I apologize up front for the length of this post, but I have got to get this off my chest. The recent post about the writings of Rick Jamison has garnered a bunch of posts. This is like unto it: I have had it generally with Handloader magazine. It was the first �gun rag� to which I subscribed. For many years it was the place to find out about reloading, bullets, powders, equipment, and loadings for various cartridges and shot shells. Today, it is not even a shadow of its old self.

Cases in Point:

April-May 2004; Al Miller; In Defense of the .44 Special

The cover says: �Update: .44 Special.� This is similar to the old introduction for Ken Waters� �Pet Loads� type article. Miller quotes from Elmer Keith, who thought the .44 Special was a great revolver cartridge, but underloaded. Miller points out that Keith felt it was underloaded because Keith needed a surefire dangerous animal or man stopper. From this, Miller proceeds to two ridiculous observations that modern handgunners feel .44 Special loadings are fine for tin cans and cowboy shoots, and that if we feel this is wimpy, to shoot some factory loads in the new light-weight S&W 396 what weighs all of 18 ounces. This test is suppose to convince us the .44 Special is anything but tame.

He suggests is that if it recoils like a magnum from a light pistol, the 246 round nose must be hard hitting. Although I would not want to be shot with it, Keith was right about the 246 round nose bullet at low velocity as Miller later tacitly admits by his own choice of bullet and velocity. Following this pointless drill, Miller compares the .44 Special with the .45 ACP, and adds an anecdote about the US Army finding out the hard way that the .45 Long Colt killed Moros better than the .38 Long.

Miller gets back to the .44 Special reporting that, loaded to near magnum velocities, it will blow a cottontail to pieces. Now I tend to view this as hyperbole having once shot a meercat with a 7mmRemMag without achieving the disintegration attributed by Miller to a low velocity pistol round; however, Miller relates how he changed to factory loads and killed cottontails without any meat damage. Miller then waxes eloquent about the 246-grain round nose bullet and concludes that his needs for a pistol differed from Elmer Keith�s. If it is confined to shooting tin cans and cowboy competitions, I would concur. However, somewhat strangely, Miller ends by stating he depends upon a 240-grain semiwadcutter (a Keith type design) at 750fps.

Miller doesn�t provide any loading data because he states there is plenty of it out there; none of his is special; and they probably wouldn�t perform well in our guns. (It is a damn good thing Ken Waters did not feel that way or we�d have missed his entire book �Pet Loads.�) Miller states the obvious, guns last longer if pressures are held to the moderate side. However, if you think about this in context, it is a ridiculous statement to make about .44 Specials that have factory loads of 246-grains- bullets loaded to 737fps and 200-grain bullets loaded to 829fps. At about 1000fps, you begin to think in terms of light .44 Magnum loads, but they are not going to loosen up much less harm a modern firearm.

When I concluded Miller�s article, I wondered why I had wasted my time. Miller did not tell me anything about the cartridge and its history. He did not provide me with any useable information about loading the cartridge. He did not test any firearms using the cartridge. He meandered for four to five pages expressing a lot of opinion and telling a few anecdotes that were not on point, and ended with the punchy tag line, �Near-misses don�t count.� Unfortunately, there is more and more of this type of article in Handloader.

In that same issue, John Barsness� article on the 6.5s runs Miller�s a real close race. Barsness� article does not appear to have a point. It is as though he started to write one article, an article about the fallacies of excess velocity using the 6.5 to demonstrate his point, then recast it as a discussion of the 6.5s in America. Barsness� proposition that bullets with high ballistic coefficients at modest velocities kill more efficiently than high-speed bullets even in the same caliber is one with which hunters of large animals would agree. However, this point is buried in a mishmash of unrelated material.

Because it involved a cartridge with which I am intimately familiar, the 30-338, I looked forward to reading an article last year by another writer. This gentleman had Remington�s custom shop build him a Model 700 in 30-338. He was euphoric about the accuracy of his rifle that shot 1.5-inch, three-shot groups with his select handloads. The recoil on this muzzle-brake-equipped rifle was really awesome according to this writer. I have a custom 30-338, and have published pictures here of groups I�ve shot with it. I would not brag about 1.5� groups. In fact, when it suddenly got to the point it was shooting 1.5� groups, it was sent back for re-build. As to recoil, the 30-338 is on a par with any of the typical .30 magnums, and I don�t like recoil. But this is the type of garbage that Handloader is putting out. I really miss the quality you use to see in the articles in Handloader, and I am about to cancel my subscription. Any of the rest of you feel this way?
Ku-dude

Ku-dude: No need to apologize for the length of your fine posting - I enjoyed your perspective and concur somewhat with it. You see I cancelled my subscription at least 6 years ago to that magazine. So I can not really comment on the latest issues of that once fine magazine. Yeah I was a long time reader (bought issues at Gunshows to read) and then subscriber to that magazine. One good thing about that magazine was once I subscribed to it I could read and copy any articles I was interested in and then sell the magazines at the monthly Gunshows I attended and get virtually all my subscription price back from them!
Yeah it turned to repetitive blather sometime back.
I also agree with your statements about Ken Waters! I always read over his loads when ever I start to do load work up on a new Rifle! Tons of good info in his writings!
I will say this I still see lots of interest in the Handloader Magazines at Gunshows I attend out on the west coast - so resell the dang things if you can and recoup some of your spent dollars!
And maybe a letter to the editor asking for more detail and less drivel!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Hmmm, I was going to defend the mag, but then I got very introspective and thought a moment. I am only in my second year of reading/subscribing to the mag and it was helpful to me when I started out reloading, but this month when I got the new issue, I read Powder Keg and Ross Seyfried's article on the combination gun and passed it on to a friend to look at the above mentioned article. Last issue's Barsness article on loading to the point of aim kinda left me thinking that too much was written, yet too much was left out. Guess I expected to get closer to the loads I want without having to shoot a bunch of bad stuff and take all those notes: could there be any tips at all for making loads shoot where you want them? I must admit that I have been hard on the fellow since about a year ago when he did an article on cartrige efficiency that made me wish sorely for Bob Milek to still be around...I do see that back issues are still avaliable, can you recommend some good ones?

It's the same old crap every other month. I mean how many times can a person read of the virtues of the '06, the 270, 7Mag, 30/30, ad naseum? Case in point, Rifle Mags latest on the M94 Winchester and the 77 Ruger, I've heard it all before. I do believe that Dave Scovill thinks his shit don't stink. I do, however, enjoy the works of Ross Seyfried.

I gave up on the rifle and handloader about 10 to 12 years ago for mostly the same reasoning.
At one time I had subscriptions for 5 diffrent gun rags and now the only one I get is from the NRA and really do not read many of the articles.
I spend my time reading post on several diffrent forums.
I do not post a lot, mostly just hang out.
I have been on this forum for 4 years or so. I have seen the level of post change dermatically. Some good responses and some you have to wonder where this person got their information.
I picked up a shooting time mag at work the other day and found the article with rick Jamison and the other guy that writes for them to be as far from what I know that it was almost ammusing, except that I know some one will think it is Fact.
Dave

I feel kind of stuck with "Handloader", as there are virtually no other magazine anywhere (in the world actually) that does the same. However I would like more thorough articles, I mean, most people who buy "Handloader" does already know how to reload, I expect.

And I would love some articles on 7RM, .30-06 etc. instead of another totally (to me) uninteresting article about the .45-70 or some other lever action, former black powder thingie.

Tests of components, in depth articles on components and the manufacturers etc. is some of the things I would like to see. And I wish they would get M.L. McPherson on the team and give him the space "Rifleshooter" seems unable to...

Tron

Millers ok. The problem is that you know too much now.



They could use a better editor.



All I get is the two NRA mags now. The others are free at the club in our exchange pile.

K-dude,
Your writing, although couched in terms of technical content, borders on literary criticism. I essence, that may be what is needed to improve the current condition of the genre. I had both Rifle and Handloader from Vols. 1 and Nos. 1 and they have changed over the years. I no longer wish to pay hard-earned money for the current drivel for any shooting rag. I now only get the NRA magazine, and was previously mentioned, but read little of it. Years ago we had Townsend Whelen, Col. Harrison, Col. Geo. Nonte, and a few others that produced meaningful articles. Gee, some of them even had some real science in them -- such as could be known for the times. Keep your writing up.

Ditto to what Geo. said.

I have mixed emotions about the whole thing. Firstly, I've been reading this stuff since the first edition of G&A was published when I was a kid in OK. Well, the range of subjects in the shooting world is finite, and there is going to be repetition. The repeated truth is okay, I have problems with dogma not defendable. Second, the average gun rag reader is more influenced by testosterone than IQ, has the attention span of a gnat and little care beyond being able to hit a target, some of the time.

We all want revelations delivered monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly, but after 40+ years of reading this stuff, they have to be gleaned by careful reading or inference. My knowledge, as that of many of the posters here at AR is at or above that of many of the scribes, and that does not make them sinners, it means you have profited from their labor.

So, where does this leave me? A smaller list of subscriptions, and those that remain are a bit more pointed in the direction of my interest. "The Varmint Hunter Magazine" put out by VHA, www.varminthunter.org not because I am interested in the red mist, but because of a wealth of technical information(McPherson is a frequent contributor) and their primary interest is hitting things a long way out there. It requires the finest of technology and skill, they don't keep the information secret. Next is "Double Gun Journal", a quarterly publication also, it is rife with historical fact, and is also the place where I get my Seyfried fix. He is at his best in this publication.

So, I think it a natural evolution for most to grow tired of the gun rag pablum, and for the most part all they are good for is updates on the "latest, greatest..." I find enough information regarding odd and obscure factoids that I maintain my subscription to Rifle, and Handloader, but spend only a few additional minutes every 2-3 issues looking at each when one pops up. I tried Precision Shooter but find it...musty and repetitive, most of the articles having already been published elsewhere.

The search continues. My library grows. No matter what, I'll spend the money somehow.

I expresses the same sentiment in the other thread, and I see here much criticism I agree with.

I'd be interested in why all of you think the status quo is so pathetic:
-liability;
-editor;
-lawyers;
-the writers themselves?
In today's virtual world, you would think writers would not only do better, but do it more economically to boot. Perhaps we've been beat on for so long now that we've all forgoten what service and value are, no?

My initial reaction to the topic title was to jump in with both feet and stomp. I don't think I'll do that.

30+ years ago there weren't many good gun magazines. As a kid I was happy to get anything to read. Often I didn't know about a magazine until I might run across it in a book store while traveling. Just wasn't the money available then as there is now to spend on this. You know this is true because of the huge number (compared to 1965) of such magazines available.

Unfortunately, that means that the best writing is now diluted. If they are lucky, a magazine editor will get a single good writer. A couple of magazines will manage to get two published in a single issue. I know there are several writers hanging out here now and then and I mean no disrespect (I've done some technical writing and know how it goes) but fellows, I've got very few favorite writers. It doesn't help that I've got 30+ years of experience and can sharpshoot the articles.

#1 are the old and now sadly departed writers: Elmer Keith, Charles Askins, Jack O'Connor, Francis Sell, Bill Jordan and Skeeter Skelton. Not quite departed, you can include Ken Waters in that list.

#2 and of the current crop is Ross Seyfried. I think his articles on the old guns and making them bark is one of the great joys of my life. Because of him, I keep my eyes open for my opportunity to own such guns and he writes well enough that I can actually get some vicarious pleasure from his experiments.

#3 might be Sam Fadala. His style is a little choppy but he writes about guns that interest me. He is also a bit of the rebel and will try things that others would not. You can also tell that he's done it and not read about it.

#4 is probably a tie between John Taffin and Brian Pearce. I don't like every article but like them enough that I'll at least give it a look regardless of the subject. They are both capable of writing complete technical articles that are easy to follow and understand.

#5 is everybody else. Most write about things that seldom interest me. This doesn't mean that I have a personal grudge against any of them. They are trying to make a living doing something they have an interest in. How many here can say the same thing? There are quite a few writers who are simply grinding out articles. Craig Boddington, Phil Shoemaker, Mike Venturino, and John Barsness sometimes write articles that interest me. I do understand what you've said about an inability to properly frame a story in particular the articles mentioned. I read both of them and agree. They won't get clipped and saved.

Subject matter (i.e. editorial content) is another issue. That is a matter of who the magazine has as a target audience and who is editing. Editing also affects the articles. I've seen some perfectly good articles edited to an unrecognizable state by those who don't understand the subject. Good editors are as hard to find as good writers.

I take American Rifleman because I'm a member of the NRA). I subscribe to Rifle, Handloader , Successful Hunting (mostly for Ross's articles), Muzzleloader, Muzzleblasts (again, I'm a member of the NMLRA), Blackpowder Hunting (more Seyfried articles), Traditional Bowhunter, Primitive Archer and my wife subscribed me to Peterson's Hunting (no, I never express disappointment in a gift ). I sometimes buy other magazines (yeah, I get sucked in now and then) but lately it is the odd Shotgun News or Shooting Illustrated. This for specific reasons such as a particularly interesting article.

There are lots of other magazines out there. Most of us aren't aware of all of them. This is far better coverage than existed 35 years ago and probably a good thing. It is also more mainstream. A lot of the simplicity of the articles is directly related to all the new shooters coming into the sport and their need for info they understand and can use. Now having new shooters is a very GOOD thing indeed. If I have to look a bit harder for good magazine articles because of it, well I'll put up with that.

It is pretty much common knowledge that the gun scribes have about run out of stuff to write about and these magazines are geared to the beginners and young folks just getting into hunting and shooting...

I still like the bullet testing articles, especially if they shoot live animals with them and not buckets of swamp water stuffed with moss sand and other claimed black magic ingrediants that for all stated purposes equal live flesh, NOT........

But Handloader and rifle are head and shoulders abouve most of the rags...successful hunter is good and classic Sportsman is good, at least they are better...I like Seyfried although I do not always agree with him, but thats not a requirment...I really like my good friend Phil Shoemakers articles..Both Ross and Phil are the real deal, I can attest to that.....

I think today I like Harare Times with Harold Wolfe featuring a different caliber every issue, usually some neat stuff about 9.3s, 404s, 10.75s, 7x57 and all the neat old calibers and he uses them on game in every issue and reports the results, I like that...so thats my pick of the litter.

Mostly it depends on your position in the sport as to what interrest you...I hope they all stay in business.

I let my Handloader Magazine subscribtion lapse years ago.



The problems I had were:

1) There appeared to be an afternoon's research into each article.

2) The descriptions of the process of developing the load were more handloading porno than text book information.



Because I like handloading so much, I went a few years of reading it to make sure I was not missing anything.

Years went by, and I didn't learn anything, so I quit.



Like Ray, my guess is that they make thier money from guys just starting to handload, which makes allot better magazine than one for guys just starting to shoot.

I dropped both Rifle and Handloader a couple of years ago, when Al Miller, Clair Rees, and the like started writing the same crap seen in every other gun rag.

George

I think the biggest reason for the downgrading of RIFLE and HANDLOADER Magazines is money. When these two magazines were at their best, they had a rather limited following, those of us who were interested in the more technical details, the what, why and how come things of the shooting game. Many of the articles came from us, the "unwashed" that Dave Scovill looks down his nose at. Most of the writers seem to be OK, although a few are, well not too honest. I can say that at least, Ken Waters is gentleman enough to answer correspondence as do Miller, Spomer and Barsness. I even got one from Scovill although I felt his answer was demeaning, downgrading and a bit downright snotty.
But back to the money thing. In order to get more subscribers to the magazines, they have downgraded them quite a bit. Although they have not sunk as low as Guns & Ammo, they're headed in that direction. There was a poll in the American Rifleman a while back asking which gun rag they liked best after the Rifleman. Guns & Ammo, which shows, IMHO, the intelligence (lack of?) of many shooters today. (Present company excluded.)
I think that RIFLE and HANDLOADER are alienating their core readership in order to pick up more readers.
Maybe mass cancellation of the core readership with the appropriate nasty letter explaining why just might get them back on track. Somehow, I get the feeling Scovill just don't give a damn.
Paul B.

Atkinson,

Been looking for an article on bullet penetration in swamp water and moss sand, but need it in one-gallon plastic jugs instead of buckets. Know where...

Hammer

I also would pick up just about every gun mag that would hit the rack.
As these mags kept getting thinner and thinner,their price kept going up.At the same time their content seemed to be rehashed.
I ,for one, wish my favorite writers would post a web sight.
This would be worth a small price to me.

What the heck, I might as well jump in. I have been reading most of the gun mags. since I was a kid and over the years they all seem to have declined. G&A used to be full of neat stuff, how to articles, crazy wildcats, etc., same with the Rifleman. Now all I see is the same articles by the same guys, slightly rewritten. I am sure there are lots of interesting things going on in the shooting world but somehow they don�t seem to make it to print. Hell, we will probably find out all the publications are owned by one giant French conglomerate that hates guns.
Just an opinion, for whatever its worth.
C.G.B.

I recently let my subscription to "Handloader" lapse, after subscribing since 1985. As Gertrude Stein once said, "There's no there there." I greatly miss Ken Waters' work, FOR SURE.

That said--my "gun magazine" is RIGHT HERE--and at a couple other similar sites. A great deal of real world/real time information, from obviously and demonstrably knowledgeable contributors.

Saaed and his counterparts on similar boards just built a better mousetrap.

For a six or seven year period during my early twenties, I was away from guns. Well, I was shooting them, but wasn't keeping current on current hunting and military dogma: i.e. are .45ACP's better stoppers or 9mm's with hi-cap magazines made better military sidearms; big slow bullet or little fast bullet, etc.



When I started looking to buy the first new gun in 10 years, I picked up a magazine that had an article on one I was interested in; guess what? I read about three more G&A's and I was current again.



Same with the car mags. They were great for about two years. They taught (or retaught) me a lot. I rebuilt my old Camaro engine, swapped in a tranny, converted to disc brakes and power steering, learned a lot about fuel injection...but now the articles are all looking pretty familiar. New vendors replace old, but it's the same stuff.



Hobby-related magazines are geared towards new hobbyists and folks looking for vendors to support their new hobby. Once they graduate, they probably start needing books and classes. Kind of a dearth of reloading/bench rest accuracy/rifle building classes and "scholarly articles", though. Which is why we get frustrated. The board probably represents the best way to advance our knowledge of the hobby.



Still, the mags promote the sport, which can only help keep the anti-gun lobby at bay. I don't think the writers should be beat up too bad. I've learned a lot from lots of them. Some of it gets repeated, but it's probably teaching somebody else something.



Now, I DON'T like the lazy writer (no stats, afternoon of research), the inaccurate writer, or the meandering/pointless writer.



But in a recent Handloader I saw a decent article on slightly warmer .45LC loads safe for Colt's and some historical Win and Rem load info that I liked and hadn't seen before. Also, several months ago Terry Wieland wrote an aritcle in Gray's Sporting Journal about building a bullet penetration test box (or maybe it was a test bucket) and the media, methods, and testing he has found most accurate relative to on-game performance. I found it interesting. But I mostly buy individual issues that have articles that interest me.



Steve

I agree with you on the Varmit Hunter mag! I love it, mostly because as an engineer I crave technical data, and the VHA has alot!

The other gun rags, well they are good for a read at the barbers or doctors office, but I won't buy them much anymore for the commonly stated reasons. I have to deal with salesmen all day, and PAYING to read the same sales BS is a bit more than I can take.

Everyone here has made some valid points. However, when comparing the old guys to the current crop, it needs to be remembered that there is a big difference between now and then. That difference being the simple passage of time and aging of the technology that we still use today.



In other words, those old writers that we loved, their articles were low-hanging fruit, to some degree. The writers today can do one of two things: 1) reach for higher, scarcer fruit, or 2) scavenge the already-picked fruit off the ground. Regretfully, the latter is usually the case.



RSY

After reading all the rags for several years it's hard to find new info in any of them. Occasionally there is an interesting article about something that is on my mind at the moment. Looking through the old rags from the '60s and '70s I see nothing has changed since then either. Except it was all wheel guns and now it's hi cap autos.

Without a doubt many who post here can and could outperform virtually all current gun magazine writers on a very wide range of gun and hunting topics. There has been an extraordinary dumbing down of the literature of our hobby, although exceptions exist, like freak accidents and lightning strikes. The quality work is now exhibited in certain forums and a few commercial happenstances. Go read a year's worth of American Rifleman from the 1940's and see if I'm correct. You will find that many of us (probably not me though) are technically superior as hobbyists now to those old writers, but they were far superior for their times to the commercial writers today. ned

I am sick to near death by the turns those mags have taken. Once a truly unique offering, now just the same pulp. There is still some value there (I guess,, for a newbe,,)

I think I will blame marketing. They get me in enough brown smelly stuff here at work.

In order to market to the masses, speak in small words and short sentences. There went the neighborhood!

If you guys really think there is a need for a more technical publication like that, start one! It doesn't have to be printed. I get over 20 technical journals a month relating to my job, and all are available via email. If you can post here, you can publish a weekly/monthly compilation, and startup cost is minimal.

Well, to a point I agree.

There are so many articles with similar themes, etc., but there is a limit to what a magazine with a relatively broad-based readership can do. I would assume they know the knowledge level of their readership and gear the writing to that. Dyed-in-the-wool gun cranks would want more in-depth writing on different subjects, but that likely would not sell enough. It is what it is.

Might I recommend that some of our forum members who find fault submit manuscripts to Handloader ( or any other mag ) and report back to us how it goes. Real nuts 'n bolts information that cranks would love.

Borealis Bob, sir;

A number of folks that I know, myself included, HAVE submitted manuscripts to Handloader and Rifle. All were rejected, and in my case the editor stated that they were not interested in articles from freelancers, that they had a stable of well-occupied witers, and that a full schedule of articles was already slated for a year or more in advance.

In addition, the tone of the letter was CLEARLY one of, "Don't bother us, we're busy."

Sooo...I don't bother them, even with processing any more subscriptions.

I now get most of my gun reading right here on the Internet.

Regards from BruceB (aka Bren Mk1)