completely spoiled by one computer magazine that I have read since it came out--Maximum PC. "Minimum BS" isn't just another slogan; they slam products that deserve it, point out flaws, and generally do an honest job. They even still have advertisers! I've seen them slam a product in the same issue that the product was being advertised. Why can't this happen with some gun magazines?
My ideal gun magazine would be primarily about black guns and new gun designs, would only review a few products in each issue but would review them in depth. How about we start with 1000 rounds minimum with any semi-automatic gun, and a detailed report about failures? I don't want 3 paragraphs about how "accurate" a Ruger LCP is, I want to know if it goes bang every time you pull the trigger.
I think that answered all the questions in your OP, rob_s. Sorry if it came out a little rambling!
Oh, and I'm sure there are magazines like this out there, but I live in a small town and there aren't any places where I can buy more than the common magazines to check them out. Any suggestions? :)
I never buy gun magazines anymore. I read the AR because it comes with the membership. The one I liked the most was American Handgunner. The one I liked least was CH/GWLE or whatever else that company publishes. I got sick of the "2" 50ft ACCURATE TACK DRIVING WARHAMMER WITH 50 ACCESSORIES HANGING OFF IT!!!" headlines screaming at me as I got near the rack. I feel most gun rags lack credibility in their aderti-articles.
I miss the days of Coper, Keith, Jordan, Skelton, etc. :(
After going out and spending $8 on the recommended Special Weapons... that had the SR15 write up in it... I AM DONE with the rags.
I find them to be nothing but pics and BS write ups anymore and not worth the money or time to read them... They are good for when I am on the can dropping the kids of at the pool but other than that I can do with out.
If I need to research I can do so on my own or within my network of friends who I trust... If I really want pics I can come here, as the AR pic thread has turned into the same type of pics seen in the rags...
I do like to follow your articles to see if you are selling your soul to the devil :haha: :D Keep us posted when they are hitting so I dont miss any.
.
I get American Rifleman and subscribe to SWAT.
I think AR has become almost as bad as the other mags. Especially last month when the entire cover was an ad for some "buy gold scheme"...pitiful. AR has kind of become the "everyone gets a trophy" mentality.
I thought SWAT would be different from the other gun mags, except for a few articles the past year, it hasn't really given me the impression that it is different.
Every now and then, SWAT will have a good article but most of the articles are like G&A, ST, etc., just in a different "lingo".
I'll try SWAT another year to see if they are just in a slump.
You know if I put an internet connection and a fold down laptop next to the crapper...I wouldn't look at any magazines...hmmm... :)
But maybe it's just me...
.
Magazines haven't been worth my time in a long while. All the gun mags are biased as hell, with some good individual writers of course, it is just painstaking sifting through tons of BS for a modecum of good reality based info I can actually apply to my shooting/weapons/decisions.
I usually will read individual articles I hear about being good write ups of weapon systems and the like.
I truly would like a no BS mag with no BS writers that tell it like it is, if the product sucks, say that it is a piece of shit and why, how it was tested and its exact deficiencies as realted to exact reasons/parts/manufacturing process/etc. A real gun test magazine where guns are literally shot to death and then reported on exactly what happened throughout the life of the rifle. I'm not holding my breathe though...
Too much fluff for me to buy them anymore. I've got much better things to read.
Edited to say:
I used to get G&A, SWAT, and one other I forget the name of; perhaps American Rifleman? Not 100% sure. SWAT being far superior to G&A, but not enough to keep me coming back for more.
Is a "Tactical Yellow Visor Magazine" in the works Rob_s?
GermanSynergy
01-26-11, 12:55
I subscribe to SAR and get American Rifleman (NRA member), but that's it. I generally flip thru the A/R mag, and donate those to guys serving overseas.
Other gun rags seem to be focused on extolling the virtues of platforms such as Taurus, the XD and DPMS rifles. :rolleyes:
.
I get American Rifleman and subscribe to SWAT.
I think AR has become almost as bad as the other mags. Especially last month when the entire cover was an ad for some "buy gold scheme"...pitiful. AR has kind of become the "everyone gets a trophy" mentality.
I thought SWAT would be different from the other gun mags, except for a few articles the past year, it hasn't really given me the impression that it is different.
Every now and then, SWAT will have a good article but most of the articles are like G&A, ST, etc., just in a different "lingo".
I'll try SWAT another year to see if they are just in a slump.
You know if I put an internet connection and a fold down laptop next to the crapper...I wouldn't look at any magazines...hmmm... :)
But maybe it's just me...
.
I think that's because AR is a "free" magazine for most NRA members. Truthful, unbiased reviews will always end up putting some product or manufacturer in a negative light... and end up offending the owners of those products. When your funding is coming not only from those manufacturers, but from the people who buy their products, it doesn't make sense to alienate them. Not that it's the right thing to do, but that's my .02.
I've got an AR subscription as well. I usually sit down at my kitchen table and browse through it for about 10 minutes, skimming the articles just to get the highlights, then put it away in my magazine stack. For me, AR is good for staying informed about what's new and what's the latest topic, but that's it. If I want an actual review of the product, I'll use Google and critical thinking skills.
Every once in a while I pick up something when I'm at the grocery store with the wife.
The last one I picked up was Guns & Weapons For Law Enforcement. They had a few good articles sprinkled in with the countless ads, but it was mostly the same old "every gun we review is the best gun ever" stuff. The writers would pick on something here and there, but everything was great and would serve its intended purpose without a hitch.
What I found funny was that I got it home and there's two of Rob's articles in there, one on a BCM and one on a Spike's. The writing could have been better, but the worst part was the 5-shot groups for accuracy testing. I thought, What, less than 10 shots? Who said that was acceptable? I lost respect there, brother. :D
We need a Consumer Reports/M4C of guns. No ads, no bullshit, with unbiased reviews conducted with specific methodology. That way I can find out if the Governor is truly better than the Judge for an attack of multiple rabid inner-city zombie 'possums.
In my defense, I find the "shooting for groups" part of articles to be one of the most useless, and so I try to get through it as quickly as possible while still being as thorough as possible. Hence, several different types of ammo but shot at 50 and only 5 rounds per group. It's about all my ADD can handle. :D
In my defense, I find the "shooting for groups" part of articles to be one of the most useless, and so I try to get through it as quickly as possible while still being as thorough as possible. Hence, several different types of ammo but shot at 50 and only 5 rounds per group. It's about all my ADD can handle. :D
Yeah, I'm just ribbin' you on that—I understand that editors have specific things they like to see in articles they publish.
I just picked up the mag because it looked the best out of the few on the rack, and the fact that it had articles from someone whose opinion I respected was kind of surprising.
Precision Shooting & Varmint Hunter magazine were the only ones i ever paid for and that has been over a decade since i've gotten one mailed in. Heck, I may have some of them tucked away somewhere??
I get American Hunter cuz i'm a lifer...i have little use for most of them as my interests are pretty narrow & not gonna buy a mag to read one article.
5 year subscriber to S.W.A.T. - likely will not renew; was helpful when I was just starting up with training and classes; now I find very little valuable info. My favorite parts were Pat's articles on AR TTPs, even though most of them could be shrunk 50% by volume and convey same info, and Ned's articles; the rest had mostly entertainment value for me. I think their gear reviews are more objective, but they suffer from same limitations of "single reviewer - sample size of 1". I wish they expanded their writing staff - at this point there is a huge commonality of authors from issue to issue, i.e. you can guarantee to see an article by one of, or both, Hansens, Pat, Leroy Thompson (sometimes two of his), Reitz, other people I forget and Louis last-page opus in each and every issue. I understand the core writing staff principle, but when the area you're covering is not very dynamic - and it is not - variety of authors is an answer to stagnation, contextual and of writing styles.
AR through NRA - just an entertainment-type reading.
I have mostly liked SWAT magazine in the past, but lately the main articles have gotten more and more disappointing. I just read the article in the 1/11 issue about a cop carbine on a budget. The writer starts out with a Bushmaster rifle, then inexplicably adds an Ares piston system under a Surefire M73 rail to it. After that, he adds a Surefire M900 with an IR filter, a Laser Devices DBAL2, and a Trijicon ACOG that retails for over $1k. What "cop budget" is he on exactly?
theblackknight
01-26-11, 15:58
Tactical pens are ****ing stupid.
If I ever see someone in the mall with a flagcap, Eotac safari shirt under a fishing vest, cargo khakis with ever little pocket budging with various items in your "EDC gear" and a riggers belt, Ill prob tactically crack tactical jokes in in your tactical face.
"Nice Raven holster there DeltaForce".
Rob, the "Combat Tactics" with your chart article and SuperDave course wasnt too bad.
SAR subscription - Only one I still read, love the historical articles the most.
American Rifleman - NRA membership
That's pretty much it. If the Rifleman wasn't free, I wouldn't even bother with that one. Armed Citizen is really the only part I always read.
Used to buy Guns and Ammo (mostly for nostalgia having grown up with it) but last one I bought was over 5 years ago.
Having read gun rags since the mid 70s, there came a point where there really wasn't anything new and it became the same magazine month after month.
Kentucky Cop
01-26-11, 16:56
I think the consensus is in.
The Tactical Yellow Visor needs to start his own magazine that touches on all the subjects here at M4C.net. It would totally fly and RobS could monitor the content and writers. Surely with everyone on here, articles, evaluations and gear would not be hard to find.
Lets do this Rob!
KC
Cagemonkey
01-26-11, 17:43
I subscribe to Small Arms Review and American Rifleman. Also get Soldier Of Fortune. Its firearms reviews suck since Kokalis left.
I think the consensus is in.
The Tactical Yellow Visor needs to start his own magazine that touches on all the subjects here at M4C.net. It would totally fly and RobS could monitor the content and writers. Surely with everyone on here, articles, evaluations and gear would not be hard to find.
Lets do this Rob!
KC
We could have articles on:
Merits of Law Enforcement
Guns & Religion
Colt vs. HK
Unions
Do NFA Guns Make You Special
:D
.
"What would you like to see more/less of in the articles?"
I'd like to see:
- "a run to fail" section like some car magazines have. Where a gun, scope, mount, flashlight, etc. is used by different people and commented on, rounds counted, no cleaning, accuracy check every 1000 rnds or so, etc. But every gun would subjected to the same "shoot & don't clean", specific number of 30-round mag dumps, etc. This could be a section were this the info on the different gun is reported on monthly or whenever new info comes in?
- "Stress Tests" Such as: There are a lot of QD adapters being made for the MOE. Mount one and hang a 100-pounds off of it to see if it breaks and so on. See where different equipment gives out. Some kind of serious tests with flashlight mounts, scope mounts, handguards, folding sights, etc. instead of, "It has a nice finish and just feels like quality."
"If you could ask a gunwriter a question, or make a suggestion, what would it be?"
- What is an average price paid for an article?
- Have you ever had anything printed that when you read it in a magazine, you weren't "proud" of or thought was lame? What was it? ;)
Thanks.
.
MarshallDodge
01-26-11, 18:29
Like many here, I receive American Rifleman due to my NRA membership. While there are many things I dislike about the magazine, I do enjoy the articles on military firearms and learning about the latest stuff on the market.
Suwannee Tim
01-26-11, 19:07
Here's a question for the gun writers: After drinking Ruger booze, eating Winchester steaks and lobsters and shooting Remington tame pheasants, how can you bring yourself to criticize one of their guns?
I have been reading Small Arms Review since the days when it was Machine Gun News. For the most part there are good articles and I like all the historical stuff.
I also read SOF simply because I have been reading it since I was 14 years old.
Most other gun mags make me want to gag. It is either the same stuff over and over or nothing but an ad for the company.
Very rarely are any reviews negative or do they find fault with a certain product.
The most recent rant is the gay ass article in Gun World about suppressors. That guy should be run out of town and never allowed to write a gun article again.
I bought my first and last magazines in High School.
Honestly, I got tired of every gun's trigger breaking like a glass rod, or hearing about a prototype.
I got tired of 'ragged holes", and basically a 700-800 word sales pitch.
If I feel like someone is giving me genuine opinions, and it's quality info, I'll subscribe to them, or give them money.
I gave nutnfancy some money (I don't agree with him on everything, I don't, but, his knife reviews, flash light reviews, certain gun reviews, concepts, etc, it's good material, with a lot of honest effort and good revelations in the review. He's largely responsible for helping me find the AK that I wanted but just honestly didn't think existed, from a company I had the impression was priced out of the reasonable market, my Arsenal arrives Friday. I like the Spyderco knife, I watched the review he gave enough info, I bought without handling it, and have been satisfied. Cut the shit out of myself with it today to prove it too. :D).
I've given NFAtalk.org money because I liked the information they were putting out.
If I felt magazine reviewers were being honest and giving the kind of disclosure we wanted the majority of the time, I'd buy them, or sponsor them. But honestly, those magazines would go out of business quickly, or at least not a lot of people would pay for ad space.
I've always felt like you personally have put out good/great data that had those characteristics, I just honestly haven't taken the time to go out and buy a magazine that you have an article in.
I stopped reading gun rags long ago when every article started having things to the effect of, "must have for (insert type) defense." Even if the weapon had a MRBS of 50 rounds.
If a company ever put out a true Consumer Reports-style magazine I'd subscribe to it.
I have been reading Small Arms Review since the days when it was Machine Gun News. For the most part there are good articles and I like all the historical stuff.
I also read SOF simply because I have been reading it since I was 14 years old.
Most other gun mags make me want to gag. It is either the same stuff over and over or nothing but an ad for the company.
Very rarely are any reviews negative or do they find fault with a certain product.
The most recent rant is the gay ass article in Gun World about suppressors. That guy should be run out of town and never allowed to write a gun article again.
While you have been reading SAR a lot longer than I, you have otherwise voiced my experiences exactly.
I stopped reading SOF around 2001 simply because it wasn't the same SOF I grew up reading as a kid. But even still it is probably superior to the other "rags."
If there were still such a thing as a newsstand (they have gone the way of the video store for the most part) I'd probably still be reading SOF.
Damn, now I miss Newsstands. They used to have an awesome one at the Broward Mall, even made Malts and Egg Creams.
Followup questions.
Those of you that used to read them but don't anymore, do you think that something actually changed in the magazines, or did you simply get older/savvier/more experienced?
In general, do you believe online blogs/reviewers/websites to be better or worse than print? More honest or less honest? More "on the take" or less?
Since someone above asked what writers get paid, I'm curious to hear what the group thinks they are paid, and what kind of expenses they incur and how those costs are covered.
I think the advertising component of gun magazines, snowmobile magazines, motorcycle magazines, R/C airplane magazine, bicycle magazines etc all tended to follow the same arc....competition heated up, advertising became more intense, the magazines became more reliant on advertising dollars as their costs increased and they increasingly sold out to their advertisers. Over that same 35 year period, I got older, smarter, and less tolerant of the bullshit those mags pumped out. No offense meant. I've never read a magazine article that you've written.
I dig out my own information now, getting a consensus opinion from a variety of blogs, message boards, articles and websites across the internet. I don't trust any one source no matter who it is, or where he's written it.
No offense meant. I've never read a magazine article that you've written.
None taken. If you haven't read anything I've written you can't possibly be talking about me. :D
In all seriousness though, I started this thread and want to hear feedback. Even from people that have read my stuff and take issue with it.
- Have you ever had anything printed that when you read it in a magazine, you weren't "proud" of or thought was lame? What was it? ;)
I'm intentionally ignoring your other question for the moment.
I've never had an article printed where I was ashamed of the copy from an integrity standpoint. I've had some portions I'm not proud of from a grammatical standpoint but that's likely just me being picky.
I have had two instances where I was less than thrilled with the way the publisher handled things on their end, from photo captions to wording/placement on the cover.
Since someone above asked what writers get paid, I'm curious to hear what the group thinks they are paid, and what kind of expenses they incur and how those costs are covered.
What's the point of this question? I'm sure writers get paid a lot less than most people think. Most of the small time writers I know have full-time day jobs and write on the side. Expenses are usually unpaid. They aspire to staff writing jobs or syndicated columns. Of course, the writers I know aren't gun writers, so things will vary a tad.
I've only been reading gun mags since the early '90s, but I've not noticed a real difference in the reviewership. The mags then were the same as they are today, I just got older and owned more firearms, shot more, and as a result learned that a lot of what was/is written in gun mags about firearms is bull. For that matter, much of the reviews about various trainers/schools is junk too, but not quite as bad.
I'm not much of a blog reader so I can't comment on the quality/trustworthiness of blogs. I'm sure some are better than others. Mostly I read discussion boards and note range reports, problem threads, etc.
On a personal note, I find most of your contributions (at least the ones I've read) on this site valuable and reliable. The "chart" in particular. That alone is an achievement beyond what most gun writers will ever accomplish. But don't let any of that go to your head.:D
Over the years I read various mags and have had various subscriptions. One thing I've noticed is that mags have gone from being mostly article based to mostly AD based. As everyone has said 99% of the content in articles seem like sales pitches. The content of the articles are all basically the same. Very few negatives about an item show up in the articles. For the most part I pick the mags up off of the rack and scan through particular article instead of buying the mag itself and taking it home. One thing that is really pathetic is the covers of most of these mags. They have whatever weapon on the cover so tricked out that it starts to like some type of nerf gun toy. Stuff hanging here, stuff hanging there, stuff hanging off all over the weapon. There's so much stuff hangin all over the weapons you almost have no clue what the weapon itself even looks like.
I would love to see a gun mag that is published with the same mentality that M4C has. Straight forward, real world, no nonsense, drop the BS, information you can bet your life on content.
My biggest pet peeve about any magazine is all of the post card type subscription cards that are stuff all through out the magazine. You open the mag up and 50 of those things come falling out. They are a royal pain the the behind!!
What's the point of this question?
Because I want to know the answer?
I'm trying to build some idea of some metrics in my head, and having some idea what people think writers get paid, or should get paid, will be helpful to that end.
Also, someone above asked what they get paid and I was simply turning the question around to ask what people *think* they get paid.
Seems pretty straightforward.
I picked up my first SOF when I was 12 or 13 when they broke the story of the Soviet AGS-17 and smuggled out the first AK-74 from Afghanistan back in the early 80's.
I stopped reading when they changed formats and Kokalis left.
Over the years I read most of the gun magazines, getting more and more disgusted and disappointed as time went on.
New hope was found in Machine Gun News/Small Arms Review, but even they are running out of good articles. I stopped reading when articles about airsoft replicas started appearing.
I tend to follow authors rather than publications. To be honest, I don't really get anything out of articles on new firearms and equipment. I'm too jaded, too cynical. Even if the author did a good job and wrote honestly about his experiences, the editors are going to spin it so that it's the next best thing, and strategically place the ad for said piece very near the article.
Now, having said that, there are some authors who I really enjoy who write about historical firearms that I get a lot of knowledge from, who write excellent articles. Paul Scarlata is one of these guys. He is a RKI on pre-1950 firearms, and his articles are well done and informative.
Kokalis can write a great article, when he's not trying to sell you the latest crap from Century Arms that his bosses at Shotgun News tell him to pimp out. When he's writing about historical arms, he's spot on, the old SOF Kokalis is back. He wrote an excellent article in SGN about the Bergman MP-35 subgun that the Waffen SS used in WWII. He also pimps out Century Cetmes and sub par AK kit builds from Century.
Fortier is particularly bad about it.
I guess I'm just a grumpy, grouchy old guy now...
Rob, I did read your article explaining why a piston AR is not a good choice for most applications and thought it was well done.
Those of you that used to read them but don't anymore, do you think that something actually changed in the magazines, or did you simply get older/savvier/more experienced?
When it comes to most gun mags, I stopped reading because I've changed and become more knowledgable. I'll still read American Handgunner if I happen to be at B&N, but only for Ayoob's column that goes over a past shooting. I still enjoy SWAT for the columns, but I feel some of the articles have become lacking, examples like the one I cited earlier are becoming more prominent. The "zombie gun" article from a couple months ago would be another one.
I look at American Handgunner once in a while because it has lots of pretty pictures of 1911s.
I at least read a couple articles out of SWAT and Small Arms Review.
Followup questions.
Those of you that used to read them but don't anymore, do you think that something actually changed in the magazines, or did you simply get older/savvier/more experienced?
In general, do you believe online blogs/reviewers/websites to be better or worse than print? More honest or less honest? More "on the take" or less?
Since someone above asked what writers get paid, I'm curious to hear what the group thinks they are paid, and what kind of expenses they incur and how those costs are covered.
I will buy a magazine that appears to have an article that is interesting, but over the past year or so I have grown a good bit as a gun owner and shooter to the point that there is very little interesting any more. Anyone worth reading posts here (Templar, JW777, etc), so why not spend the money on beer.
I will say that as you post the articles that you are writing I have pursued them a little more, but I cant say I drove across town for them.
I will also add that the interest in the stuff you write is most likely a product of this forum and others. If Templar had an article in a magazine and posted about it, I would make the same effort to obtain it to read.
I also think the interest I have taken in some stuff you are doing now should be obvious anyway.
Now one thing I have noticed, and it is based on a limited window of time, is that it seemed like a few magazines "got it" and had a few decent articles on a few good guns and they were very fair and objective. That well dried up fast, so now it is just a repeat over and over, showing the groups of a DPMS bench rested with XM193.
Because I want to know the answer?
I'm trying to build some idea of some metrics in my head, and having some idea what people think writers get paid, or should get paid, will be helpful to that end.
Also, someone above asked what they get paid and I was simply turning the question around to ask what people *think* they get paid.
Seems pretty straightforward.
I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark and say $400-800 per article for the average gun hack? If it's someone who has a lot of followers like Ayoob, maybe $800-1200?
Most gun writers are not full time journalists. The magazine editors are a different story.
New hope was found in Machine Gun News/Small Arms Review, but even they are running out of good articles. I stopped reading when articles about airsoft replicas started appearing.
They will also fawn over the newest offerings from Century Arms from time to time. I try not to get too upset when somebody is paying the bills and just read past it.
That said, they continue to offer excellent historical articles on genuine firearms. I especially enjoy historical articles about the community and folks like Bob Brennan, Arthur Miller and Curtis Earl. I just view the CAI stuff as the cost of being able to offer articles your average gun buyer can't appreciate.
I run into exactly the same problem with martial arts publications. Those that take an intelligent approach to legitimate content (especially anything from a historical context) have a lot of time paying the bills. This is because 90% of the "community" thinks MMA/UFC, TKD and Krav Maga are the be all end all of everything.
militarymoron
01-27-11, 14:11
i used to subscribe to SOF, machine gun news, then SAR, and i did one year of SWAT, but it's been years since i subscribed to a print magazine. for one, they've become more expensive; and the number of articles i'm interested in has declined to about 25%-30%.
i think that some of it has to do with seeing the same subject covered over again - you tend to see repeats over 25 years.
with the increase in the online community (blogs, forums etc), the information is more immediate, whereas with a printed mag there's usually a lag time of a few months. most manufacturers have some kind of presence on the forums (or people who have that info are represented on them), so that information is flowed out rather quickly nowadays.
i can't remember the last time i saw a new product debut in a printed mag that wasn't already covered somewhere online before that.
nowadays, i'll browse the mags if i'm at the bookstore and enjoy the photos, but i'll seldom pick one up.
rob,
Part of it is that I have grown older and wiser. The other is that the quality and content has changed. IIRC Kokalis used to actually state if something was a turd or not.
Since he started writing for SGN that has changed. I understand that a magazine needs sponsors for additional revenue, but if that impacts the impartiality of the reader to call something a POS then I am turned off.
In general, do you believe online blogs/reviewers/websites to be better or worse than print? More honest or less honest? More "on the take" or less?
I've found online reviews to be significantly more insidious than printed ones. With magazines, the writers are known entities to some extent, and we know they are being compensated for their work. With online reviews, the posters are usually anonymous and just seemingly happen to have acquired the latest and greatest gear. Even on this forum, there were quite a few posters that were always hawking the new stuff, and it wasn't until years later that I learned they were associated with a company.
i used to subscribe to SOF, machine gun news, then SAR, and i did one year of SWAT, but it's been years since i subscribed to a print magazine. for one, they've become more expensive; and the number of articles i'm interested in has declined to about 25%-30%.
i think that some of it has to do with seeing the same subject covered over again - you tend to see repeats over 25 years.
with the increase in the online community (blogs, forums etc), the information is more immediate, whereas with a printed mag there's usually a lag time of a few months. most manufacturers have some kind of presence on the forums (or people who have that info are represented on them), so that information is flowed out rather quickly nowadays.
i can't remember the last time i saw a new product debut in a printed mag that wasn't already covered somewhere online before that.
nowadays, i'll browse the mags if i'm at the bookstore and enjoy the photos, but i'll seldom pick one up.
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101210010514/ghostbusters/images/thumb/3/36/Spengler_01.jpg/225px-Spengler_01.jpg
PRINT IS DEAD.
I haven't subscribed to, or bought a gun rag in years. I see no need to with all of the information available on the net.
Belmont31R
01-27-11, 20:20
I buy SWAT for Pat Rogers articles, Enemy at the Gates, and the occasional other article. Usually I don't read half of whats in there.
I buy SAR if someone happens to mention there is an article I'd be interested. Usually only 2-3 times a year.
I also buy Combat and Survival which is a UK magazine. They cover a lot of military equipment and gear. I usually read almost everything in there. They don't really do the whole civie gun thing. They've had some good articles in the last year Ive been reading it.
Most gun/hunting/shooting magazines are just advertisements you have to pay for and spend 10 minutes reading.
As far what as what writers should get paid I have no idea but I figure $40/hr X however many hours it takes to make the article. If thats 5-10/hrs of range time and 10/hrs of writing/editing then 600-1k per article seems about right. More or less depending on the writer's popularity and how much circulation the magazine gets. I wouldn't expect to get paid the same from magazine company X who sells 10k copies vs. company Y who sells 80k a month.
The_War_Wagon
01-28-11, 15:15
algore's interweb sorta screwed gun mags - why read the best reviews advertising can buy, when I can come to M4C, and doublecheck THE CHART for free? :D
I have a few HUNDRED mags from the late 80's/early 90's in file cabinets in my basement. G&A, A-R, Weapon Test, SOF, American Survival, Handgunner, et.al. Some are probably OUT of business by now. And some DID have honest reviews - I remember G&A calling the Colt Double Eagle a, "Double Turkey." And they REALLY panned the All-American 2000 when it came out. But then American Survival gave GLOWING reviews to Hesse Arms FAL clones :bad: - that was about as BAD as it got.
I think if a mag were to visit various courses & trainers - handgun & carbine - and interview staff and participants, that would be kinda cool. Yeah, we have those reviews HERE too, but it WOULD open it up to MORE folk, and perhaps pique their interest to seek training as well.
And if ANYONE can write in the style of Col. Cooper, on as many topics, DEFINITELY get them on-board as well. G&A had Cooper's Corner, and Field & Stream had Ed Zern's Exit Laughing. Ya' GOTTA keep a sense of humor, too.
Submariner
01-29-11, 18:40
I buy SWAT for Pat Rogers articles, Enemy at the Gates, and the occasional other article. Usually I don't read half of whats in there.
Since Pat probably won't write a book anytime soon, collecting his SWAT articles is good refresher training for my crew before hitting his class each year. (Louis Awerbuck periodically collects his end-of-SWAT articles in a book.)
Denny takes heat from statists for Enemy at the Gates. He has more vision than they.
Added. When writing it is good to tell the whole story in the 8 to 10 pictures. For many, it is read as a comic book would be read: pictures and captions.
PRINT IS DEAD.
Could be why SWAT is now on TV.
Used to subscribe to Gun Tests, which is a kind of Consumer Reports for guns (no advertising, bought products off the shelf, etc.). It was ok for the Fudd stuff, but it became apparent that they had not a clue about EBRs. Maybe things have changed, but that's how it appeared to be ~6yrs ago when I let my subscription lapse.
IMO, about the best of the mainstream rags is GUNS. They seem to have attracted the better talent out there (Ayoob, Zediker, Clint Smith, Venturino, Taffin, etc.), even have their version of Cooper in John Connor's Odd Angry Shot column. Though if they do one more review of an XD, I might give up on them.
What magazines do you like?
None.
If you could ask a gunwriter a question, or make a suggestion, what would it be?
Tell the truth. I am sick of all the BS crap in articles, like that article that claimed the Hi Point .45 was qood quality and reliable. Jeeeeez.
I only get American Rifleman because of my NRA membership. The only time I read it is when I take a dump.
I also get the GCA Journal because I have to keep up with collector issues, although this is not really a magazine, but a journal.
I got rid of all my other magazine, catalog, and newspaper subscriptions. All they do is clutter my house and take up room in my garbage can.
Thanks for all of the replies guys.
To some extent I knew going into this that I was asking questions of an obviously biased audience. If I had a way of polling those that dislike the forums and the drama that comes with them I might get a different response. Also somewhat interesting that a recent article about a local vendor got him contacts and business from a whole new market segment as all of his marketing had previously been online.
Let me shift things a bit, given the audience.
Are you willing to pay for online content? Do you find an online site that exists thanks to advertising dollars any different than a print magazine that does the same? I'm not talking about forums like this one that obviously get paid sponsorships from advertisers/vendors but review sites that have one reviewer, or a limited group of reviewers.
I wish i would have saved all those American survival guide magazines
Are you willing to pay for online content? Do you find an online site that exists thanks to advertising dollars any different than a print magazine that does the same? I'm not talking about forums like this one that obviously get paid sponsorships from advertisers/vendors but review sites that have one reviewer, or a limited group of reviewers.
Probably not. One has an option to browse gun mags for free a the store, and there are plenty of opinions on things and gear on line that are free - albeit disjointed and biased but nonetheless...There are websites that review gear very well AND for free, like mm's. To pay for online content, such content has to be qualitatively better than what's available freely, and quantitatively sufficient to justify subscription.
.
I'd pay a small fee for a good online magazine that did good reviews. Really good reviews, like testing to failure (or destruction).
I have a buddy that years ago started a local sports magazine that became really popular and eventually covered most of the state. He told me the entire cost of publishing the mag, paying authors, paying workers, etc. came from advertising. The subscription fees were just extra on top, mainly to cover postage, profit to the vendors selling the mag, etc. He told me they really could make money giving the mags away for free if people would come to their office and pick them up.
A paper magazine's main income is from advertisers but it is a Catch-22. Advertisers pay more when you have more circulation and you can only have more circulation if you get the mag in front of people.
An internet mag only has a fraction of the cost of a paper magazine, so it should be really cheap - like $5-$10 a year. Plus I would like to always have access to the information that came out when I had a subscription. Meaning if I had a subscription for all of 2010 and in April 2010 there was an article about scope reviews, I'd like to be able to retrieve that April '10 issue in 2012, even if I didn't currently have a subscription. That would be a replace having to keep a stack of magazines.
But this is just me thinking out loud...
.
I'd pay a small fee for a good online magazine that did good reviews. Really good reviews, like testing to failure (or destruction).
An internet mag only has a fraction of the cost of a paper magazine, so it should be really cheap - like $5-$10 a year. Plus I would like to always have access to the information that came out when I had a subscription. Meaning if I had a subscription for all of 2010 and in April 2010 there was an article about scope reviews, I'd like to be able to retrieve that April '10 issue in 2012, even if I didn't currently have a subscription. That would be a replace having to keep a stack of magazines.
I think these two portions of your post are where the crux of the matter lies to some degree.
Many people in this thread have commented that the biggest thing they want to see out of the gun is more use. The issue here is, in part, the cost of that testing. Speaking strictly from my own experience, I prefer to run T&E guns in structured courses because it's something other than standing at the bench dumping rounds downrange, and for whatever reason actual use causes malfunctions that you'd never see at the bench. So my out of pocket cost is pretty high between tuition for the course, travel expenses, and ammo to conduct the test. Figure $600 + $200 + (as much as) $500 and you're at $1,300 in out of pocket costs. And that's not even testing to failure, that's just testing in a more dynamic environment. Then some people want the guns bought off the shelf and not supplied by the manufacturer, and you can easily wind up with a per-article total cost of over $3,000. That is ~6x what some have (pretty accurately) theorized that the author is making on the article.
There may be a business model by which the kind of testing that the posters here would like to see can sustain itself. I think Pat Rogers is onto a genius way of doing it by having his students effectively pay him to T&E the guns and pay for their own ammo in the process.
The_War_Wagon
02-02-11, 12:06
I wish i would have saved all those American survival guide magazines
You wanna buy some? Or swap Magpul gear for 'em? :D
I will admit it, I read "American Handgunner" and "GUNS" regularly. Because they send them to me at no cost. (I would never pay for most gun magazines on subscription but have subscribed to SAR a few times and occasionally would buy a copy of something on the newstand if it had something I wanted to read). But I enjoy them (being AHG and GUNS). I take all reviews with a grain of salt, but I have been clued into a few new products based on the fact that the reviews existed. I also like to read the Ayoob dissections of real shoots or historical shoots. Most of the articles are interesting but read with BIG grains of salt. They are good bathroom mags...
SAR is worth reading due to what SteyrAUG said about historical articles on real firearms most of us have never heard about. And the occasional article on the history of something like the minigun, or M16, or whatever.
I don't read most mags to get good objective reviews. I read them for entertainment, and in the case of SAR, history.
SWAT has been interesting the times I got free copies at SHOT and read them through.
Thanks for all of the replies guys.
Are you willing to pay for online content? Do you find an online site that exists thanks to advertising dollars any different than a print magazine that does the same? I'm not talking about forums like this one that obviously get paid sponsorships from advertisers/vendors but review sites that have one reviewer, or a limited group of reviewers.
Never.
First of all I don't want any more time parked at the computer than I have to. I don't want to read articles or books. I don't watch movies on my computer.
When it comes to learning about small arms I'm pretty set with a reference library far more comprehensive and error free than anything found on the net or in a gun rag.
If I have a question, I can go to a forum such as this one and get an answer or look it up elsewhere. Also on a forum such as this one you can get answers from several knowledgeable people rather than a single persons bias.
I think these two portions of your post are where the crux of the matter lies to some degree.
Many people in this thread have commented that the biggest thing they want to see out of the gun is more use. The issue here is, in part, the cost of that testing. Speaking strictly from my own experience, I prefer to run T&E guns in structured courses because it's something other than standing at the bench dumping rounds downrange, and for whatever reason actual use causes malfunctions that you'd never see at the bench. So my out of pocket cost is pretty high between tuition for the course, travel expenses, and ammo to conduct the test. Figure $600 + $200 + (as much as) $500 and you're at $1,300 in out of pocket costs. And that's not even testing to failure, that's just testing in a more dynamic environment. Then some people want the guns bought off the shelf and not supplied by the manufacturer, and you can easily wind up with a per-article total cost of over $3,000. That is ~6x what some have (pretty accurately) theorized that the author is making on the article.
There may be a business model by which the kind of testing that the posters here would like to see can sustain itself. I think Pat Rogers is onto a genius way of doing it by having his students effectively pay him to T&E the guns and pay for their own ammo in the process.
I think it is a good idea that nobody will be willing to pay for. And that is why nobody else is already doing it. People had the same idea 30 years ago when I was shooting. Nobody could get funding for it then either.
Somebody has the pay the costs, and if you do completely honest reviews it won't be manufacturers and advertisers.The writers and staff aren't gonna pay out of pocket. And the consumer sure isn't gonna pay for it. The average gun buyer is simply too content to form his opinion based upon a Youtube video of Gun A vs. Gun B in a 100 round rapid fire "torture test."
The rest of us look at things like military tests and evaluations and similar source material for performance.
I have a smart phone and a laptop. If I want to read about guns while sitting in the doctors office or while sitting on toilet, I'll read the internet.
Gun rags are just pretty pictures, hot air and sunshine. Why should I pay to get advertised at?
....Then some people want the guns bought off the shelf and not supplied by the manufacturer, and you can easily wind up with a per-article total cost of over $3,000. ...
==================================
Rob,
Like you say, good "testing" is expensive, so it will have to be some well-financed business to figure out a way to make a profit with that information. It just makes sense that it would be some type of internet magazine. Plus there are a lot of things to be tested that are a lot cheaper than guns.
The ideal internet magazine would be one that did have advertising (to help reduce subscription costs and finance testing) but would still have honest hardcore reporting of the testing even at the dismay of who advertises in their magazine.
Probably unrealistic but... since an internet mag would not have the same publishing costs as a paper mag, it would be nice to see one come about that had a $10 annual subscription costs but had good articles, serious testing, reference material, catalogs, etc.
I'm sure companies like Troy, Larue, Aimpoint, DD, BCM, SureFire, ADM, Triji, Noveske, etc. could handle the honest criticism of a review, so they would remain loyal advertisers. I'd think companies like BM, Mako, SIG, Burris, Bushnell, CAA, etc. would stay away (or not hang around too long) but that is where the subscription price would come into play to make up the difference for a reasonable profit.
Part of the problem is a paper magazine business model is applied to the design of an internet magazine, which kills the value to the consumer but is used because it maximizes profits to the magazine owners. I've seen offers where a magazine wanted as much money for an internet subscription as a paper one??
I think the only way this type of magazine could come about would be from an existing Forum. There are a few Forums with integrity still around, so you would think it would be a natural profitable expansion?? Imagination and money (duh) are probably the biggest limiting factors.
Again, just thinking out loud... :)
.
I can't stand a certain writer and you'll know who I am referring to. I swear, it's like his articles are a pre-written format where he just enters in POF or M1A and changes "brass flies as rounds go down range" or "Florence AL SWAT member puts blah-blah through its paces..." Every single one starts out telling how the M4 sucks in the "sandbox" In a recent review of his in SWAT magazine of the 50 beuwolf it shows him in a picture firing the 50, but a very clear, detailed 5.56mm case is coming out of the ejection port, like it was photochopped in to make it look like "The Author" was shooting. What a joke, not to mention how many different times can you put the same info about the DBAL and PVS-22 in a magazine? Pat Rogers is the SOLE reason I read SWAT, and I have noticed a marked decrease in article quality in SWATs other writers here lately. (Not you Rob).
I asked Denny about putting my SCAR vs AR write up in the magazine back in September. Not to toot my own horn, but it is one of the more straight up data based reviews of any gun I've seen in a while. I worked hard to make it that way. His reply was he was overloaded with SCAR articles already. OK, whatever.
I completely understand where you are going Rob; as for me doing that SCAR review I bought the rifle at normal cost, bought the ammo, the range membership... The test equipment I used runs in the 10's of thousands of dollars. Would I do it again? You bet because it was fun. Would it be nice to re-coup some of that cost? Hell Yea it would, but by me having no ties to any mfg; it really is a un-biased write up. I started out curious about the SCAR, now I'm sold.
Unless you find a niche like what John has done with silencertest, it's going to be hard to make much return on the info/reviews. Even if you do charge guys for the info, all it takes is 1 person posting that info in a forum and then why would any pay to read it then? I hope you find a way to make it work for you, as I appreciate what you have done for us in the past, but without a niche, it'll be difficult. I will say this, whatever you do, I will gladly contribute.
Best of Luck
Thanks for all of the replies guys.
To some extent I knew going into this that I was asking questions of an obviously biased audience. If I had a way of polling those that dislike the forums and the drama that comes with them I might get a different response. Also somewhat interesting that a recent article about a local vendor got him contacts and business from a whole new market segment as all of his marketing had previously been online.
Let me shift things a bit, given the audience.
Are you willing to pay for online content? Do you find an online site that exists thanks to advertising dollars any different than a print magazine that does the same? I'm not talking about forums like this one that obviously get paid sponsorships from advertisers/vendors but review sites that have one reviewer, or a limited group of reviewers.
I have and I will continue to do so.
NFATalk.org
nutnfancy (I've got... three items I can think off of the top of my head by following some of his buying guidance).
Those are places I've given money, that I didn't get any kind of elevated status (and honestly, don't want one, I don't want a bigger PM box, I don't want to be able to gripe to site staff and someone get banned or have any kind of "pull" I just realize, either, they've got $10k in sound metering equipment, and thousands of dollars in MG's, suppressors, web expenses, travel expenses, ammunition, money lost from taking time off work) I value their opinions, and I feel they're honest.
Educated and honest, that's the two things I'd like out of a review. (Educated on the material they're reviewing/opining)
Honestly, over the years, you've answered enough of my questions via P.M., I'd give you money, flat out. No Strings attached.
ETA: I edited to add some stuff in the parenthesis above
RogerinTPA
02-03-11, 21:14
I used to subscribe to several handgun mags in the past and read SOF in the 70's when I was a youngin. Now days, I find myself reading more factual blogs, articles, when I want to find real deal information like Kyle Defoor's blog, Paul Howe's news letters, and books by other professional trainers (SMG Kyle Lamb).
"Precision Shooting" is a good magazine. The content has become much more generalized over the years. By generalized I mean there's historical pieces, technical articles, new product reviews, and it just covers a broad range of interests. It is subscription only, and holds a fairly unique spot in the realm of magazines.
Readers should understand that magazines can not survive without advertising dollars, thus the "treading softly" around the advertiser's products. But you can write about something and ignore the competition. I generally don't write about things that fail to interest me.
I've done around forty free lance articles, mostly for Precision Shooting, Inc., and yeah, I think they're the best. Also, when I do a piece, I am presenting my opinions along with facts. I choose what I want to write about, and if I like a product better than another, I'll tell you why...that's where the opinion comes in.
But readers want to know what kind of groups a rifle gets off the bench and what hand load was used. It may not be the best load in their rifle, but they want to know. That is why so many shooters ask for the best load for a certain bullet.
Some think that testing a rifle off the bench has no value, but what you are doing is establishing the accuracy baseline for the rifle and load. Find the best one, then go do the dynamic blasting and field work.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.