Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/28/2006 1:13:48 PM EDT
Is it just me, or is there an absolute glut of 1911 reviews in gun rags these days. How many times can you review the damn pistol before it gets old. I like the design and everything, but I can't stand it when every new Kimber/SA/custom pistol that comes out gets a 3+ page spread. More often than not the only difference (if there even is one) is some new sights or grips. BFD, it would be like putting tritiums and a MIAD on an AR and then giving it a whole other article.

Just venting I guess, because it seems like every time one of the gun magazines that I subscribe to comes in, they have devoted at least 10 pages to something 1911.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 1:16:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 3:29:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
Is it just me, or is there an absolute glut of 1911 reviews in gun rags these days. How many times can you review the damn pistol before it gets old. I like the design and everything, but I can't stand it when every new Kimber/SA/custom pistol that comes out gets a 3+ page spread. More often than not the only difference (if there even is one) is some new sights or grips. BFD, it would be like putting tritiums and a MIAD on an AR and then giving it a whole other article.

Just venting I guess, because it seems like every time one of the gun magazines that I subscribe to comes in, they have devoted at least 10 pages to something 1911.



I agree with you Panzer.

The gun mags are very lame when all they write about is the 1911.

My guess is gun writers are lazy and it is very easy to write about the 1911.
All they need to do is write about how great John Browning was for intro and then replace Springfield for Kimber, or Les Baer for Ed Brown and hit print.

With all the 1911 brands out there it gives the writers a lot to talk about....but nothing to talk about. It is a 95 year old design......nothing new.


Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:14:55 PM EDT
Quit buying the glorified mullet wrapper and start reading AR15.com, Glocktalk.com, Sigforum.com and the like. All the diversity you seek without the asskissing to the advertisers.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:16:22 PM EDT
If all you shoot are 1911's it makes perfect sense.

Why would anyone discriminating want to shoot anything else

Really though I'm a 1911 guy. Everything else is lower quality fit finish and function (say comparing the trigger on a good 1911 to an HK .45 or an M9 or Browning HP, or comaring the recoil impulse of the 1911 and HK .45, etc.)
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:19:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:




You unwashed godless comminist heathen.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:16:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:17:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:




You unwashed godless comminist heathen.



There is no overabundance. There are simply 1911's and inferior copies.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:26:49 PM EDT
Can you imagine revieewing Glocks once a month?


The G19 that is the subject of this article is indistinguishable from any other Glock 19. The sights are the same. The gun shoots the same. It feels the same. We can't tell this Glock apart from any other except by the serial number.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:28:10 PM EDT
Gun magazines in general seem to be repetitious drivel of late. I namely read SWAT now ( overall an excellent magazine imho) and even then there is an abundance of 1911 articles.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:29:07 PM EDT
I quit reading the rags and started buying 1911s. Seems that the only REAL way to find out if something is good or bad is to try it yourself.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:43:13 PM EDT
I was thinking that they had not tested enough 1911's.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 8:03:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ASU1911:
Can you imagine revieewing Glocks once a month?


The G19 that is the subject of this article is indistinguishable from any other Glock 19. The sights are the same. The gun shoots the same. It feels the same. We can't tell this Glock apart from any other except by the serial number.



No, but I can imagine reviewing some of the less popular designs on the market. Like Walthers, CZ's, Rugers, etc. I can't remember the last time I saw one of these reviewed. If there just aren't enough guns being released to do reviews on, so be it. At least fill the void with some substance likes tactics, non-gun gear, etc. Kind of just like what S.W.A.T does though I guess, which is probably why I still keep up with my subscription to that magazine.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 10:47:02 PM EDT
guess they dont do reviews on SNS....no other news except 1911s-which eveyone keeps changing up
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 10:51:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I quit reading the rags and started buying 1911s. Seems that the only REAL way to find out if something is good or bad is to try it yourself.



Now there's an idea. Maybe more people should try that rather than talking shit about their friends cousin who had a Magnum Ordnance that sucked.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 7:19:46 AM EDT
They do it because it's about the most popular pistol type going right now. How many makers of them are there now? Any day now, I expect Glock to announce they will market one also. Take out the Police market and see what design sells the most when you add all sales up. I'd bet it is the 1911 and with 1911 buyers, most end up with several makes or models.

It does get boring, and the truth is "somewhere out there" about the reliability of some of the clones and such, but mags must see that their sales go up when they tout another 1911. And magazine sales is really what they are all about.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 7:44:54 AM EDT
ever since Ross Seyfried and Jan Liborel quit writing as much, I think hand gun articles in G and A have gone down hill...
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:36:19 AM EDT
I have stop getting some gun magazines because I can't stand seeing a 1911 something on every cover.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:42:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 7:43:28 AM EDT by bobaloo]
Actually, the real reason is None of the Above, IMHO. Magazines write feature articles on guns made by companies that spend lots of money advertising in the magazine, that's the bottom line.

Most of a magazine's revenue, the overwhelming majority, comes from ad dollars, not subscription revenue or newstand sales. The way a mag approaches a potential advertiser is to tell them that if they place an adequate number of ads, they will get a feature article, or so many per year, depending on the ad amounts. It's a pure quid pro quo, it's not disguised at all if you're on the other side of the counter.

Been there, done that, personally, used to spend $4-5,000 per month on magazine advertising. What surprised me was the first time I got a featured article on one of my products and all the reviewer asked for was some good pix, he didn't actually want the product, it was too much work to fool with it.

Now you see why I don't read any of them, the internet has made magazines irrelevant.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 8:09:41 AM EDT
Did you ever notice how many full page, full color ads you see from Springfield, Kimber, and Para Ord in the same magazines? Coincidence?
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:46:26 AM EDT
Save your money. You are reading the same recycled shit with every "new" issue.

I think I will snap if I ever see these phrases in print again:

"venerable warhorse"
"Browning, most gifted American small arms designer" (interchange "genius" at will)
"choice of professional operators"

The only gun rag I get is American Rifleman, and only intermittently do I bother even reading it.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 3:27:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:




You unwashed godless comminist heathen.



Top Top