In the June 2007 Handloader is a ten page article on the 22-250 Remington cartridge.

In headline print on page 57, "Most rifles - including those from Remington, Winchester, Savage, Ruger, Browning, Weatherby, and others - feature a one-in-14-inch twist."

According to Savage customer service, Savage has not offered the 14-inch twist in 22-250 in over ten years, probably longer. Their normal 22-250 twist has been 12-inch and are now offering additionally the 9-inch twist.

A short while back, Wolfe did the long article on the non-existent factory 416 RUM cartridge. Now they make a major deal about a twist rate mentioning specific rifles in major print that do not exist.

The twist rate is not a major issue to most, though the article does emphasize the 22-250 slower 14-inch twist as being beneficial compared to the faster twist 222 (?) and 223, so the writer thought it was important. It does show that writers and/or editors are not really researching their material before they write or print it.

Don't know if it was worse or better years ago. I was probably just naive then. But I thought Wolfe magazines used to do a better job on accuracy.

On page 53 of issue 121 they misused the word "their", it should have been spelled "there". When I saw that I threw the magazine into the fireplace in disgust and haven't read one since.

So now, 124 issues later, you're telling us they've f***ed up yet again?! What a bunch of maroons...









(must be mere mortals running the place)

Might check. Think it was a lot fewer than 124 issues ago. Like maybe the May 2007 Rifle.

Guess we should forgive poor grammar, spelling, etc., since we have all been handicapped by the computer. But to make an issue of twist rate, place it in large print, and then to not have even checked it out... I might put that in another category.

But if we accept that the accuracy rate of published magazines should be on par with the internet chat rooms, then... But I will quickly point out that I have no data on the average accuracy of either.

Mule Deer did come out and say he thought barrel break in was not necessary which I have thought for years, and another article touts the Speer 405 gr 45 bullet in a 45-70 for elk, which I have used for years.

Mule Deer's article was quite an interesting read.

Umpteen years ago, believe it was written by Bob Milek, there was an article on testing rifles for 20 five-shot groups without cleaning. Believe there were four rifles in the test. Milek published the group sizes. He concluded that there was no degradation of accuracy in those rifles during the 100 shots fired. I took the data and placed it in statistical control charts which showed the same conclusion that Milek reached.

There are some competitive shooters who seem to agree with Mule Deer and Milek on this issue.

Again, that was an interesting article.

I might add that I have every issue of Handloader and Rifle magazines since their start. Besides my subscription copies, I have multiple copies of most of them due to purchases of big boxes of magazines and books at gun shows. Believe I have all of Wolfe's classic series books and all their other publications too. I have depended on Wolfe for good reading material and in depth thought for a long time. You can tell the ebb and flow over the years.

Well, if it's a mistake (I say "if" because I haven't personally verified what Hammer1 claims to be a paraphrased statement from an alleged Savage spokesman - who might have been wrong, too...) then so what? Who is harmed unless somebody selects a Savage rifle in .22-250 SPECIFICALLY because he thinks it has a given twist rate, but actually gets one that some posters here think is a better twist rate to begin with?

Okay, that sounds peevish. But, hey, it's one thing to point out a really dangerous error (such as recommending 27 grains of Bullseye versus 2.7 grains) and quite another to jump on one that's essentially meaningless. Maybe we should save our sharp knives for the trophy catch, huh?

As the bumper sticker says, "Shinola Happens".

Right is still right and wrong is still wrong! Be Wrong enough times and it will make no difference if you are Right or Wrong!

Rags are still rags----sent my money in for the ones that Mule Deer is working for months ago. Have not received SQUAT but they have my money !! Just everyone be advised not only will they lie but take your money quicker than a one armed bandit in Lost Wages!! I hope they all starve---only a couple are worth a crap PS and VH which I have gotten for years. I was trying to be nice and help out MD and as a result am a little poorer � no worries chalk it up to experience!

Rocky has it right - we tend to be overly hard on the good guys - save the heat for the gun-confiscating totalitarians.

Rifle and Handloader are great pubs with occasional mistakes.

Mainframe

Boss Hoss, when one says something based on the best information available at the time, and it later turns out to be wrong, that's not a lie, that's a mistake. (George Bush detractors, please take note.) Every publication makes scores of them, mostly innocuous. They correct those that aren't as soon as they can. They could suspend printing until every single word, statement, figure, graph, map and detail is verified by three independent sources, but it'd be a helluva long time between issues if they did.

Regarding your subscription, that's a shame. But most subscriptions aren't handled by the publication itself. They're handled by subscription clearing houses that do all the bookwork and such. Sad to say, there are numerous bogus subscription houses. It's possible you're the victim of a scam, or perhaps your envelope fell into a crack, or never got delivered, or maybe you forgot to sign the check. Or something. Or, it really wasn't so long ago after all, and your first copy is in tomorrow's mail.

Whatever it is, it might not be Handloader or Rifle at fault.

The source is Effie Sullivan, who works in Savage customer service and the custom shop. Have had lots of dealings with Effie when buying custom Savage rifles over the years. Another easy source to check would be the last several years of Savage catalogs which all have a twist rate chart.



And the people who do not buy a Savage because they erroneously think it has a slow 14-inch twist rate. Have run into folks who special ordered aftermarket barrels to get a fast twist who later learned that it was available straight from a factory as a regular production item. Guess $500 for an unnecessary barrel is not much harm in the big scheme of things for many.

And Savage Arms and their employees who have put a lot of product development dollars and time into responding to their customers' interest in fast twist barrels.

There is a lot of interest in twist rates among Savage shooters because of their use in long range target and varmint shooting. That is why Savage is now offering twist rates of 12, 9, and even 7-inch twist in some 224 caliber centerfires. Some folks are using them for longer range target shooting which some people equate with longer, heavier bullets and faster twist. To have a company just this year introduce even faster twist rates (the 7-inch) due to customer demand and then to have a magazine highlight an erroneous slow twist rate...

(Again, the slow 14-inch twist has been gone ten years or more.)

But I concede that unless published errors are life threatening, their frequency and economic consequences are not important.

I see your point, my friend. I do think that a person considering a long-range heavy-bullet Savage would ask them about a specific twist rate, and not necessarily look to a magazine to confirm what they're getting. But your point is valid - the error MIGHT cost Savage a sale or three.

(And I was trying to be a little humorous in my string of "claimed, paraphrased, alleged" qualifiers. Hope you got that.)

RockyRaab,

Humor duly noted, though I did not catch it the first time.

As previously stated, spelling, grammar, etc., are not my beef.

I just appreciate the companies that are out there trying to do something for their customers, taking business risks, not taking the easy way every time. And to have the companies and their employees' efforts short changed, it bothers me.

Also, many folks are tougher on their own children than they are on others. They love their children and want the best for them. They push them to reach high ideals.

I have been a reader of Wolfe publications since the mid-1970s and then acquired everything of theirs published before then. Wolfe, Precision Shooting, The Varmint Hunter, The Cast Bullet Association's Fouling Shot, and a very few others are in a different league than the off-the-shelf rags. If they fall into the lower realms of expectations, then of course we cannot recommend them to our friends, can we ?

I never used the term "LIE". In my business when you are wrong it may cost somebody his or her life and being wrong just a few times makes credibility go down the toilet. When I subscribed I used a contact number someone had or I looked up but it was for the magazine itself and used a credit card. Might follow up but they have my money and I just wanted to help MD most likely would not have read the magazines anyway. Not a whole lot in the mainstream rags that can provide much if any benefit to me at this point in my shooting and reloading career but I was going to give it a try. Oh well maybe it was fate.

Still the best magazine out there . . .

No doubt!

Would have to respectfully say that Precision Shooting and The Varmint Hunter are in the running for that title.

Actually, you did, my friend.

BigHorse, since you brought up Fate, I propose to you that computers know when you don't like them and they do retaliate. I suggest you go back to your's an apologize. Then the Karma will be restored and all those computers standing between you and blissful reading will restore your subscription!

Oh, and one more thing, be sincere. They can tell when you're not!

As Rocky and Mainframe are alluding to...

It's a Friday afternoon in the merry month of May. Forecast for the weekend is sunny blue skies with highs in the low 80's. If you're reading this it probably means you're financially well off enough to afford rifles and computers, so one has to assume that you also have enough money to buy food to eat and a home with electricity to operate your computer.

Of course, somewhere in the world right this very second people are starving or being slaughtered in any of several godforsaken little wars. A town in Kansas was just wiped out by a tornado. Va. Tech just had it's commencement ceremony minus 33 people.

Life is pretty good if you count your blessings, or it can be misery if you get pissed off over every little thing. So it's very difficult to work up a good mad right now over someone making a small error in a magazine.

Of course, there's always:
www.grumpyoldmenanonymous.com

Yes, you are correct I did state that. What was not made clear was that my intent was not to say that the "lie" was meant to relate to the first part of my post. From your initial response, my interpretation was that you thought I was stating the writer in the Savage story lied when in fact he was just wrong at least in my read of what was posted. In the second part of the post I was just referring to shall we say in a somewhat tongue in cheek manner that most of the rag writers whore themselves out to a certain degree because of advertiser pressures. I also should know better than to post during Friday happy hour as well.

I just recently discovered Wolfe's publications and have subscribed to all three for 2 years now. I have canceled Successful Hunter though--just didn't do anything for me.

I have seen more than a few editing issues within articles, but I let them pass. EVERY magazine or book I have ever read has some spelling errors in them--not a big deal. I don't like one sentence paragraphs though.

The Bullet book anthology had too many errors. The editor should have done a much better job of seeing and correcting misspellings in the text, chapter headings, and missing page numbers. I hope JB's upcoming rifle book is better edited than the Bullet Book appears to have been.

I'm not going to "throw the baby out with the bath water" though. Wolfe's mags are still the best reading on the market from my perspective. Are there any errors in my post?

Apparently Savage cares enough -- they're offering some models with a selection of different twist rates available for the buyer to choose what they want. http://www.savagearms.com/2007_pressrelease.htm



Dan

Varmint hunter doesn't come out enough (4 times a year?).

I like handloader above everything I've read.


On the break in - I just wonder if the cleaning between shots makes sure that your not laying down powder residue between the layers of copper your imbedding in the freshly cut steel? Just a thought - I don't think the cleaning really impacts removing copper, maybe a bit of residue but not truely embedded stuff.

Spot

I was glad to see an article by Charles Petty in the Handloader.

Great rag, very low fluff content. Editing is a lot easier to improve upon than content...

The Speer 405, huh? I wonder how many of them actually make that weight? That would require a 1.25% plus or minus variance which would be an error on Speer's part. Oh my! (It is fun to nit-pick, isn't it?)

Dude, water is wet, the sky is blue, women tell lies, who gives a [bleep].......

I don't make the weights.Usually don't weigh them either but they are advertised and marked on the box as Speer 405. Go into a shop and ask for 400 gr and you won't find a box marked that. Ever wonder where they get those 67 gr .223 , and other bullet weights.

Does Wolfe use a national bank or a local one.The reason I ask is if we send a cheque from Canada will their bank process it.Here in Canada, we have big effiecent banks with international reach,it's no big deal to write cheques in US funds,they just charge us the buy/sell rate.I never got a subscrition to Wooden Boat because their bank wasn't set up for more than a mom and pop store.

You mean like this:



Seriously though, I'm just teasing. Who cares if it says 400 or 405 grains. I have greater issues with detail errors in books. Magazines I regard as "reader beware" kinds of things, even when they aren't the "Fun with Dick and Jane" versions of gun rags like Guns and Ammo, etc. I would never take details important to me in buying something by basing it on a single magazine article - or even a book.

I do like Handloader and Rifle magazines more than the rest. (You know a magazine isn't half bad when even the ads are interesting, informative, and useful!)

'Predator Xtreme' magazine is also worth a look. It's an interesting mix of accurate rifles, handloading and hunting.

What, nobody noticed the cover lead-in for JB's article on the ".6.5x55 Swedish Mauser"? Now, that, my friends, is a small bore. A bit overbore in my opinion, though.

Who cares about such little errors? It's still a good value for a magazine. After all, without such screw-ups how would those that need it get their regular superiority fix???

scott

I am glad to see that Americans are a tolerant bunch.

Somehow a lot of customers don't seem to fall into that category. Sure wish we could get them to spend some time with ya'll.

Really would reduce most people's stress, anxiety, and workload while keeping the checks coming.

I actually enjoyed that piece, but if memory serves it was penned by Brian Pierce.

You're right it wasn't JB, but John Havilland. I should've typed "JH".

I caught that too, just a few minutes ago. BP did the .22-250 piece in the same issue. Was wondering if anyone would catch my goof.

I have been a reader of the Wolfe publications since 1972,subscribing for most of that time. They have been through different editors and formats through the years and quality has varied. But, over the years they have, by far, been the most interesting and informative of the various shooting publications. Some specialized magazines may cover specific areas of the shooting sports better, but for general information about ammunition, handloading and especially hunting rifles; Wolfe is the best. The people in Prescott are friendly and helpful; I'll bet that a quick phone call would solve the subscription problem mentioned above.

My Handloader #247 arrived, and I got the chance to check the cover.

I think the cover has wild decimal points -- the one that moved up to appear in the NEW LOADS! list as the .6.5X55 must have drifted up from down below where it is missing from the ALL-AMERICAN 25s!

I emailed Wolfe for a job in the Department of Consistency, but they were not interested.

I edit and publish a newsletter for a non-profit group, and it makes my teeth hurt when mistakes make it into the distribution version. I imagine there is a lot of dental pain over in Prescott.

jim

Don't read the 375 Ruger article new American Rifleman! There are a couple of number errors too.

A. "The 23" long barrel tapers from 2.93" at the receiver to 1.69" at the muzzle."
B. "There is a white .92" diameter bead sight..."

I think they're a bit off cuz that is one big barrel and sight!

RH

Jim & Hammer:
Both points well taken........

HOWEVER, the older I get, the more I realize that

Excellence does not demand perfection.


As always, your mileage may very.

Bob

Do any of those makers still offer the 1 in 14 twist??? I thought they quit that when everyone came out plastic tipped bullets.

I have a mod 70 220 Swift that has the 14 twist but it is 50+ years old.

Dennis

I guess I'll answer my own question, Remington and Ruger still list 1:14 twist for this caliber, Kimber, Savage and a few others are listing 1:12. No wonder the 40 grainers shoot so well!!!

The real truth is that nobody that writes for magazines or that takes shooting seriously has a Savage anyway so it's easy to understand why they made the mistake. <smug smile>

[img]http://www.hunt101.com/img/496680.gif[/img]

$bob$