I look upon publications that evaluate products, accept no or little advertising and claim to buy everything they test with a raised eyebrow. I write for Shotgun Sports Magazine and can tell you that without advertising revenue, our magazine could not exist. Subscription income alone isn't enough to cover the costs of publication and distribution.

I like to tell a story about Consumer Reports that says a lot about the products they "buy." In 1985, I was bored stiff on a rainy spring Sunday and ventured to a news center to buy something to read. I am a retired GM dealership service manager and when I saw the current edition of that magazine was their automotive issue, I bought it.

I read with interest their rankings and ratings of the cars available for sale in the U.S. Being a Corvette buff back then, I looked those ratings over closely and noticed that the 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 model years were all rated "average" for body rust. That brought three things to mind.

First, how can anyone know how much recently-made cars, especially the current model, are going to rust? My second point of wonderment was how a fiberglass body can rust at all. But the most important item was the fact that General Motors never built a 1983 Corvette! The 1982 model was built through the end of the 1982 calendar year and the redesigned 1984 model was released in February of 1983.

My letter to Consumer Reports challenging their purchase of a car that was never made went unanswered.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that a magazine can buy all the items it test, especially costly ones like cars, without the benefit of advertising income. It just doesn't compute. And Gun Tests doesn't give me the warm fuzzies either.

Ed