Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Worthless Article

Just read the .300 WinMag-Parker Hale 1200 article by Steve Gash in Handloader No.237. While it's kind neat to resurect old rifles this rifle obviously has some chamber problems in addition to the broken trigger and firing pin spring the authur fixed. "After one or two loadings, the necks and/or shoulders often split" This chamber definatley has some major issues yet the author slogged on testing 10 or eleven different powders and seven bullets only to get groups as large as five or six inches! Furthormore his loads are extreemly mild about 06 level. Most 300 Winnies I ve been around seem to shoot better when pushed a bit. I would bet that 200 gr. accubond would shoot better if it was kicked in the butt to 2900+...but then those cases would have probably blown apart! Oh well I guess it filled up space and better then looking at adds and the author feels he has found his elk rifle!
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />
Lefty

Over the uears I have noticed that his articles consistently list rather mild loads.

That was the most lame and worthless 300 Win. Mag. article I've ever read, and I suspect the author hasn't taken a single round of big game with that cartridge in his life. The way he loaded for that rifle, you'd be better off with a 30-06. But then again, maybe his barrel was just slow!

I'm still wondering why the magazine picked up that article and published it to begin with..........

AD

The entire issue was lacking. Nice of them to review the 2005 Gun Digest three weeks after I picked up the 2006 edition. If I was not a subscriber and just happened to pick that issue up on the newsstand I would not repeat the mistake.

i can answer that in one word....."fluff"

It's almost as good an article as Stan Trzoniec's piece on the .35 Remington TC Encore. Testing a scoped single shot pistol firing a rifle cartridge at 35 yards seems a bit odd to me.

I received my issue last night. While I didn't read the entire .300 Win Mag article last night, I did turn to the page listing the handloads. It seems that Steve Gash loads his .300 Win Mag to match the velocities of a .30-06 with max loads. Pretty weak stuff. He did the same thing in an article on the 9.3x62 a while back. His 9.3x62 loads were anemic. I'm not one to push pressures when handloading, (I'm fairly conservative) but some one really needs to teach Steve Gash how to handload.

I did very much enjoy the article on the 9.3 BS cartridge by John Barsness. Unfortunately, that's about the only article in this issue that I found worth reading.

My two cents....
-Bob F.

I totally agree, John's article was the only thing worth reading in the entire issue. Johnny's 9.3BS article was newsy, down home, informative and just like talking to him in person. It was a visit with John when he had a new, cool cartridge that he was excited about. Nice.

My private thought was that the .300 Winchester thing was totally worthless and absolutely filled with commercial consideration. But then, I always read articles as a writer. I'm fascinated that you guys brought up the subject and agreed; it speaks very well of you.

Stan's photos, as always, were fabulous. Darn, that guy knows his way around a camera. The photos were spoiled by the addition of the words.

Steve

What's going on in the gun rag world these days? Even the guys I've followed for several years like Rick Jamison come across as hawking goods more than sharing info. I'm sure Rick is the same guy he has always been. I realize you have to eat and pay the bills like all of us but what are the publishers thinking. I'm going to drop G&A and ST when they come due. So far there are other writers besides MD to read in Rifle that add to it. MD is THE reason I started my subscription to Rifle. I'm glad there are others worth reading in it too.

dogzapper,

Mule Deer is one of those writers that I just have to read his work. One thing that gets me is that he when he writes about something, it's first hand knowledge and not someone else's experience. He also doesn't seem to write a balance to where his work is informative, entertaining, and allows one to draw their own conclusions. A tough row to hoe I can only imagine. You have that going on yourself.

I have to admit that I like Stan's photo work as well. I also read his work and thus far have thoroughly enjoyed it.

I dropped Shooting Times since it ame under common ownership wit Guns & Ammo - the articles are the same in the two mags...if not by the same author, then covering the same subjects and guns.

I could not agree more. I'll never understand how that guy makes a living as a writer. His testing of products is often very weak, and from a scientific standpoint, invalid. But the thing that bothers me most is that he has the worst writing style that I have ever read (from a professional writer). Some of his phrases don't even make sense... He does take good quality pics, but he often shows only detail photos, and I want to see the lines of the entire rifle. Oh well, rant off. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

I agree that the issue was not one of the more enthralling pieces of literature to come from Wolfe publishing as of late. However, Pierce and Scovill, both had their usual good info to put out as well as the always down to earth views of MD to read. Not a better trio of mags on the market.
As far as GA and ST are converned I lost interest in both of them several years ago myself.
MCS

Me too. It's sad, at one time I really enjoyed ST and figured that I would probably always subscribe. By the time I quit the subsciption I was mind numbingly bored with it. About the only one I liked to read was Jamison and he wrote way above my head too often.

Dave.

I could not believe I was reading such useless information...To start with a rifle virtually no one had any interest in, then compound things with worthless loads which showed what a piece of junk the rifle was AND then print it in a magazine whose readership is a few cuts above the Me and Joe crowd........well, what would one expect from an editor who recently bashed a class act like Jack O'Connor....just what appeared, I guess.....
I emailed Scovill a few years ago about Trzoniec's crummy writing-never heard back from him....No surprise....I believe Stan is kept on because his photography is so good....His reporting surely isn't....Thank God for Pearce, Barsness and Shoemaker.....They'll keep my subscription going and I think Scovill knows these things.....

Some points
Spanish action; Spanish absolutely famous for some of the worst quality control ever seen in firearms. Their stuff can be exellent, but poor quality in heat treating, fit n finish often plagues em.
Would never push a spanish action.
Next; 40 yrs old gun-need I say more?
Gash established baseline w/factory loads. Responsible loading here.
Personally, not a huge fan of the 300 win mag. Don't really see the point of a few hundred more fps than the 06.
Folks here seemed pissed that his loads didn't breathe fire.
My opinion-don't have enuf recoil n muzzle blast-always the 300 wby, 300 rum, or for those who really need hearing damage, 30-378.
Speed don't kill. Its where the bullet goes.

I wasn't too impressed with the article but the ones that are really irritating to me are those by the new vintage arms guy for Shooting Times. Several years ago ST was read cover to cover, I just renewed and found I made a mistake. The last several articles by Scarlata are a recap of someone elses history of that gun and then he borrows the gun for a day and writes up his experiences with it. He did an article on the Remington model 14 and 14 1/2 and then thanked his friend for loaning him the rifle that he "Evaluated" the action from. What is it that he had time to evaluate. If you are going to write about a subject and recommend something to the general public shouldn't you have more experience with it then borrowing it from the neighbor? Shooting Times has now become nothing more then fluff for the uneducated. Ryan

I've found I don't enjoy ST and G&A much these days. Years ago, ST was my favorite.
I just let my subscription lapse.
Since Primedia took over publication of ST and G&A, they just ain't the same. Too few pages, not enough meat.

I renewed my subscription to Rifle & Handloader the same month Ross Seyfried quit writing for them. I've read that Ross is pretty full of himself, but I did enjoy his articles - and learned a lot from them.

At least G&A still has Col Cooper writing for them.

Steve Gash wrote an article about the .358 win ( Aug 2003 No. 224 pg. 74) that was just aweful. Not only does he reveal that the .358 is a "super short-range number" but he also declares his Ruger 77 to be accurate firing 2" groups with handloads?

I just found his article's to be boring and dated. He did not test any super penetraters like Barnes X-bullets or other available premiums. I just dont like his testing criteria and style of writing.

I lost interest in Shooting Times and Guns&Ammo long ago but even Rifle and Handloader are getting boreing now. My intention now is to do more shooting and less reading. Now that short and fat has been worked to death Lord help us whats next?