No offense intended with this post, I simply am interested in rifles.

It seems Handloader managed to publish the most un-interesting copy yet with its Feb. 2010 issue of handguns, handguns and umm.... more handguns.

With the exception of the Charlie Sisk 7mm TCU picture and the CZ 550 magnum, the entire magazine was handguns. I understand hunting season is over and everything yet why all the handguns?

You can almost count on at least two articles per issue on the 45-70. Boring!!!!

465h&H

When My wife is at the store I go to the magazine section to look probuly where every other member looks at the Rifle reloader magazines. If its not interesting to me I won't buy it. Speaking of magazines did the Annual Hodgden reloading magazine come out yet I haven't seen it where I'm from yet.

I haven't seen the reloading mag here.

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:
No offense intended with this post, I simply am interested in rifles.

It seems Handloader managed to publish the most un-interesting copy yet with its Feb. 2010 issue of handguns, handguns and umm.... more handguns.

......... yet why all the handguns?

I agree and this is why I dropped it after only one year.

I go shopping with my wife each Sunday evening to pick up the weeks food and other things.

I go by the magazine rack each week and pick up all the rifle and shooting rags and put them in the cart. I look at them as we walk up and down the aisles and haven't found one in years worth buying. They all get a quick flip through then put back.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
You can almost count on at least two articles per issue on the 45-70. Boring!!!!

465h&H

Yup.

Mike Venturino really seems to enjoy vintage black powder.

Sounds like Brian Pearce and Mike Venturino are the only two writers left.

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:
No offense intended with this post, I simply am interested in rifles.

It seems Handloader managed to publish the most un-interesting copy yet with its Feb. 2010 issue of handguns, handguns and umm.... more handguns.

With the exception of the Charlie Sisk 7mm TCU picture and the CZ 550 magnum, the entire magazine was handguns. I understand hunting season is over and everything yet why all the handguns?

I don't own a single handgun, but I still find almost all of the writing in handloader interesting. Someday you may want to load for handguns. FS

I swear, I am not sure if it is me, or all the gun rag mags these days. I get nearly everything, and have for years, but the last few years I throw them in a stack and when I have absolutely nothing else to do for a moment, I might take exactly 2 minutes per mag to go through! Handloader is not the only one that suffers, it seems they all are boring as hell. How many times can you do an article on a subject along these lines--300vs30/06 or 300Win vs 300WSm, or like 465HH says, another 45/70 article. Boring as hell are the handgun handloading articles, who cares if you use 1/10th gr more powder or less in a 45 acp? Who loads 380 and why? I mean give me a break.

Handloader and Rifle were my favorites at one time. I have every single issue of Handloader and Rifle, going way back probably before my time. I also bought the DVD collection a few years ago. Way back when they did good articles, on 458 Lott and many of the big bores, did interesting things back in the day. But now, 2 minutes, throw them back in the stack! I am busy letting ALL my subscriptions die out for all of them! I don't even know where my Feb issue is, nor do I much care! Useless, totally useless!

Michael

I agree but remember, that stuff is new and exciting to some readers. Then too, feburary is just a uninteresting month.

after about 2 years, mebbe 3, a new reloader can cycle through all of them .. sure, if you're not a pistolaro its not interesting ..

who load 380? well, MM, its still cheaper to reload and SHOOT A BUNCH then to buy 30bucks of 380 ammo... its just insulting that 380 can cost more than 9mm ....

now,reloading 10mm can be a full time job when my wife has an itchy trigger finger

Jeffe

Yeah Yeah, I know, always cheaper to load anything, and better to boot. But for gods sake does magazine pages have to be devoted to that? Does it matter if there is 2.8 grs of powder or 2.9? Accuracy? For F*%^$ sakes, who cares, it goes bang bang! I have two dillons set up for handgun, 45 acp and 45 Colt. And I hate loading either, just boring boring boring. Once and awhile I think I get a little interested in doing something special with them, but it just does not hold long. Handloading is great, would not do it any other way, but devoting pages in a magazine to such mundane chores as loading for a 45 acp or 9mm or what have you along those lines is a waste of paper.

But have you seen what they put on tv these days, and that's big money per minute! What a waste!

Now if I was opening the pages of handloader, and it had an article on the 458 AR, or the 50 B&M, or something worth the effort, that's another story. But who gives a damn about 300 this vs 300 that and 7mm this vs 7mm that? Another waste of time and energy. That crap has been going on 40 yrs, get some new material!

No, I am letting all my prescription run out and that's it! Until they put in something about our stuff, they can keep the same old same, did the same old same 30 yrs ago, they need something new!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:
No offense intended with this post, I simply am interested in rifles.

It seems Handloader managed to publish the most un-interesting copy yet with its Feb. 2010 issue of handguns, handguns and umm.... more handguns.

With the exception of the Charlie Sisk 7mm TCU picture and the CZ 550 magnum, the entire magazine was handguns. I understand hunting season is over and everything yet why all the handguns?

I know what you mean, very boring. Out of 14 articles 10 of them were on the subject of handguns. One was on the topic of a handgun powder, one was about the component shortages, and two were about cartridges longer then 2 inches.

Oh Well,,,, Handloader has always been that way though. This issue leaned to handguns a little more than usual.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
I am busy letting ALL my subscriptions die out for all of them! I don't even know where my Feb issue is, nor do I much care! Useless, totally useless!

Michael

+1

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
No, I am letting all my prescription run out and that's it!

Better keep taking them!

quote:

Originally posted by MickinColo:
One was on the topic of a handgun powder...

I was hoping the powder topic was going to be normal, umm.. I mean rifle, nope.

I like what Charlie Sisk said to John Haviland about building the 7mm TCU in a custom Sisk rifle:

"Eventually he reported it might serve as a general shooting caliber and even perhaps used to shoot deer"

He probably said to John, "7mm TCU? Boy, you are hard up for material to write about aren't you?"

I haven't sat down and diagrammed it all out, but I think they do a mostly handguns issue every year or so. Used to, I didn't like that as I, like Corey, find 98% of my handloading interest to be in rifle cartridges. The other 2% is into loading for handguns. Still, it could be worse. It could be a shotgun handloading issue!

I once had ALL the issues of Shooting Times, G & A., Guns, and a couple of others. Would go back and re-read them every few years...normally tried to re-read one different magazine all the way back, each year.

But you know what has killed it for me? The plethora of "free ad" articles demanded by the advertisers these days. So, we get a series on the Bodington rifles put in there to keep Ruger happy, we get a bunch of stuff on the Sisk products, we get articles on all the new un-dead FN crap, all the Remington half-plastic garbage, etc. etc.

I happen to very much like the material written by Dave Scovill and Al Miller. It is really nice to see articles on lead bullets written by people who actually sometimes work with designing and trying out stuff on their own, rather than just parroting all the old wives tales found in the Lyman Handbook and elsewhere. It is also nice when they take the approach Scovill does on occasion when he just flat says something like "It isn't a good product. It may marginally do what is says, but it isn't needed by most shooters in the field."

Another problem appears to me to be that nobody actually tries things out in an organized fashion, keeps careful records, then goes out and tries to apply that knowledge in the field, ON THEIR OWN anymore. It is usually spoon fed to them at a special "writer's information session", often in hand-out or "canned hunt" style.
Or, at least if they do once in a while try out their own ideas, they don't bother to write those efforts up and send them in to magazines.

Part of that may be because magazines are so into putting out an edition for the absolute least possible cost that they generally won't accept articles from readers anyway. They all have "staff" writers who do little more than crank out stuff from their word processors per the assigned publishing schedule, which often lays out which articals will be written as much as a year in advance. That doesn't leave much if any room for the unscheduled experiences even the staff writers may have from time to time, which might have some value if farther explored.

These days the same articles can be seen with very slight variations in 4 different magazines in two months. Boddington is big on doing that, for instance. So, I don't read his material at all anymore. It may have a new headline, but it is still last month's crap from a different magazine, about his daughter shooting a Cape Buffalo with a .405 Ruger No. 1.

A last thought here. Also, the readers get so much garbage passing as facts from the internet marketing efforts, that they expect to have every possible bit of knowledge simply handed to them, rather than thinking things through for themselves, then TESTING THEM themselves.

That has a bunch of results.

1) It limits their ability to discriminate between facts and "sales talk", as it is called in business law.

2) It tends to convince them that some all-knowing experts have secret products they rely on to eliminate all the requirements of shooting skill building, or hunting ability, or any other usefull ability.

All they have to do is buy this new super cartridge, that new super scope, that range-finder, this make of barrel, Joe's "super trigger", and Ed's "foolproof game caller" (electronic, of course, so the buyer doesn't even have to know what the animal pursued sounds like). In other words, it teaches them to expect to be able to buy success, rather than earn it through their own personal development.

(We're now at the point in our whole society that at the political level, we even expect to be able to buy the outcomes we want in wars! And when we can't, rather than confess, learn from our jingoistic errors, and do the right thing(s), we want others to come to save our butts, or we'll cut and run home with our ball (bombs).

So, back to the subject at hand, what we get in our hunting magazines becomes more and more an expanded list of what we "need" to buy. Sort of a super-expanded, wordy shopping list.

No wonder they are all boring!

It's like dealing with kids. We have to tell them, "Get off your ass from in front of the TV , and go out and PLAY, or STUDY, or DO THE YARD WORK. Anything to develop your mind and body!" Some of us need to tell ourselves the same thing in respect of guns.

There, does that solve all the world's problems?


I didn't think so.....

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
I swear, I am not sure if it is me, or all the gun rag mags these days. I get nearly everything, and have for years, but the last few years I throw them in a stack and when I have absolutely nothing else to do for a moment, I might take exactly 2 minutes per mag to go through!Michael

HA, it's probably you. And I can say that without offending because it has been me at times as well. The problem is the same with most hobby related magaizines. At some point in time you have been exposed to enough subject matter that noting is new or interesting. Maybe they could come up with some new off the wall stuff but then the magazine would appear to a very small market, those that can understand it, and they would sell fewer issues.

dang it, MM .. i had been putting off loading 45LC .. i still have 50 or so rattling around in my hunting pack, and seldom need more than 1 ...

heck, i know what i'll be doing tomorrow .. limbering up the hornady or the dillon .. hey, i might get my son to come over and we'll do BOTH and rack out a couple gajilion... and then change over to 10MM and make the wife some bangpops ...

heh .. i spent this day working on 4 wheelers.. dang, hand to touch 4 of the 5 today .. and its NEVER just 5 mins to tightern a chain ...noo ... its take the chain off, loose the link clip... go get another one.. remember to order 5 more, cut off the link... SO#@@#$4 B i loaned out my chain breaker .. get a punch and file, put the chain back on ... "oh, honey, MY chain is loose too" ..

I do love working on them .. it was just all at once

The last year has been really disapointing from Rifle / handloader / Successful Hunter magazines. they have dropped a few key editors & writes & brought in some new (less expensive?) ones. I sorely miss John Barsness and his amazing ability to challenge "conventional wisdom" and come up with really great analysis, facts and articles.

There happens to be a lot of folk right here that can probably write several dozen articles with their broad and extensive experiences, so why do those same people complain without ever "at least trying" to get their articles written and published? I would bet that just one phone call to a few of the better writers explaining what you have to share, perhaps in a joint venture, would have them chomping at the bit about it. People like Jeffe, Michael and a half dozen of the "experimenters" and large bore "builders" from the big bore forum......all could be contributors to very substantial articles. Com'on guys try a phone call or two.

Rifle/ Handloader has greatly suffered by separating from Ross Seyfried. I just went trough his basic articles this afternoon, so amazing well ahead of his time. But in Europe it is the same thing, no really good magazines around, basically to much sponsoring by big companies etc.

i might could give it a go . i wonder if they have article formulas?

I would think Jeffe has a perfect personality to be a successful writer for Rifle...don't know about Handloader. He is not afraid to experiment, can do things with his own hands and brain, and seems interested in just about every facet of rifles. And is a man with his own, discussion raising, mostly accurate, opinions developed from having actually "been there".

Most important in this case, his knowledge includes subject matters that most shooters haven't a clue about....such as building big bore wildcats. (speaking of "shooters", he even brews a mean (excellent) honey wine for himself, for those who aren't unexposed to his span of talents.)

One way for anyone to start is to find an article which seems particularly shallow and clearly off-base on one or two key points where your experience indicates a more useful other view. Then write a letter of no more than two pages to Dave Scovill (the actual editor of Rifle), pointing out the article weaknesses. Briefly cover the same topic and provide your "better" information/approach. Use a typewriter or word processing printer if you can.

In the letter also indicate your years of experience experimenting or "doing" in that same specific subject area, and telling a bit else (in a way meaningful to the subject at hand) about your gun background. That is, just tell him enough to establish the credibility of your criticism.

Do NOT write ANY personal criticism of the author of the article you criticize. Just stick to the "correct" facts as your experience has taught you they are. Spleen and soap boxes are completely out of line in published articles and will normally never see the light of the print day.

That letter to Dave will make your name known to him, and MAY possibly lead to an exchange of letters, which MAY lead to a request to do an article on the subject. Sometimes your letter itself will be used as an article. That was how I saw my writing first published in two of the gun five magazines for which I used to scribble occasionally.

The first article is the hard part. After that, write another. Make sure you only write about things you KNOW well, and do your historical research on the subject too, so that if the same thing was tried 85 years ago, you know both that and how it turned out...which should be alluded to in the article.

Most important, do NOT write about rifle subjects you do not KNOW inside and out. It will show instantly, and kill you with the magazine staff, the advertisers, and most importantly, the readers. Also, poor spelling will turn off some editors. They want work by folks competent with basic spoken-on-paper English. They do not want to wreck their very crowded schedules by having to very carefully proof-read everthing you say. Try to keep your sentences short, and your articles down to about 4 or 5 typewritten pages at most....at least at first. Good pictures (photos, drawings, etc.) will greatly increase the chance of your effort being accepted for print.

Next thing you know, they are accepting everything you send in, IF it is as carefully and accurately done.

Then finally, as (and IF) you develop good comments from the readership, you'll be asked to join the staff. Don't just leap for glee...in fact, I'd tell you to turn tghe offer down, if you can afford to.

Joining the "staff" will mean assignments to do "fluff" articles for the mutual benefit of the magazine and its advertisers, and you'd end up just like some of the hacks we have now in the gun-writing field. In my opinion (which is worth half a cup of coffee at most), both you and the magazine will benefit far more if you just continue to do really clear and thorough freelance articles on subjects in riflery which interest you.

Good luck. I hope to see articles in Rifle from a dozen of you within the next year or two.

Loved the magazine a couple of years ago. WHen Barsness left, I did too! Seems most of the articlesw are about pistol catridges which is ok, but I personnaly have no intereset in the magazine. I brouse it at the newstand and haven't felt any new ground is being plowed for centerfires.

quote:

Originally posted by kennedy:
Speaking of magazines did the Annual Hodgden reloading magazine come out yet I haven't seen it where I'm from yet.

I picked up the new Hodgden magazine/manual just before christmas at Walmart of all places. There were a couple of articles in there that peaked me curiosity on that new powder.

I have been a subscriber to Rifle and Handloader since 1974. They have really went down hill during this time frame. I let my subscription to Rifle run out last year and will probably quit Handloader this year. In years past they were the best.
Regards, Keith

I have NEVER missed a single issue of Handloader since the day it came out, but... if they keep pushing Handguns... I'm about to let it go.

Guns and Ammo is the same way.. Should be called Handguns and Ammo.

At least Rifle is still Rifle.....

quote:

Originally posted by Winchester 69:
Sounds like Brian Pearce and Mike Venturino are the only two writers left.

That about sums it up. The gun rags are a shadow of what they once were ...kinda like calling USA Today a newspaper when it's anything but.

Handloader has me trapped, I started many years ago with a subscription, and that is what the wife gets me every year for a stocking stuffer at Christmas.

Wait until you hit sixty like me, and have pretty much seen and done it all with standard firearms. One of the three people posting, etc as Ganyana (the Triune Ganyana?) writes for them, but I think they tell him to write something either very controversial or stupid for the irate responses just to see if we read the magazine or not. This forum has become the most prominent E-zine on the planet. You can generally learn more here from people who have ventured away from their backyard to hunt.

Rich

I think part of the issue is that there really isn't that much to write about any more that is new AND will appeal to a majority of the people who read the magazines. As the spectrum of loading and shooting has broadened, the focus of the populace has narrowed. For example, since this is the "Medium Bore" forum, the handgun focus is unappealing. I bet the same would not be true if this was posted in the "Handgun" forum.

My other point is that even within this forum, the breadth of the shooting and loading topics causes us to pick and choose the threads we watch. I, for example, am probably 180 degrees from the interests of Michael458. He would relish and article about the 458AR and 50 B&M and I could not care less about a 458WM, 458AR, 460Weatherby, or 458Howbigsmydick. I just don't and won't need to ever use them. I am not, in any way, putting him down. We just have different interests. That is the dilema the gun rags have as well. How do the "all around" magazines stay published? I don't think they will. With every specialization in the industry, I think people will gravitate to the mags that offer them more, just like the big, medium and small bore forums we have here.

For all around rags, it would be better, IMHO, to relate articles that may apply to more people. Look at this board as an example. In the reloading forum, mayn might be interested in annealing as an article, or "how to" wildcat as opposed to just "MY" wildcat.

Just my $.02

For years all I reloaded for was rifle. Now that my wife has taken an interest in shooting the .38/.357 I've started reloading for it and will probably start doing .44Mag and .45 ACP for my own benefit as well. So I guess the handgun slant to Handloader doesn't really bother me.......rifle or pistol....it's all good.

I read the Feb 2010 issue and found an interesting item in the article "Cartridges that Smell Like Gunsmoke".

Mr Wieland discribes the 450/400 3 inch aka 400 Jeffery as an original adaptation of black-powder cartridges. The 450/400 3 1/4 is was adapted from the 450/400 3 1/4 black-powder round, but the 400 Jeffery (450/400 3 inch was an original Cordite round! It never was a BP round.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
I read the Feb 2010 issue and found an interesting item in the article "Cartridges that Smell Like Gunsmoke".

Mr Wieland discribes the 450/400 3 inch aka 400 Jeffery as an original adaptation of black-powder cartridges. The 450/400 3 1/4 is was adapted from the 450/400 3 1/4 black-powder round, but the 400 Jeffery (450/400 3 inch was an original Cordite round! It never was a BP round.

True enough, but the 3" version came about because of pressure problems with the 3-1/4" smokeless round. The stronger 3" case was "invented" to solve those problems with the 3-1/4" case. As it was successful, it supplanted the 3-1/4" case in common African and Asian use (the hot weather "sun" environments).

In that sense it definitely was a development from the 3-1/4" black and then smokeless cases and loadings, and traced its creation directly back to (and from) them.

Like many people here, I subscribed to Rifle/Handloader for just under 30 years.

All the writers that I have really enjoyed over the years have been canned (did not worship Scovill enough?).

I often go back to read "classic" articles on things like the 9.3x57/62/64, 458 Lott, 416 Rigby, etc.

In their time on staff I enjoyed Layne Simpson, Dieter Sturm, Wayne Van Zwoll, Ross Seyfried, John Barsness, and others. Ever since Ross was dumped, the quality went way down. Getting rid of John Barsness was kind of the last straw.

Back a ways, I called and asked how I should go about sending in an article or two for their consideration. (For one, I had used a variety of bullet types while culling many bison, and had kept detailed records and good quality photographs. Also, a diagram showing the bullet path of each bullet shot. It was, I believe, something useful.) The editorial assistant told me curtly that they only used articles from their staff writers, no "thank-you, goodbye, click.

Dave Scovill just happens to love Colt SAA revolvers, blackpowder cartridge rifles and old lever action rifles. He must have thought he scored a major coup when he got Mike Venturino on board with Brian Pearce.

So now, he has a magazine that reflects his ego; not what informed folks like us want to read. That is not what an editor is supposed to do. He is supposed to get the best writers who can produce material that appeals to the readership, while informing them at the same time.

Time will tell about the page count.

LD

PS I only buy those magazines in the grocery store or pharmacy; in the vain hope that there will be something worth reading. I did like the 41 Magnum revolver recipes this last issue; that was about it.

quote:

Originally posted by lawndart:

So now, he has a magazine that reflects his ego; not what informed folks like us want to read. That is not what an editor is supposed to do. He is supposed to get the best writers who can produce material that appeals to the readership, while informing them at the same time.

Rich editors can do what they want.

He isn't a capitalist so we suffer boredom.

Alberta Canuck, I seem to recall you wrote a couple of articles for Rifle/Handloader. I enjoyed those Sako 7x33 Articles.

As a certified six and five-gun junkie I am more that pleased to read Brian Pierce's articles.