Gun-writers today

[GRT3031]

Today's gun-writers are no-talent plagiarists who attempt to capitalize on an audience they think are inexperienced and unknowledgeable when it comes to firearms. Additionally, Gun magazines are nothing more than advertisement brochures for firearms the gun industry produces. Through the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, they have progressively deteriorated from technical magazines to paid advertisements. Today, they don't even bother being technically correct. Shooting Times Magazine, at one time my favorite gun-rag, is at the top of the heap for incompetence.

Unfortunately, there is little we can do about it, hence the reason for this post. Several years ago, P.O Ackley had a similar complaint. As a side-bar, I'd love to have some of the "junk" guns from his era though.

I grabbed the latest issue of Shooting Times from my local newsstand. It seems there is a list of words for the all knowing, been there done that, seen the elephant, mystical gun-writer of today to draw from that is supposed to stymie, stupefy, astonish and bewilder the reader. The intent of course is to sell guns to the dilettante, and NEVER identify a problem with the product.

A few words I routinely see in use are: opted, proprietary, deep concealment (how is this different from "concealment"?), utilize, utilizes, rendition, and of course, the biggie, experience. These words, used time and again, are designed to give the impression the writer actually knows something about his subject.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In Layne Pearce's May 2009 article, Loading and Shooting the .357 is a Blast, he states the .38 Special and .357 Magnum are the same caliber. While this is technically correct, it would've been better to say they are the same bullet diameter. Moreover, all the loads listed appear watered down.

Pearce again sticks his foot in his mouth in the Shooting Times May 2009 article Make Mine a Custom, when he says "the model 58 M&P revolver was almost impossible to control with full power .41 Magnum loads". This contradicts everything Skeeter Skelton says about recoil in his article Fear not the Kicking Mule reprinted from 1968 in the same issue. I've shot many max loads through the S&W model 58, both double and single action and never found recoil excessive.

In Dan McElrath's article Short and Still Sweet (Shooting Times, FEB 2009) he incorrectly states that the .38 S&W can be fired from .38 Special or .357 Magnum revolvers. This is not true. Try putting a .38 S&W in a S&W Model 27-2 with a recessed chamber. It won't fit. The .38 S&W is a tapered case, not straight walled like the .38 Special and .357 Magnum. While it's correct there might be .38 Special and .357 Magnum revolvers out there you could FORCE a .38 S&W in, this is not something a sensible person would do, or encourage doing.

McElrath also makes the argument that since most loading manuals list .357 diameter bullets for reloading the .38 S&W, then shooting a .38 S&W out of the .357 Magnum must be OK. However, the reason the load books use .357 bullets in their data for the .38 S&W is because few bullet manufacturers make a .360 bullet anymore.

McElrath's work is not the only technically erroneous article from Shooting Times of late. No, the title of most current and qualified blooper documenter goes to J. Guthrie in his May 2009 ST article titled The Model 27 Lives. In it, Guthrie barrows what he calls a 6 inch barreled 27-2 to compare against the new 6.5 inch barrel 27 Classic. On page 54 the 27-2 he used in the comparison is definitely a 5 inch barreled gun, not a 6 inch barrel.

One thing is certain, all of this gun-writing business has been done before, by the likes of Bill Jordan, Skeeter Skelton, COL Charles Askins, Elmer Keith, Julian Hatcher, E.H. Harrison and P.O Ackley, just to name a few. Gun-writers today ride on the coat-tails of those shooting greats, who shot for both sport and work. They had real trigger time facing both bad guys and dangerous game.

"The Sheriff" Jim Wilson habitually bootleg's Skeeter Skelton's work. Wilson's article titled If I Could Only Have One Gun in the September 2006 issue of Shooting Times is remarkably similar to Skelton's prose. Again, riding on the fumes of Skelton, "The Sheriff" expounds the merits of the .357 Magnum revolver. In the article he also goes onto say how the 1911A1 solved many of his LE and personal protection needs in his lengthy career. Read the reprinted 1982 article in the FEB 2009 issue of Shooting Times by Skeeter Skelton titled Best Handguns I Ever Had. You'll find these two articles very similar.

Another favorite gun-writer ploy is to use the following statement "I had gunsmith X make me one of these". As if they had gunsmith X on speed dial, or living in their basement, turning out the work in a day or two while the common shooter has to wait several years for custom big name service. Undoubtedly this special treatment is due to the lofty status the gun-writer holds in the industry today.

All in all, the problems I cite here are fixable. What Shooting Times needs to fix first is hiring someone to technically proof-read the articles for both readability and technical accuracy. After that, they need to transition back to being a technical journal, focusing on both the positive and negative qualities of the gun. Maybe I should apply for the job.

 

[3/4Flap]

I, too have seen a 180 degree shift in quality and mission from the old technical emphasis to the total, complete, Madison Avenue ad-slick product turned out by almost all of the rags.

Even the NRA publication used to have a vast collection of technical articles in every issue. Now, it, too, merely begs the approval of the gun makers.

Guns are treated as mystical mechanical works of science only the Few can understand. "Voodoo" permeates the internal mechanical details and such voodoo can only be exorcised by the limited and Knowing Few, top name gunsmiths.

This is unfortunate, because it seems every new gun I buy has bugs and warts right out of the box, and as a result, I've had to learn a bit of the voodoo secrets myself just to get the things to go bang every time. If I hadn't, the price of every gun I'd buy might double as a result of sending them off to the Wizards.

Unfortunately I do not have a Gun Wizard living in my basement or available on 24/7 call...

Pretty good points, GRT.

 

[David LaPell]

I have almost stopped reading Guns & Ammo magazine all together due to the fact it is nothing more than one review after another. I do get Handloader magazine from time to time, but thats really about it. I myself have tried my hand at gunwriting, and have had a couple articles published, but not in the more well known "big" magazines. It is very tough to try and break in to that business, every querie I have ever written was met with the response (if on the rare occasion that I even get one) that "we have a guy for those types of articles". What would these magazines be if new blood was transfused into their writing pool. Maybe better. The problem is, there are no Skeeters or Elmers anymore, and whether you liked him or hated him, Jeff Cooper sold print. I would say John Taffin, Mike Venturino, and Bart Skelton are the best reads right now, with Gary James writing about classic guns. I think alot of the rest is just trying to sell guns and magazines. I was hoping myself to try and put out an article on the Smith 27 5inch barrel, and then to see the same thing in this month's Shooting Times, whih instead turned into a review of the new classic version of the M 27 and had very little to do with the original version. Again, trying to sell magazines.

 

[3/4Flap]

Again, trying to sell magazines.

They can't be blamed for this 100% of course, as that is what their job is.

However, I truly wonder if a good solid base of technical writing might add a dimension of true "mystique" that might encourage younger shooters to leave the video games and get actively involved in more technical development of loads, etc.

Realistically, this might happen in a down economy. I mean, remember when it was cheaper and easier to merely buy a case of pistol ammo than it was to handload for it?

Who knows, maybe a little challenge in the wallet willl prompt more tecnical curiousity among shooters... {??}

As for there being no more Skeltons, etc. I agree and disagree.

There are plenty of fellows with combat and high stress law enforcement experience out there who COULD in theory replace the old guys. But in today's world, I believe it won't be soon before we read of Askins-style antics...

Maybe that is a good thing...

 

[Joe Kent]

I would agree with much of what has been said above. I have had the opportunity along with a couple of other forum members to spend a fair amount of time with a fairly large number of current writers in "shooting" sessions as well as a hell of alot of time in BSing sessions. Many of them are good writers that have had the opportunity to do it on a professional {writing that is} level. They would welcome the opportunity to write about anything. When we compare them to the writers of yesterday the main difference is the old writers were gunners first and writers second. The writers that most closely are that today would be John Taffin, Mike Venturino, Wiley Clapp, Craig Boddington{Marine Brig. General}and others of their ilk. Many of the "new" writers have a strong willingness to learn from those of us who have been shooting for a while and I most certainly applaud their effort. I might also add that for the most part they also are a good bunch of guys to spend time with. Forum member H Richard {a long time gunner and Medical business mgr. in real life} has spent far more time than I with writers and I hope he might "chime in" with his thoughts. Best Best Regards, Joe.

 

[feralmerril]

I was a heavy reader starting in the mid 50s. Now I admit I am old fashion and not much into the black plastic autos etc, and always skip over those articles. I have always liked the old classics, revolvers and rifles.
There just isnt anything new to write about in my old favorite fields that I havent read dozzens of times before. I dont buy 10 percent of the magazines I used to.
I cant blaim a writer that writes on the old stuff that I like, as its impossable to come up with thoughts that I havent read a number of times since I was a kid! So I guess they are preaching to the newbees.
I was brought up in chuch. My folks went twice on sunday and maybe three other type meetings durring the week. I havent went much in the later years for various reasons, yet I belive the same as I did in my young teens. The point is I belive it almost impossable for a preacher or sunday school teacher to come up with something NEW that I havent heard 55 years ago.

 

[m657]

I gave up gun magazines during the 90s.

I couldn't afford the empty mental calories or the waste of time.

 

[H Richard]

There are some magazines I read through in a matter of minutes, because there just isn't anything in it that has my interest. Maybe because of my age (68), I like older guns, preferably pre-war and early post war Smith revolvers. I shoot lots of different things, and do a lot of reloading, but I get a little tired of every writer rehashing the latest version of the 1911 and the AR's latest trick out.

About a year or two ago, the American Rifleman was reformatted and was really improved, with lots of good articles, but I see it slipping back into what it used to be also.

I can read only about half of an American Handgunner anymore, but their photography is the best, they have professional photographers that use great lighting on beautiful guns.

I think that many writers are really excellent, but the subject matters are directed by their Editors as in, "I need two articles on Tactical this or hunting that". So, the writers write what the Editors want. There are so many new products introduced every year that have to be written about, it leaves only a couple articles the writers may "want to" write.

I've met many of these writers as Joe Kent mentioned, and they are really nice guys, and knowledgeable, but we have to remember while they can write anything they want to, but if the Editor doesn't like it, it won't get into print, and they have to eat also.

Look for more New Product writings in the next few months as there is a writers Round Table the first week of May, where a lot of new products will be displayed for the writers see and fondle. I'll be there to help them fondle the new goodies.

 

[Frizzman]

I belong to the NRA so I get "The American Rifleman". That is the only gun magazine that I purchase anymore. I usually go to a place such as Barnes& Nobles or Books-A-Million and spend a litle time reading selected articles. It is rare that I find anything that makes me want to buy the magazine(s). I am in my mid 50's and started reading gun mags when I was a kid. Perhaps I have just become jaded. Then again, when I read some of the old ones I have kept, I find I enjoy certain writers that have passed on.

I also find the articles written about new guns that have rails and lasers and sirens and searchlights and hydration systems, etc. and are made out of exotic alloys and plastic but don't really do anything but spit bullets like every other gun, tedious. I always skip them. Since that seems to be the major feature in many of the current magazines, I pass on them.

Perhaps there might be a market for a gun magazine that caters to us geezers. It could have reprints of classic articles by the old masters previously mentioned and new articles about guns that are made out of exotic materials such as steel and wood. Maybe there could be some articles about guns written by people who have done more than sit gazing at a computer and having mental adventures. I guess that would be too much to hope for...

 

[Erich]

Wow. I feel like gun magazines have gotten a lot better in the last five years. And there are several active magazine gunwriters whose work I very much enjoy (Ayoob, Taffin, Cumpston, Prisbrey, just right off the top of my head - tho these gents are by no means the only writers whose work I enjoy). And I feel like I'm seeing interesting articles about things I didn't know (certainly not always the case) in almost every issue (for instance, Garry James' article in this month's G&A about Lefaucheaux pinfire revolvers and modern-day pinfire cartridge reloading - I really enjoyed that).

It seems like one of these threads pops up about three times a year. While I find minor errors in just about every issue I read (as someone who writes professionally, finding nought but perfection would astound me - and I'd note that "the greats" of gunwriting made their share of errors, too) and there are certainly a few writers whom I've come to disregard, I have to say that seeing this sort of thread always dispirits me a bit. I know writers who I can assure you are not "just trying to sell guns" and who truly enjoy the shooting sports and are trying to see that the reader does as well.

I know that these fellas have thick skin and are capable of taking valid criticism, but I can't help but feeling like the negativity has a little more amplitude than would be productive. (And I also suspect that the worst offenders among the writers don't give a rat's behind what anyone thinks - so the only folks who are getting the brunt of this criticism are those who merit it the least, the folks who actively participate on these boards and share their company and writing for free.)

All in all, I think that kvetching about gunwriting in general can get to be sort of like a fat guy in the stands griping about how this year's team sucks and couldn't compare to the glories of the past. Specific criticism (as some here have rendered - no doubt) can be productive if targeted to the right place, but general griping about how the glory days are gone seems bad for the morale of the sport as a whole.

 

[Leonard]

The truth is the majority of what is written today is to promote the sales of advertised products. How often is anything criticized? I used to take writers to Africa we never asked them to print anything but the truth and that was their condition as well! In fact all we required was that they were guaranteed space in a major magazine. In those days a lot of writers were looking for free hunts and were not able to get articles published.

We worked with some of Peterson Hunting writers, in the mid to late 80's the publications policy changed while we were a long time advertiser in the Where To Go Section they now demanded major ads inserted along side the article. The ads ran with the articles cost around $7,000.00 for one issue which made it cost prohibitive. While I can picture him I cannot think of the name of the Peterson person that created this policy. I know he was not well respected among the staff.

I knew some writers that were very objective and one whom I remain very good friends with who is totally disgusted with what has become of their profession.

Yes there still are some talented writers out there who really love their sport be it hunting, shooting, collecting, etc but they are controlled by the publications and its advertisers!

Len

 

[GatorFarmer]

Try Small Arms Review and the articles section of Shotgun News.

David Fortier (sp?) is a decent writer.

 

[jkc]

Couple of thoughts---

No one in the freelance writing racket is immune from plagarism, sometimes subtle, sometimes overt and blatant --- I regard it as backhanded flattery, and as long as I get paid first, it's only petty theft.

No one has as yet questioned whether the lack of technical accuracy and detail in contemporary gun writing results from the demand rather than supply side. Most writing in popular media, including newspapers, seems to be increasingly dumbed down and devoid of scientific info or accuracy (see any article involving scientific matters --- global warming, anything involving firearms, geography, etc.)Increasing illiteracy, ignorance of science, etc., may cause consumers to shy away from technical discussions that leave them baffled. Magazines are, after all, entertainment first, technical treatises second.

Many of us here are experienced, knowledgeable "gun nuts", but not a day passes without a query from a newbie that seems laughably obvious to many of us --- (always answered helpfully and politely, I'll add) --- these are the readers the "pop" gun mags are aimed toward. If you expect much more, expect to be disappointed.

 

[nicky4968]

I have given up on the "gun magazine" entirely. I now rely on the Internet for most of my information. I have a strong "BS" filter, which is constantly engaged.
Some discussion in gun shops, with knowledgeable proprietors, is useful. Most often in gun shops you need an extra "BS" filter.
I find this site to be most informative, and by far the best. Another site I have found useful (not for pricing; he wisely doesn't provide any) is 1896mauser.com. I wish there were more fora like that one.

 

[Jellybean]

With rare exception, I think the writers today are about the same as the writers of previous generations. 90% BS with 10% actual "experience". I used to think the old guys were tops too until I went back and read some of their old articles recently.

The main focus of the magazines are, and always have been, to support their advertisers. I doubt they even care if anyone even buys a copy as long as they get the advertising money.

 

[danski]

OK, gents, back off a few feet and think about this and the rehashing of stuff so many of us know:

How many "newbies" and "not-so-newbies" ask the same questions over and over again on this forum,
the SASS Wire, Colt, Ruger, etc.?

I think a lot of us think the likes of Skeeter were better because we were learning back then.
I have a collection of his writings and a lot of it is pretty basic and similar to what is printed
today.

What's hurt magazines and writers to some extent is the vast amount of knowledge one can tap into
on such forums as this one. Here, you might learn
just one little fact about a S&W you didn't know as you read through many repetitive queries and answers. And learning that one fact makes it all worthwhile.

I don't read the magazines much, or at all, but occasionally I do look at one and sometimes I learn a fact I never knew before. As for coverage
on new and old guns, really how much has changed in firearms, basically changed, since Sam Colt's day? For instance, the concept of automatic weapons dates back to before the Civil War but early experiments failed because the black powder fouled everything so badly. Once the smokeless stuff was developed, autoloaders followed pretty quickly. Heck, John Moses Browning even turned a
Winchester '73 into an auto once he had the powder--albiet a strange looking auto.

Danski

 

[pps]

Aside from Mas Ayoob and John Taffin, I do like some of what Jeff Quinn writes over on his site. Yes, I realize that he has to generate enough hits on his site to sell advertising, but he does a pretty good job on his writings.

Other than these few, I'm not to impressed. I'd put the writing prowess and knowledge of many right here in this forum up against many of todays gun writers.

 

[Texas Star]

Originally posted by David LaPell:
I have almost stopped reading Guns & Ammo magazine all together due to the fact it is nothing more than one review after another. I do get Handloader magazine from time to time, but thats really about it. I myself have tried my hand at gunwriting, and have had a couple articles published, but not in the more well known "big" magazines. It is very tough to try and break in to that business, every querie I have ever written was met with the response (if on the rare occasion that I even get one) that "we have a guy for those types of articles". What would these magazines be if new blood was transfused into their writing pool. Maybe better. The problem is, there are no Skeeters or Elmers anymore, and whether you liked him or hated him, Jeff Cooper sold print. I would say John Taffin, Mike Venturino, and Bart Skelton are the best reads right now, with Gary James writing about classic guns. I think alot of the rest is just trying to sell guns and magazines. I was hoping myself to try and put out an article on the Smith 27 5inch barrel, and then to see the same thing in this month's Shooting Times, whih instead turned into a review of the new classic version of the M 27 and had very little to do with the original version. Again, trying to sell magazines.

David-

If you want to be a gun writer, or a writer at all, you need to learn better spelling and proofreading skills. Misspelling Garry James's name is a pretty good way NOT to get into gun mags! "Altogether" should replace your "All Together", and you have other errors. Good Lord, you can't even spell, "query"! If you want to write professionally, even in an opinion editorial for the local newspaper, watch your language skills.

I've written for gun and knife mags, and the editors tell me that I am one of the few whose prose needs no corrections, so I suspect that some other "writers" have the same issues that you do. Elmer Keith had to be edited heavily!

Try taking Journalism 101 at a community college. It will probably greatly assist your writing skills. I sincerely mean this to be a helpful suggestion.

The way that many spell on this and other gun forums is pitiful. What must non-gun people think if they check out gun forums?

I know how tough it is to sell to the big gun rags, which are indeed primarily shills for the industry. The late Don Zutz, one of the most knowledgeable gun writers of all time, once told me that, "Shooting Times" returned one of his manuscripts with little comment, and he doubted that they had even read it!

I agree that Jim Wilson, who was once actually a Texas sheriff, probably wanted to inherit Skeeter's mantle as chief gunwriter with a Southwestern flavor. He is no Skeeter, but he seems to know what he writes about. But he probably has to write some articles that are assigned to him, even if he has no real interest in the products that he reviews.

Another writer told me that he once tested three examples of a new Star pistol, and that none of the three was reliable. But that magazine gave it favorable coverage, including a cover shot! Ad dollars at work...(That gun evolved into the M-30 and the M-31, which were much better.)

If you want to read good writing, read books. One scribe whom I admire is David Lindsey. www.davidlindsey.com Click on the right buttons and read sample chapters. If you can write as well as Lindsey, you would surely be an exception among gun writers! But you can pick up writing tips by reading his material, or that by such talents as Robert B. Parker, whose work is deceptively elegant, if terse at times.

However, the style of gun magazines doesn't lend itself overmuch to elegant language. One has always to keep in mind the market for a particular piece of writing.

Jack O'Connor was one of the very few gun writers who could practice other forms of writing sucessfully. Most simply lack the writing skills. Warren Page was another. Both were teachers before they became outdoor writers.

Some gun writers do still offer technical articles and know whereof they speak. Mike Venturino largely repeats his own articles and his books, but provides very valuable information not available elsewhere. He does need to gain more familarity with WW II weapons, his new enthusiasm, if he is to impart much that is new about them.

On the other hand, "Rifle" has one writer who makes at least one error in almost everything that he publishes. On the other hand, they have Brian Pearce and John Havilland. They are two of the few gun writers still worth reading.

John Barsness strikes me as a peacock, but he is knowledgeable. I don't know where he is now, or why he left, "Rifle." But they were dumb to let him get away.

I need to go do something useful. I hope that this actually interested someone.

David, study what I said. You may yet succeed as a writer, but learn to be your own worst critic, and improve your skills before offering material to an agent or an editor!

T-Star

 

[roger rabbit]

As far as I'm concerned they are all junk and I've discontinued all subscriptions with the exception of Precision Shooting and Handloader. I'm not paying good money for incompetence and infomercials. Don't even get me started on the "Sheriff".

 

[David LaPell]

Actually Texas, I hate keyboards because it doesn't give me time to work out my words, either how I spell them, or how I write them. I already have been published in several magazines, I will not list them all the various articles here for you, but they have been Fur-Fish-Game, Backwoodsman, and Adirondack Life, and when it matters, I take great pains to make sure my words are correct. I am not an English major, so if I mispell once in awhile, then I apologize. So far my words have been good enough for the editors of three different magazines, even if they are not good enough for you. I am also too busy working at my job and trying to build a house and a family to take college classes, some of us really don't have the time or the finances. I think for all of the work I have done over the last few years, not having a degree really has not mattered that much, and if an editor every asks me for one, I will tell him that I have met several college graduates who are working at the local Walmart because they spent so much money on college pursuing a career that is not available to them.