Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Why/How does the Creedmoor out run the 260 & 6.5x55?

qwk,

Have posted most of this before, but will do so again.

I started writing for magazines over 40 years ago, back when magazines were much like newspapers, keeping editorial and advertising completely separate. The theory back then was to write to attract readers, and if the magazine attracted enough readers then advertisers would sign on, so they could reach more potential customers. As a result, magazines were always looking for new writers, and I managed to be making my entire living writing within about 6 years. Have been doing so ever since, but only relatively recently started writing for gun magazines. Instead I wrote about a variety of subjects, including history (both human and "natural"), fishing, hunting, optics and the West, for magazines including National Geographic, Sports Illustrated, and regional "general interest" magazines, along with just about every major (and some minor) hunting, shooting and fishing magazines.

But the business changed, at least somewhat, starting in the late 1980's, when a certain New York publishing company decided to please advertisers instead of readers. That was when many magazine articles started with a paragraph clumsily mentioned plenty of advertisers' products. Luckily, the magazines I wrote for didn't go that route, but these days it's harder to find ones that don't.

In fact this year I quit writing for one magazine that had been a steady market for me over the last 20 years, and a well-paying one, because instead of wanting me to write the historical and technical firearms articles I'd been doing, they wanted me to write stiff to please advertisers. (Interestingly, the publishing company that started this trend failed a couple years ago.)

I don't mind testing advertisers' products, but damn sure don't want to do it all the time, and the magazines I write allow me to pass on projects if I don't want 'em. I also retain the right to mention flaws, or even not write about the product at all if it doesn't work right.

I also often buy stuff to write about, rather than test products directly sent by manufacturers. In fact, I've purchased all three of the 6.5 Creedmoors I've owned from stores or other shooters. The one I've mentioned here, in fact, I bought from a Campfire member, who would probably be willing to confirm that. Partly I buy my own test subjects because I can then NOT write about them if they don't work, but it also allows me to really wring things out over a period of months or even years, instead of coming to a quick conclusion about some new cartridge, rifle or scope based on one sample.

But another thing that's became obvious during the last 20 years is that writers don't HAVE to write for publishers. Instead they can go directly to readers, either via the Internet or by self-publishing books. My wife's a writer too, and right now about half our income comes from our own book publishing company, plus our own on-line quarterly magazine, RIFLE LOONY NEWS. (As a matter of fact the latest edition of RIFLE LOONY NEWS just got e-mailed to its subscribers today, if any of you are reading this.)

There's no advertising in either the books or RLN, which I'd guess is partly why both are pretty popular. Yeah, I get "paid" to write both the books and the magazine, by readers paying for them.

The powder blend is propriatery using ground up Unicorn horn.

qwk,

Have posted most of this before, but will do so again.

I started writing for magazines over 40 years ago, back when magazines were much like newspapers, keeping editorial and advertising completely separate. The theory back then was to write to attract readers, and if the magazine attracted enough readers then advertisers would sign on, so they could reach more potential customers. As a result, magazines were always looking for new writers, and I managed to be making my entire living writing within about 6 years. Have been doing so ever since, but only relatively recently started writing for gun magazines. Instead I wrote about a variety of subjects, including history (both human and "natural"), fishing, hunting, optics and the West, for magazines including National Geographic, Sports Illustrated, and regional "general interest" magazines, along with just about every major (and some minor) hunting, shooting and fishing magazines.

But the business changed, at least somewhat, starting in the late 1980's, when a certain New York publishing company decided to please advertisers instead of readers. That was when many magazine articles started with a paragraph clumsily mentioned plenty of advertisers' products. Luckily, the magazines I wrote for didn't go that route, but these days it's harder to find ones that don't.

In fact this year I quit writing for one magazine that had been a steady market for me over the last 20 years, and a well-paying one, because instead of wanting me to write the historical and technical firearms articles I'd been doing, they wanted me to write stiff to please advertisers. (Interestingly, the publishing company that started this trend failed a couple years ago.)

I don't mind testing advertisers' products, but damn sure don't want to do it all the time, and the magazines I write allow me to pass on projects if I don't want 'em. I also retain the right to mention flaws, or even not write about the product at all if it doesn't work right.

I also often buy stuff to write about, rather than test products directly sent by manufacturers. In fact, I've purchased all three of the 6.5 Creedmoors I've owned from stores or other shooters. The one I've mentioned here, in fact, I bought from a Campfire member, who would probably be willing to confirm that. Partly I buy my own test subjects because I can then NOT write about them if they don't work, but it also allows me to really wring things out over a period of months or even years, instead of coming to a quick conclusion about some new cartridge, rifle or scope based on one sample.

But another thing that's became obvious during the last 20 years is that writers don't HAVE to write for publishers. Instead they can go directly to readers, either via the Internet or by self-publishing books. My wife's a writer too, and right now about half our income comes from our own book publishing company, plus our own on-line quarterly magazine, RIFLE LOONY NEWS. (As a matter of fact the latest edition of RIFLE LOONY NEWS just got e-mailed to its subscribers today, if any of you are reading this.)

There's no advertising in either the books or RLN, which I'd guess is partly why both are pretty popular. Yeah, I get "paid" to write both the books and the magazine, by readers paying for them.

Or I don't need to sell s h i t to be somebody...

No market.

DF

Am I detecting anger from qwk? He appears to be spoiling for a fight, although I've no idea why.

I was right.

Fair enough. My question is why then do you avoid certain subjects(specifically manufacturer related), and push certain products more than others? Do you find it acceptable for a manufacturer such as Winchester to have problems with primers and sweep it under the table? Is it Ok for another manufacturer, Hornady to use those primers and not care one iota? These are very well documented issues, it's not like I'm making s h i t up. Would it be ok if one of your readers lost their eyesight to a Winchester primer? What about anbody else? Where do YOU draw the line?

You may disagree with my posts, and that's ok, but the reality is that I post about real s h i t, and even though I may be an a-hole, I wouldn't wish a face full of hot gases on the haters that post here.

It's nice that you would take the time to explain it to him, but I expect he will be back to poke and prod some more. He just wants attention. I think that he has been given enough.

This is a picture of a white Himalayan yak.

qwk,

Gee, it just so happens that I DID write about the Winchester primer problem, and in fact searched the Internet frequently for a while, compiling a list of the lot numbers of problem primers, so I could inform readers. But I did it on the Internet, so the results would be immediately available, instead of appearing in print several months later. In fact about a third of my work is for the Internet, rather than printed media.

Have seen many post here who not only have little or even no experience with the subject at hand, yet express very firm opinions based on assumptions. Have also seen many post here who are very sure about what gun writers write, even if they've never read their work.

Many of those people, in fact, tend to lump all "gun writers" together, as if we all write exactly the same articles, about the same subjects, with the same thoughts. I ran into one of those at a gun show a few years ago, and when he discovered I was a "gun writer" (because my books were sold at a nearby table) immediately went into a rant. He started it by asking why "all you gun writers say the .270 Winchester isn't enough for African game," but didn't wait to hear my answer--which is that I've never expressed that opinion, and in fact think the .270's a fine cartridge for plains game. Instead he went on with his rant until I'd obviously quit listening, then wandered off down the aisle, probably looking for the opportunity for another rant.

It's nice that you would take the time to explain it to him, but I expect he will be back to poke and prod some more. He just wants attention. I think that he has been given enough.

This is a picture of a white Himalayan yak.

It's nice that you would take the time to explain it to him, but I expect he will be back to poke and prod some more. He just wants attention. I think that he has been given enough.

This is a picture of a white Himalayan yak.

True enough. But life’s too short to shoot fugly rifles, drink cheap whisky, or take ugly girls to the dance. Happy Trails