Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Someone's missing the boat.

John,

Interesting.

I was well aware that most everyone selling anything firearm related was sold out at maximum production rates for the Obama years. I failed to put together that now seemingly obvious consequence - no reason to advertise when you're sold out at max production...

Thanks,

David

We will have to agree and disagree as follows:

a. I was not referring to a magazine for Alaska hand-loaders, but for the standard cartridges up to the .375 H&H. The great majority of firearms, regardless of caliber and age, are passed down to family members as we age, and others are being sold, traded, and so on. It means that those cartridges just don't disappear in thin air, but continue being used. The market is already saturated with hunting rifles of all calibers and shapes, which makes it difficult for gun manufacturers to sell the same rifle calibers. Therefore the cartridge re-designs (cases without belts, for example), and advertisement of today. Bullet caliber does not change.

b. Deep penetrating bullets have always existed. But metallurgy and aerodynamic changes have made it easier for bullet manufacturers to produce bullets where the hardness and shape are more precise than ever, and these bullets are being used with all hunting rifles, Magnum or not. One can use a lighter bullet that penetrates just as deep as a heavier and softer one, and this is a big plus for any rifle.

We’re pretty fond of our (26 year old) 8x30 Swarovski’s! memtb

Printing and shipping hunting magazines have gotten too expensive these days. No amount of advertisement on print is going to make a difference. The only thing that works is to hold the interest of as many readers as possible across the entire spectrum (all guns and calibers, new and not too old).

Swarovski used to make 8x56 that were very good at dark... I had two pairs. They also used to make a 7x50 that was OK... I liked the 8 power better though...

Ray,

Good to know you're an expert not only on what most people want to read in gun magazines, but the business side of magazine publishing.

First, you're absolutely wrong about advertising and print magazines--or even on-line magazines. Advertising isn't the only profit factor in publishing any periodical, whether on the Internet or on paper, but its a major factor. Would like to know why you think otherwise. (Hint: I've been in the magazine business for over 40 years, including jobs where I had to look at the financial books.)

Holding readers' interest is another big factor, but because ONE reader isn't finding much about "their" cartridges doesn't mean much. Plus, I'm very aware of how much information Handloader has published about various cartridges, and if you went back and looked back at the past 5 years, you'd probably be surprised on the info involving lighter bullets and new powders in over-.30 rounds. But you apparently want the magazine to cover all your half-dozen favorite rounds within a year--when the magazine only appears 6 times a year.

You might be interested in knowing (or maybe not, guessing from your posts) that Rifle magazine has started publishing more handloading data in the past couple of years, particularly when reviewing rifles of a particular chambering. I happen to know the .338 Winchester will be covered in an upcoming issue.

Hey Mule Deer, thanks for the clarification on the power rating effecting dim light viewing. You're right, in the past the "twilight factor" was a bigger deal than today and that's mainly because of the improvements in glass quality and coatings. Correct? Here is another thing that at times irks me about the gun writers and let's use me and my situation as an example. I read an article not to long ago about you and hunting in the Missouri Breaks with another hunter who was using a European high dollar binocular. You let him try yours out, and he saw, how much better your Chinese made binoculars were at half the price. Same situation with a guide in Alaska. Good article, but my beef is, why wasn't the name of these Chinese made binoculars mentioned so us readers can check them out and possibly buy a pair. I see this happen all the time with the gun writers. Articles where a gun writer is going to wring out the best .243 as an example. Winchester, Remington and Ruger. So I'm in the market for a .243 and buy the magazine only to read the last paragraph and have it say "Oh, it doesn't matter which one you buy they're all just peachy". B.S. I want a clear winner, and an explanation as to why it is the best of the three. Sometimes I think you guys are afraid of stepping on the manufacturers toes. I for one don't buy it. I want the truth. If the manufacturer comes in third place so be it. Maybe coming in third place will make them stand up and improve their product. So with that being said and my situation on purchasing a binocular and your knowledge on them how about throwing a couple of makes and models that "you" feel are a big bang for the buck. Anyone else out there that wants to jump in on this feel free. Discussions like this are what these forums are all about in my opinion. I not picking on you Mule Deer, just all the gun writers in general. I look at the gun writers as the experts. They have the experience and the contacts with the manufacturers and I come to you for advise and the straight scoop and buy magazines that indirectly pay you writers bills. Therefore I believe we deserve truthful answers and if that means stepping on toes so be it. Nuff said. RRM

The new Swaro 8x30 CLs are really nice IMO.

Did I say anywhere that I was an expert? Of course advertisement is a factor, but so subscriptions to a lesser degree. What difference would it make if any news or print magazine does not hold the attention of the reader? It's a fact that newspapers and magazines across the nation are having a very difficult time to stay afloat, and newspaper specially have a huge amount of clients paying for the printed advertisements. But without customers no gun magazine nor paper can survive very long, because there aren't people looking at the ads, nor the data. Welcome to the days of Internet

Also, I don't understand how I have led you to believe that I am referring to "my cartridges." Do you consider cartridges from the .22-calibers all the way to the .375 H&H my cartridges? Cartridges such as the ones I have mentioned, including smaller ones somewhere around .220, 280, and their metric counterparts, all the way up to the Magnums have been around forever, and will continue being used for generations to come.

The point I was trying to make, and I will explain as follows all over again: reloading data that holds my, and "I imagine" anybody interested in such, are not only for the cartridges I have mentioned, and not the old reloading data one can just "download" from the ammo manufacturers, but also new handloads with the new and improved powders, plus the new breed of bullets.

How about more recently written or created "petloads" for all of those cartridges I have mentioned above? I bet that such data would generate a lot of attention. And yes, the December issue of Handloader contains a set of petloads for the .444 Marlin (kudos to them).

Please understand that I am expressing my opinions from a customer's point of view and nothing else.

Rat Rod Mac,

There's a very good reason optics writers don't usually make direct suggestions on whether to buy X, Y or Z brand of, say 8x42 binocular: Things change too fast these days in the optics business, and as a result what may be a better buy in, say, 2002 may not be a better buy in a year or two.

I use 2002 as an example because that was the year I hunted in the Missouri Breaks with my old friend Pete Jackson, and he got depressed because his "alpha" brand 10x42 Euro-binocular wasn't as good as my lower-priced 10x42 Japanese binocular. (Mine was indeed Japanese, not Chinese. At that point the best Chinese optics weren't nearly as good as some are today.) But that wasn't true a couple years later, because the European company realized how good Japanese glass had become, so kicked theirs up a notch.

The same thing occurred in 2009, when my bear guide in Alaska got depressed because he'd just spent over $1000 on an "alpha" brand Euro-binocular, but the Chinese binocular I brought (again same magnification and basic objective size) was better. But among other things, his European binocular was that company's lowest grade, and within a year they'd introduced a new and improved version of the same binocular that at least matched the Chinese one, though at twice the price.

In fact, one of the common marketing strategies in optics these days (and many other products) is to NOT include every possible feature in any new binocular. That way the company can introduce a "new and improved" model, say with "HD" or "ED" glass, in a year or two, and start a new round of publicity, kicking the binocular back into the public eye.

Which is one reason I have often suggested, both in magazine articles and my two books on hunting optics, that anybody looking for a new hunting binocular should actually try several out, if at all possible. This can be done in many big retail stores, which is why I described how to "store test" binoculars in my first book, OPTICS FOR THE HUNTER, published way back in 1999. (Most people do it wrong, immediately turning toward the nearest window. Instead they should look in the dimmer parts of the store, especially at tiny details, such as printing on boxes.) This is also why when somebody who lives nearby in Montana asks about binoculars, I'll often offer to let them come by and look at a bunch of ours, so they can decide which works best for them--and compare how much difference paying $500 versus $2000 actually makes.

The second reason I suggest actually comparing several new binoculars is that human vision varies with the individual. Many of us see color slightly differently, which can make an obvious difference if one binocular transmits a certain part of the spectrum better. There can even be "mechanical" difficulties due to individual differences. For a while in the early 2000's, Nikon offered a great 8x32 roof-prism, and I often suggested trying one out when hunters asked for a binocular in that size.

One of my local friends, unfortunately, didn't take my advice on actually trying one first. Instead he ordered one, and then started complaining that the POS gave him severe eyestrain. I couldn't figure out why, since everyone else loved them. He finally brought his by the house one day, and I couldn't develop the slightest case of eyestrain with it. Finally I let him look through line, and he felt the same eyestrain.

The answer was interesting. His eyes turned out to be extremely wide-set, and the 8x32's wouldn't quite open wide enough to match his "interpupillary distance." As a result he wasn't looking through the centers of both barrels of the binocular, the source of his eyestrain.

But the big reason, again, that I don't suggest this or that binocular as The Best is binoculars change so quickly these days the information probably won't be valid in a year or two. Which is also why I turned down an offer from a major book publisher around 15 years ago to write a "complete" book that compiled every hunting optics available, along with comparisons and suggested retail prices. It would have not only been a major job, but would have been obsolete by the time it appeared in print, so probably wouldn't sell very well at all, even if updated and revised every year (another major job in itself). They talked somebody else into doing the book, and I was right. It pretty much disappeared within a few months of publication.

Which is why a major part of both my books is how to do your own optics testing, rather than totally depend on somebody else's evaluation.

Ray,

You don't have to explicitly say you're an expert on magazine publishing, or anything else. It's implicit in your statements, and not just on magazines but any subject.

One of the interesting things about writing for magazines is how many readers aren't really in it for information, much less entertainment. Instead they read magazines so they can argue about what they read. There aren't vast numbers of these, but Handloader usually forwards one every year or two, mostly for amusement purposes. One recent letter was from an older guy indignant about one of my articles because it contradicted some of his long-held beliefs. This isn't unusual: I've sold quite a few articles over the decades due to really investigating and testing long-held handloading beliefs that turned out not to be true. Sometimes they used to be true, at least partially, but aren't anymore, but sometimes they never were true, but simply a guess that "sounded" reasonable, like the widely-held belief that the muzzle fireball often seen from rifles in dim light is caused by still-burning powder.

This guy got angry because his father had told him a particular manual published around 1960 was the final, authoritative source on rifle handloading, and I'd dared to challenge one of the statements in that manual. Some other readers are like that, or even worse, and apparently mostly read magazines to write "gotcha" or whine-letters. I used to waste time arguing with them, but anymore don't bother.

Aside from acting like you know everything about magazine publishing (and then denying you did), you make another common Campfire mistake, assuming your experience universal, as in: "I own a black Labrador retriever, therefore all Labrador retrievers are black." Just because Handloader hasn't run articles on YOUR favorite cartridge in the past few issues doesn't mean they haven't run articles on them in the past, or won't in the future. It also doesn't mean, by a long shot, that all other Handloader subcribers are upset about the lack of articles on those particular cartridges.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if Handloader did run articles on your favorites, you'd be writing them to argue about the articles, because that's what you like to do on the Campfire. This thread is a good example: It started out about binoculars, but then you jumped in and started whining about handloading articles.

In the majority of circumstances for me, dim light is looking over a relatively well lit area into shade - such as glassing across a daylight field into shade on a wooded edge, or simply across space to a wooded hillside. In such cases there is no substitute for magnification.

For me I’d never consider a binocular of Less than 10 Power. I also like 15 power binoculars.

Well Mule Deer, seeing that I was one who also believed in lower power and larger objective lens was better for evening viewing you have set me straight and I thank you for that. Now I think I'm going to give an eight power a hard look. Maybe an 8 x 42. Might try to make it down to Cabela's, they seem to have a fairly wide selection of binoculars. May look at the Nikon's, I have an older Nikon camera and if they make their binoculars and rifle scopes like the cameras then they are a good bang for the buck. I agree with you also on the way things change over night, like computers, good today obsolete tomorrow, and that's why you don't stick your neck out on this brand or that. I understand. On another subject. I don't know how often you guys that write for Handloader and Rifle bump into each other and I don't know if he hangs out on the Campfire, but if you run into Pearce tell him trying to fill Ken Water's shoes on Pet Loads would be hard to do, but I think he is doing an outstanding job and I have even used some of his loads with good results. See ya around. RRM

P.S. I am going to put you on the spot. The Maven line of binoculars was mentioned and it seems they are not available in stores to look at. Have you ever tried one out and if so was it an ok binocular for the price?

I have zero issues with 8x30's in the thick stuff, just as a 6x scope ain't a handicap. Longest shot on deer in the past 6 years was 35 yards.

I do like the Leupold 6x Yosemite bino too.

Rat Rod Mac,

Yep, I have tried Maven binoculars, and they're very good, both in quality and value for the price.

Will pass on the word to Brian next time I see him!

John, I have a bone to pick with you about your graying article from 1985...

:-)

As a long-time subscriber to the Wolfe magazines, and also someone that's pretty much given up on the others, it's my impression that they offer a more balanced coverage of old and new stuff than anyone else. Over time, not only are new cartridges and rifles covered, but old ones are periodically revisited with new powders and bullets that have come along. They also cover subjects like casting, reduced loads, and feeding obsolete arms which most mags rarely even mention for the most part. I'm interested in pretty much all vintages of sporting arms, and somewhat in old military stuff, even though I'm not a collector of either, but rather a user. Most other mags can be counted on, almost with every issue, to feature the latest iteration on one or more polymer 9mms, a tricked-out AR, with the occasional high-end 1911 or omnivorous 12ga autoloader thrown in as filler. The staff writers for Wolfe seem to have interests much closer to my own than the guys writing for the others, who seem more concerned with running combat or competition drills than putting meat in the freezer.