Gun Magazine Articles: advertising industry?

I read gun magazines and off for 20 years and have concluded that the articles are just thinly disguised advertising for the gun industry. At one point, I joined seven monthly gun magazines at the same time for 6 years. It 'was during this period of six years, I started noticing some interesting problems of gun articles I've read and I would get on my soap box and get them off my chest.

I subscribed and read magazines gun because I'm interested in guns and rifles, and many have owned and traded during a period of 20 years. I subscribed and read gun magazines to gain knowledge, and try to experts with more experience than me for advice or recommendations. Now the writers' magazines, gun magazines and gun you try to give the impression they make product evaluations of weapons and other paraphernalia. Some even say that he's writing the article in particular to see the gun or ammunition for the benefit of readers.

Now go back to college, when you said you were going to take a test and evaluation, which required some protocols to ensure that the results were not spurious, but they were valid and repeatable. Now, the only way to give results with some validity it is "research project". Unless the testing process provides barriers against all the unknown variables, bias meters and maintains consistent methods, the entire procedure and the results are useless. Good research project is not that difficult and can only be done with a little 'planning. Unfortunately, the gun writers often stumble on the first step.

For example, gun writers often begin a test and evaluation Article saying that a particular gun was shipped to them for testing by the manufacturer so they grabbed what ever ammunition was available or called a manufacturer of ammunition for a while ' more free ammunition. If you think about this for a minute you will realize immediately that there is already inconsistency in munitions and testing a potential conflict of interest in the results. Ammunition is a key factor in the way in the manner in which it performs a gun.

A 230 grain 0.45 caliber cartridges from Winchester is not the same as a 230 grain 0.45 caliber cartridges from the Golden Saber. A data cartridge is composed by many as the 'powder, bullet, brass case and primer. A change in each component can drastically affect the accuracy and performance of the projectile. Moreover, if the writer draws a gun and ammunition ammunition company claims free, there is a conflict of interest here. Can I trust the writer gun to give me an honest assessment of the performance of the cartridges? If he gives a bad review, not the company to stop sending him free ammo? Want to give free stuff to someone who gave a negative review of a year ago?

Also, if you try a gun with 5 different brands of bullets of various weights and types and then compare it with a Gun B test with different brands of ammunition of various types and weights, the comparison is valid? Often I find it amusing that give the impression of trying to be serious and precise when the basic research design procedure test is so flawed, the results are not valid.

Articles gun also tend to be predominantly swell only pieces instead of concise and complete reviews of the product. I often try to guess at what point the writer will actually start to talk directly to the product or what the thesis of this article. In a small minority of writers, I can find the actual start of the second or third paragraph of the article, but for most writers, I find the actual gun, the article starts in section 10 or more. The first ten paragraphs were personal views on life, the public perception of pitch 'of guns or a Walter Mitty dream of being in a dangerous place where you can count on the product that is the subject of the article.

The next time you read an article of gun read from the point of view of a good editor. The author tells me what the object of the article is the first paragraph, and formulate a position or opinion? How many factual information relevant to the product is directly linked in this article compared to the fluff and filler of other topics. If the yellow hi-light the facts and key points of this article you will be surprised how much filler there is and how you can delete the text and make the article shorter and better.

I also read some articles where the author also says that they just got the gun and were excited to try the gun immediately. So they grabbed what ever ammunition was available and went to the range. Some even say that they have had a certain brand or type of favor at home so that he could not test the gun with ammunition.

At this point is laughable. When I read statements like this I find myself saying the article "Then go and buy some '!" or "delay the test until the desired ammunition can be obtained." Duh!

Then, when the writers get to field test all fire arms in a different way. Even writers for the magazine itself does not have protocols similar tests. You try at different temperatures, benches, and pauses gun. Some will test the remains Ransom and others do not. The best laughs I get are the writers who refer to themselves as old geezers with bad eye sight. After recognizing their bad sight, then proceed to shoot the gun for accuracy and give an opinion on how the cannon!

Now, I do not know about you, but if I were a manufacturer of gun, I would not want my new gun to be evaluated by a self-described person with bad eye sight. In addition, the magazines you should try to establish some protocols for experimentation and young shooters to take the test.

Now, after the shooting at the camp, the writer says the gun shoots well and then describes his six shots in a 4-inch circle at 24 meters or some similar group. Ok, I think, what does this group represent 4 inches, given the inconsistencies in testing procedures? And 'this group of 4 inches because of the good or bad ammunition, weapons of intrinsic accuracy / inaccuracy or shooters having bad or all three? If all three factors are involved, what does the group of 4 inches is really?

Finally, after reading hundreds of articles, it will never remember reading an article where the writer said that the gun was a bad design, the finish was bad, and I would not recommend. Even on weapons that are in the bottom of a product line or come from manufacturers that make junk guns, no negative comments, if deserved, are never given. Especially if the accuracy is more like a shotgun pattern, the writer often said "the gun showed a good accuracy combat." Since most of the shooting takes place at about 3-8 meters, this means that the gun has hit the attacker 30 inches wide to 5 meters. (I hope!) Do not tell the gun is a piece of trash that could not hit a target from 8 inches to 15 feet if your life depended on it.

Why? Because the writers do not buy magazines and pistol guns put to the test, get test patterns free. Only "Gun Test" magazine buys its weapons. So the writers have to say only positive things about the gun and down playing negative, or "black balls" will future manufacturer of handguns. The bad is you, the consumer. You get bad reviews.

How can I ever trust what the writer is saying? For me, I do not. In fact, I pretty much left all my subscriptions run out years ago, except for American Rifleman.

Now, I read most articles on small arms history. Not looking for items to sell me a camera viewfinder, laser, or a bullet for sure.

The repetition of death is also another of my wrath. Over the years, not that many really new model of gun came out. Mainly manufacturs' existing issue a gun with a new color, night vision equipment, finish or some other minor characteristic. The problem is that the gun magazines and writers dealing with the new color gun as if it was the best thing since sliced ​​bread and write an article of four pages. These items are usually items that contain information that is 95% rehash of information already said for years the particular gun. Usually in these four articles on the front page just two points is really new or interesting information.

The gun magazines tend to repeat articles on the same gun in the same year and year after year. The 1911 is a great example. Start keeping track of the number of times that the model 1911 is the subject of articles in magazines and gun each month. Now the 1911 is released in 1911, and was written by then. There really is something out there is not known for 1911? If a new feature on the 1911 is created, it is not likely to justify an article of four pages of a "feature" that could easily be described adequately in a few paragraphs?

If you want to read gun magazines go on, just read with a critical eye. When I read. I read for content. I try to get the following from an article:

1. What is the reason the writers for writing?

2. What the writer is actually saying?

3. What new information was provided?

4. These are the results of any testing process described is valid?

5. Perhaps the writer to provide the background qualifications or experience?

6. What I have to remove the article?

Guns are expensive, and unfortunately the magazines were not very helpful in providing an honest comparison for the beginner. They only say positive things about all the weapons industry and never criticize or make and model. "They are all good rifles, some are just better than others"? Yeah, right.

My recommendation for beginners. Talk to someone who has been for a while 'shooting and he shot and owned a variety of different weapons, and has no interest in recommending a model or brand.

These are just my opinions, but after years of reading articles pistol, I came to the conclusion that the writers really do not know how to do consistent tests, and publishers have very low standards for accepting articles. I'm not perfect either and love shooting, but would not say that every weapon is a pistol or quality deserves to be bought.

The author also works: http://www.Cynscorion.com selling knives and other products related to shooting has written an ebook on "Ecommerce for Beginners".