Someone on another thread said something about a gun magazine writer, skip the name it is not important. They can give you ideas, some good, some bad, work their idea and if you like it, use it. But for heavens sake do not take what they say as gospel, some of those boneheads are scary to the extreme. I have seen and heard stuff from the so called experts that are so weird that I cannot belive it even as I read it. Have stopped getting magazines cause they want to call this or that "XXXX" technique, named after them. You can only improve on the wheel so many ways and after that it is a moot point. If you do not belive me pick up a 1960 issue of American Rifleman and read it, same rehash of todays stuff. Someone, anyone argue this with me, so I can make further points.(valid arguements only)

"gufaw"?

You're right about that!

Same stuff, more decoration, more speculation, less technical accuracy.
I've got 'em going back to 1967 and there is just no comparison.  Those guys were like scientists back then, now they think they're entertainers.  Shoot one group out of twenty that comes close to an inch and they have a 'sub-minute' rifle, typical of current production.  They normally get better results from an SKS that the current benchrest record.



BTW, IMHO, you're mistaken.

I don't bother to read gun rag reviews of any sort of firearm, simply because half of those *ssholes can't shoot. I read one review of the Ruger PC-9, where the guy said the best it would shoot is around 2.5 inches (IIRC)@ 25yds....this, off a benchrest. I shot a 13/16ths group with mine (10 rds @ 25yds), while sitting on the ground, using a cardboard box w/ a rolled-up sleeping bag as a rest. If I want a review of any sort of firearm, I come here; at least here, (most)people know what they're doing.