Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Received my July Rifle magazine......

RedCedar,

It's not quite that simple. These days companies split their advertising up.

They still buy paper magazine ads, but they also buy advertising in the on-line versions of the same magazines, but often don't want to pay as much for the on-line ads, partly because paper-magazine advertising tends to reach more readers, because a paper copy is often read by more than person. They also advertise on-line in other ways, including on websites such as Facebook, 24hourcampfire--and television.

Another factor is that tobacco and alcohol companies bought a lot of advertising in magazines, especially after tobacco advertising was banned on TV. I worked at a staff writer for Field & Stream during the 1990s, at that time the largest of all hunting magazines (though of course they ran fishing articles too), which ran monthly issues up to close to 200 pages. Now F&S is, like many other hunting/shooting orieinted magazines, much smaller--and in the last several years started publishing less frequently. They went to 10 issues per year a while back, with two so-called "double" issues. Then they went to six issues a year, and recently four--and are somewhat combining with Outdoor Life (which has been owned by the same company since the 90s), sharing some of the same staff writers.

But both magazines continued to cover hunting, shooting and fishing long after more specialized magazines in each category had taken away readership--including specialized gun magazines. In general, gun and other specialized magazines are healthier.

One thing about it, we need not worry about the NRA magazines stealing the thunder from the commercial publishers. I highly laud the use of the five, five shot groups of the test staff but otherwise, Gawd what a sorry spiral downward for a magazine. When I first subscribed in 1964, the Rifleman was the gold standard of the industry. How many times have I heard arguments settled by someone saying, "The NRA says....". Then, it seems in a slow downward spiral, it seemed the budget for the magazine's excellent research and articles on nearly every sector of firearms interest eventually declined to puff pieces, primarily venting the author's opinions rather than the exhaustive research of such greats as Ken Waters and CE Harris just to name a couple. Sad.

flintlocke,

I doubt the budget of the NRA magazines declined enough to eliminate the research articles. Instead, like many other magazines they were almost forced to run more articles about products made by their advertisers.

This trend started in the 1980s, when one smaller magazine company in New York City decided the way to sell more ads (and hence make more money) was to promise advertisers feature articles praising their products. This proved pretty effective, at least in the short run, and started to spread throughout the industry--to the point where many advertisers EXPECTED positive feature articles about their products. If the magazine publisher wouldn't comply, they'd spend their ad dollars elsewhere.

I started writing for American Hunter in the late 80s and American Rifleman in the late 90s, the first because the then-editor asked me to, having noticed my hunting stories in other magazines. About a decade later, the overall publisher of the NRA magazines asked me write for the Rifleman as well, because he'd seen my technical articles in other magazines. At the time the Rifleman still ran some research-type articles in every issue, so that's what I wrote--which is why I didn't really notice when AR articles started to change after that publisher retired.

Eventually I wrote a review of a new riflescope (naturally from an advertiser) with lots of technical info--and was rebuked by one of the junior editors for not being "enthusiastic" enough about the scope. Until then I thought describing my test-results would allow readers to decide about the quality of the scope.

Not long after that I noticed that new "reviews" written by other writers (especially some of the sub-editors) often weren't really reviews, but mostly enthusiasm. Eventually I was primarily given assignments about new and exciting products from advertisers, and while I tried to include some technical stuff, my enthusiasm kept waning. Eventually I put my efforts into other markets that still wanted more actual information.

One interesting result of this trend occurred several years ago: The publishing company that started running "enthusiasm" articles about advertised products went belly-up, largely because their magazines essentially became collections of thinly-disguised press releases.

Well Mr Barsness, your integrity has probably cost you some professional and financial setbacks. But don't ever think that nobody notices. There are a significant number of knowledgeable gun people out here in flyover country that rank you favorably with the greats of yesteryear.

That won the internet for the week. I LOL'd

flintlocke,

Thanks very much!

But it wasn't so much integrity as boredom. I'm a writer because I like to write, and writing about stuff that doesn't interest me much tends to be boring. Plus, the lost income from such choices has been pretty well counter-balanced by going directly to readers, one of the virtues of the Internet, whether the Campfire or the website my wife started a while back, where we could both publish what we were interested in writing, whether game cookbooks, techical firearms information or old-fashioned hunting stories--without involving advertising.

It was Elmer Keith's enthusiasm writing in G&A about how much better the 1965 Model 70 was than the pre-64 that suckered me into buying my first deer rifle. I suppose that I should let my Elmer grudge go after 55 years, but I learned a valuable lesson that advertising dollars direct and finance gun writer writing and seldom is heard a discouraging word. JB did write a nice synthetic stock article in the new Rifle magazine for those of you interested.

Not MD, but I was thinking about this very topic tonight on a walk where I was listening to Joseph von Benedikt's excellent Backcountry Hunting Podcast. If his writing is as good as the podcast is, I'd like to read it.

Joseph von Benedikt is probably at the top of my list.

Well I guess I’m one of the guys who thinks the magazines from ( Wolfe Publishing ) are excellent .

The “ main stream “ gun media is prosaic and soulless . I have no use for Guns and Ammo , Handguns , etc and most rags from Peterson’s . Don’t much care for anything from FMG either ..

I just renewed my prescriptions last Friday over the phone . Typically I visit the Wolfe booth every year at the NRA convention but couldn’t this year due to the obvious … Additionally I ordered the last two Varmint Rifles and cartridges that should be delivered this week ( Oh goody )..

Yes , it is sad the we no longer have publications like the Accurate Rifle and Precision Shooting . When yearning for other material to absorb , I’ll re-open Ken Water’s “ Pet Loads “ or Phil Sharpes’s “ Rifle in America “ or other classics that I’ve long since read but have partially forgotten .

I too still enjoy Rifle and Handloader. Yeah, they are sometimes a bit thin, but so are the rest of the gun mags. I tend to enjoy most of the articles, and eventually read them from cover to cover. I've let my subscriptions to all the other gun mags except for American Rifleman elapse. I'm about the median age (67) for campfire members, and my interests and guns are pretty wide ranging, lever rifles, single shots, and revolvers call me the most. That said, I've also got military style autoloaders, shot guns, bolt guns, and more auto pistols then I should. A lot of my stuff falls into the "eclectic" category. Articles I've read in Rifle and Handloader have helped me get several odd ball guns up and shooting. I always get a charge when John writes an article about a particular gun or caliber that I have than none of my shooting buddies have. He helped me get on track with 9.3 x 62, a Savage 23 B, and how to get my 1 in 14" twist Savage 99 250-3000 to shoot well.

I have to credit the editors of these magazines. You almost never see blatant stupid mistakes. A recent article in Guns and Ammo by Craig Boddinton on a Savage 99 had me choking and fuming with all the incorrect information in it. It's things like that, the never ending articles on tactical gear, training, carry, etc that have driven me away from the mainstream gun mags.

I agree it might be nice if Stan would show a picture of a whole custom rifle, and maybe even mention the caliber once in a while.

Maybe it's just this social distancing thing but I just picked up the June Handloader and July Rifle issues when I flew to town last week and found things I enjoyed in both of them !
Would I like to see more and different stuff occasionally? Sure, but I am glad we still have them .

Oh, I have to say all the Wolfe mags I've viewed have something of genuine interest included. And I'll keep subscribing. There's always the chance of a high grade article by you, Pearce or Mad Dog. Matter of fact you're coming up way short on the deal and if the new editor is reading you need to adjust that discrepancy. While I'm thinking of it I tried you're daughters strong side carry method for belt position on a belt slide holster. Running my belt into the underside of the rear loop, over the outside of the holster, then back thru the top of the front loop makes for a tremendously more secure and comfortable carry.

Anyhow, I couldn't help poke fun at things like a black tactical 336 with a 16 1/4 " barrel wearing the 2-7x32 with tactical type reticle, high knobs along with a flash hider. Or the Ruger 77 ultra extra safe safety. Some like it. I pray for them. And I scratch my head when Wieland doesn't just take wood out of a forearm until it has just the right amount. He is more than capable especially when compared to me. Or Trozonic's purchase of yet another Remington factory "Custom". Really? And as others have mentioned if he didn't inform us he bought the whole rifle we might be tempted to believe he just posted different views of various component pieces. Have a good evening and beat up on management till they invest further in your vast experience.

"Enthusiastic". That's it. Not accurate, truthful, genuine. And so the reason for my minor burnout with the 2020 G&A Annual. I did drag the dry leftovers out of the coffee grounds in the kitchen garbage and read (scanned) more of the issue. Paid $7.95 plus tax might as well give a full review. Overall judgement, way too much "enthusiastic" review. But the Marlin 336 BTHSC review was still champ. It was obvious the author was pulling the last drop of milk from the tit before letting go. I get advertiser dollars. I get variety. I don't appreciate overly praising a product with accolades undeserved to falsely represent one's amazing ability to find meaning for praise where none is due; even to the point of highlighting one's own ignorance. Point of reference. Does factory 30-30 ammunition really contain quantity and type smokeless powder that fails to burn in over 16" of barrel length? I doubt it, but not being an expert anyone feel free to correct me. Enough talk. Have a good evening.

I couldn't tell you as I haven't read Rifle/Handloader in over 5 years now. After several run arounds with their front office, fighting charges etc I cancelled everything.

My previous gripes aside I think we're pretty lucky to have any outlet to learn from the likes of Barsness, Shoemaker, Haviland, Pearce, and Wiland. I've learned and stuff from each of them. I also have to say, I really check out some of the advertising.It's pretty neat to open a magazine and find ads for places such as JES reboring, or a Hawkeye bore scope. Wolf has a hard row to hoe in many respects. With both Handloader and Rifle they're publishing nerd/loony magazines. We group of readers are likely more "in to" or "knowledgeable" about this stuff than someone reading shooting times or guns and ammo, so while we like to read and learn, we can also be curmudgeony pricks when we see something we don't like. Wieland's take a couple years ago that Sierra 150gr RNs were nearly the only bullet suitable for a 99 .300 comes to mind as an example. Whatever. If such is the worst thing to happen to one of us in the course of a day big deal. There are people dealing with actual problems right now. I may subscribe again in the future, if it pencils out as a savings compared to how many issues I buy at the news stand. For now however, my protest cancellation still stands. It took a few years for me to subscribe again after they stopped buying Muledeer's work. Once again I'm happy to sit back and see how things develop.

The readability and ultimate viability of any magazine depends not only on the level of expertise of its writers, but also on the directions from management.
Wolfe' greatest strengths is that they retain a core of knowledgeable , capable writers and allow them freedom to test products and report actual findings with minimal direction from management. I think sometimes a little knowledgeable, focused direction might help readership, but my options didn't always endear me with management.
Although I still respect and enjoy stopping in each winter to talk with Don, Jeremiah, Chole, Chris, Becky, Melanie and everyone in the office.

Was disappointed that Successful Hunter went away. That was my favorite of the three.

It was the magazine they had the toughest time with as there was no real direction. And hunting magazines apparently need either some specific focus or a wide appeal like SA.

Since Phil is on here, I will once again encourage him to write an autobiography (or get hooked up with someone for a biography). I think that it would be a real seller.

Wouldn't hurt for JB to pay attention to that as well.