Gun writer statements that are no longer applicable or you don't agree with.

[Savage 12BVSS]

This forum is the best for real time info and the depth of info cover's about any aspect of the shooting and hunting sports. I've learned a lot in the time I've been on here. Gun writers always have bias due to various reasons, some financial and some favoritism. I'd rather spend the early morning on here reading and taking in the banter and talk.

PS Petzal writes for Field and Stream I'm case you want to catch up... or maybe not !

Quit reading F&S decades ago, just didn't interest or seem relevant to me anymore. All these writer's get free equipment and hunting trips and perk's from the big names in optic's, gun manufacturing, and ammo producing. Guess what product's get their endorsement?

 

[Greyfox]

With the Internet's constant flash- flood of opinions, combined with the more rapid advances in technology, I find that, compared to my younger years, many gun writers seem to be behind on the technology curve. The thought leaders of old like O'Connor, Kieth, Wooters, etc. are no longer easily identified with all the noise. Very much like in politics, the viewpoint of specific groups seem to develop their own conventional wisdom, and the press tends to become polarized and influenced resulting in less credibility. In my case, for LRH, I better trust the aggregate of opinions from people I believe are credible, then a particular writer with an opinion. I'm pretty much the same with other areas of interest eI. archery, fishing, etc.

 

[ericbc7]

I stopped reading F&S (regularly) after Patrick McManus stopped writing for them.

 

[ofbandg]

My biggest beef with many gun writers of the recent past, (that's post second war to me), and even present day writers is how they represent themselves as hunters. They may know about rifles and cartridges because they visit the factories, and major shows, and establish contacts with the manufacturers, but most of their hunts are guided and all are about killing a particular animal. I suppose you have to justify the expense to your editor and come up with a punch line for your story but I can't identify with it as a hunter. I understand that they need guides to be successful when they travel to a place they have never been, and it helps to sell a story if you are successful, but they aren't the kind of stories I would go back and re-read. The stories I do re-read are the older ones where writers took trips that lasted months and were required to take part in the chores. In those the hunt is the real story and not the killing. What I find truly maddening is when any gun writer gets a new rifle or cartridge in their hands and they race out and find something to kill just so they can write about it. It is usually a no brainer that whatever they are testing will do the job.

 

[Wilderness Blacktail]

This ... cartridge kills well because it doesnt kick and therefore allows shooters to place their shots effectively.

I hate that. I'm super confident the recoil from a 22lr,.22m etc isnt gunna hurt but that doesnt help it kill well. Recoil has nothing to do with it. A cartridge or bullet/velocity combo works because it works, why take away from it?
And I'm thinking of a couple writers who don't have magnumitus too.

 

[Mike Matteson]

Jack was hunting when I was a kid and before. He made the 270 the rifle of the day. It's still a great round today. I wanted one at that time and still haven't gotten one even today 60 years later. I find it very interesting on the changes in the new rounds now. The handloading I feel has come the longest way in 58 years, because the case have only changed some, but burn more powder to get not that much more. The twist in the barrel seem to be the biggest factor. I've seen rifle coming out of the box shooting 1/2" and under groups with 5 round with a little work with handloads with nothing fancy. Care was given in bullet, powder, and primers used. Full sizing case all the time. No neck cutting, flash holes, weighting of brass. A lot of it is in the handler of the firearm. One thing I learned was different people hold their firearm differently. That can change the impact point of the bullet. My brother was setting up a 7mm Rem Mag for a friend, and he was getting a sore shoulder. He figure he had the load, but want somebody else to confirm it. He is right handed and I am left handed. I confirm the load under 1/2" at 100 yards. So we meet with the friend that day. He couldn't get the round on paper at a 100 yards. Move back to 25 yards to see what was going on. Adjusted the scope to him. He printed under 1/2" at a 100 yards after that. I couldn't begin to shoot his rifle sighted in for him. So the trigger man has a lot to do with it. Most of the time I can shoot other people rifles and hit the same point.

SSS
Mke

 

[Savage 12BVSS]

Patrick McManus stopped writing for them.

Hadn't thought of him in a long time, funniest I've ever read for sure. Brings back a smile

 

[Wilderness Blacktail]

Hadn't thought of him in a long time, funniest I've ever read for sure. Brings back a smile

Outdoor Life, Last Word. Had me in tears growing up! My folks bought me subscriptions for years as a kid.

 

[ericbc7]

Yes, Outdoor Life! thanks, although I seem to recall he did write occasionally in field and stream.

 

[MachV]

Be it writers or tv they are paid entertainers first and formost.
Jack would not have been Jack if he would have admitted that the 280 or 7 mag was better, Elmer was all about use more gun than nessisary! Didnt realy make them wrong = just entertaining......to me anyway. To this day I have never owned a 270 or 44 mag. Smarter then Jack or Elmer, na just a rebel!
Things I thought I knew ten years ago are kinda funny today....and some are still true

 

[Ranger Rick]

This forum is the best for real time info and the depth of info cover's about any aspect of the shooting and hunting sports. I've learned a lot in the time I've been on here. Gun writers always have bias due to various reasons, some financial and some favoritism. I'd rather spend the early morning on here reading and taking in the banter and talk.

Quit reading F&S decades ago, just didn't interest or seem relevant to me anymore. All these writer's get free equipment and hunting trips and perk's from the big names in optic's, gun manufacturing, and ammo producing. Guess what product's get their endorsement?

I read the posts that offer good advice and skip the ones that are clearly biased, such as "Weatherby by far!"

 

[LRNut]

My favorite line is one repeated (but I must admit, not lately) by guys like Boddington et al: the reason a bullet hits high when shooting uphill or downhill is that the bullet is only affected by gravity over the horizontal distance of travel. If that were true, a bullet launched straight up would go into orbit.

The biggest problem I have with most writers is that they are journalism majors and are basically illiterate when it comes to engineering and physics.

 

[Arkansasdad]

I used to like to read Chuck Hawks but he may be retired, don't see much from him anymore.

 

[Bravo 4]

What I find truly maddening is when any gun writer gets a new rifle or cartridge in their hands and they race out and find something to kill just so they can write about it. It is usually a no brainer that whatever they are testing will do the job.

I concur, as if that new model rifle did anything every other rifle in the same chambering shooting the same ammo hasn't done to game already. I will admit to a little jealousy on my part adds a little flare to the fire.
Cartridges (whether new fangled designs or not) that push a bullet the same speed as an already existing cartridge fall into this category as well.
And now the devil's advocate; if this is an "online magazine" does that now make me a "Gun Writer"? I read statements on this very site that fall into the "no longer applicable" criteria and some I don't agree with. I'm sure there are those that do not agree with things I post.