I am old. That influences everything.
My interest in firearms goes back to my youth. My love for westerns and cop shows started my life-long interest in SAA and DA revolvers. So I read all of the magazines.
My eventual LE career, 30+ years of it, fed the DA interest. I loved westerns too much to get away from SAA (and clone) revolvers. Once I advanced far enough in PPC competition to convince myself I needed at least one PPC revolver, those became a major area of interest.
My last issued duty revolver was a no-dash Smith & Wesson 686 4". I remember it well because I was the one that got my patrol division from the 66 4" to these. I consider the L frame the best .38/357 caliber Smith has ever made. I like it so much I have a competition-modified no-dash 586 6".
When we transitioned to semi-auto pistols we went to the large frame .40 Glock (don't remember the model number). Ugly it was. Functional it was. I considered it ideal. As well as I fired my 4" 686 (Distinguished Master in my dept, which required >97.5 average), I shot that Glock better. Not too much wiggle room from 97.5%, but I shot clean, 100% until I retired. I was the only one in my department to do so. Finally top gun going out the door. Not too long after I retired I bought a Glock 26, based on my duty Glock experience.
Now all of this time I had been reading Hook & Bullet magazine faithfully to stay up with my interests.
What I have learned is that there is nothing of any consequence to be learned between 1981 era tests of the then-new no-dash 686 to road tests of the current 686-9999 (slight poetic liicense there for editorial impact). There isn't anything about the L frame Smiths, regardless of suffix, that hasn't already been written long ago. It may be new to younger readers, but that is not me.
PPC revolvers are now historical curiosities, too low on the radar for the mass media. On here they do get some mention, and admiration for what they could do. Such discussions are usually in the context of someone happening to acquire one and recommendations from other posters to take out the new toy to shoot it and enjoy its smoothness and accuracy. Not exactly the stuff of current events in the firearms world.
The same goes for the Glock. I have one super reliable polymer frame pistol. That is all I need. The scariest sound in the jungle is 'click'. No one I am aware of produces a more reliable pistol to insure I never hear that sound than Glock, so I am not shopping, not even kicking tires.
The media have changed - and not for the better. Massad Ayoob was then the master of giving us info we would not otherwise learn, thanks to American Handgunner magazine.
I was a PPC competitor from the late 60s to the early 80s. I still have my PPC revolvers. During that era there was a lot of interest in those revolvers. At one point American Handgunner published a series of in-depth articles written by Ayoob where he spent a lot of time with legendary gunsmith Ron Power on how Power built up his Smith and Wesson K frame PPC revolvers. This was a series of four lengthy articles.
I just do not see that depth and detail emerging from the mass media now.
Part of the change is due to the internet. I use this forum to stay as current as I desire in areas that either interest me or where I think I can add something of value. It is very easy to avoid areas in which I have no interest
One thing I have learned to be watchful of is conclusions passed off as facts. Some of these have been amazing (but thus entertaining). I remember one here a few years ago during one of the on-going forged vs investment cast arguments (thus Smith vs Ruger) where one poster insisted that Ruger used investment casting to be able to use pot metal instead of steel. He was openly mocked for this, but stuck to his guns because he knew about these things.
The web site, in my opinon has evolved and matured because knowledgeable posters don't let the psuedo experts gain any traction.
The mass media, as we have known it, is not coming back
