Posted: 4/13/2008 6:09:40 PM EDT
|
I just got done reading yet another article on a particular new handgun, written by a particular gun writer who gives the gun a workout at the range with a variety of different ammos. When they write these articles, they often show a picture of the target with the results written next to the gun with that ammo load, ie: 25 yds, Federal 230 gr. Hydroshok, 2.34", or whatever. They often claim these groups were fired off-hand. Now, I'm a reasonably good shot, been shooting all my life, military, police, been to Thunder Ranch several times, etc. But, I cannot and probly never will be able to print a 2" group of 5 shots, standing at the 25 yard line. Most I know probly cannot. How many here think these claims are B.S., fabricated to give credibility among other writers, etc? I mean, the performance of a group fired by me, is more the product of ME, than of any one pistol. They also blame the gun for a "flyer" that ruined the group. To me, that's an off shot by the SHOOTER. Ransom Rests would be the way to see what a pistol can do. Anyone else not fully believe what they read? |
|
Watching some of those gun TV shows on TV, most of those "gun journalists" don't know sheet from shinola, about half of what comes out of their mouths is pure BS, they seem to fall for every old wives tale around. When they review a new gun, you have to keep in mind they are in the business of selling advertising, and when they review a new gun they are counting on a good review to generate advertising dollars from the company that made it. |
|
All gun reviews are is a plug for the gun they are testing. Now they even have company magazines like Surefire and Glock where you have to pay to read their advertising. As far as their groupings at the range goes those groups are fired off a rest or even in a vice like rest where the gun doesnt move at all between shots. |
|
I shot a 3" group(using handloaded light magnum loads) with my 29-2 at 25 yards a few days ago. I don't believe all gunwriters shoot as well as they say they do, but I'm sure some of them do. I'm also pretty sure that a lot of people can't shoot well at all, and assume nobody else can either. |
|
Some of the writers I know can hit Kingsford Briquettes all day long at 25 yds offhand. I know of at least two than keep in good order by shooting IDPA/IPSC. I will not vouch for others. Dave Fortier pretty much calls 'em like they are, or he refuses the assignment. Venola? Shit, he's an animal. If he calls it, he did it in front of others and it's the damn truth. It ain't all of them. Some have thier shit together. S-28 |
|
|
They are all full of it. They dont shoot 1 gun long enough to get good with it. I read a recent AR review where he "tested for accuracy" by shooting with a red dot at 50 yds and just rested his elbows on a bench. And was disappointed it didnt do better with the maych ammo he used  What a mook. those guys kill me. especially that venturino ass.
|
Well, when there is an ad for the gun being reviewed placed right in the middle of the article, I'd have to say that arouses a bit of suspicion. I remember looking at a gun magazine in the barber shop once and there were about 5 gun review articles, and right in the middle or at least adjacent to each one, amazingly there was an advertisement for the gun being reviewed. Uncanny, I know. I have seen so-called off-hand groups in magazines I found hard to believe, but at the same time, I have also seen some 100 yard rifle groups that are the sort I like to throw in the trash before any of my friends can see them. And then of course there are the rifle groups that look really good, but at no point in the article do they tell you at what range those groups were shot. To me it's just like motorcycle magazines, or periodicals for any other hobby - they make a living from selling ads and avoiding pissing off the advertisers is the highest priority. |
 www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/19741-chuck-taylor-liar-he-s-idiot.html
|
I feel your pain... I am not a gun writer. However, i am an old broke guy who also finds time to write for SWAT. My frustration with how some "test" led me to write an article on the M&P 15 (actually, three of them) over a several month period, totaling 23,460 rounds downrange (see May 2008 SWAT Magazine, A Tale of Three Smiths) Students at my classes volunteered to shoot these guns, and the result- the article) was as objective as i could be. I currebtly have three LWRC carbines with with appx 17,000 rds downrange, under the same circumstances. We are striving for about 10k-12k from each gun before i write about these carbines. Generalizing about any group is probably a poor tactic, but i understand the frustration that occurs with some authors/ magazines. |
|
To add to this- not all gun mags are the same. SWAT magazine operates on a different level then the others, by a wide margin. I have never received an assignment to write anything. I have rarely been edited (except for spelling) A number of writers have written very objectively about those items they have tested. They also have a forum here, and you can have access to the publisher and the editor. Not all magazines are the same. Or cars. Or guns. Or parts. Or people. |
|
Thanks- you may find that you like it. SWAT was never a cop magazine. Originally is stood for SURVIVAL Weapons and Tactics. It actually is for a broader audience, and the content is diverse. Because both the publisher and editor are solid shooters with a varied background, they actually have a grasp on what goes on. Indeed, both Rich Lucibella and Denny Hansen have been through several of my classes as well as a buttload of others. |