I am going through all my magazines, since several people have told me I have a fire hazard due to too many.

It turns out that as I am going through my magazines, I'm keeping all the Handloader and the Rifle magazines. The Sports Afield - I'm keeping too. I have a few other subscriptions and I'll be sorting them into keep or give away piles too.

Regarding the American Riflemen...

It's probably just me, but I found almost zero articles in the American Rifleman magazines in the last ten years that's of interest. While I'm keeping maybe 90+% of the older American Rifleman magazines.

I'm putting the magazines that I have no interest in boxes that I'll take to the next gun show that I have tables at and I'll be giving them away. If no-one wants them I'll be using them for bullet expansion testing.

What are your feeling regarding the demise of the magazine? Or is it just me?

I look at the armed citizen section and toss mine

It is a propaganda and advertising rag, not a gun magazine. American Hunter isn't much different. I read the table of contents, then toss them. Maybe once every 3rd or 4th issue I see something interesting.

I've canceled all of my other subscriptions. I pick up Rifle or Handloader once in a while over the counter. At one time I had a substantial stack of gun magazines but over the years I sorted through them and tossed everything that didn't address a specific gun or cartridge I was very interested in the name of saving spaces. I did the same with my collection of four wheel drive publications at the same time.

Tom

My experience is similar. Since I am a Patron member and my wife is a life member we get both American Rifleman and Hunter. Seems like neither has very much of interest to me. BTW I'm also a life member of SCI and find very little in their magazine of interest.
Maybe it's just me too.

I reached the same conclusion as most above. I think it's been longer that 10 years since it's had much interesting stuff, other than the political.

I'm down to only one other gun mag, Shooting Times. About the time I decide to not renew they come out with a good issue. More pistol stuff than I like since I'm a rifle guy. Actually I've done that with many others and from about 10-12 subscriptions I'm down to 3 or 4. Only a couple I read cover to cover, non-gun rags. Readers Digest will likely be the last I cancel, if ever, but it's also deteriorated. Most consistent is Smithsonian, with National Geographic being next. I just cancelled the latter. Hard to read much new when you've read all your life!

Mostly advertising

I have done the same with American Rifleman plus canceled others as well. You pretty well get the same articles from another magazine.

American Hunter is better

I have just about every copy of the Rifleman from 1936 to present date. Only a few 1936 and 1937 and all of 1939 are missing. I've have the collection for a bit over 20 years and it sure shows how badly that magazine has deteriorated in quality over the years. FWIW, from 1936 60 1988 they are all in official NRA binders.

I've dropped quite a few gun rag staying with Rifle, Handloader Guns and Rifleshooter. I also still get the magazine from the Cast Bullet Association. I'm not all that sure I'll be renewing them much longer. I have gun rags as far back as the early 1960s and a few from around 1955 that I got off the shelf before I started subscribing. Gun rag? How about two shelves roughly 7 feet in length stuffs with various gun rags; stuffed so tightly that you couldn't get one more magazine on that shelf if your life depended on it. I never threw one away ever since I started reading that stuff.
Paul B.

When I was an NRA member - I'd "read" it while literally standing over the garbage can and drop it in there once I made it to the last page. It's never been a particularly strong magazine for content for me.

How many times can you rehash the same subject? If i read the term "Monster Bucks" once more, I'll hurl :-)

I feel the same way about American Hunter. I got the latest issue a few days ago. Thumbed thru it and didn't see anything that interested me

AR has been a rag for quite some time now, I long ago switched to American Hunter. Can't say that's a whole lot better though.

Miss the days when Ed Harris and Finn Aagard were regular contributors.

Yeah, there used to be some entertainment and education. Now it's just a write up on whatever the advertisers have come out with lately.

Very true and AR hasn't had a good editor in a long time, either. They occasionally have an article worth reading, perhaps every third issue. They never pass up coverage of the latest inaccurate 9mm pistol. I saved ARs for many years; now it takes a few minutes to go through one and then it winds up in the garbage can.

Was it the old Sports Afield magazine that had the Grampa and the Kid articles? Those were my favorites

That was Field & Stream, and the column was by Robert Ruark--which some older members of the Campfire might know also wrote the classic African safari book HORN OF THE HUNTER.

I was a staff writer for AMERICAN RIFLEMAN and AMERICAN HUNTER for a while in the 1990s, back when both published everything from well-researched historical/technical articles to some actual hunting stories. But the market changed, and not just for them but most other magazines.

Readers lost interest in hunting stories, I suspect mostly due to being able to watch videos, and then TV shows supposedly about hunting--and then see all the same stuff "free" on the Internet. There's still a tiny market for hunting stories, especially in GRAY'S SPORTING JOURNAL, but also in a few others. I published my first article in GRAY'S in 1977, their first full year, and wrote a bunch from then through the 1990s, when I also was editor for a couple years. Also wrote a few in 2021, when they asked me to write for them again. But payment was erratic (which it tended to be with GRAY'S) and I'm not as patient as I used to be.

Anyway, both AMERICAN HUNTER (which I started writing for in the late 1980s) and AMERICAN RIFLEMAN (which I started writing for in the mid-1990s) both eventually changed. Instead of publishing actual hunting or firearms articles of some length, they started running much shorter articles, basically about some new product. In fact I was actually chastised by a junior editor at AR after writing a technical analysis of a new rifle scope: He said I hadn't provided sufficient "enthusiasm" for the scope. Gee, and until then I thought AR really wanted a technical analysis--which is what it published when I first joined the NRA.

Which is partly why I started publishing my own books, and Eileen and I started RIFLE LOONY NEWS, our on-line magazine.

About 2X a year I see an article of interest. I’m sick as hell of seeing black plastic of some sort on every cover. EVERY cover.

That’s the one thing I really like about Bugle from RMEF. They have some good stories that are reminiscent of the “olden days”. If I got my hands on a copy of Sports Afield or Field and Stream I coveted it and read it until it was falling apart. 😁….the good old days.

MD,

I found a few of your articles in some of the old AR - back in the good old days. Your reply was sufficient to substantiate what I was feeling and others wrote.
It seems like the articles now are paid advertisements. Further complaint for me was also stated by others: plastic crap - AR-15 and semi auto pistols. I don’t give a rip about either.

I’m guessing that a lot of new buyers of guns buy these things though, maybe even some older loonies?

I’ve moved a lot in my lifetime and it appears that most of the magazines I had back in the day were tossed - Outdoor Life, American Rifleman, Field and Stream, and most of the hunting magazines and gun magazines I used to devour. Good magazines like Rifle and Handloader though have stuck with me. Unfortunately, when I was over-seas, I took Handloader and Rifle on-line. Now the old computer I downloaded on is virtually dead. I’ve replaced many, but not all.

I always enjoyed grays sporting journal, and fur-fish-game. Been a while since I bought a magazine though

The rag wecreive is just burnt barrel trash

A lot of those were compiled in a book called "The Old Man and the Boy."

I lost interest for hunting magazines back in the 1980's.

I guided hunters in Wyoming with some of the guides stories were published about.

Irwin and Peggy Bauer wrote some articles about hunting and being in camp with some of these guys. The stories were embellished to just sell magazines. Real BS!

One particular article in Outdoor Life was about top Wyoming Mule deer guides. I worked with and for these guys. The outfitter was just a business man. He ran a huge outfit with many camps. He gave hunters a great experience from his camps but couldn't guide himself out of a paper bag. I never saw him ride a horse and he sure never guided any of his hunters. The guides written about hated deer hunting and would only guide elk hunters.

Another well known writer was a wimpy ass whined and complained about how hard the elk hunt was. What did he expect for a camp that was 30 miles back from the trailhead? He never paid his bill and never wrote the article after going on a 10 day elk hunt.

Some of the writers today you can just tell they are full of IT.

Pretty much the same here. Almost nothing that interests me in the American Rifleman. Been that way a long time.

The NRA needs fresh blood! Starting at the top!

We should save them for the coming toilet paper shortage!

I'm with the majority. I've gotten my share of AR over the decades of being a life member. I generally speed read the "Armed Citizen" and trash it. The new tupper
ware bargain rifles, hi capacity handguns and bull pup shotgun articles are not my thing.

Agreed. I suspect but do not know that if the NRA published one and only one official journal, that is less scattered material, there might be more interest to go with more waste. I have multiple copies of the old "cardboard" cover Wolfe publications as I kept replacing copies in storage when I moved. I don't much care for any of the current paper and YouTube style publications on guns and hunting - Barsness excepted as he conveys a sense of fun - and some other writers are good enough to engage my interest despite subjects that I don't much care about. I'll blame the decline of the Rifleman and so much else on Wayne LaPierre as choosing to dilute the soup by the time honored method and seeking more news stand sales while caring less about long term members.

The latest issue has a cover article about some 9mm semi pistol that is a clone of some other 9mm pistol. Who the hell cares?

Any hunting articles in either the Rifleman or the Hunter usually involve some company introducing a new plastic rifle and paying for a hunting trip for the guy writing he article. Gun goes bang. Game goes flop. Whoop de doo.

My wife gets an Email newsletter called NRA Women. It has much better articles than either the Rifleman or the Hunter.

I have a chronological library of old American Rifleman, dating back to the early 70's, chock full of good useful information, the old ones had at least 1 gunsmithing project how tos, one stock making or refinishing how to, at least 2 articles on loading for common and obscure cartridges, history of classic arms, in depth cast bullet how tos....arguably, one of the most useful magazines ever printed. Then came the rapid downhill slide, by 2008, it was not worth the paper it was printed on. In my opinion it was vying for 'most worthless gun rag' with Guns and Ammo (who never met a product that they didn't like).
In retrospect, where would we be today if we had listened to Neal Knox...every "whacky" conspiracy theory he spoke of turned out to be true. Eric Holder's Fast and Furious is a perfect example. Knox predicted this, but I was too stupid to believe at that point, the govt would stage false flag events to influence outcomes. Boy, was I (we) wrong. Harlen Carter and Neal Knox were the hardliners that believed in take no prisoners 2nd Amendment, no compromise. If we had only listened. Now we have a self serving pork barrel bureaucracy, which should be called, Keeping up with the LaPierres.

Hi Mule Deer:

This is slightly off-topic, but one of my favorite hunting stories of the past was, I think, the first of yours that I ever read. I was either in junior high, or early high school so early to mid-80's, when I read your story of guiding the young teen with a flinch, and resuscitating his rifle-shooting with your Ruger .220 Swift, and then guiding him to, as I recall, an antelope. Was that your article? If so, do you recall what year and magazine?

Thanks,

Greg Perry

Hi Greg,

Yep, that was my article!

Am not totally sure which magazine it appeared in, but the pronghorn in question was taken in 1988. Had been guiding for a rancher/outfitter for a couple years in central Montana. and the guidee was a guy just out of high school, as I recall from somewhere in the Midwest, whose life's ambition was to be an Alaskan hunting guide. So he purchased a Ruger 77 .338 Winchester Magnum, the rifle he brought to Montana for the pronghorn hunt his father bought him as a high-school graduation present.

He went with the outfitter the next day, and could NOT hit anything with the .338, despite being a good-sized guy. (Have yet to find much correlation between size and recoil resistance.) So the outfitter handed him his .25-06, and the kid still couldn't hit anything--no doubt because the kid was still flinching. After lunch the outfitter asked if I'd take the kid out, and I said OK as long as it wasn't that afternoon.

The outfitter (like many) didn't have a real range. Instead he had clients shoot over the hood of a pickup to "confirm" the rifle's zero. I'd built an actual shooting bench--not fancy but adequate--behind the main barn. Put up a foot-wide "gong" made from what I recall was a hubcap at 300 yards--which measured around 15" in diameter--but also had a paper-target board at 100. Had him sit down at the bench with my .220 Swift and shoot at the 100-yard target. He jerked (not flinched) noticeably when firing the first shot, then said, "Hey, that doesn't kick!"

He put three in about an inch at 100, then clanged the gong a few times. The next morning we within 150 yards of a pretty big buck, and while lying prone next to him I noticed the .220's muzzle was wobbling noticeably. Whispered in his ear, "Relax. He isn't going anywhere." Whereupon the muzzle steadied, the rifle went off, and the buck trotted slowly in a 30-foot circle and fell over.

Yep, that's the one. I was 18 then, and your magic way with words captured my imagination. I haven't shot my antelope yet, but I do have a Ruger .220 Swift. I think I read that during a study hall in a magazine borrowed from the library, and I still remember it to this day.

"Where are we going in the Wayback Machine today, Mr Peabody?" "Well, Sherman, today we're going back to 1988 - to a ranch in Montana where I'll introduce you to a guy named Barsness who'll teach you a few things about antelope hunting. Leave your Magnum at home. Then we'll continue on to 1953 and we'll swipe an American Rifleman magazine out of somebody's mail box so I can show you what a real gun magazine should be like."

I have lost interest with any thing associated with the NRA until WLP is gone!

The only magazine I get I actually care for is Sporting Classics. Mainly to look at all the stuff I can't afford. I also like and keep Virginia Wildlife magazine.

The NRA magazines are nothing but advertisements. I've never seen a gun review in them that was really objective. I got a bunch of free subscriptions when I bought something last year that I can't even remember. Game and Fish, which is sometimes worth looking at, and Whitetail Hunter, which always has some hunter holding a up a rack that looks like it was bred and cultivated behind some high fence. Some others are just junk, too.

I wish I didn't get so many magazines. They aren't even good for burning. They make glowing ashes that fly away. I usually justy thumb thru them real quick and throwp them in the recylcing bin.

I have all American Rifleman magazines going back into the 1920s. Stopped keeping them about 20 years ago. Although I get 2 other gun mags the only ones I keep are Rifle, Handloader and Sports Afield.

And a BLOOD LETTING !!!!!

I'm sick up and fed with all things NRA.

I became a life member of NRA after college graduation in 1972. After 20 years or so I was so disillusioned with the magazine that I told them to cancel it and save the money. Roughly 5 or 6 years ago, I was speaking to a young lady at NRA (can't remember now why) and told her how disappointed I was that the magazine had so little to do with actually guns and shooting, especially rifles. She told me about new publication called Shooting Illustrated that was more oriented toward that than either the Rifleman or the Hunter, so I asked her to send it to me. It definitely is better, but barely worth it.

Not sure if it’s the NRA, or the modern business model of glossy print magazines.
Less content, lack of depth, sponsor product promotion all add up.

I like Shooting Illustrated, but not a steady diet thanks

Magazines are supposed to teach us what we don't already know. Or, help us add to what we know so we're better at whatever it is. I used to find Rifleman fascinating but now it's all old hat except for some of the politics, and my feeling there is a total lack of transparency, a complete lack of respect for the intellect of the membership, and a complete lack of interest in actually having members participate in meaningful ways. I mean, the board elections are a complete joke.
So, I read, once. I should toss them, honestly.