Gun Magazine Journalism Exposed

[HuckleberryFun]

I ripped this off from another forum. Provenance unknown, but instructive, true, and pretty funny.



HOW GUN MAGAZINES WRITE ARTICLES

Instruction From The Editor To The Journalist:

Frangible Arms just bought a four page color ad in our next issue. They sent us their latest offering, the CQB MK-V Tactical Destroyer. I told Fred to take it out to the range to test. He'll have the data for you tomorrow.

Feedback From Technician Fred:

The pistol is a crude copy of the World War II Japanese Nambu Type 14 pistol, except it's made from unfinished zinc castings. The grips are pressed cardboard. The barrel is unrifled pipe. There are file marks all over the gun, inside and out.

Only 10 rounds of 8mm ammunition were supplied. Based on previous experience with a genuine Nambu, I set up a target two feet down range. I managed to cram four rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. I taped the magazine in place, bolted the pistol into a machine rest, got behind a barricade, and pulled the trigger with 20 feet of 550 cord. I was unable to measure the trigger pull because my fish scale tops out at 32 pounds. On the third try, the pistol fired. From the outline of the holes, I think the barrel, frame, magazine, trigger and recoil spring blew through the target. The remaining parts scattered over the landscape.

I sent the machine rest back to the factory to see if they can fix it, and we need to replace the shooting bench for the nice people who own the range. I'll be off for the rest of the day. My ears are still ringing. I need a drink.

Article Produced By The Journalist:

The CQB MK-V Tactical Destroyer is arguably the deadliest pistol in the world. Based on a combat proven military design, but constructed almost entirely of space age alloy, it features a remarkable barrel design engineered to produce a cone of fire, a feature much valued by Special Forces worldwide. The Destroyer shows clear evidence of extensive hand fitting. The weapon disassembles rapidly without tools. At a reasonable combat distance, I put five holes in the target faster than I would have thought possible. This is the pistol to have if you want to end a gunfight at all costs. The gun is a keeper, and I find myself unable to send it back.

Read More

 

[CountryGent]

LOL! Sounds about right. The magazine would also have a full page ad for the "CQB MK-V Tactical Destroyer" somewhere in the edition.

 

[11Charlie]

 

[Capn Jack]

Gottahavit...Gottahavit...

 

[UserNameInUse]

Same reason I stopped reading car magazines. "Car of the Year" goes to the company that bought the most ads.

 

[Mister Bisley]

Same reason I stopped reading car magazines. "Car of the Year" goes to the company that bought the most ads.

This is the case with a lot of things. Top 50 restaurants usually have to have really good food, but in order to get in the top ten, it comes down to how much advertising dollars they spent

 

[Hop Sing]

 

[Boboclown]

The moment I saw an I.O get a good review from a journalist I stopped reading them altogether.

 

[P7M13]

Same with computers: "this machine warms your heart with it's blazing speed." .... as you stand on the front lawn and watch your home burn....
I have felt that way on occasion when I read a few popular pundits, "The Truth..." Not always, tho...
@HuckleberryFun , thanks for posting. It's been a helluva week and I needed this laugh...

 

[Timbertodd]

Pretty much spot on!

 

[Alexx1401]

Sadly this is just reality. If the gun rags really told the "truth" all the time who would pay them? The cost of the mag is nothing to what it costs to make. So they have to sell ads. I often will buy these still when I see deals where they are all but giving them away. Interesting reading at work when nothing else is going on. Of course do not rely of what they say about much anything.

 

[Mister Bisley]

I like Wolfe Publishing, I.e., Rifle and Handloader, the articles are written with a lot of thought and aren't really selling anything. They do have ads, but those can be ignored.

 

[Alexx1401]

I like Wolfe Publishing, I.e., Rifle and Handloader, the articles are written with a lot of thought and aren't really selling anything. They do have ads, but those can be ignored.

It's a lot, and I do mean a LOT easier to write stuff on reloading. Who are you going to piss off? You can take any of the big name powders, bullets, primers and make great loads. It's not like you buy a can of W231 find out it's crap and have to say something nice. So when some large manufacturer sends you some new gun and it's garbage what are you supposed to do? If you tell the public Remington sent me this POS and I wouldn't sell this junk to my Mother in Law. Great, some readers would laugh. Then how many ads is Remington going to buy in your magazine? Like zero. So soon you get laid off as the magazine fails. Gun rags have to be taken with a lot of salt.
Someone long before the net was in Algores imagination came out with a magazine to fix this. No paid ads. They buy a gun and test it. Then tell you the "truth". sounded like a great idea. Fell flat on it's face. The problem with truth was they bought one gun. If that one worked they said this is great buy it. If that one gun had a problem they said all these are crap. I bought a subscription from them to try. They did a test on home shotguns. The Mossy 500 got a do not buy this is junk rating. The one they bought had problems. So I wonder how many of the 100's of thousands of Mossy 500 owners were shocked to find out that gun they liked so much was crap.

 

[WWShooter]

It's a lot, and I do mean a LOT easier to write stuff on reloading. Who are you going to piss off? You can take any of the big name powders, bullets, primers and make great loads. It's not like you buy a can of W231 find out it's crap and have to say something nice. So when some large manufacturer sends you some new gun and it's garbage what are you supposed to do? If you tell the public Remington sent me this POS and I wouldn't sell this junk to my Mother in Law. Great, some readers would laugh. Then how many ads is Remington going to buy in your magazine? Like zero. So soon you get laid off as the magazine fails. Gun rags have to be taken with a lot of salt.
Someone long before the net was in Algores imagination came out with a magazine to fix this. No paid ads. They buy a gun and test it. Then tell you the "truth". sounded like a great idea. Fell flat on it's face. The problem with truth was they bought one gun. If that one worked they said this is great buy it. If that one gun had a problem they said all these are crap. I bought a subscription from them to try. They did a test on home shotguns. The Mossy 500 got a do not buy this is junk rating. The one they bought had problems. So I wonder how many of the 100's of thousands of Mossy 500 owners were shocked to find out that gun they liked so much was crap.

Sounds like bad editorial practices to me. If you get a lemon, follow through, talk to the factory, see how they respond, see how the replacement performs. Consumers Reports has been working on the no advertising model for years (in fairness, I don't know how they're doing now) - why can't a gun magazine do the same model?

 

[Capn Jack]

If I'm interested in a new firearm, I look to see if Hickock45 has a review on it.
Then, I check several reviews on the WEB
Next stop is my local dealer and do a "hands on'.
If I like it, I buy it.

 

[Roop]

It's a lot, and I do mean a LOT easier to write stuff on reloading. Who are you going to piss off? You can take any of the big name powders, bullets, primers and make great loads. It's not like you buy a can of W231 find out it's crap and have to say something nice. So when some large manufacturer sends you some new gun and it's garbage what are you supposed to do? If you tell the public Remington sent me this POS and I wouldn't sell this junk to my Mother in Law. Great, some readers would laugh. Then how many ads is Remington going to buy in your magazine? Like zero. So soon you get laid off as the magazine fails. Gun rags have to be taken with a lot of salt.
Someone long before the net was in Algores imagination came out with a magazine to fix this. No paid ads. They buy a gun and test it. Then tell you the "truth". sounded like a great idea. Fell flat on it's face. The problem with truth was they bought one gun. If that one worked they said this is great buy it. If that one gun had a problem they said all these are crap. I bought a subscription from them to try. They did a test on home shotguns. The Mossy 500 got a do not buy this is junk rating. The one they bought had problems. So I wonder how many of the 100's of thousands of Mossy 500 owners were shocked to find out that gun they liked so much was crap.

I remember that mag! Gun Tests Magazine, I had a subscription back in the mid '90s. Somewhere I still have a big 3 ring binder full of them.

 

[MrNatural]

It's a lot, and I do mean a LOT easier to write stuff on reloading. Who are you going to piss off? You can take any of the big name powders, bullets, primers and make great loads. It's not like you buy a can of W231 find out it's crap and have to say something nice. So when some large manufacturer sends you some new gun and it's garbage what are you supposed to do? If you tell the public Remington sent me this POS and I wouldn't sell this junk to my Mother in Law. Great, some readers would laugh. Then how many ads is Remington going to buy in your magazine? Like zero. So soon you get laid off as the magazine fails. Gun rags have to be taken with a lot of salt.
Someone long before the net was in Algores imagination came out with a magazine to fix this. No paid ads. They buy a gun and test it. Then tell you the "truth". sounded like a great idea. Fell flat on it's face. The problem with truth was they bought one gun. If that one worked they said this is great buy it. If that one gun had a problem they said all these are crap. I bought a subscription from them to try. They did a test on home shotguns. The Mossy 500 got a do not buy this is junk rating. The one they bought had problems. So I wonder how many of the 100's of thousands of Mossy 500 owners were shocked to find out that gun they liked so much was crap.

So, since the truth is not profitable, it has no value?

You rationalize the gun writing biz so smoothly, obviously from long and frequent practice. Who are you trying to convince - us . . . or yourself?

We're not talking about trout fishing, computers or shiny cars. We're talking about serious implements people may have to use to defend their lives and those of their loved ones. That you can "swallow and smile" and foist whatever junk the manufacturers tell you, without regard for truth or even for simple facts, fills me with disgust. My happiest thought is that the internet is rapidly putting paid to your "profession".

Here's a song for you and all the other gun writers. You might consider it your anthem.

"Ah, but what do you have when there's nothing left to sell?"

 

[MrNatural]

Oh and while we're on the subject . . .

Read this piece by former gun writer Dean Speir, who finally got disgusted with his former ilk. Trust me it's just the tip of the iceberg.

An excerpt:
Those that write the gun rag pages
Make it up, but pose as sages.
Those who think that it's all true
Pay the bills to print more poo.

Even worse are the reviews
Pay for adds is pay'n dues.
If perchance you didn't pay
It ain't so good what we will say.

The Gun Zone -- The Gunwriting Game

 

[MrNatural]

Oh and while we're on the subject . . . Part II

What gun writers write vs what it means:

Writes: This pistol requires a careful break in period.
Means: The damn thing doesn't work!

Writes: Although pricey, this pistol provides good value for those who can afford it.
Means: Thank heaven they gave it to me. There's no way I would pay that much for this thing.

Writes: We experienced a few malfunctions during testing.
Means: The damn thing didn't work.

Writes: We found this pistol to have acceptable accuracy at combat ranges.
Means: We tried shooting it at 25 yards and couldn't hit the backstop. At least at 5 yards we could hit the paper.

Writes: The fit and finish were better than we expected for such a reasonably priced gun.
Means: This thing is ugly!

Writes: The sights were difficult to see in some lighting conditions but were generally useful at combat distances.
Means: The sights are a Chinese knock off of Novak's

Writes: The action was a little rough at first but smoothed out with use.
Means: This thing is junk!

Writes: The trigger was heavier than we like and may have contributed to the poor groups.
Means: Nobody can shoot this thing. It's junk!

Writes: Careful inspection showed few tool marks.
Means: This thing was put together by someone using a wood rasp.

Writes: The manufacturer has stamped a number of warnings on this gun.
Means: You can take it to the can for reading material.

Writes: We were fortunate to receive a prototype for testing.
Means: I have it and you don't. Don't hold your breath waiting for one of these.

Writes: The fit and finish were appropriate for a gun designed for hard use.
Means: Go ahead and throw it in the bed of your truck; you can't hurt it any.

Writes: Take down is relatively easy..
Means: You need three hands, a vise and a hammer to get it apart.

 

[Alexx1401]

Sounds like bad editorial practices to me. If you get a lemon, follow through, talk to the factory, see how they respond, see how the replacement performs. Consumers Reports has been working on the no advertising model for years (in fairness, I don't know how they're doing now) - why can't a gun magazine do the same model?

The outfit that tried this for guns was trying to follow the CR format. They just cut way too many corners. As to why? Can only guess no one has felt they could make money doing it "better" so far.