Reading the latest issue and an aritcle by Barness about fiberglass and laminated stocks. Pretty clear about the general poor quality of injection molding etc but.........when's the last time you read an article about fiberglass stocks and McMillan wasn't mentioned? McMILLAN WASN'T MENTIONED! Does anyone think it was an oversight?

But he certainly said a lot of nice things about Mark Bansner didn't he? and he wasn't shy about showing the nice rifles Mark stocked for him. I have a rifle that Mark stocked and I like it... a lot....but I still prefer McMillan for the variety they offer in style and finish. I also noticed the magazine didn't have any ads from McMillan.....kind of funny don't you think as they are headquarted so close to each other?

Question....What's the definition of a whore?

Answer...Someone who takes money or something of value for a service rendered.

I'm more than a little weary of his "I'm the perfect hunter/sportsman/etc and I can't stand those who don't measure up to my standards" attitude.

I enjoy articles that talk about "how I do it" and not "how you should do it". I think that's one of the reasons I enjoy Boddington's writing.

I agree whole heartedly. Look on how he pushes this 375 Nosler Ballistic tip. I think he is in bed pretty deep with Nosler. It just makes me laugh a little.

Bill, I totally disagree with your definition of a whore. Your definition calls every legitimate business a whore because they ALL take money for goods or services. That is the definition of business.

I will agree with your attitude, though. I think Boddington is the biggest "whore" in the industry. How many articles does he write where he doesn't mention that his rifle is a Rifles Inc. rifle? Not very many. There were several from Shooting Times a while back that touted how good the Kimber 308 rifles were and none of the ones they shot would hold a 2" group. I think it is what is happening in the entire gun rag industry. Circulation alone will not pay the bills for the magazines and the publisher doesn't want to admit it.

Maybe we need to start writing and see if anyone would buy.

I don't know why you're bashing Barsness so bad when every damn gun writer I've read in the last 15 years has not said a negative word about Nosler, Barnes, or Leupold! The Hornady bullets or the Burris and Simmons scopes that I have used seem to work just as well. Do you think it has anything to do with the free bullets they receive or the use of the indoor range they have access to?
The article in most of the gun rags are just advertisements that run 2-3 pages. That's why I quit renewing my subscriptions a few years back!
Give me a break!
Elk Country

[ 10-29-2002, 18:17: Message edited by: Elk Country ]

AMEN, Elk Country.

Bill, it pains me to admit it, but I thought the same thing about John's article. Barsness is a great writer who deserves much respect, but to omit any reference to McMillan stocks in an article of that sort is a bit suspicious to me. I don't agree with his comments about pillar bedding at all.

I'll say this: I'm no great fan of laminated stocks, nor injection-molded, over-the-counter, el cheapo factory-supplied stocks. Unless a laminated stock is sealed and finished with some sort of super-tough polymer, it'll cause all sorts of trouble (I speak from experience on this issue), and the injection-molded stocks are an abomination that should be replaced as soon as the rifle is brought home from the gunstore.

AD

[ 10-29-2002, 02:26: Message edited by: allen day ]

I was also surprised at the McMillan omission.

He does say something about getting some free stocks in that article I believe.

Ditto

This is America after all or would you boys rather pay triple for your magazine. Maybe the government could fund the articles.We all take money for goods and services.Just my opinion.

"Keep Your Finger OFF The Trigger Until Your Sights Are On The Target: See Barness page 110 Rifle Nov 2002. Obviously doesn't practice what he preaches unless that is a new method of putting the sights on target.

That`s why I gave up on the "glossies"forget the fancy color pages and pics,give me something of value,un-biased articles.The only mags that get my money anymore are,Precision Shooting and The Accurate Rifle.Once in a while I`ll buy an issue of Handloader but only if theres an article on something I actually load for and shoot.let`s see some reviews from people that have to buy the products they are writing about.I like nosler bullets,but I also like cheaper brands and use the type needed at the time for the job I am using them for.I`m on a fixed income and don`t care about rich people`s product reviews,I will use the brands I can afford and make them work.no gun in my cabinet cost over $600 and only one of my scopes was more than $400,the rest may not be as nice,but they all work for their intended purposes.

A perfect example is the recent spate of build your own custom rifle articles for under a grand. All happen to use Legacy actions, the same stock and same barrel manufacturer. None of them mention in the article that this was a put up job by Legacy etc., I think the articles would have been fine if they had said that at Legacys cost they were going to show you how to build a custom. Instead each of them acted like they had this great idea and selected the components because of the great value they offered. All of them seemed to have gotten the price wrong at least on the barrel work though, I noted Shaw is now 10-20% higher on everything quoted in the articles.

allen day,
I was thinking of purchasing an acrabond laminated stock for a new rifle, because I read they were stable. I've always been leery of laminates, and it's extremely wet in these parts.

What problems did you see with laminates? I'd appreciate any info. Thanks.

I am confused about what you people would like to see from a gun writer!

If they are getting paid to write an article doesn't it seem logical that they would receive a free sample of the product from the manufacturer in order to get some free press and advertising?

I'm sure they don't get paid well enough to buy multi-thousand dollar rifles, plus bullets, dies, scopes, etc just so Bubba can read about how well built they are..

The way it sounds like you guys want it, nobody would be writing articles/magazines and we would have to read stupid stories about Axel's Big Bore.

Mike

P.S. The pic in the back looks like he is shouldering the rifle so why not have finger in trigger guard?

Personally, I agree with a good portion of what Barsness writes. He posts to another forum and always has something interesting to say about different products he is testing.

I recently e-mailed back and forth with him about the 9.3x62. He seems to be a nice guy who knows his stuff and likes to talk guns. His articles seem to be well-thought-out, well-tested and well-written. He is one of the few writers I care to read and probably the biggest reason I subscribe to Rifle/Handloader.

Maybe John just got "ticked off" at the 6-8month wait for a McMillan stock?

I actually like Rifle and Handloader. They seem a whole lot less "sold-out" than Guns & Ammo or Peterson's Hunting. How many times do we really need "Is the .30-06 the real all-around rifle?" or "Magnums for Elk". It seems that they recycle the same things time after time. At least Handloader has some articles on loading for some interesting cartridges that don't have "ultra" or "short" in them.

Joel Slate
Slate & Associates, LLC
www.slatesafaris.com

7mm Rem Mag Page www.slatesafaris.com/7mm.htm

I think you're way off course to be going after Barsness. He is one of the finest writers we have left. I don't agree with all of his stuff...or even Seyfried's for that matter but the two of them are better than most of what is left. Did you read his article on writers getting free stuff? It's interesting.

Guys that like to badmouth the writers crack me up. Most of them believe they could shoot trophies like them if they had the chance...are better shots...etc. etc.

yukon....I read that article and as I recall he said he nevers "bad mouths" a product but rather doesn't write about it. I find it hard to believe he has a legitimate beef with McMillan unless it's corporate policy at Rifle. I've never heard a complaint, except for waiting time, about McMillan.....have you? Or has any member of the forum?

Let me add something else about this once great magazine....they need to either develop or find some new blood. Multiple articles, columns etc from the same writers issue after issue gets a little old...they've been running on the reputation Ken Howell made for a long, long time.

It must be difficult to be a salesman in the land of the Brave and the Free.

I guess that one of the reasons that speakers from America coming to Australia sound so good when talking about sales, advertising, business etc. is that they have made the grade in a country (the USA) that is against such activities.

Mike

Sounds like a bunch of baloney and sour grapes to me .

I find Barsness to be one of the best in the business at this time . His articles are usually informative , down to earth , and have the air of really having been there and down that, and one of the few reasons I still occationally buy Rifle or Handloader .

So he like Nosler bullets ? Can you name one gun writer in the last fifty years that didn't ? Can you think of many experienced hunters on this forum that don't ?

Whitehurst, I had a .300 Winchester made up about six years ago by a very talented custom riflemaker who used a laminated blank which he finished in tung oil (I believe). This rifle and stock worked great on dry weather hunts in eastern Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, Sonora, and Texas.

Fate caught up with me on a late season goat hunt in British Columbia. We had two days of wet snow that washed the finish right out of the wood, allowed in moisture, and the result was that the wood started to delaminate. The surface grain raised and became so rough (much like weathered, unfinished plywood) that it was necessary to sand it back down and refinish. Actually, regular walnut would have caused less trouble in some respects.

Based on this experience, I find some the claims made for laminates to be preposterous. Unless it's finished (inside & out) with something really tough, such as Varathane, it's simply not going to withstand wet weather.

Quality fiberglass, such as McMillan, is much better for all-around use in my opinion, especially in wet country. It works wet of dry...

AD

I just got my new Handloader Magazine yesterday, and I must say it is one of the best I have seen for a while.

I have quit taking Rifle Magazine, and a whole bunch of others.

Boddington, Barness, Scovill etc are "OK", but Sundra, he's the one I can do without.

I even wrote two of his editors last month, and asked if he could do anything new except talk about this Boyd Stocked, Ruger 77, ER Shaw barreled action with a 6 X scope?

Month after month, the same thing in a different magazine.

Petersen's Gun's & Ammo is worthless unless you like Pistols.

Just to clarify, I think it's great that they put these articles out. What I don't agree with is the writers pretending they had a great idea, with the implication that the stuff they chose was the best suited.

It would be more honest to state they were approached by Legacy to put together a rifle to show their readers how easy it was.

The first couple of articles had particular importance to me since I was in the process of ordering a custom rifle. At the end I decided to use a sporterized military action, B&C composite stock, Douglas barrel and have a gunsmith true the action, lap the lugs, glass bed and assemble. Still worked out to be under $1000.

For knowledge in the area of guns and hunting, you will be hard put to find the equal of this very forum, in my opinion. As in most of life, you should approach this area with lots of research and slow down when getting to the top end. And, I wish I could get that BS Meter of Pecos45 to just automatically pop up when appropriate, I can't seem to get the settings just right. The people that write for mags should pull no punches, if you only have something bad to say, so be it. Let the product mfgr respond if needs be, but tell the facts as facts, and the opinions as opinions. What good are the articles if they don't do that? I would have a lot more respect for the mags/rags if that were the case. But, since Elmer quit writing, I lost interest. Now there was facts, and opinions, pretty well identified. Either that or like so many things, it bets better with the remembering.

I'll stick up for Barsness too. He's a local boy for one thing, not that that should matter, but he's a good writer to boot. Pretty much down to earth, and I don't see him endorsing the latest trend du jour too often.
I tell you who has pissed me off in a major way, though, and that's Mark Bansner. Oh, maybe he makes great stocks, but personally he's a dickhead. He built my 300 Dakota. Worst service I've ever received from any business.
If you're John Barsness, though, I'm sure Mark is Johnny on the Spot.

I quit subscribing to these mags maybe 20 years ago because they just recycle stories over and over. The only ones I get are SCI, NAHC, NRA mags because of membership. Terry's right about Jon Sundra, I'm sick of the same old story.

I confess to not having read the article so I might be speaking a bit out of school here BUT!!

I wonder, did JB mention every maker of glass stocks on the planet except McMillan?? Brown, MPI, Lone Wolf, Rimrock, Bansner, etc. etc. etc. Did he get all two dozen or so except McMillan?

It's pretty silly to get heated up when a writer skips your personal favorite rifle, scope, bullet, stock, mount, sling, pad, etc. It's also, frankly ridiculous to criticize the shooting press for their business practices re advertising. The last time that I looked, these are (FOR PROFIT) businesses with the responsibility to put out 12 issues a year with the correct content to attract their demographic customers. Hence the decidedly different content in the "Technical, mags vs. the Pablum mags"

Peterson's publications are about as Pablum as you can get, but they do just fine in the marketplace. I think that the average shooter that owns a 30-06 with a 4X in a weaver mount, LIKES to see something about his rifle occasionally. R & H are a bit more technical and attract a different customer. Gun Tests is the purist of the bunch and very few of the rank and file shooters even know that it exists.

I'd say, read the magazine whose content comes closest to YOUR interests and pass on the others. If you can't find a writer that's "pure" enough for your tastes, so be it.

Have a nice day........

JimF

[ 10-29-2002, 19:14: Message edited by: JimF ]

JimF.......my problem is McMillan "is" the industry standard.

Maybe articles like this should have some type of heading that says "celebrity spokesperson compensated for their viewpoint" so the uninformed aren't mislead.

When it comes right down to it no writer is perfect. Either as a writer or a person. Just like the rest of us. Their job is to inform and entertain and, perhaps most importantly, generate income for the magazine. They do this either by attracting advertisers by sucking up or by being entertaining enough that advertisers wish to attach themselves to the writers vehicle. Sadly, many writers rely heavily on the "sucking up" method of attracting sponsors!
Nonetheless, the worst of them sometimes tells me something I didn't know (and I know a lot! HaHaHa), and the best of them entertain me while doing it. If the article is too disgusting or too full of BS (it happens)I just don't read it. Just like the postings on this forum! Regards, Bill.

Just about all gun writers are whores these days, some are just more subtle about it.

I've dropped my subscriptions to Handloader and Rifle recently because they are turning into "Guns & Ammo" and "Shooting Times".

Tout the advertisers' products regardless of whether they would perform outside of the generally favorable conditions they were tested under.

All the good technical writing is gone; the articles are "me and Joe" or "I am God" or "buy this!".

I am down to the magazines that come with my memberships in organizations: NRA, NAHC, DU, VHA, and SCI (and Steve Comus has fucked "Safari" up by bringing his special version of whoring PLUS Jon Sundra, the dean of asshole gun writers!).
George

AMEN George. Well Said.

Allen Day: Mel Smart does use varathane on his stocks and another oil I cannot remember. I was at his place in Sept. and spent a good amount of time with him looking at his work and his blanks. It is VERY impressive. I purchased one of his lefthanded stocks. I suspect "problems" with laminates are directly related to the method and quality of the wood and the stockmaker. Not all laminates are the same, and not all gunwriters are whores. Barsness is the best we have these days.
DbBILL: Who is better than Barsness? Who is more honest in his evaluations? Like another fellow said, do you get pissed off every time a writer doesn't mention your favorite whatever? I have learned a lot from him, and I have been hunting and reloading over 40 years.

I like to read John Barsness' work, and his Optics for the Hunter is worth far more than what I paid for it. I notice that he is trying to inject some contrarian viewpoints in his articles, at least it makes it interesting.

I get Rifle and Handloader for the ads as much as the articles. They have real reference value for me.

I write for African Hunter, and I see the edge of the gun-zine market. Advertisers pay the publisher to publish the magazine; the rates the publisher can charge the advertisers is determined by circulation. More readers, more bucks.

The "name" writers in the US belong to the OWAA --Outdoor Writers Association of America (http://www.owaa.org/). One of the benefits of OWAA membership is manufacturers will give you things. I have told some of them that I belong to OWAA (outdoor Writers Association of Africa), but so far no one is amused.

jim dodd

Sambubba, I agree that not all laminates, stockmakers, or stock finishes are created equal. I can only relate my own experience with the one rifle, for whatever it's worth.

I'm not one of the guys who made the declaration that gunwriters are whores. Most of them have a way of defining themselves without any help from me or anyone else. They are conducting business, for the most part, it the time-honored way of that trade, and it's just the way the system works. Barsness is indeed a great writer, and I think he's honest and talented. Whether he's the best or not is open to debate. Certainly he and Seyfried and Carmichel, plus Craig Boddington and Wayne Van Zwoll bring a lot of experience and talent to the table, and I enjoy their efforts very much.

AD

[ 10-30-2002, 00:51: Message edited by: allen day ]