The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: ratcatcher55 on April 09, 2010, 01:02:26 PM
-
http://pistol-training.com/archives/2600
from an email sent by my good friend Baxter)
Instruction From The Editor To The Journalist: Frangible Arms just bought a four page color ad in our next issue. They sent us their latest offering, the CQB MK-V Tactical Destroyer. I told Fred to take it out to the range to test. He’ll have the data for you tomorrow.
Feedback From Technician Fred:
The pistol is a crude copy of the World War II Japanese Nambu type 14 pistol, except it’s made from unfinished zinc castings. The grips are pressed cardboard. The barrel is unrifled pipe. There are file marks all over the gun, inside and out.
Only 10 rounds of 8mm ammunition were supplied. Based on previous experience with a genuine Nambu, I set up a target two feet down range. I managed to cram four rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. I taped the magazine in place, bolted the pistol into a machine rest, got behind a barricade, and pulled the trigger with 20 feet of 550 cord. I was unable to measure the trigger pull because my fish scale tops out at 32 pounds. On the third try, the pistol fired. From outline of the holes, I think the barrel, frame, magazine, trigger and recoil spring blew through the target. The remaining parts scattered over the landscape.
I sent the machine rest back to the factory to see if they can fix it, and we need to replace the shooting bench for the nice people who own the range. I’ll be off for the rest of the day. My ears are still ringing. I need a drink.
Article Produced By The Journalist:
The CQB MK-V Tactical Destroyer is arguably the deadliest pistol in the world. Based on a combat proven military design, but constructed almost entirely of space age alloy, it features a remarkable barrel design engineered to produce a cone of fire, a feature much valued by Special Forces world wide. The Destroyer shows clear evidence of extensive hand fitting. The weapon disassembles rapidly without tools. At a reasonable combat distance, I put five holes in the target faster than I would have thought possible. This is the pistol to have if you want to end a gunfight at all costs. The gun is a keeper, and I find myself unable to send it back.
-
Ha Sounds about right. I still buy the gun mags hoping there will be something new and interesting. With the exception of Barsness, Venturino, John Taffin, and maybe a couple more, I have lost any hope of someone writing about something original. Sometimes i stop halfway through the first paragraph, and try to decide if ive already read the artivle before. Just plug-in a different manufacturer, Model #, and caliber, and presto! Brand new, hot off the presses, revolutionary magazine article! This seems especially true with any magazine who's title contains the word "Tactical."
Read one article this week that i had hopes might be good. It was about "Precision LE Rifles on a Budget." The author bought a used M700 BDL 30-06 for $400. Then swapped the wood stock for an El Cheapo $110 synthetic rig. Stated that he decided to fore-go freeloating or glass bedding it b/c the process was "messy," then mounted a set of 2-piece steel bases and rings. Suggests adding a "decent, inexpensive tactical scope" such as a Leupold or Burris combined with an anti-cant device. In the end he touts that the test rifle added up to only a hair over $1200, "compared to the whopping $2500-$5,000 tarriff of a factory or custom-built precision rig. And that boys and girls is a deal in any language!"
I had to ask myself what the point of this article was??? The guy basically just advised LEO sharpshooters to go buy a used deer rifle, slap a cheap synthetic stock on it, screw on cheap mounts, a "tacti-cool scope" and they would have something to compare with a GAP(or any other custom precision rifle). Hell, i found 2 rifles just like what he described in the local gunshop for $450, and they already had synthetic stocks, basis, rings, and a 3-9x scope(albeit, not a tacti-cool model). Im sure they were fine deer rifles but precision LE rifles, eh?
-
r_boyette,
I'm with you on that.
Hunting ragazines are just as bad. Safari was an outstanding thing to read many years ago but now half the articles are about some comped trip paid for by US Blaster. The writer just explains how it's impossible to kill a pronghorn as dead as you can with the US Blaster 700 rifle in new .215 Ultra Blaster Midget round.
Ive heard SWAT magazine did a fairly brutal review of the M-4 Shotgun that PO'd Benelli. That would be a rare thing to see these days.
-
r_boyette,
I'm with you on that.
Hunting ragazines are just as bad. Safari was an outstanding thing to read many years ago but now half the articles are about some comped trip paid for by US Blaster. The writer just explains how it's impossible to kill a pronghorn as dead as you can with the US Blaster 700 rifle in new .215 Ultra Blaster Midget round.
Ive heard SWAT magazine did a fairly brutal review of the M-4 Shotgun that PO'd Benelli. That would be a rare thing to see these days.
No doubt. I canceled all my hunting rag subscriptions a long time ago. Im glad someone is willing to ruffle a few feathers. I bought 4 gun magazines the other day and not one has so much as a "if i could change one thing about this gun it would be____" paragraph. I know better than that. Ive never met a person yet that couldnt find at least one thing they would change about every gun they picked up. 99% of all reviews ive looked at in the last 5 years read more like a 3 page ad for the manufacturer
-
American Rifleman comes with my NRA membership, it's fine. I also like to keep up with American Handgunner, and Combat Handguns.
Annual subscription is $9.99. Good to read, when in my office with the porcelain seat... ;D
-
same thing happens here
it is all about the sponsors $$$
and it is not just firearms
-
American Rifleman comes with my NRA membership, it's fine. I also like to keep up with American Handgunner, and Combat Handguns.
Annual subscription is $9.99. Good to read, when in my office with the porcelain seat... ;D
American Rifleman & American Handgunner are 2 of my favorites. Also like GUNS, Guns & Ammo, parts of Gun World and Guns of the Old West. At least i think thats the name of it. My memory ceases to function this late in the evening.
Does anyone know if the "Gun Tests" magazine is still being put out? It was a black & white paper cover magazine that would put similar make guns from different manufacturers in a head to head test. They didnt advertise for any manufacturer and gave some strong opinions. They tested reloading equipment too. I had a subscription to it in the mid-90's
-
I went back through all my magazines looking at the first reviews of the M&P now that I've pretty much owned at least one of each of the major models reviewed (.45/.40/9 full size and 9 compact). And the only review I could stomach was by Massad Ayoob when he pointed out that there was mixed reviews from the pros in his circle because of certain design elements that were quickly replaced after launch due to end user complaints. Every other article I read was almost line for line the same as reviews of the Taurus 24/7 and Ruger SR9 (how's that for running the gamete?). All were "revolutionary", super accurate never failed in bench testing and so on. You know I've heard more people in gun shops be honest than these guys. Especially with the SR9c. Why can't a gun the same size as a Glock 27 and M&Pc get the same standard capacity? But in the magazines the hammer the, WOW you can hold 10 rounds of 9mm selling point. Not saying that it's a bad thing or that the SR9 is in any way subpar. But, when I hear at least a dozen people pose the same question and the reviewers all read the script handed to them by the manufacturer I get a little annoyed.
What about people who read these things to actually get buying advise. They would buy a piece of Ukrainian crap if these guys reviewed it like they do every gun that comes through their magazine. Sorry, I've been in the car for almost 10 hours today and after reading through the latest Guns & Ammo, Combat Handgunner, American Rifleman, and Handguns I am in the boat of never wanting to read one again. I think it's all a giant case of plagiarism that nobody is catching.
-
I've gotten nearly all the magazines at one time or another. I've only kept a few.
I get American Rifleman and Shooting Illustrated with my NRA membership.
I like Guns and American Handgunner. They are irreverent, have excellent writers and will tell you if a gun is not great.
I like Small Arms Review...lots of FA stuff, obscure and historical articles.
Shotgun News still comes. I have a love/hate relationship with it.
-
the car rags are the same thing.
Boat mags are even worse.(atleast they have ideas for improvments)
-
Its porn! You're not supposed to read the articles ;D
-
Its porn! You're not supposed to read the articles ;D
but playboy actually has some very intresting articles...
-
Porn and descriptions, specs, etc... that's all the mags are ususally good for. You can pick up the trends of the newer models or innovations. If you want real reviews though, you have to go to forums and count...1 against, 10 for...probably a good quality gun. Not always the case though. I've had a brand new Ruger 161 come through and not cycle properly. Sent it back and the factory smith worked it over HARD. Now it works, but how did it get out of the factory in that condition?
Have a Baikal 12 GA over under I bought used. The poop on them is they're not pretty but they're built like a Soviet tank. Spot-on review. Workmanship is rough, but it shoots like a demon and you could probably use it to beat buffalo to death with.
The magazines have sponsors, and money talks. But the pictures are priceless.
-
This is an all natural born train wreck because of the very nature of what exists in these magazines. Which is paid advertising about the same merchandise that is being written about. It is all but impossible to be objective. If say, Savage Arms is a high dollar advertiser in your magazine, and you are doing a write up on their latest rifle which has received a lot of press, you cannot possibly bad mouth the weapon in any way, shape, or form without jeopardizing your financial advertising stake with that company.
Gun companies advertise in gun magazines. Revlon advertises in Cosmopolitan. Cosmo can write an anti gun article and not be hurt just as Guns & Ammo can say Revlon sucks because they support an anti gun position. (I'm just using this as an example. I'm not saying Revlon is anti gun.) But you get the point. It is all but impossible for this situation to change because of the publisher / advertiser relationship.
I subscribe to most of the gun rags. I take the articles with a grain of salt, as far as the praise they seem to bestow on every weapon they test. I absorb the technical facts. Weight, barrel length, rate of twist, cost (MSRP), etc. For example in the newest issue of "Guns & Weapons For Law Enforcement", they just happen to do a writeup on the new Kimber 8400 Police Tactical in .300 Win. Mag. I just bought. I was surprised to read that Kimber test fires every single one, and won't let it out of the factory unless it groups 1/2 MOA or better. I didn't know that, and was quite pleased to read it. For me, who just spent a lot of money on that rifle, that alone was worth the price of the magazine. Most of the gun magazines just keep me current to whats on the market, and what is in the works. For most gun guys it's better reading than what you find in the dentists office while you're waiting for your root canal, and just heard the receptionist say, "We're out of Novocaine!". Bill T.
-
Fishing, hunting, guns, cars, widgits, thingamabobs.....whatever.
Why do hunters poor buck piss on their boots? I don't know! I never had any trouble getting a deer without it back in the seventies and there is a lot more deer in the woods today than there were then! Someone said it works in a magazine!
I have five tackle boxes of fishing gear that I've never caught a darn thing with! Why did I buy it? Because In-Fisherman said it was the latest, greatest doo-dad to catch that lunker with.
It's hype, nothing more! I've fallen for it over the years myself. It takes a lifetime of experience to form your own opinion on something so we believe what we choose to believe.
Today, I'm a bit more stingy with my money. It's funny, now that I can afford to spend it, I'm more frugal than ever!
-
Today, I'm a bit more stingy with my money. It's funny, now that I can afford to spend it, I'm more frugal than ever!
As my mother once told me when I was a teen, whining about how little money I made at the time. She said, "It's not what you make. It's what you do with it after you made it." How very true. Bill T.
-
Boat mags are even worse.(atleast they have ideas for improvments)
For several years in the late '90s and early '00s I wrote for a couple well-known boating magazines and I would tend to agree with TAB. When I was asked to review a new boat, I knew I had to include some minor criticism, but nothing that would negatively impact the marketability. I could say something like: The non-skid decking could be more aggressive. I could not say: The morning dew on the Teflon deck will cause you to bust your a$$ and likely throw you overboard. It all came down to the wording. I got pretty good (I thought) at including the truth, but it was carefully nuanced.
The actual fact of life is that sponsors want good reviews. If they don't get them, they take their ad revenue to one of the other rags that have lower standards. And the biggest, most successful rags were the worst offenders.
That has to work the same way in the gun mags, too. It's simple economics.
Truthfully submitted for your consideration,
Crusader
-
also gaming
http://www.news.com.au/technology/lads-mag-editor-blows-whistle-on-video-games/story-e6frfro0-1225850507467
A MAGAZINE editor who claims he was sacked for posting part of an internal email on Facebook says he was blowing the whistle on video game companies pressuring publications for favourable coverage.
Former Zoo Weekly deputy entertainment editor Toby McCasker last month posted on Facebook part of an email that seemed to show a game maker demanding a positive spin on its latest title.
The email was allegedly sent by a publicist for Rockstar Games to staff at the magazine, concerning coverage of the company's new title Red Dead Redemption.
"This is the biggest game we've done since GTA IV, and is already receiving Game of the Year 2010 nominations from specialists all around the world," it read.
"Can you please ensure Toby's article reflects this — he needs to respect the huge achievement he's writing about here."
Rockstar is one of the world's biggest gaming companies with franchises including Grand Theft Auto and Max Payne.
The post on Facebook has since been taken down and McCasker has been dismissed from the magazine.
McCasker told news.com.au the email was an example of growing pressure from game companies for favourable media coverage.
"I did not sign up to become a journalist to write advertorials masquerading as editorial," he said.
"This 'cash for comment' culture that is fast becoming the status quo within print media bothers me a lot."
Zoo editor Paul Merrill would not comment on McCasker's dismissal but did say he was unaware of any bid to influence the magazine's reviews.
"It'd be wrong for me to comment as to why someone is dismissed," he said.
"I've never known any game maker to ask for a positive review and they've certainly never received it."
Rockstar Games Australia said today: "We are not clear on what the story is here. We always try to present our games in the most compelling way to media and fans alike and of course we, like every other video game publisher in Australia or anywhere else for that matter, want to have our games seen in a positive light."
It is understood McCasker had earlier received two official warnings about his behaviour.
Threats to pull advertising
McCasker's claim is not the first time the game industry has faced allegations of putting pressure on publications to provide favourable coverage.
In 2007 the US editorial director of gaming website GameSpot left the site suddenly after running a negative review of game Kane & Lynch: Dead Men.
A large promotional campaign for the game was running on GameSpot at the time the review was published, leading to speculation the game's publisher Eidos had threatened to pull its ads.
Veteran gaming journalist David Wildgoose, who currently edits gaming blog Kotaku Australia, said threats from game makers to pull advertisements over unfavourable coverage did occur but not very often.
"I've heard of and been directly involved in situations where an advertiser has threatened to pull its spend, usually over a review score they perceive as below expectation," he said.
"But such occasions are infrequent and often the threat is never followed through."
Wildgoose, who has more than 15 years experience as a gaming journalist and editor for print and online, said most game makers valued independent coverage.
"If a games website or magazine started writing for its advertisers, it would lose credibility with its readers. And without those readers, it's not attractive for those advertisers," he said.
"I'd like to think games companies understand that and I think most of them do."
Update (April 8)
Zoo editor Paul Merrill has issued a statement to Kotaku US about McCasker's sacking.