Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 1/4/2006 3:43:32 AM EDT
...perusing through the magazine "Book of the AR15" put out by G&A (thank God I didn't buy the thing-given to me), there on page 22 in a column about the Barrett 468 is this big-ass closeup pic of the top rail of the SIR, the clearly-marked Swan emblem (AKA ARMS) showing right below the upright BUIS. Looking at the pic one knows it's an ARMS product.

Can anyone guess what the caption reads below the pic?

"The ARMS selective integrated rail system allows use of PRI's rugged flip-type backup iron sights"

Huh?

These guys get paid for their "expertise". Reminds me of the review of the Barrett M82A1 which stated the trigger system was "similar in design and function" to a standard AR15 trigger. Well, the only thing the two have in common is that they are both curved. Otherwise, nothing on God's green earth could be more dissimilar. This from the NRA's foremost rag American Rifleman.

I know I've read about how poor the gun press is in the popular mags on these pages in the past. It's still depressing to see such crap. The magazine is now lining my favorite trashcan.

Thanks. I feel so much better.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:48:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 3:59:07 AM EDT by twonami]
publisher typo. Shit happens all the time
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:50:54 AM EDT
Gun magazines suck. My parents feel the need to give me a subscription of G&A every year for Christmas. I just like the purdy pictures.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:01:20 AM EDT
Did you see the latest issue of American Rifleman? The one with the Khar pistol write-up (another Glock clone). The article goes on about the wonderful quality and attention to detail and the big pic at the begining shows an OBVIOUS machining defect on the front of the slide around the guide rod hole. It makes you wonder if the article was written before the gun was even received by the author.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:05:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:26:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Danger_Close:
Did you see the latest issue of American Rifleman? The one with the Khar pistol write-up (another Glock clone). The article goes on about the wonderful quality and attention to detail and the big pic at the begining shows an OBVIOUS machining defect on the front of the slide around the guide rod hole. It makes you wonder if the article was written before the gun was even received by the author.



One might presume that had the name of the gun been mis-spelled in the article, you would really have
been upset.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:34:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Danger_Close:
Did you see the latest issue of American Rifleman? The one with the Khar pistol write-up (another Glock clone). The article goes on about the wonderful quality and attention to detail and the big pic at the begining shows an OBVIOUS machining defect on the front of the slide around the guide rod hole. It makes you wonder if the article was written before the gun was even received by the author.



Yeah, I saw that and thought the same thing.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:36:06 AM EDT
Who's upset? I responded to a post...that doesn't have anything to do with spelling BTW...
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:40:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:41:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Danger_Close:
Did you see the latest issue of American Rifleman? The one with the Khar pistol write-up (another Glock clone). The article goes on about the wonderful quality and attention to detail and the big pic at the begining shows an OBVIOUS machining defect on the front of the slide around the guide rod hole. It makes you wonder if the article was written before the gun was even received by the author.



the kahr i used to own did not impress me. it even had machining marks left on the outside of the slide. Then there were the problems w/ the slide not going fully into battery. And the problem w/ the slide release being located precisely where i wanted to place my thumb during shooting. That pistol was my most expensive disappointment.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:42:11 AM EDT
That's not all! In that very same issue they have a C-more captioned as an EOTech...
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:47:13 AM EDT
I was talking to the owner/editor/publisher of Skydiving Magazine a week or so ago at the loading area. He was jumping a fairly old, used set of gear and I was ribbing him about it and he how he could get free new gear if he wanted to. He said he doesnt allow any of his employees to take free gear from manufacturers for obvious reasons.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 6:30:40 AM EDT

...It makes you wonder if the article was written before the gun was even received by the author.




I believe that very thing happened in their (American Rifleman) review of the M82A1. The author had NO IDEA what the Barrett trigger mechanism looked like or how it functioned, he just assumed that because the layout of the outside aesthetics of the M82 was somewhat kinda sorta like the AR15 that it probably had the same trigger geometry. Boggles the mind.

This website spoils me. Although there is always some perps who like to spread disinformation on these pages, by and large the authors here know more about ANY firearm than the tards at G&A and the rest. It just sucks.

I'm done.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 6:45:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 6:58:43 AM EDT
So on the same page in GD, we have a thread complaining about liberals writing anti-gun articles, and then a thread complaining about conservatives writing pro-gun articles.

Will nothing satisfy you guys?

It's pretty much a given that the article authors don't write captions for the pictures in their articles. It makes the magazine look stupid but it happens.

As long as humans are at the wheel of anything, magazine, Semi truck, or whatever, there is the possibility for human error. You don't know if they had a different pic in they captioned, then it was swapped out at the last minute for whatever reason. Being in the design field, I know this happens CONSTANTLY.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 6:58:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRicker:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
Gun magazines suck. My parents feel the need to give me a subscription of G&A every year for Christmas. I just like the purdy pictures.



One of the few that doesn't suck is SWAT.

No articles in that magazine are written by Gary Paul Johnston.



couldn't agree more. Their writers tell it like it is.
I'm weaning myself from buying any other mags except for SGN and S.W.A.T---if I wanted hot air blown up my ass I'd sit on the floor vent.

G.P.J. is an asshat...right on up there with "The Sheriff" Jim Wilson.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:28:06 AM EDT
Enthusiast web forums have pretty much eliminated enthusiast periodicals in my world. There is just no way with the limited staff and wacky publishing schedule that a magazine can compete with the vast member resources and real-time nature of a web forum. From personal experience it holds true for sports cars, 4 wheeling, computers, and guns; I imagine it holds true for just about everything else.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:29:07 AM EDT
What I like are the pics of the authors holding the guns. Is this article about the gun or about the author ?? I have actually had my picture in a glossy magazine article but unless you knew what my welding protective gear looked like you would have not known it was me under it all. It was an article about roll cages not about me.

Then the next month the same mag has some rube 'author' write "wa la" because he is too stupid to know that what he is after is "voila". And it made it all the way to print !!

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:32:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rlcanon:
Enthusiast web forums have pretty much eliminated enthusiast periodicals in my world. There is just no way with the limited staff and wacky publishing schedule that a magazine can compete with the vast member resources and real-time nature of a web forum. From personal experience it holds true for sports cars, 4 wheeling, computers, and guns; I imagine it holds true for just about everything else.



So instead of being able to believe, oh, 85% +/- of what a decent gunwriter writes, you'd rather go to a free forum where you can believe MAYBE 10% of what the membership writes?

Admittedly the 10% here at Arfcom is a VERY good source of information - but when you do that you need to find the people who you can trust that implicitly, and that takes time.

Not a bash at all; but I get and weigh info from many sources and won't shut one out because there's a typo in there somewhere.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:50:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rlcanon:
Enthusiast web forums have pretty much eliminated enthusiast periodicals in my world. There is just no way with the limited staff and wacky publishing schedule that a magazine can compete with the vast member resources and real-time nature of a web forum. From personal experience it holds true for sports cars, 4 wheeling, computers, and guns; I imagine it holds true for just about everything else.



+1

IMHO, the big difference, especially with guns, is the ability to get the opinions of people who don't like something. When was the last time you have ever seen any magazine knock anything? You can write a puff piece on anything, if you want to. Before I buy, I want to hear from people who didn't like it, what they didn't like, and why.

A sterling example: A was thinking about getting one of those multi-tool gadgets. When browsing the magazine rack, I saw that the new American Handgunner advertised a piece on multi-tools, so I grabbed a copy. When I read it, the article basically says "Multi-tools are cool. You should get one." That's it. I was expecting at least some kind of chart on what tools there were, how much they cost, what kind of gadgets they had, that sort of thing. I didn't even find a decent list of manufacturers. L. A. M. E.

So, Gunrags are good for stories, pictures, and puff pieces on new guns, and that's about it.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:00:29 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:05:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By rlcanon:
Enthusiast web forums have pretty much eliminated enthusiast periodicals in my world. There is just no way with the limited staff and wacky publishing schedule that a magazine can compete with the vast member resources and real-time nature of a web forum. From personal experience it holds true for sports cars, 4 wheeling, computers, and guns; I imagine it holds true for just about everything else.



So instead of being able to believe, oh, 85% +/- of what a decent gunwriter writes, you'd rather go to a free forum where you can believe MAYBE 10% of what the membership writes?



Good point. I wasn't claiming that forums didn't have their fair share of BS to wade through. Still, overall I do better sifting for good info on-line than I do trying to find much that's of use in the periodical press.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:09:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rlcanon:

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By rlcanon:
Enthusiast web forums have pretty much eliminated enthusiast periodicals in my world. There is just no way with the limited staff and wacky publishing schedule that a magazine can compete with the vast member resources and real-time nature of a web forum. From personal experience it holds true for sports cars, 4 wheeling, computers, and guns; I imagine it holds true for just about everything else.



So instead of being able to believe, oh, 85% +/- of what a decent gunwriter writes, you'd rather go to a free forum where you can believe MAYBE 10% of what the membership writes?



Good point. I wasn't claiming that forums didn't have their fair share of BS to wade through. Still, overall I do better sifting for good info on-line than I do trying to find much that's of use in the periodical press.



I'm actually right there with you... I have learned more from a couple years here at Arfcom (and a few select other forums) than I ever did just reading magazines... But I still subscribe to Shooting Times and buy the occasional Shooting Illustrated, SureFire (by G&A), SGN and SWAT (and GWLE) magazines. They're good bathroom reading for when I don't want to lug the laptop in there
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:11:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tarfu64:
...perusing through the magazine "Book of the AR15" put out by G&A (thank God I didn't buy the thing-given to me), there on page 22 in a column about the Barrett 468 is this big-ass closeup pic of the top rail of the SIR, the clearly-marked Swan emblem (AKA ARMS) showing right below the upright BUIS. Looking at the pic one knows it's an ARMS product.

Can anyone guess what the caption reads below the pic?

"The ARMS selective integrated rail system allows use of PRI's rugged flip-type backup iron sights"



I guess I'm missing something, or my gadget-fu is weak, but I don't see where there is an error, based on your description. They're saying the rail is made by A.R.M.S. and the sight is made by PRI, which sounds right from what I'm reading.

I don't have the issue in question so I can't check for myself.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:14:32 AM EDT
I quite getting gun rags years ago, same as I quit getting car rags...
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:44:25 AM EDT
Im suprised no one piped up about how stupid David Fortier looked in the photos in his articles. Come on I know one of you want to say it. Gun magazines are pretty much the same warmed over crap year after year. Here's what I learned wasting the best years of my life pouring over gun magazines, I watched Mike Venturino get fatter and fatter every year, Jan Liborel is a paid whore for Taurus, Dave Fortier looks like an airsoft geek in his photos, Peter Kokalis can fit alot of patches on his uniforms, Chuck Taylor hasnt aged in 20 years, thats because he keeps reusing the same pics, Sheriff Jim Wilson spends alot of time in nursing homes wearing his BBQ gun talking to real lawmen, and Col. Graig Boddington's daughter is freakin hawt! That being said gun magazines are pretty much useless. However right now I can't complain about them since Im deployed.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:46:36 AM EDT
The nice thing about these forums is that if a gun [model] sucks, somwone will pipe up. Not so in the mags. I enjoy AH, like Taffin, and newcomer Connor is a hoot. I do not know how much he knows about guns but he does know human nature. And he is funny while he gets his point across, something that I do not see all that much anymore.

I don't read the things for gun tests per se, as it is all to obvious that is's all about the advertising. Whether you like Colt or not, it is a perfect example of advertising writing articles. Once Colt stopped advertising, 99% of the articles stopped overnight. The few like the WW1 reissue were as much on the specialty shop doing the Carbonia Bluing as they were on the gun and gun manf itself. [whether one likes the old style 1911 or not, the gun itself is stunning and a stand out among new models] Known problems, especially with the 1911 from certain makers are totally overlooked, no matter what, even tho some of us who have shot 1911s for well over 20 years see what is happening.

Most other mags pretty much suck anymore with more gloss and advertising then actual articles, And declining readership shows it. I see very few new faces as writers that will ever be worth a crap, and their skill at making an article interesting and truthful is sadly lacking.

Oh, whats the flavor of the month from Kimber, guys? Not like I can't predict THAT.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:52:38 AM EDT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By Danger_Close:
Did you see the latest issue of American Rifleman? The one with the Khar pistol write-up (another Glock clone). The article goes on about the wonderful quality and attention to detail and the big pic at the begining shows an OBVIOUS machining defect on the front of the slide around the guide rod hole. It makes you wonder if the article was written before the gun was even received by the author.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I figured it was the authors way of subtly saying:

"I have to say nice things about this gun to keep the industry happy, but you can see for yourself what rough-machined crap it is."

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:56:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:
I have little use for most gun magazines, but I don't know that the author writes the picture captions, someone else may have done that.



Usually a magazine works like this:

Guy writes article
Different guy takes pictures
Another guy chooses which pictures to use, captions them, and designs the lay-out of the pictures, article, etc. on the pages
Editor gives a quick once-over to approve for printing
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:13:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rob78:

G.P.J. is an asshat...right on up there with "The Sheriff" Jim Wilson.



+1,000,000
Man, i hate that guy and they always refer to him in the 3rd person
stupid.

Brian
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:25:57 PM EDT
last month in SOF they stated that the PAQ/4 mounted on an M4 is "the same laser special forces troops used to guide bombs to their targets" WTF so much for the journal of professional adventurers.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:32:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fxntime:
The nice thing about these forums is that if a gun [model] sucks, somwone will pipe up. Not so in the mags. I enjoy AH, like Taffin, and newcomer Connor is a hoot. I do not know how much he knows about guns but he does know human nature. And he is funny while he gets his point across, something that I do not see all that much anymore. .



Connor doesn't really exist. That is why his column photograph is a caricature drawing. He's the editors "troll" account. Just like the old guy was "Commodore Gilmore" or whatever he was. That was the old editors "troll".
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:33:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DefensorForskin:
Im suprised no one piped up about how stupid David Fortier looked in the photos in his articles. Come on I know one of you want to say it. Gun magazines are pretty much the same warmed over crap year after year. Here's what I learned wasting the best years of my life pouring over gun magazines, I watched Mike Venturino get fatter and fatter every year, Jan Liborel is a paid whore for Taurus, Dave Fortier looks like an airsoft geek in his photos, Peter Kokalis can fit alot of patches on his uniforms, Chuck Taylor hasnt aged in 20 years, thats because he keeps reusing the same pics, Sheriff Jim Wilson spends alot of time in nursing homes wearing his BBQ gun talking to real lawmen, and Col. Graig Boddington's daughter is freakin hawt! That being said gun magazines are pretty much useless. However right now I can't complain about them since Im deployed.





yep, there is just something about Dave that screams "wannabee"
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:18:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DefensorForskin:
Im suprised no one piped up about how stupid David Fortier looked in the photos in his articles. .



I did, I just didn't single him out because most all of the staged 'writer posing with gun' shots looked stupid. That's what you get when your wife [ or sister or mother ] is taking the pics.

rj
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:32:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By anachronism:

Originally Posted By fxntime:
The nice thing about these forums is that if a gun [model] sucks, somwone will pipe up. Not so in the mags. I enjoy AH, like Taffin, and newcomer Connor is a hoot. I do not know how much he knows about guns but he does know human nature. And he is funny while he gets his point across, something that I do not see all that much anymore. .



Connor doesn't really exist. That is why his column photograph is a caricature drawing. He's the editors "troll" account. Just like the old guy was "Commodore Gilmore" or whatever he was. That was the old editors "troll".




So was the redheaded chick there was a picture of showing a holster in one article that "John Connor" wrote the editors daughter?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:47:51 PM EDT
In case any of you guys don't know or don't believe how things work in publishing, I'll share a story. I used to own a good-sized manufacturing business. After spending about $3000 a month for a year for advertising in a specialty magazine, comparable to a gun magazine (but NOT a gun magazine in the interest of full disclosure), I approached the publisher about doing a feature article review of one of my products. He agreed, making it clear that he expected to continue to see similar advertising expenditures in the future. He told me who would be doing the review and to contact him.

Being young and naive, I called the very well known writer who would be doing the review, and started discussing how I would ship the product to him to review. He was incredulous, and said something along the lines of "I'm too old to be playing with all that crap, you just send me some nice pictures of the product and I'll take care of writing the review."

Needless to say, I trust what I read here a hell of a lot more than what I read in the magazines.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:01:10 PM EDT
"Im suprised no one piped up about how stupid David Fortier looked in the photos in his articles. Come on I know one of you want to say it. Gun magazines are pretty much the same warmed over crap year after year. Here's what I learned wasting the best years of my life pouring over gun magazines, I watched Mike Venturino get fatter and fatter every year, Jan Liborel is a paid whore for Taurus, Dave Fortier looks like an airsoft geek in his photos, Peter Kokalis can fit alot of patches on his uniforms, Chuck Taylor hasnt aged in 20 years, thats because he keeps reusing the same pics, Sheriff Jim Wilson spends alot of time in nursing homes wearing his BBQ gun talking to real lawmen, and Col. Graig Boddington's daughter is freakin hawt! That being said gun magazines are pretty much useless. However right now I can't complain about them since Im deployed. "


This dude is dead on in my opinion. I posted a thread about how annoying i find Fortier about a year ago.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:10:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DefensorForskin:
Im suprised no one piped up about how stupid David Fortier looked in the photos in his articles.


Fortier did a review of an UltiMAK for some magazine (SGN probably) and complained that the mount got hot after shooting. We kind of rolled our eyes and moved on.

After that, I noticed that in almost everything he writes, he complains that the gun gets hot after shooting it.

We talked about buying him a custom set of gloves for when he's reviewing stuff.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:15:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRicker:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
Gun magazines suck. My parents feel the need to give me a subscription of G&A every year for Christmas. I just like the purdy pictures.



One of the few that doesn't suck is SWAT.

No articles in that magazine are written by Gary Paul Johnston.



In the last issue of SWAT Leroy Thompson did an article on the Great BAR-10 even though it had been pulled from production well before publishing time (I THINK) not saying SWAT isnt a good magazine I just thought that was odd
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:24:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ken_mays:

Originally Posted By tarfu64:
...perusing through the magazine "Book of the AR15" put out by G&A (thank God I didn't buy the thing-given to me), there on page 22 in a column about the Barrett 468 is this big-ass closeup pic of the top rail of the SIR, the clearly-marked Swan emblem (AKA ARMS) showing right below the upright BUIS. Looking at the pic one knows it's an ARMS product.

Can anyone guess what the caption reads below the pic?

"The ARMS selective integrated rail system allows use of PRI's rugged flip-type backup iron sights"



I guess I'm missing something, or my gadget-fu is weak, but I don't see where there is an error, based on your description. They're saying the rail is made by A.R.M.S. and the sight is made by PRI, which sounds right from what I'm reading.

I don't have the issue in question so I can't check for myself.



I have the magazine in question, and the original poster is correct, the caption is FUBAR. It's an ARMS 40L.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 10:31:26 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 10:36:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 10:37:37 PM EDT by MMcCall]
With the swan logo on it? I was under the impression that the sights were an ARMS-only deal.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 2:47:40 AM EDT
William Bell writes an O.K. article, I can't stand that 1* guy, He writes an article a year or two ago about a super wiz bang sniper rifle piece o crap $2900, no scope shoots 3-4inch groups at 100yrds and this is the latest you got to buy it Give me a f%^$^%$ break. No more subscriptions to Weapons for me.
Top Top