Misleading information...

[thebeamanater107]

I bought a home defense magazine that goes over a lot of info about protecting your home. It seemed to have a lot of good info in it. In the beginning it told you statistics on who breaks into houses, how they enter, what they're after, where they search, how much time they spend inside, etc...

Section one is outdoor lighting, then cameras and alarms. Section two is handguns. Then it gets to rape and prevention, rifles verses shotguns, different shotguns you could use, tactics, safe rooms, all that stuff.

The handguns really bugged me. It's obviously 100% sponsored gun ads. Here's the list.

#1, guncrafter industries gun with no name at $2,800. It's a nice fancy expensive 1911. I could have 10 used 12 gauge riot guns and ammo at that price

#2 is boberg xr9-s 'shorty' at $1000. It's a conceal and carry 9mm

#3, Wilson combat supergrade at $5,000+... I'd never advise someone to ever buy one of these. It's a dream gun for 1911 enthusiasts who have that extra money. Just... Holy ****, man...

#4 ruger LCR in 22 Magnum. That's the tiniest ccw I'd consider, but home defense situations don't have a size limit so get a full size pistol.

Another on the list really got me good. It's the Comanche firearms Comanche II-2. it's a .38 special revolver at $200. It actually looks decent. Full size blued with rubber grips. If it works, I'll buy one for every room in the house. Great idea. I looked up reviews and not one single person wrote in about one working. There's a review about an NRA firearms training day for first time shooters. They bought ten. Every single one was defective right out of the box and one went off unexpectedly. The training was an epic fail. How could you ever advertise one of these to someone with a home defense issue?

Also on the list was a Beretta 90two 9mm full size. Great gun. Taurus 9mm. Not my style but I recognize Taurus as making a product that works, I just don't like them. Ruger full size 40. I own one of those. Magnum research desert eagle .50 cal... The magazine went in the trashcan. I'm done.

I hope nobody bought a .50 to defend their apartment. The desert eagle is excessive, like buying a fully loaded F-350 to get the kids to soccer practice. Taurus judge, s&w 500, same thing. You get those because you want them. They're really cool, but not a home defense or carry deal...

the original point and click interface, by Smith and Wesson

 

[shouldazagged]

I think you diagnosed the problem accurately. It's advertiser money determining what they recommend. I'm sure most gun magazines are like that too, these days. Probably have been for at least fifteen years. At least.

As for the Desert Eagle, I saw a guy shooting them--he had three calibers--at an indoor range. This didn't make him popular. Nor did his swearing he carried the .44 Magnum version concealed as his EDC.

As an old-timer of my acquaintance used to say, "Some folks is jist eat up with it."

 

[Biggfoot44]

There are a handfull of small specialized publications, with publishers who are actual enthusiasts of the subject matter , and are happy to cover the expenses and break even.

For the other 99.5% of of publications , publishing companies are out to turn a profit in a dying field. Ever more marketing studies to aim a targeted ( presumably profitable ) demographic , and increasingly dependent on advertising revenue.

Some amount of editorial content is there to keep from seeming like an advertising flyer. Even within the editorial content *often* the emphasis will be on what's new and trendy , which just coincidently has overlap with advertisers and prospective advertisers.

So It's the nature of the beast. Learn to use blinders and tune out ads and blatent product placements. Learn to recognize the handfull of authors who are actually knowledegable on various subjects , and will at least some of the time write of actual methods , skills ,and techniques .

Anymore for at least half of the gun rags , I just take 5min at the magazine rack , and read the one or two coloumnists I have intrest in.

 

[venomballistics]

I think you diagnosed the problem accurately. It's advertiser money determining what they recommend. I'm sure most gun magazines are like that too, these days. Probably have been for at least fifteen years. At least.

As for the Desert Eagle, I saw a guy shooting them--he had three calibers--at an indoor range. This didn't make him popular. Nor did his swearing he carried the .44 Magnum version concealed as his EDC.

As an old-timer of my acquaintance used to say, "Some folks is jist eat up with it."

yeah .. thats the long and short of it .. results bought and paid for.
Go to pistol list ... yeah, some form of 1911 is recommended.
the design is 100 years young and keeps on kicking because it was right in the first place
Wilson combat .. sure, if you want to spring for one. But a well range proven rock island or Springfield will do just as well at a fraction of the cost.

22 magnum for a defensive piece .... If I were facing raging hordes of squirrels and rabbits ... perhaps. but serious business demands serious guns, 380 is last ditch.

more pistols ... last I checked Glocks work, and the springfield XD is gaining a following as well. and, at a price that would put them in every room for the cost of a high end offering.

 

[gdnagle]

And I guess they didn't say that if you use it then you will lose it until after a trial and may never get it back. My Kahr CW .45 serves me well and cost less then $350.00. If I ever had to use it, heaven forbid, I'm not out that much. Problem with the gun rags is someone has to pay for everyone's salary.

 

[arjay]

They aren't called gun rags without reason.

 

[Don 73]

Some of the articles aren't bad, I used to subscribe to two or three different mags, and would read the articles, but take their caliber and gun recommendations with a grain of salt.