The American Rifleman does it again!

Muley Gil · Nov 23, 2023

On page 35 of the December 2023 American Rifleman,a reader wrote about his favorite firearm, which he described as a "6" barreled .22 kit gun". The picture clearly shows a Model of 1953 .22/32 Target, which some call a pre Model 35.

However, the caption to the photo calls it a Smith & Wesson Model 17 K-22 Masterpiece, circa 1947.

rockquarry · Nov 23, 2023

Muley Gil said:
On page 35 of the December 2023 American Rifleman,a reader wrote about his favorite firearm, which he described as a "6" barreled .22 kit gun". The picture clearly shows a Model of 1953 .22/32 Target, which some call a pre Model 35.

However, the caption to the photo calls it a Smith & Wesson Model 17 K-22 Masterpiece, circa 1947.

You can expect this. The AMERICAN RIFLEMAN hasn't had a technical staff in many years. At one time they had some very knowledgeable gun-oriented people like the late Bob Sears and W.C. Davis, C. E. Harris, and others. All of these guys were excellent gunwriters as well.

SS336 · Nov 23, 2023

I saw that too. They really have it messed up.
On an other note, they tested a Wilson Combat 1911 pistol for accuracy at 7yds and said how accurate it was. It is a $4000+ pistol. Seems to me it should have been tested at 25yds.
Same issue test a polymer pistol at 15yds that cost well under $1000.

Jim Watson · Nov 23, 2023

What a reader says has no bearing on the staff. I have seen lots of gunzine articles that were correct but the caption writer for the pictures had no clue.

Pisgah · Nov 23, 2023

Unfortunately, here is the truth -- American Rifleman is a magazine, so the only things they are really focused on are the ads...

Nightowl · Nov 23, 2023

I get really amused when the gun rags test 6 shot revolvers with 5 shot strings!! I just don't understand that way of thinking!! I'm ok with a 5 shot target from an auto, just think it does not count unless all 6 chambers are included in a revolver! Is it just me??

rct269 · Nov 23, 2023

Well, on the one hand, 5 shot strings come from whatever they call Bullseye these days. On the other hand, having folks on staff that know what's what costs more than dingbats that don't know diddly.

Look on the bright side---if the dingbats didn't have these jobs, you and I would be picking up the tab for their welfare payments----not that you and I would be out of pocket any less; but it's the principle of the thing.

And speaking of dingbats, I sure hope I spelled principle correctly----otherwise it's off to the Principal's office!

Ralph Tremaine

DWalt · Nov 23, 2023

Earlier this year the AR had an article which said something about General Patton's "Model 27." I sent them an eMail explaining that the Model 27 did not appear until more than 12 years after Patton's death, and the revolver Patton actually owned was called the S&W .357 Magnum. They published my eMail and a retraction in the next issue. Some of you may have seen that retraction. When you see something like that appear in the AR, just send them an eMail setting them straight. That's the only way to keep them honest.

Mblhopo · Nov 23, 2023

I always thought it was a REG. Magnum of 1935 {maybe the same thing}.....................................M*

gunbarrel · Nov 24, 2023

FWIW, I don't think that the average American Rifleman reader cares about really small technical mistakes in a AR article. I think the idea is to keep them entertained and pique their interest on a particular subject. From there, the next step would be to buy a good reference book on the subject, or visit a specialty Forum like this where true experts abound. And once in a while the magazine does have a good general article for the new shooting enthusiast by someone like Bruce Canfield.

Model 15-4ever · Nov 24, 2023

Yes, this December 2023 issue is a real doozy!

Starting on page 44, there is a 6-page glossy "article" on red dot sights (RDS) for handguns, that was probably ghost written by the marketing director for Trijicon. I have been using RDS on handguns for the past 30 years, well before the current industry-driven craze, in competition, hunting and self-defense handguns. At least half the statements in this shill piece are a combination of hyperbole, ignorance or outright nonsense. Especially in regards to its acclaimed superior use on defensive handguns, the horse hockey was so deep I had to change my shoes after reading it.

The cover of this issue also has a photo (ad) for the Colt "CBX TacHunter". I suppose I will have to read that one to learn how to hunt "tactically".

I'd given up on the American Rifleman as an authoritative source a few years ago (about the time they started the 7 Yard accuracy testing nonsense), but this issue sets a new lower bar.

rct269 · Nov 24, 2023

I routinely shot handguns at 100 yards----in the beginning just to see if they'd do it. They'd do it! Then it got be a challenge when it came to group size---then it got to be fun. My all time record was 4" at 100 yards with a Ruger Blackhawk and an 8 3/8" S&W---both .44 Magnums (with reduced loads--18.5 grains of 2400 with a 205 grain SWC gas check bullet----what I called a "civilized load".)

Them there was the "good old days"!

Ralph Tremaine

6string · Nov 24, 2023

rct269 said:
I routinely shot handguns at 100 yards----in the beginning just to see if they'd do it. They'd do it! Then it got be a challenge when it came to group size---then it got to be fun. My all time record was 4" at 100 yards with a Ruger Blackhawk and an 8 3/8" S&W---both .44 Magnums (with reduced loads--18.5 grains of 2400 with a 205 grain SWC gas check bullet----what I called a "civilized load".)

Them there was the "good old days"!

Ralph Tremaine

Yes, 100 yds is a good distance for large frame/large caliber revolvers. I've had similar results from the exact same two revolvers, and from a Ruger Blackhawk and 8 3/8" S&W 25-5, both in 45 Colt.
This sort of testing is also a good way to see how well the iron sights work. Quality of sight picture, not to mention reliability of adjustments, really become critical as distance increases.

As for American Rifleman, I sometimes quip that it would perhaps be better renamed as "Plastic 9mm Monthly".
I guess if they wrote high quality articles on classics like vintage S&W revolvers, it might upset their advertisers?

tlawler · Nov 24, 2023

Model 15-4ever said:
The cover of this issue also has a photo (ad) for the Colt "CBX TacHunter". I suppose I will have to read that one to learn how to hunt "tactically".

Mine also had a false cover ad for Silencer Central, buy one, get one free. They must have shelled out some big bucks for an ad like that.

I normally only read the historical articles about firearms used in battles, but unfortunately they have become fewer and farther between.

jake1945 · Nov 24, 2023

Fortunately, as an endowment member, I get the AR free for life. I really like the articles about military small arms and their history.

Truckman · Nov 24, 2023

jake1945 said:
Fortunately, as an endowment member, I get the AR free for life.

So am I, and when I still had my store I switched the mailing address to there...When I sold it and retired 15 years ago, I never switched the address again, and consequently I haven't seen an issue since then...I find I don't really miss the reading much anymore since my field of interest has narrowed, but I also don't miss the constant bombardment of slick-paper scare letters begging money...

On the original topic, I'm really enjoying my latest Model of 1953...Life is better now...

...Ben

H Richard · Nov 24, 2023

I also used to shoot handguns at 100 yards. I hadn't been, but one day a buddy brought a bunch of blown up 6" balloons, from an office party to the range and tacked them up on the 100 yard target frame. Kind of a challenge, and I did lean against the line cover up-right and broke 3 of the five tacked there. After that, did continue to bring a 100 yard target to the range and always could do similar, (as long as I leaned against the post).

Then Metallic Silhouette became popular and we thought nothing of shooting standing at 200 meters. (Of course the Ram was somewhat larger).

glenwolde · Nov 24, 2023

Jim Watson said:
What a reader says has no bearing on the staff. I have seen lots of gunzine articles that were correct but the caption writer for the pictures had no clue.

I don't think he wrote the caption for the picture. There were two errors there.

ralph7 · Nov 24, 2023

Be grateful for what you have.
Used to be there was a plethora of motorcycle and car magazines.
They have dropped like flies, so much so that I can't find a decent motorcycle magazine to keep up with what is now out there.
Gun magazines in the woke future will probably be extinct.

colt_saa · Nov 24, 2023

Mblhopo said:
I always thought it was a REG. Magnum of 1935 {maybe the same thing}.....................................M*

It was Registered Magnum #506

The 357 and the RM were both the exact same firearm. Original RMs were just built to order and you could ask for most any combination that you wanted and of course they were Registered

Here are some scans that I did of the original documents many years ago

Yes that purchase price says $48

The American Rifleman does it again!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

SWCA Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads