M16-I've had the same experience with the other magazines-take a free one and it is hard to get it stopped. I finally just told Field and Stream I would keep reading it as long as they were going to send it, but I wasn't going to pay for it. After 12 issues, they stopped sending them.

I very seldom read any gun magazine now, but, I used to love them from age 12 in 1958 to a short while ago. I simply cannot read most of the pap/crap that flows from the computers of most of the contemporary "gun gurus" as most of them cannot WRITE.

Jack O'Connor was without peer, as a WRITER; he exemplified the American humourist tradition whose greatest exponent was Mark Twain. He was actually a "dude", not a real bushman like Elmer, but, he was always entertaining and his opinions were based on a very significant amount of worldwide hunting experience.

As someone to learn from, Elmer Keith, Bob Hagel, Ken Waters and Phil Shoemaker on bears top my list; I like John Barsness as a person and enjoy his stuff, especially on handloading. I also had great respect for Finn Aagaard and Francis.E.Sell as well as Andy Russell. I do enjoy Ross Seyfried on some topics, his gargantuan ego aside.

I have met Shockey at a local "outdoors" show, he is all about Jim Shockey as master-bushwhacker and is a standing joke among experienced B.C. hunters/guides I know. As to Sundra, Simpson, Venturino, Jamieson and all the rest, I can't be bothered to waste my time; the likes of Rees, Weisuhn and so forth are the reason why so many guys don't buy gun mags anymore.

I'm going to take the positive track, too.

I probably was shaped as much as a hunter, shooter, rifleman by "Mister Rifleman" as by any other single work.

Townsend Whelen and Bradford Angier were good.

What's with all the bitchin', you yanks are lucky. Here in Australia, you can count the gun writers on one hand. Not that I,m saying our writers are no good but over the years our main writer( yes, one lone main writer )has done a complete turnaround. Fifteen years ago he could not praise improved calibers enough. Now after half of Australia's shooting fratenity rechambered their favourite rifles he states that improved calibers are a useless exercise. I, for one love the American magazines. By reading your magazines we Aussies know what MAY be available to us in 3 or 4 years.
Just last week I purchased Jan /Feb's Rifle Shooter which I note would cost local Americans $3.99. This is probably the best publication which arrives on our shores and we pay $8.95 Aus for the mag.
I don't think we should be so hard on the writers, what else are we going to read? I can't recall a firearm article in Playboy for many years
Malcolm

quote:

Originally posted by malcolm:
I can't recall a firearm article in Playboy for many years
Malcolm

Yea but the pictures are better.

quote:

Yea but the pictures are better.

Playboy has pictures???? Damn, and I always bought it for the articles. I never noticed it had pictures!

M16:

Us tenderfeet always hear tall stories from the Westerners. I'm glad to see that the tradition continues!

At one time, bought Handloader/Rifleman, but have even quit that. But I do enjoy Seyfried, and can at least tolerate Barnsness. Really like Carmichel, and very much miss O'Connor.

Petzal is boring, and Jamison is, too. Askins was an opinionated so-and-so, but then, I guess most of us are.

Probably the one man I lament the passing of more than all the rest is Finn Aagaard.

And for those of us in the Houston, TX, area, there is a man by the name of Bob Brister that I sincerely miss. He was the outdoor writer, and later outdoor editor for the Houston Chronicle for many years, and he was as good as it gets...

Doubless,

To me, O'Connor was the best. While I was just a high school kid when he died, he did have tremendous influence on my hunting life. I bought a .270 Win based upon his articles.

Most of today's outdoor writers are utterly ridiculous. I fish off a sport boat out of San Diego. I have fished it a few times when a known outdoor writer was aboard. I will stop short of alleging lies, but his writing that the boat is luxury is moronic. In fact, it might just be the most uncomfortable boat in the fleet with crummy food. The only two things it has going for it is very competitive fares and it will put angles on fish! But it ain't even in the league of this beauty!!! Also, that writer has a greatly inflated perspective of his writing and fishing abilities!


Take care,

Tom

I, too, miss Finn Aargard and Charlie Askins. The only current writer I bother with anymore is Patrick McManus, and I usually just buy the books as it's easier than putting on the hipboots and wading through the rest of the manure.
The only mag I still enjoy is Gun Tests. They don't pimp for anybody. Some may disparrage the small sample size - and they are welcome to go out themselves and buy a dozen of each and test them. I'll read what they have to say, but I'm betting they won't keep it up for long.

I make a regular bi-weekly trip to Walmart and look through the magazines. If one has an article I am interested in I buy it. Usually, I walk out empty handed. I do enjoy reading about the new guns, cartridges and bullet test articles. I look more for specs then how great the writer thinks the product is as most never say anything negative.

465H&H

Guys,
Just a few comments on this topic without endorsing or condemning any one particular writer or magazine. One of the things you must realize is that the economics of magazine publishing is dependent almost exclusively on advertising. While subscription fees or newsstand purchases add a little to profitability, it is almost insignificant compared to the advertising revenue. The impact of readership is largely confined to the number of eyeballs the mag can get to focus on the ads; and ad revenue is based largely on readership numbers. In this environment, magazines and writers cannot risk "literally biting the hand that feeds them". Therefore it is unrealistic to expect anything other than advertisers being treated with kid gloves. Your only recourse if the good aspects of a particular publication don't outweigh the bad, is not to subscribe.

As for the writers themselves, there are only so many truly new significant developments in the hunting and shooting industry that come out each year. If your living depends on cranking out 25 to 100 articles annually to put food on the table, a fair number are bound to be re-hashes of old topics and less than literary masterpieces. Or they focus on "new breakthrough" product developments that are frequently only marginal improvements over stuff that has been on the market for years. Just a fact of life.

Another factor is the experiance level of the reader. I have been hunting for close to forty years and have gained a large amount of expertise in hunting and firearms over that time, some of it gleaned from magazines. I suspect that most who contribute to these forums have similar expertise. But when I was young and just starting out, everything was new and of strong interest. Then I learned a lot from mags, everything from how to sight in a rifle (how many articles on that over the years?) to the habits of whitetails. Now, I am lucky to find one or two useful tips or truly new, interesting pieces of information in an entire magazine.

Conclusion, if on balance a magazine or writer contibutes to your knowledge and enjoyment of the sport, suscribe. If not vote with your feet. Or I would challenge those heavily into the bashing mode to put their money on the line and start a new magazine that has brutally honest product reviews and runs only original highly informative articles that are never duplicates of prior articles or other publications and has adventure writers of Ruark and Hemingway caliber on the staff. If you do, I will be one of the first to subscribe and pay a big premium to do so. But I don't think its as easy as its sounds.

Ramhunter:

Well said. Especially the part about starting your own magazine.

The advertising conflict of interest is obvious and perhaps unavoidable. One thing that would help greatly: writers should come clean about how much they paid for a hunt. If it was free, let us know. It will not hurt the story one bit, but improve the credibility 100%.

I read every word written about rifles, reloading, hunting and everything related to them. I appreciate all the research put in by the experts and form my own opinions after reading their articles, then doing my own reloading, shooting and hunting. I have noticed you can read just about anything about a subject, some good, some bad and some ugly. I also have noticed that the reloading writers do supply stats with their articles that give me very important info that saves me many shots when I want to develope something new. The reading public has to do their own thing, with all the accumulated knowledge presented. I also hate to hear a writer knocked because the reader was unwilling to do the research to refute a point made by the author of the article. Yep, I like some more than others, but it is up to me to read and deciphor what I need for my own use. Just my .02 worth and maybe that is all it is worth. Good shooting.

There are some, but do not want to hang them out here, they must make their living too.

Gentlemen,

I must step in on behalf of Mr. Barsness. I admit that I am a 24HCF crossover, but John Barsness is a straight up practical writer that not only participates in our online world but consistently answers emails from regular ole folks like us. What is not to like?

When it comes to rifles and the stuff that we shoot out of 'em, I'll drink whatever kool-aid JB is mixing ... until my own experience proves me wrong.

And yeah, I'm an f n rifle looney. Rather proud of it.

Gaviidae

quote:

Originally posted by tarbe:
Townsend Whelen and Bradford Angier were good.

Oh yeah!

I like Barness and Seyfried. And Heath.

But in general there is way too much re-hash in U.S. gun magazines, and the writers very seldom provide an honest evaluation of any product. So every article reads like an advertisement. Long ago I quit reading Boddington when I found I could learn nothing from his writing. Unfortunately there are too many writers in the same boat.

In my oppinion Jamison ain't worth the powder it'd take to blow him to hell. I don't like Keith much either. In fact I don't like many of them. They are all just paid to pimp the latest thing to come along. They are there to sell product and that's what they do.

The internet must of been hard on them.Less people buying magazines?

Hunterbug:

I see you're from Colorado. Sure you don't have some people from Texas? Some of my mother's people were from Texas and I learned at a very early age an expression she used that she told me was from Texas. ""Ain't worth the powder to blow him to hell!"

There's a few Texans running around, most of the ones that I've met are good people though. It seems that in the last 20 years the number of people in Colorado that are from somewhere else outnumber thoes of us that are from here.

Looks like we're gonna hafta read more of the foreign writers or those who write almost exclusively about Africa! Seyfried is a good writer. I actually like some of Craig B's writing. 500Grains and Ganyana do a fair job as well.

I read all 3 pages and was reminded of several men whom I have enjoyed over the years. Unless I missed something, I didn't see Wayne Van Zwoll listed in a negative light- AS IT SHOULD BE! This man knows about rifle shooting, and he can put forth his ideas. He has a great sense of humor. I would hate to go without my "Van Zwoll Fix".

I am ambivalent about the others, except for Gresham and Fortier. I have eaten lunch with Gresham, wrenched on his aircraft, and spent numerous hours on the phone with him. Good guy!

Fortier...UGH, he writes about 1800 dollar, ugly, inaccurate military rifles like they are made of gold.

quote:

Originally posted by bulldog563:

quote:

Originally posted by Clem:
Chuck Schumer, Dian Feinstein, Hilary Clinton, Sara Brady and Ted Kennedy are the gun writers I could do without. Never liked anything they have written about guns.

Ditto'
s

quote:

Originally posted by Hank H.:
Jamison: Same as Sundra. He killed me a few years ago developing a line of wildcat cartridges, held a contest to name the wildcat line, and ended up naming 'em all "xxx Jamison". What a joke.

And you think that creating a "new" wildcat cartridge is anything other than a work of pure
hubris?

Then you get suprised when he names them after himself after what turns out to be a mock contest? PLEASE! LOL!!!