Anyone get this. I use to get both when Ken Waters was there but lost interest in there rifle mag because there was not much that fit me. The new guys at the time were hung up on elephant guns. Same with the NRA magazines all a bunch of hype.
Thanks

Articles on elephant guns are exactly what I want in a magazine.

Yeh, But us little gun guys need input too.

I don't get any magazines anymore. Everything I shooter needs lives on the WWW

And HL is on the web too; which is why paper everything is going the way of the dodo.
Except the toilet kind.

I don't mind reading about elephant guns and cartridges. They're guns and rounds I'll never own and used in places I'll never go to. On the other hand I don't want some guy telling me about how much greater my 270 Win will shoot or kill with one of the new wiz-bang bullets.

quote:

Originally posted by MickinColo:
On the other hand I don't want some idiot telling me about how much greater my 270 Win will shoot or kill with one of the new wiz-bang bullets.

If that is the case, the only things you'll be reading are the advertisements!

quote:

Originally posted by vicvanb:

quote:

Originally posted by MickinColo:
On the other hand I don't want some idiot telling me about how much greater my 270 Win will shoot or kill with one of the new wiz-bang bullets.

If that is the case, the only things you'll be reading are the advertisements!

I've been reading the Handloader and Rifle for a number of years. Handloader is obsessed with handgun information. Rifle,,, The writers have their favorites, usually nothing I'm use to using.

Mike Venturino is obsessed with his BP Single shot guns, which is cool, I like those but those articles on the most obscure military weapons from a century ago, what's up with that? Even the kids don't care.

I'm setting here looking at an articule on the old Krags from 2012 (just a magizine I picked up off my shelf), The title on the magizine is “Rifle Sporting Firearms Journel”.

Well so far It looks like I have' not missed anything.
Vic, that may be the only thing worth reading.

I used to get magazines on guns, cars, boats and other interests but the only ones I get now are the Rifleman and Am. Hunter with our life NRA memberships.

I get all I need here on the net and from load manuals.

We don't even get a newspaper anymore. In a nearby city the newspaper building is for sale.

There used to be a paperboy.

I still get the local paper but only because I feel sorry for the paper boy, (who is actually a 40 year old woman). Everything I read, I have already read on the net. Same with magazines; the only one I now get is American Rifleman, and it usually takes me 2 minutes to finish that. I used to get them all, since the 60s; you know them....

I have Handloader all the the way back to issue-1. Sadly, it is has gotten worse over the years, especially when they quit accepting outside articles. The mag now depends on a stable of writers who do nothing but regurgitate their older articles using the same data.

Seldom do we see load data using new powders, and there are too many off-topic articles. Too bad.

Also you and I are 'gun writers' here on the net forums!

I don't think I ever sent more than one 'letter to the editor' or whatever they called it on a magazine.

I can ask questions here and get immediate answers.

It's far superior to the old mags. and Shotgun News classifieds.

Some call that 'progress'.

dpcd: I assume you know the difference between 'immediate answers' and 'correct answers'. By the way, they don't always coincide. 'Progress' has nothing to do with 'validity'.

Savage I never though of that way.
for sure if you give some incorrect information
you will be corrected

I stopped getting hunting, shooting, guns and ammo and reloading magazines after I realized I had read the same stuff as a 15 year old so many years ago. All they did is change the gauge of the shot guns used, caliber of the rifle and every hunt ended with that monster.

Al

I gave up on Handloader a couple of years ago. Nothing in it for me.

Dave

I still subscribe to both Handloader and Rifle, but neither of them are what they used to be.

But then, neither am I, I suppose.

All of the Wolfe magazines (Rifle, Handloader, Successful Hunter) went down the tubes when Ross Seyfried left.

I still get Handloader. Have the newest one sitting on my desk, I just got it yesterday. The table of contents for this month has articles on:

41 and 45 Colts
375 Win
357 Sig
Norma 202 (powder)
Redding #2 scale
Bench Source annealer
Loading down pistol rounds (as in below starting loads)
Ruger's Single Seven 327 mag
The 270 today (modern powders/bullets)
The evolution of rifle powders
The 38-55
Case study 270 Win (rehashing the old O'Connor "over pressure" load)
Loading bench specialty tools
What's new (this month its the "new" Swift bullet manual

Some months I just skim read it and set it aside, and some months there will be a detailed article that I'm actually interested in, and will read it thoroughly. I'll probably keep subscribing.

The only other magazine I get is Am Hunter with my NRA life membership. I usually just skim read it and toss it in the trash. Very seldom is there a worthwhile article in that one.

I wrote for both magazines in the 80s and 90s, back when they accepted manuscripts from non-staff writers. I thought I had a good, long term relationship with the editor - but when they went "mainstream" competing with the bigger slicks my submissions were no longer even acknowledged....



.

Slim, looks like maybe one or two articles I would read,
It was around the early 90's when I stopped,
Thanks Dave

I subscribe to Rifle and Handloader and enjoy the magazine. I find the writers to be slightly less clueless than the average gunwriter in other gun magazines, but that is an average. I appreciate Venturino comments on accuracy as he is a competitive shooter, and I believe he has found that human error is the greatest source of inaccuracy in shooting. Non-competitive shooting writers give readers the idea that poor marksmanship skills can be compensated for by buying expensive equipment. Shooting is a skill and the only way you get good, is to shoot more often.

I do find many of their ideas bogus: One writer shoots three round groups and claims that is sufficient to show the inherent accuracy of his loads, because, wait for it, because you never shoot more than three rounds at game. Wow, he have redefined accuracy through ignorance: Central Error Probable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable is now based on how fast a deer can run. He published an article claiming sub to half MOA groups, cast bullets in a Marlin 30-30 rifle, with his three round groups. It is only a matter of time till his standards are two shot groups, and finally he will figure out a way to determine inherent accuracy by yelling “bang” at the target and not shooting at all.

In this month’s Handloader one writer claims that using a chronograph to estimate pressures is deeply flawed. While I agree that a chronograph only tells velocity, at least you know what your velocities are, and as I have found with 20 years of using chronographs, when my velocities exceed book values I soon have pressure issues. The writer makes the unwritten assumption that a manual max load is always a max load in everyone’s rifle, and this is not true at all. A reloading manual is a guide, the publisher used a different barrel than you, and you may very well find that you hit a max load well before the manual hit a max load. Or later, because your test equipment is different. But to take down your chronograph and ignore what it is telling you, based on some gunwriter’s nihilistic advice, is foolish in my opinion.

I too have become disenchanted with gun rags several years ago. They have become far too commercialized for my liking and every article seems like a rehash of the same old drivel.

The webb is more compelling.

I receive two magazines each month, American Rilfeman, Handloader, or Rifle. I still find articles of interest in Handloader. This month's articles on new temperature stable powders, the .270 Win O'Conner load controversy, and the 327 Ruger Single Seven were interesting to me.

Really good thread; and I agree with the deterioration of magazine information. One caution that I always keep in mind however: "Just because it's on the web, doesn't make it correct".

quote:

Originally posted by SlamFire:

In this month’s Handloader one writer claims that using a chronograph to estimate pressures is deeply flawed.

The writer makes the unwritten assumption that a manual max load is always a max load in everyone’s rifle, and this is not true at all.

Slam,

I'm just curious, are you referring to the article "Loading Down-Pistol Pointers" by Charles Petty?

As I said, I have only skim read this month's article, but I came away with a far, far different conclusion of what the writer was trying to say.

Perhaps you are referring to a different article in the issue? I'm just curious.

Page 41, the paragraph that starts off There is an ill-considered trend today of using a chronograph as a guide to increase powder weight to attain velocities listed in reloading manuals

I have read that paragraph several times and the ending contradicts the ill-considered beginning.

Yes, I agree that portion of the article was very poorly written/edited. Made it pretty confusing, and he does seem to contradict himself. Plus he is on again, off again quoting the Sierra Bullet tech without keeping his quotations constant.

I am guessing that he initially wanted to say "just pouring more powder in the case to get the velocity to equal the manual's stated velocity is a bad idea".

But it did make me scratch my head trying to figure out what he was saying.

Specialty loading tools. The rare old C&H C press that worked on the up stroke. Give me a break!

That press and many of the small presses of that era were made so that you could take out the axel and reverse the linkage so that they would operate on either the "up" or "down" stroke.

I loaded my first round in about 1963 or 64 on an RCBS Junior press. Just saying dumbass.

The shortcomings various posters cite are indicative of a poor job by the editor moreso than the writer.

Nonetheless, I spent a couple of hours reading and re-reading the most recent issue of Handloader, and I intend to go back again to the article on load discrepancies with the .270 Winchester. There are some things I agree with and disagree with in that article, but at least it has some intellectual content.

On the other hand, the most recent issue of Guns and Ammo came in today's mail and after 15 minutes of rapidly turning pages it went into the daily trash.

Herewith
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com.au/
I subscribe to the 3 rags from "wolfe" however I find this a way better read.