about 60 pages long, with a weird sort of apologia from the editor about how much it's shrunk......best thing in it is a reprint of one of Skeeter's old columns, which I remember from its first printing. A neighbor gives me a subscription every year, think I'll tell him to just get me a cigar for Christmas in future.

Haven't picked one up in years. That bad huh? Bear

cliche articles.....gun tests for guns that bought ads....and very very short on content. Sixty odd pages ain't much of a "news hole" when you take out the ad space.

Yeah I gave up Shooting Times a number of years ago. I pick one up from time to time, but every time I do it seems to shrink in page count.

I've noticed that alot of Hunting/Shooting magazines have less content than before. I guess it's the economy-advertising dollars must be getting hard to come by.

WOW how sad. I used to read it when Skelton was alive. Bear

Shooting Illustrated kicks the heck out of Shooting Times every month.

I picked up a three-year subscription to ST on eBay for $9.99. When it came up for renewal this year, I decided $3.33 per year was WAY overpriced for that rag and let it go.

I've been a continuous subscriber to ST for at least 30 years now. It used to be a premier magazine, in my opinion. No longer.

I'll probably keep getting it until it shrivels up and goes away for good, out of pure habit. But I doubt it will outlive my current subscription.

Come to think of it, I got a copy of "Four Wheeler" magazine this month, and the address block says I'm subscribed to it until next Spring. I never subscribed to it. So I just wonder if it is a "substitute" for ST and ST is already gone. Bet that's it.

Hmmm. The ST website is still up, and showing an issue I have not received. The latest I have is the July issue. Should have had at least August and perhaps even September issues by now.

They also still have a "Subscribe to ST" block.

Beats me.

Just got my copy this AM, so I'll have to take a look at it.
Reid Coffield is the main reason I subscribe to it. He usually has some good home gunsmithing stuff to say.

I just read mine this morning, and even though I'm lefthanded, I thought the article on the .223-length action in the FN Tactical Support Rifle (Model 70)was pretty cool news.

that and Skeeter's rerun were the best things in it. compare the amount of content to G&A or Guns, and there ain't much bang for the buck.

I get very, very tired of the standard editors' whine about advertising determining editorial content. That may be entirely true, but it is their problem, not mine. When I pay for an issue, I expect a certain amount of product for my money. If I contract for X gallons of fuel oil at Y dollars, I don't expect to receive X-Z gallons for my money due to whatever business setbacks the dealer may experience. Rant over.

I share your disappointment, but in fact, your subscription isn't for X number of articles or pages a month: it's for AN issue a month. When they're in trouble, it's understandable that they'd trim expenses to match income. (A concept apparently foreign to governments of any size.)

It's a shame, nonetheless.

Rocky - understand about the "issue" concept, it's just that it seems as though we should be able to expect a reasonable amount in each issue. Leaving reasonable to the discretion of the editor (or bean counter) seems like it's putting the fox in charge of henhouse security. Best, John

thus the term "news hole"....the ad sales determine the size of the paper or magazine


obviously ST is sucking canal water on its ad sales

5sdad,

I have never known the size of any magazine to be up to the editor.

He is informed from above of what his editorial budget will be, and how many pages he has to use for editorial content. I know this because I have edited three magazines, and am closely acquainted with s bunch of magazines editors.

There also isn't one editor that I know of that WANTS to run fewer articles.

John, thanks for the input. Your point that editors don't get to make the decision about size is well taken. I am guilty of misnaming the culprit. It seems that it falls to the editor to make apology for decisions that aren't his. Just looks to me like we should be able to count on a certain amount of material with each issue. I guess my concern should be more with the whole system than with an individual working within it. Best, John

I let my subscription lapse in October 2008 and was offered a renewal for $9.99. I took it but am sorely disappointed in the current issue. Hopefully, the next one will be good.

What IS the current issue? As mentioned above, the last one I received was July, and then I got a copy of Four-Wheeler as (I believe) a substitute.

I subscribed to ST when Skeeter was alive but when Jessica Simpson and Dick Metcalf started writing everything in the magazine it went downhill fast.

I just tossed the September issue on the throne in the middle of last week. There`s an artical on primers that caught my interest, and the cover story is on a new FNH M70 that`s scaled down for the 223.

The last article I sold to Guns & Ammo (military surplus edition) I first tried to sell to Shooting Times. They said it wasn't up to their standards. G&A gave me 500 for it. I haven't looked at an issue of ST since.

Dan

Shooting times was great when Skeeter was writing and always liked Rick Jamison's handloading articles and Layne Simpsons early work, until he starting hawking Rifles Inc. crap.

I blame Layne for my 358STA. I guess the bad feelings toward Rifles Inc. I'll blame on Lex.

Thanks, Joe. Wonder what happened to my Aug and Sept issues?

mine have been arriving on the regular schedule

It is a shame when a fine gun mag like Shooting Times hits new lows, like is doing now. I looked at last month's issue while looking for something interesting at the news stand ... it was the poorest example of a gun mag I could imagine.

You're right, the current ST isn't even worth $3.33 a year.

I got a subscription offer for Guns & Ammo the other day. They wanted $15.00 for two years. It was probably stupid, but I fell for it, just for old times sake. They published a bit of my stuff over the years, so I decided to give them a chance.

Prolly wasted my money.

In my opinion, the gun magazine industry is in pretty dire straits. There is very little out there that is worth reading. Gotta be the economy, methinks.

Steve

I dunno Dogzapper, the current issue of G&A has a good Boddington article on the Ruger SR556 and Barness on repeating hunting rifles, I found the whole issue interesting and have subscribed mainly because of Barsness and Boddington; Bart Skelton is no slouch either, though my favorite "back page" writer remains Wiley Clapp in his "Fighting Iron" columns for Shooting Illustrated.

I subscribed to 5 or 6 gun rags for the last decade or so, a couple have yet to expire. When they do, I'm takin' a break from them for awhile.

While there were always a few good articles to be found in all of those rags I subscribed to, there used to be that many in almost each rag. Not sure what's goin' on, but a single visit to the throne with a new rag and most times I've gleaned what there was to glean.......unfortunately.

I likely will subscribe once more to a few sometime down the road, but right now it seems that I'm payin' for nothin' but shreddin' material. Perhaps I've changed or all the articles written in all of these magazines I subscribe/subscribed to just haven't grabbed me as they once did.......dunno. No matter, it's my $ and choice so I'll just wait to read others praises here about a new or old rag and board the train again when the positives outweigh the negatives........if ever.

I'm pretty much of the same mind set; when current subscriptions expire, I'll be taking a break. I've also changed my mind over the last few years about supporting shooting and hunting magazines. I ain't getting anything of value from most of them. I'm just handing my money to them with zero return.
There is a perversive attitude emanating from gun rags that goes like, just subscribe, and quit bitching; we're going to do it our way, and you better like it. Well, I don't like it, and, by the way, good luck in your future unemployment. Arrogance begets arrogance, and narcissism begets a big screw you.
Unless something extraordinary happens, magazines are history in my house, all of them.

I was a faithful subscriber to ST's and G&A from the early 80's till last year. Got to the point it wouldn't make good azz wipe, even if it wasn't glossy.

Don, I don't see it that way. Rather than an "our way or the highway" attitude, I see it as "What the hell do you people WANT?"

I for one am sick to death of being force fed 1911 pistols, mega-magnum rifles and "tactical" underwear, but there are apparently people who lust for such stuff voraciously. Most letter-editor columns read BOTH ways: please give us more/please give us anything else. I sure as heck wouldn't want to be an editor selecting articles with those divergent demands.

It used to be that when you got a segment that vocal about what it wanted to read, you started a new magazine to support it. No longer, with ad revenues insufficient to support what we already have. The end result is that we have skinny-butt magazines full of articles NEITHER kind of reader wants to read. As I said above, it's a crying shame.

There are two issues, the skinny magazines and unappealing articles.

Advertising money is WAY down, or so I hear, which accounts for the skinny magazines. It costs a good bit, as I'm sure everyone is aware, to add four pages (and that's how they're added, front and back) to a mag. Articles are generally the least of the cost, as there is generally a backlog of articles that would work fine.

The unappealing nature of the articles is something else. There is a lot of unappealing stuff in most magazines that I don't care for...the aforementioned 1911 stuff, "black" rifle stuff, etc. Not because I don't approve of either of them, but because so much is already out there.

MOst magazines, it seems to me, have limited their authorship to several known writers, and I think this is wrong tactics, as the same people are going to produce the same stuff...it's what they know. This has limited the appeal of magazine articles, since there is plenty that doesn't get said, and no doubt some of it is not only publishable, but also is a fresh view. I am tired of reading about Africa, for example. I'm never going to be able to afford it, and don't even particularly want to go any more. Yet we're assailed by article after article about Africa. Why? Because it's available, for one thing.

The future does not bode well for print publications. They seem to be along a narrow path, and can't see the future on either side.

I think eZines are definitely on the rise. With electronic devices like the iPhone and Kindle gaining a bigger foothold every day, a reader can access articles and print publications from very nearly any place on the planet.

I understand that they must appeal to a wide audience, hence we get 1911'd to death, black rifled and tactical shotgunned into oblivion.

It seems to me, hunting firearms have taken a back seat to all the para military stuff that fills their pages.

Maybe that is where most of their advertising dollars are coming from now? I don't know.

I don't care to read about that stuff, but I understand some do.

It is seldom you find a refreshing angle on a subject. I would rather spend my time trying to bend light than read another article by someone attempting to melt a handgun by firing 5000 shots in 2 hours.

I mainly read FS and OL. Although the content is varied and firearms make up a smaller part, it is still pretty interesting stuff.

I think the Hunting mags are doing a better job and I still enjoy those.

just my 2 cents.

The internet is killing the magazines. People are no longer willing to spend money on a monthly perodical that may or may not hold anything specific to their interests. Most people have a somewhat narrow field of interest, within that scope they are generally somewhat educated about the subjects of their interest, most articles are entry level and offer nothing new for subscribers.

We can peruse the internet daily through a myriad of special interst sites particular to our wants and find more indepth articles/information. We can interact with those of like minds and have information specific to our needs and localities. Something magazines will never be capable of. Years ago I used to await with great anticipation the next delivery of my favorite magazines, as the internet become more viable the magazines continuosly paled in comparison. I no longer anticipate the walk to the mail box as there is nothing but bills in it.

Seems like that is the same road many of the other gun mags. are going down.
Sad deal...

The internet is hurting the magazines, but I don't think they're killing them. The problem is magazines haven't yet found a way to use the internet to their advantage.

It's one thing to access a website for a shot of information, it's quite another to have a magazine in hand where you can flip back and forth readily. You have the magazine in your hand, while the Emag is only your screen. Maybe some younger folks don't have a problem with that, but us traditionalists do.

The magazines are self-destructing, IMO. Well, I don't mean that entirely, the ad money is hurting them at least as much as they're suffering from self-inflicted wounds. Editing of most of these mags is AWFUL..the well-remembered "8 MM Magnum" article about the 8 MM Mauser is one example (can't recall the mag or the issue). What do editors do except write a few hundred words in the Op/Ed section? I think they depend to heavily on their writers, and one reason this is is because the writers are very competent. Someone misses the boat, though, and when it's a miss it's a huge miss.

I don't subscribe to any of them, but read most of them. I know this isn't good for the magazine as they depend on subscription more than circulation thru newstands, but there it is.

I also realize you can't please all the people, and shouldn't try as it's a road to disaster. That's a problem right now with the pubs, they're trying to please as many people as possible and not really pleasing their core readership. What you can have is a mission concept and stick to it and not go off following a trend just because it's popular for a moment.

And not be so damned mercenary! Trucks don't have a place in a gun magazine.

Actually the whole subscription/newsstand sales thing is more complex than that.

The bigger magazines charge more per ad, because they have high circulations so theoretically reach more readers. Thus they don't depend on newsstand sales nearly as much as smaller-circulation magazines. This is why magazines like Field & Stream and Guns & Ammo have long offered yearly subscriptions for $12 or so. All they're trying to do is cover the cost of printing and mailing, and maybe not even that.

The smaller magazines do depend on subscriptions for some of their profit, the reason magazines with circulations under 100,000 often charge $2-3 a copy or even more for subscription rates.

I do think that using the same staff writers over and over again tends to make a magazine dull, the reason that during my three editorships I tried to run freelance articles as well. It seemed to work. All three magazines circulation grew while I was editor. In fact with two of the three magazines my boss told me that the magazines finally turned a profit, after basically limping along for a few years before that.

But it is a lot easier to just use staff writers. They produce reliable if sometimes not too exciting articles, while freelance stuff can vary, and sometimes needs quite a bit of work. Also freelancers often don't provide adequate photography, and so the art director has to fill in somehow, an added expense, even if the articles can be purchased cheaper from freelancers.

In general the writers (whether staff or freelance) are at the bottom of pay scale at any magazine. This is simply because a LOT of people would like to make money writing about guns and hunting, so there's a lot of comptetition. (There aren't so many people begging to sit in the office and edit the stuff, or to sell advertising.) When one of the very BIG magazines I used to work for ran into a bad patch in the economy, they chopped writer's pay in half--while of course the office staff never had their pay reduced (though sometimes they laid off one low-rung office worker). This happened 3 times that I can remember over a period of a dozen years, and finally I said screw it and looked elsewhere.

Believe me, writing for the gun/hunting magazines isn't a way to get rich.

John, your point about there not being a lot of people willing to sell advertising is a very good one. It seems to me that rather than putting out a malnourished magazine and blaming it on a lack of advertising, it would be better business for whover is in charge of such things to spend more time and effort in selling advertising. Also your point about many freelancers not providing adequate photography is something that I have thought about often. It seems to me that there is probably a lot of good writing out there that never sees the light of day, either in that it doesn't get printed because of the lack of accompanying photography or because it doesn't get written because the person who doesn't write it gives up because he knows that without photography it won't get considered. The whole photography issue seems like the tail wagging the dog.

if you think the writers don't get paid much you should try selling stock photos!

I just must be too easy to please. Or less sophisticated. Or dumber. Or something. I still enjoy ST, especially with Greg Rodriguez and Alan Jones on staff. The Wolfe pubs are not quite up to the quality of JB and Ross Seyfried, but I still enjoy Phil, John H., Mike V., and the others. Successful Hunter has taken the biggest hit. A decent mag originally jumped to primo with JB's editorship, and dropped to fair when he left. Still waiting for Lee-the-hooter to wise up.

I know writers are at the bottom of the scale in mag production, maybe behind proof-readers! Nowadays, with digital cameras and the ability to send high-pixel photos easily and online, photos (I would assume) are done by the authors. For hunting/gun mags, stock photos generally won't do it, they have to be particular to the article published. Everybody is a photogtapher, maybe not a pro, but gun/hunting mags don't require a pro.

I edited a small magazine (Primitive Archer) and we had little ad money, as most of our readership was into building their own equipment. HOWEVER, there was some, and ad money was definitely something we went after as it's desirable and "quick" and pays for immediate production costs.

We depended heavily on subscribers as that's what sold ad space more than circulation. Second, the cost per mailing goes down pretty much with additional subscriptions. IIRC, mail costs are figured in units. Kinda like costs for publishing books; there's a cut-off when publishing say, 5000 units is cheaper per unit that say, 1000. Which is how vanity presses make their money.

Which ever magazine figures out how to use the internet rather than suffer from it is going to be very successful.

Several years ago, I was looking to expand my writing. So, I went looking for a good magazine to call home.

Wolfe Publishing's editor made it abundantly clear that he did not want my big game writing or anything but the very, very occasional varmint piece, so I declined that. Actually, I sent them a single varmint piece, for which they paid me highly ($1,000) but really wanted to get into my sphere of interest, not more rodent stuff.

Shooting Times was in its prime then and I really thought that they could use some of my elk hunting, deer hunting, precision rifles & precision handloading and African stuff. With this in mind, I approached their editor.

The ST editor told me that they primarily used their staff writers and that they had open slots for something like three or four freelance articles each year. And, of course, I was not well enough known for consideration as a Contributing Editorship or anything like that. The editor was a no bullshit kind of guy and I appreciated his candor (I guess )

In retrospect, the "staff writes only" kind of approach may be easier to edit and produce, but it leads to the reader's boredom. With the same old writers writing the same old stuff, the readers eventually walk away. Added to that is the personality thing; I have always highly disliked Dick Metcalf, PhD ... maybe he is a good guy, I dunno, but I see a great deal of arrogance and ego into every article.

In the end, I just kept writing for the rodent shooting magazine until they pissed me off and I walked away.

Too bad I couldn't have found a home for my big game stuff.

But then, there is the 24 Hour Campfire and I can share it here and am happy to share it for free, so everybody wins in the end.

Pax,

Steve

5sdad,

Oh, the magazines try very hard to sell advertising. My comment about not as many people wanting to sell advertising as want to write gun'n'hunting stories was correct, but there are a whole pile of advtertising people out there, and they are flogging the bushes HARD for ad dollars. It's just that the ad dollars aren't there, for two reasons: Most shooting companies haven't had to advertise since Obama got elected, and most other companies (trucks, for instance) can't afford to.

With very few exceptions, writers have been expected to take photos for their gun/hunting/fishing articles ever since I broke into the business 37 years ago. In fact because I had a mentor in the business I bought a professional 35mm SLR camera with two lenses even before I sold my first article.

The two exceptions I can think of to the "complete package" (words and photos) rule are some of the very largest magazines like Field & Stream, and some of the arty magazines like Gray's Sporting Journal.

In fact, I worked for Field & Stream for over 25 years, first as a freelancer and then as a staffer. At one point they told me they didn't want my photos, that they wanted to pay professional writers and professional photographers, not somebody who tried to do both.

This was really a lie, since what they often ran was half-assed hunting or fishing stories by staffers who were really good photographers, but never put the camera down to actually kill or catch anything, or good stories by people who actually hunted and fished, but who had their stories illustrated by perfectly composed, exposed and focused photos by professionals that were often kinda boring.

Other than that, gun'n'hunting writers have always had to take their own photos. If we take better than average photos, and can supply a package with good interior shots of guns plus good outside shots of hunting, and maybe even some competent wildlife photos, then we get paid more, because the magazine doesn't have to assign or buy other photos. My latest piece in Sports Afield is a good example: ALL the photos were taken by me, and of all three types. The fact is that most shooting magazines can't afford to pay both a writer and photographer to do an article, especially if both would have to go out in the field together on a hunt.

It used to be much tougher to take decent photos. When I started auto-focus was still a few years away. Today the camera does everything but compose the photo, and photography is far less expensive. My film and development bill used to run to several thousand dollars a year. Now it's gone.

Taking competent photos with today's digital cameras, even point and shoot models, is pretty easy with a little effort to learn the basics of both outdoor and studio photography. It's made even easier because we can look at the results right away, not when the film is developed, so correct our mistakes right away.

An awful lot of my published photos are taken with a little Canon point and shoot that cost $250 when I got it about 3 years ago. It's 8-megapixel and self-stabilizing and would cover 95% of the photos taken for most gun magazines. Anybody who wants to try to publish stories in gun'n'hunting magazines wouldn't have to spend much money or time to get started.

I find some of the most enjoyable reading in any magazine to be letters sent in by readers to the editor. These submissions are not sent by professional writers, but they often contain interesting information, and many times, a different point of view.

Many years ago, the American Rifleman had a section titled "In my Experience..." and was my favorte part of the magazine. Articles in this section were from non-professional writers who had something to share from their own experiences on stock making and finishing, reloading, bluing, odd ball rifles and pistols and many other subjects.

Many of these articles were more informative that those written by professional writers.

That is where I got my start in 'professional writing'. I sold the first one I submitted in the late 60s, and received $100.00 for it. A hundred dollars at that time was more than my weekly salery.

That is one section I wish the American Rifleman would bring back.

They bought a few more, but not as many as I submitted. I started off with a bang, and ended up with a snap. I have written a few articles on knife making that were published, but not very many, 4, I think.

Unfortunately, of the things I find to be interesting, many editors do not share that opinion.


I have read that there are two catagories of people who make the best writers--those who know nothing about their subject and those who know everything about it.

Those who know nothing about their subject, if they are ambitious, can do research and gather background information and know as much about their subject and the one who knows it all. The one who knows it all doesn't have to do research--he already has, and can write from what he has learned.

Unfortunately, there are many writers who know nothing about their subject, and don't go to the trouble to learn, but the magazines will publish their writing, a total waste of ink and paper.

Another old section that I very much looked forward to was the Q & A section. There is a Q & A section in the latest publications, but they are limited to one or two questions, where they used to answer anywhere from 10 to 20 questions.

I like any magazine that has a Q & A section. I don't have to ask the questions myself, but I can learn a lot from other peoples questions and answers.

John, very informative and interesting. I can certainly see where autofocus was a big plus when it came along and the digital format has been an even bigger advancement. Best, John

As usaul, you have a pretty good take on the matter. But now, I have to go out and buy Sports Afield.

It seems to me that those of us that are "sporting enthusiasts" want to read about hunting, reloading and firearms as they relate to our primary interest -- which is hunting. Sure, we are interested in what is going on with other shooting related stuff, but only as a general interest.

Our core interests, however, are a different story. We want the nitty gritty, down to what sort of barrel steel FN uses in their latest rifle. What the author thought of the particular wall tent they used during their elk hunt, and why. Details, man, details!

Somehow, though, we get general interest stories on both, and at this point, an article about the latest 1911 is NOT going to get me all worked up. A well written story about how the author got an elk after slogging through the snow for three days on the other hand, or an article about the different options you have for blueing a replacement barrel? You can't get good stories like that from generalists, you need specialists. JMO, Dutch.

I appreciate Dogzapper & Mule Deer sharing their experiences with magazines and magazine editors.

Great insight into how things work.

I've gotten enough "Funny story-made me laugh, not appropriate for magazine" letter's to wall paper a gymnasium

It is still fun and exciting to write and submit humorous hunting articles that have little to no market value. If I manage to get one published, I will have beat the odds.

That would be neat.

Good hunting articles, ones where the author actually gives us added insight, are always a good thing. Freelance or staff, it makes no difference to me.

The same goes about shooting, firearms and handloading articles. Original insight is so hard to find.

I just hate reading the same old crap over and over ... and spending time learning nothing. Teach us something, make us see a familiar thing in a new light, that is the secret of successful gunny writing.

Personally, I always approached each and every article as if it was a doctoral thesis. New, original and insightful and if it cannot be written that way, find another subject.

Steve

I don't like hunting articles, myself. "Me and Joe Went Hunting" isn't my cup of tea. You and Joe went hunting? What makes that worth reading? Been hunting myself. Not for me, thanks.

I do like technical articles a lot. And historical articles (not BP, just background on rifles and rounds.)

Which is exactly why there are hunting magazines and shooting magazines.

Both types of magazines get dozens of letter every months from people saying, "I don't care about hunting articles, because I already know everything I need to know about hunting," and other saying "I don't care about rifle articles because I already know everything I need to know about rifles."

Personally, I learn something new about rifles and hunting every month, whether practically, historically or emotionally.

JB, I recently subscribed to Guns magazine in order to get your articles. Just received the September issue. No Barseness article. What's the deal?

beefan

They tried to schedule me for every issue, but it wasn't possible for the entire year, due to previous commitments. That's the only one that won't have me in it. There'll be ahandling column and feature article by me in the rest of this year's issues. We're working on 2010 already.

Is the internet hurting print?

I believe a lot of people who stare at a computer screen all day
don't what to go home and read their subscription off a screen.

Main reason I dumped online magazines.

The Internet is definitely hurting print. You and I may prefer a paper magazine but a lot of younger people prefer their computer screen.

The internet is hurting magazines. I don't think anymore people read magazines online than they do the paper version. On line magazines offer no more than print. I think it's forums like this that are killing the magazines. I can direct myself to hundreds of sites to get information instantly, interact with these folks, read writing by non professionals and professional writers alike. Some of it incredibly amusing....an entertainment factor no magazine can provide....you just need a good BS filter

Acctually most magazines were holding their own until the recession hit. Some were having problems before that, but it wasn't due to the Campfire. In fact most magazines long ago started up a website that had different info than the print version, along with chat rooms of their own.

My experience is that magazines that are in trouble are in trouble due to various factors in their own management.

John, exactly what I have long suspected.

While I have never been told that I am easy to please� and many would not agree with that statement� for Gun Magazines it seems to be true.

While I am very interested in the rounds I like I don�t have the same interest in most other calibers so I make allowances for that.

This makes me rather limited in my view and interests� I also don�t buy that many rifles, handguns and shotguns (although I have more than my fair share) so I am not looking for the next new thing� AND frankly while I like to hear about a company�s new offering I am a tad skeptical about any review�

All that said I almost always find several things to interest me in every magazine I get and I don�t even mind if there is some overlap� because there is almost always some difference of perspective between the magazines.

I still find myself renewing my subscriptions and adding new ones.

I would like more publishers add a current online offering like Wolf Pub and �Guns� have� even if it cost a little more.

While I frequently learn new stuff about rifles/ammo, I can't honestly say I learn something new about hunting because the hunting a lot of writers write about is foreign to my experience.

I suspect at least some of it is "Blood for Bucks" hunting in places like there is West Virginia, canned hunts where a pickup truck is often involved as a means of stalking game.

Not saying that's the wrong thing to do, but I am saying it's not instructive to my hunting experience.

FMG-American Handgunner, GUNS, American Cop and Shooting Industry have now made their magazine available in advance of the print issues free on the internet. They come in an interesting pdf format that is easy to use after a short learning curve.
Roy Huntington tells me that the print subscriptions have remained stable or grown since they started this ( Amazing. I wondered what they were thinking at first). The online editions are very popular and they are planning to expand the on-line thing- I guess into the Annuals. The Web Blast features are also getting a lot of hits. Page counts remain comparatively high-compared to the shrinkage of the corporate mags- and the company has quite a bit of latitude in making decisions about that. It is family owned and does not answer to a corporate structure.

I subscribe online to these magazines and really enjoy them. They send you an e-mail when they are ready.

I've lost count of how many of these jokers take their shootin' irons to the Nail Ranch, near my daddy's old home range in Haskell, TX. I guess because they can shoot a hog anytime of year they need a dead animal pic to go with a firearm evaluation.

Doesn't really tell you squat about the gun, but it seems to be part of the protocol....yes, I pointed it at the hog a hundred yards away, it went off when I pulled the trigger, and the hog eventually died and here's the picture.

"...they need a dead animal pic to..."
That has been my line of thinking but I've found that Guns and American Handgunner are just as likely to leave the dead animal picture out as not. Kind of a relief as hanging around a high fence corn-fed ungulate shootery is not my idea of recreation.
I'm perfectly happy for those who enjoy it to go right ahead though.