I haven't wasted much time reading gun writers fluff lately, but I do recall most of them seemed to have little to no understanding of ammunition or ballistics. Repeating what Elmer said was very common, but it usually didn't fit what they were trying to prove, especially when it concerned the "tactical" experts. Elmer was a hunter and what he was looking for was sometimes the exact opposite of what made a good self defense round.

They would trash perfectly good products and ideas while praising worthless ones, which might have been more of a marketing tactic than ignorance.

But it was sort or humorous to read some of their little disputes over what was better based on their imaginary "facts". I picked up a magazine to read one day while the ex wife was going through several tests at the hospital. I came across an article that proved why the 9mm was superior to the .45 acp. due to the fact that small and fast was better than big and slow. The very next article proved that the .45 acp was better than the .30 carbine due to the fact that big and slow was better than small and fast. The best part was, they were both written by the same author.