The American Rifleman does it again!

[rockquarry]

I guess we are lucky the NRA has any publications. At this point there is likely a salary paid to the editor who is expected to proofread every article as well as arrange the magazine and the cover. It's a lot to do and quality suffers as a result.

All of the staff writers are likely paid by the article or not at all.

I doubt the AR editor proofs anything. A magazine the size of AR has a staff to do that.

 

[6string]

This has turned out to be a very interesting thread! I am somewhat relieved to find that I'm not the only one wondering what's happened to the written page and editorial standards.

As a kid growing up, I enjoyed all the gun & shooting magazines. American Rifleman once held a special place of distinction because it was written by and for folks who were "in the know".
They weren't just a bunch of shills pandering to their advertisers. But, they are not alone in how they have fallen.
One of my favorite publications used to be Handloader Magazine. From the time it came out, around 1968, until the 1980s, perhaps somewhat into the 1990s, many of the articles were written and published like short research papers. The only way I could get it was by subscription! Once it transitioned to the mass market magazine racks it went immediately downhill.

I hope people come to realize that online and digital content has a very short lifespan. How many people have saved their files stored on floppy discs?
I still have every gun book and most of the gun periodicals I ever bought. The good ones have lasting value. I find them far easier to organize and reference than anything digital.

 

[rockquarry]

This has turned out to be a very interesting thread! I am somewhat relieved to find that I'm not the only one wondering what's happened to the written page and editorial standards.

As a kid growing up, I enjoyed all the gun & shooting magazines. American Rifleman once held a special place of distinction because it was written by and for folks who were "in the know".
They weren't just a bunch of shills pandering to their advertisers. But, they are not alone in how they have fallen.
One of my favorite publications used to be Handloader Magazine. From the time it came out, around 1968, until the 1980s, perhaps somewhat into the 1990s, many of the articles were written and published like short research papers. The only way I could get it was by subscription! Once it transitioned to the mass market magazine racks it went immediately downhill.

I hope people come to realize that online and digital content has a very short lifespan. How many people have saved their files stored on floppy discs?
I still have every gun book and most of the gun periodicals I ever bought. The good ones have lasting value. I find them far easier to organize and reference than anything digital.

HANDLOADER has seen a deterioration, but not to the degree of many other gun magazines. It's been around since 1966 and has been available on newsstands, etc. for almost forty year that I know of, maybe longer, but the many loyalists subscribe.

The best editors, and maybe not coincidentally, the best articles were published when Ken Howell, Al Miller, and Dave Scovill were in charge. Their leadership covered several decades.

The very best of the gun journalists wrote for HANDLOADER (and RIFLE), writers like Ken Waters, Bob Hagel, Finn Aagard, John Barsness, and Brian Pearce. Pearce still writes for them.

HANDLOADER and RIFLE remain at the top of the gun publishing business. I haven't seen a GUNS or AMERICAN HANDGUNNER in quite a while, but if they're currently where they were six or eight years ago, they deserve honorable mention.

Dave Scovill commented some years back that newer writers either didn't know how to research or just didn't research. This comment was based, of course, on his long tenure as HANDLOADER and RIFLE editor. He also mentioned that a good handloading piece with lots of data almost required the author to wear out a barrel. That might have been a bit of exaggeration, but the point is that research and lots of work are required to put together a good article. Anything less and you have the stuff that appears in second-rate magazines and on YouTube.

 

[mrcvs]

I am not going to get political, but I need to make a relevant point. American Rifleman probably hires editors using a job description requiring a college degree and extensive writing experience. Once you require a college degree, you are hiring someone who is more likely to be raised in the suburbs or an urban environment and has less hands on experience with firearms than in the past. If you require this degree, and an English or writing background, then they likely are indoctrinated by the left, taught all firearms are bad, maybe never even handled one. Then the job becomes editing articles relative to objects you may never have handled and might even be afraid of. Which is why this magazine has devolved to the rag it is today.

 

[rockquarry]

I am not going to get political, but I need to make a relevant point. American Rifleman probably hires editors using a job description requiring a college degree and extensive writing experience. Once you require a college degree, you are hiring someone who is more likely to be raised in the suburbs or an urban environment and has less hands on experience with firearms than in the past. If you require this degree, and an English or writing background, then they likely are indoctrinated by the left, taught all firearms are bad, maybe never even handled one. Then the job becomes editing articles relative to objects you may never have handled and might even be afraid of. Which is why this magazine has devolved to the rag it is today.

They may not have the best editor, but those who do the hiring aren't going to hire the editor you describe.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

AR is not much more than bird cage liner.

 

[mrcvs]

After I denigrated American Rifleman in Post 44, I picked up my copy which arrived today (I am a lifetime member), bypassed the usual junk, and found the “Griffin & Howe” article I’m reading now. It’s actually very good and reminds me that every now and again, an interesting article is published. Also, sometimes an interesting historical firearm is profiled on the last page.

 

[6string]

After I denigrated American Rifleman in Post 44, I picked up my copy which arrived today (I am a lifetime member), bypassed the usual junk, and found the “Griffin & Howe” article I’m reading now. It’s actually very good and reminds me that every now and again, an interesting article is published. Also, sometimes an interesting historical firearm is profiled on the last page.

I had a stack of American Rifleman back issues from the past 20 yrs that needed "sorting". I cut out the good articles, of the sort like the Griffin & Howe article you describe, put them in a manila folder, then tossed the rest. Very little got saved. But, I did fill a good sized trash bag!
I sure got sick of seeing ads for Stauer Co. junk, and ridiculous "commemorative" eyesores.
I guess someone must buy that stuff??

 

[bgrafsr]

I thought it was 15 yards; maybe I misread.

It may have been me who misread the article, but i thought it read 1.5 yards for sight in.

 

[colt_saa]

It may have been me who misread the article, but i thought it read 1.5 yards for sight in.

It was 15 yards

That is the carbon paper copy of the order form that was scanned and remember that was typed 88 years ago

For those of us old enough to remember typing with carbon paper, the second copy often had smudges or marks that were not on the original

 

[rockquarry]

It was 15 yards

That is the carbon paper copy of the order form that was scanned and remember that was typed 88 years ago

For those of us old enough to remember typing with carbon paper, the second copy often had smudges or marks that were not on the original

People today are fond of "upgrades" that are often nothing more than changes or may even be a step backward. Getting away from carbon paper was a true upgrade.

 

[DWalt]

I'm a life member, have been for a long time now. 40 years ago I would read an issue from cover to cover, for the past couple of decades now I flip through each issue, maybe look at whatever new product they "reviewed", then toss into the trash can.

Pretty much the same as I do. I do not now study each issue as I did many years ago when most articles were more interesting.

 

[03clyde]

As a side note, the washer and dryer did get successfully moved.

 

[bgrafsr]

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?

My old club had steel targets set up at 50, 75, and 100 yards for shooting handguns, I liked hitting those targets with a handgun, which was usually a .357 or .44 Mag.
Missed a lot, but it felt good when the steel would ring.

 

[tlawler]

A couple of years ago AR did an article on a new sniper rifle and the author shot a 7-inch group at 100 yards, I felt sorry for the manufacturer! I notice the "Better stuff" isn't being reviewed by AR, because nobody wants to be embarrassed by their incompetent staff writers!

Ivan

That is downright embarrassing and should never have made it to print. I must have missed it, but I’m sure I still have the issue. I’ll keep them for about five years, then pass them out to friends, maybe salt a few around in waiting rooms at Dr. offices, etc., after I’ve removed my name and address.

You don’t happen to remember which issue it was, do you?

 

[BE Mike]

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.

The current new crop of gun owners probably can't get their noses off their smart phones, featuring "social media influencers", long enough to read one article in TAR. TAR used to be extremely accurate and offered technical articles that had real meat. Grammar was also tops. The fairly recent attacks on the NRA have caused the knowledgeable, good writers to abandon ship. Unfortunately, shooters would rather watch a young woman in a string bikini, on YouTube, get slammed between the eyes by the recoil of a gun, than read a gun article that actually has important information. It's the dumbing down of America.

 

[bgrafsr]

The current new crop of gun owners probably can't get their noses off their smart phones, featuring "social media influencers", long enough to read one article in TAR. TAR used to be extremely accurate and offered technical articles that had real meat. Grammar was also tops. The fairly recent attacks on the NRA have caused the knowledgeable, good writers to abandon ship. Unfortunately, shooters would rather watch a young woman in a string bikini, on YouTube, get slammed between the eyes by the recoil of a gun, than read a gun article that actually has important information. It's the dumbing down of America.

One of my favorite magazines was Shooting Times. Had very good articles by excellent writers like Skeeter Skelton. The magazine started going downhill and I let my subscription lapse after almost 20 years of getting the magazine.

 

[NYlakesider]

One of my favorite magazines was Shooting Times. Had very good articles by excellent writers like Skeeter Skelton. The magazine started going downhill and I let my subscription lapse after almost 20 years of getting the magazine.

You realize that Guns and Ammo and Shooting Times are joined at the waist. At my house both normally come in the same delivery day. It probably would be postage cheaper if they just combined the both and only had one mailing.

I still have some of the old newspaper format of the original S.T.s
With that said I now have a renewal notice on my desk. This year going to do something different, going to run the notice through the shredder.

 

[bgrafsr]

You realize that Guns and Ammo and Shooting Times are joined at the waist. At my house both normally come in the same delivery day. It probably would be postage cheaper if they just combined the both and only had one mailing.

I still have some of the old newspaper format of the original S.T.s
With that said I now have a renewal notice on my desk. This year going to do something different, going to run the notice through the shredder.

Used to get Guns and Ammo too, but I stopped getting it due to a lot of garbage in the publication and ads galore.

 

[LostintheOzone]

Interesting thread, I used to shoot my 1911s at 100 yards, even my LW Commanders. Lots of fun.

Want more fun? Try your 22 LR rifle at 200 yds. on metal plates. If your hearing is good you can hear the tink when you hit it.

Awhile back I watched an old bullseye shooter using his 1911 at 50 yds from a bench. All of his shots were on a paper plate. I can't do that.