Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters "Gun Writer" Backgrounds

pinku,

You might have gotten more response from your post if you'd used it to start a new thread.

I both agree and disagree. I agree that too many gun reviews are very much like you describe. I disagree that ALL are like that.

Part of the problem is that about 20 years ago one magazine publishing company (in New York City) discovered that they could sell a lot more ads if they pimped a pile of products in every article. This the origin of the hunting story that began something like this: "I got out of my Super-Cozy sleeping bag and slipped my feet into my Rugged Brand Boots, then grabbed my Remingchester .300 Whiz-Bang and a box of Grizzly Blaster ammo and headed out the door of my marvelous Mountain Master tent."

Advertisers soon flocked to these magazines, and other publishing companies noticed. Some (but not all) publishers copied the technique. In fact I know of one that has a clause guaranteeing editorial coverage of the product in their advertising contracts.

The problem was that readers also noticed. The old-fashioned way of publishing magazines was to attract lots of readers, then persuade companies to advertise by pointing out how many hard-core shooters and hunters read the magazine. The "adverwhorial" method of publishing turned this around. The reader was secondary to advertising sales, and many readers (like you) noticed.

This is one reason, among several, for the readership drop in some hunting and shooting magazines over the past 20-odd years. As a matter of fact, the publishing company that started the trend no longer publishes ANY hunting magazines, because too many readers got fed up and quit buying the magazines.

Another example is what once used to be a fine hunting magazine, with a mix of actual hunting stories and real equipment evaluations. But for the past decade or so it became a thinly disguised gun magazine, full of "hunting stories" about hunts thrown by manufacturers for writers. Since these hunts usually take place somewhere like a ranch in Wyoming where every writer gets to shoot a 13-inch pronghorn within a couple of days, there isn't much hunting involved--but there is plenty of space in the article to talk about the wonderful rifle. Quite often the rifle is only shot a few times before the hunt, with the ammo provided by the host company. (Lately, though, I have noticed a change in this magazine back toward its roots.)

On the other hand, there are some magazine publishers who do not follow the adverwhorial formula, either because of integrity or because they've seen what eventually happens to the magazines that slavishly follow it. There are also some writers who actually test firearms thoroughly before writing an article. They may not publish an article on a new product before everybody else, but the article they do published will have more information.

I happen to know one writer very well who will not test any rifle unless he has a wide variety of factory ammo or can handload for the rifle. He also doesn't go on very many "industry hunts," and if he does, he doesn't write an article just about that limited experience, but also tests the rifle (or scope, or bullet) thoroughly in other ways. And there are enough magazines that are interested in his articles that he can make a fair living at it. And I know several others who pretty much operate in the same way.

So, again, I both agree and disagree with your post.