Same articles in Guns & Ammo as Handguns

[rhm0351]

Has anyone else noticed this trend? I have subscribed to Guns & Ammo since 1989, and to Handguns off and on since then. I realize that both magazines are owned by the same company, but I really don't want to read virtually the same article in both magazines the same month or a month apart, sometimes by the same author.

[BUFF]

Same thing is happening with GUNS and AMERICAN HANDGUNNER, especially Clint Smith's column.

[rhm0351]

I noticed he does that a lot, and I'm not usually all that interested in what he is writing; I don't carry one-off S&Ws or $6,000 1911s. I am a little offended that S&W sees him as the only one competent enough to have special, lock-free new-production revolvers made.

[Texas Star]

I think the gun mags are killing themselves off. They just want the ad revenue and don't care about publishing stuff that readers might want to see.

I almost never buy a new one.

[O2Guy]

Gun magazines are just advertising. They always give good reviews because the manufacturers advertise in the magazine.

[rhm0351]

I agree with you both. I don't remember the last time I saw a review that said anything but that the newest product was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I pretty much skip over all the articles about new products and read the rest of the magazine. This month, both Guns & Ammo and Handguns have articles about Hornady's Critical Defense ammo. After the quality control problems I've had with Hornady ammo and the lack of a response from multiple inquiries over the past two years, I don't plan to ever buy their ammo, again.

[m657]

I gave up subscriptions circa 1983 and quit reading them altogether the last 20 years.

[jkc]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again --- Of course the gun mags print positive comments about new offerings. What you don't see is negative comments about new junk. Who wants to read about the cheap, cheaply made, unreliable, pot-metal import? Sophisticated readers want to hear about innovative, if incremental improvements, and high-end equipment. If there was really a viable market for dead-honest evaluations of every new introduction, Gun Tests would actually be able to sell advertising, instead of duping subscribers into paying an exorbitant subscription rate to hear what they didn't really care to know, which is basically, the axiomatic you get what you pay for.

How much further would you read, if the lead paragraph in a gun review led off with something like: "The latest potmetal 1911 clone of the Colt Ace is poorly made, unreliable, inaccurate, probably dangerous (our test sample blew up in our hands after a few hundred rounds...) and probably spared us earlier injury by frequent failures to feed and fire." There's all kinds of firearms junk on the market --- do you want to hear about the worst, the mediocre, or, in the limited space available, to the products of advertisers interested in supporting coverage of their offerings that you might actually purchase?

[Jim in Wisconsin]

Well, there is no more Keith, Askins, Skeeter, or even the Colonel (Whelen, that is). And yes, I'll be 70 on Tuesday, thank you very much.
Plastic guns don't interest me very much.

[Rule3]

Many such as Guns are online, why buy them? Guns and Ammo has several of the main articles.

Digital Editions | Guns Magazine

Guns & Ammo - Guns

[Texas Star]

Originally Posted by jkc

I've said it before, and I'll say it again --- Of course the gun mags print positive comments about new offerings. What you don't see is negative comments about new junk. Who wants to read about the cheap, cheaply made, unreliable, pot-metal import? Sophisticated readers want to hear about innovative, if incremental improvements, and high-end equipment. If there was really a viable market for dead-honest evaluations of every new introduction, Gun Tests would actually be able to sell advertising, instead of duping subscribers into paying an exorbitant subscription rate to hear what they didn't really care to know, which is basically, the axiomatic you get what you pay for.

How much further would you read, if the lead paragraph in a gun review led off with something like: "The latest potmetal 1911 clone of the Colt Ace is poorly made, unreliable, inaccurate, probably dangerous (our test sample blew up in our hands after a few hundred rounds...) and probably spared us earlier injury by frequent failures to feed and fire." There's all kinds of firearms junk on the market --- do you want to hear about the worst, the mediocre, or, in the limited space available, to the products of advertisers interested in supporting coverage of their offerings that you might actually purchase?

Good point, but I know one writer for a major gun rag who tested three examples of a well known Spanish-made auto pistol. None worked right, but they still put it on the cover. I think he said they changed his article to remove the criticisms.

The late Don Zutz, a really good gun writer, sent several mss. to this same title. He always had worthwhile things to say, as you know if you've read his books. Don told me that he doubted if they ever removed the paperclip and read those stories before rejecting them. They only wanted their staff writers to churn out copy favorable to their advertisers.


I've run into this at a couple of knife titles too, and it's a real burnout issue for an honest writer.

[rhm0351]

I miss writing like Bob Milek and Jim Wilson, before Jim swapped from writing about personal experiences to doing product reviews.

[jkc]

Originally Posted by Texas Star

Good point, but I know one writer for a major gun rag who tested three examples of a well known Spanish-made auto pistol. None worked right, but they still put it on the cover. I think he said they changed his article to remove the criticisms.

The late Don Zutz, a really good gun writer, sent several mss. to this same title. He always had worthwhile things to say, as you know if you've read his books. Don told me that he doubted if they ever removed the paperclip and read those stories before rejecting them. They only wanted their staff writers to churn out copy favorable to their advertisers.

I've run into this at a couple of knife titles too, and it's a real burnout issue for an honest writer.

This puts me in mind of a few first forays into the "gunwriting" market, among them a highly technical examination of the different affects of ambient temperature, atmospheric pressure, elevation, etc., on internal and external ballistics. Might as well have been examining the characteristics of moon cheese, for what the response was worth.

"Gunwriting" readers are apparently always "newbies" who want to read introductory level discussions of "guns and ammo" and little else, and which is why they are are so simple-mindedly satisfied with drivel...

[C&R Bill]

I was looking at an old Guns & Ammo from the early 80's the other day when I found an article on 32s. After reading it I realized I had read basically the same article in a chapter of Doc O'Meara's Colt book. I dearly love their writings, but John Taffin & Venturino do the same thing with their articles.

Originally Posted by rhm0351

Has anyone else noticed this trend? I have subscribed to Guns & Ammo since 1989, and to Handguns off and on since then. I realize that both magazines are owned by the same company, but I really don't want to read virtually the same article in both magazines the same month or a month apart, sometimes by the same author.

[410bore]

I get guns & ammo because its almost FREE. i think i got 2 years for less than a dollar per issue last time.....but i dont like AR's or Top$$$ 1911's so theres really no point for me to get the magazine anymore. Those are virtually the only two types of weapons that are ever wrote about in it

[hannstv]

Used to get excited when new gun mag. arrived....now not so much, how many articles about the "ultimate fighting 1911" can you read.

[TAROMAN]

Agree most of these mags are mainly advertising drivel, endlessly regurgitating the same articles.

OTOH, I do subscribe to handloader, which does have actually useful and interesting articles every issue.

[thndrchiken]

Originally Posted by krehmkej

Agree most these mags are mainly advertising drivel, endlessly regurgitating the same articles.

OTOH, I do subscribe to handloader, which does have acutally useful and interesting articles every issue.

Have to agree with you on Handloader, I also like Rifles, mainly because they do a lot of write ups on historical firearms like rolling blocks and sharps as well as more budget minded guns for the every day joe's.

[rhm0351]

I'm dropping Handguns, but subscribed to Rifles and Rifleshooter magazines. The two I picked up at the store recently were very good reads, even if they both had articles on the Ruger Compact Magnums and the .375 H&H; I'll take that as okay.

[therevjay]

No different then car and motorcycle mags.

[OLDFED]

In the super market and on a whim, I spent $8.99 on a magazine called GUN WORLD HOME DEFENDER, touted as "The ultimate guide to home defense." Getting home and settling in to read...I was disappointed to find that 90% of it was nothing but gun ads. What "reading" there was, was nothing but a rehash of..."ways to store your gun; Secure the perimeter; and Shoot like a PRO." What ****! I've just bought my last gun magazine.

[Armyphotog]

I think most of the gun magazines are owned by the same syndicate. I don't read any of them anymore. I just dig out my old copies from 30 years back or so. Great reading. Besides, that's what I collect and shoot, none of this new stuff. Blue steel and wood stocks! Ah, yes!
Maybe a little nickel thrown in for variety.

[Tyrod]

AFAIK, Motorcycle Consumer News reportedly is the only unbiased periodical printed in this country. They accept no advertising. They exist on subscribers only and are quite expensive. They buy everything they review. Course, that's no guarantee that individual reviewer aren't being paid off, and I suspect that to be true.

[BUFF]

ConsumerReports is supposedly the same thing, purchase the products they test, no advertising, lab testing of many things, reader experience surveys and such. They don't test guns and ammo, however; I get the feeling most of their staff would faint dead away at the presence of a .45 Automatic in the same room. I have found their reviews of household appliances and consumer electronics to be extremely helpful, however, and subscribe.

I have noticed that some gun writers being published will occasionally admit their new test gun choked, but they always blame that on the gun being a "prototype" or "early production" and that the manufacturers assure them that the problems they experienced have been addressed and consumers buying the same guns won't have problems. Of course they have!

Skeeter Skelton wrote a Hipshots column one month in Shooting Times about this stuff. Google "The Mama Mia Mishap" and you can probably find it. Absolutely hilarious.

[johnsonl]

Has anyone ever noticed that the price of the reviewed gun is almost always a lot higher than what we eventually pay for them when they get to Shotgun News or the internet?

[bobsdad]

Handloader and from time to time Man at Arms (or whatever they call it now) are the only ones I buy (and that from the news stand). At my age, I don't subscribe to anything anymore (and don't buy green bananas either). Those two mags are still interesting and useful for me.