A few years back I bought hunting and fishing mags pretty regularly. So far this year I've bought none... The reason for this is clear (to me), I've gotten my "fix" from online forums. I still buy magazines if I see an cover article that interests me, usually a new product review for a gun that interests me but seldom otherwise. Surely I'm not the only one who's found this to be true.

Now I have no gunwriters in mind that I dislike, though I do have a few in mind that I follow to some degree. I say that only to make clear that I don't have a chip on my shoulder regarding the writers. That being said, some of the most interesting storytellers out there (here) aren't gunwriters at all to tbe best of my knowledge. Not to say that the gunwriters here are bad, on the contrary, we just have some exceptional non-writers around. I'm sure some others feel the same way, maybe to a varying degree.

When I first came to this site I read for weeks on old posts on topics that interested me, figured out who here was credible (doesn't take long), and then read what they had to say on various topics. When I read a magazine, unless I'm reading a well known writer or have been following the magazine regularly I can't have the same insight into the writers past and therefore, credibility. It's nice to know just how many grains of salt to take someone's advice with.

Lastly, there is the economic reasons for the 'net stealing readers. I haven't recieved any bills from RicBin yet so I'm assuming this place is free (grin). The last mag I bought was an issue of Reloading for $7.99. For the price of two of those I could get a pound of H335. With magazine prices growing and the forum prices staying constant (free) I'd venture to guess that I'm not the first to have this epiphany.

Now back to the question; do YOU think the internet will be the death of the gun rags? Maybe not extinction but maybe an endangered species?

No way! A wireless connected laptop, will never take the place of a good magazine while on the crapper. It just ain't civilized!

Jeff

What Jeff said. miles

You can not roll up the computer and swat the dog with it when he misbehaves.

BCR

FWIW, I don't know anything about the future but as Richard Russel says, the internet is a powerful engine of deflation. I imagine within the next economic turndown the plethora of gunrags will diminish some and maybe the I-net will be a factor.

It certainly has made the "old boys network" of hiding expert information difficult. With a little searching one can find full disclosure from all over the globe. Real and accurate information makes generalizations masked as advice look unschooled. I imagine this pressures gunwriters to put a lot more effort/research into each piece or it will have that effect in time.

I've noticed some of the gunrag scribes have gotton their panties in a wad over the internet gun/shooting sites. It's funny to read Ross Siegfried & Dave Scovill whine endlessly. They must be worried...

The Internet will not replace the good shooting magazines anytime soon. There is not yet an economical way to get high quality well researched articles by professionals in the field onto this medium; we will not pay for it.
The Internet is for us enthusiastic, serious plinkers. Depending on the forum we can be serious and share real information, or we can argue and roll in the mud. I believe the Internet is now where the outdoor magazines were in the late 1920' or early '30's, all of us who contribute feel we have ownership. The Internet will grow and mature but those of us who appreciate the printed page will still buy magazines.
Writers like Jim Foral or Ross Seyfried have nothing to fear from the Internet. It will be a very long time before you see in-depth and interesting articles such as these two submit floating around on the Internet. The real problem for editors is replacing men like Ken Waters, C. E. Harris and W. C. Davis as they retire. I am a hunter but I do not have a lot of interest in hunting stories.

I've picked up a new habit since John Barsness has started hanging out here a bit.

If he gives us advice on something that interests me, and tells of an upcoming article in Rifle or Handloader that goes into detail on the subject, I make it a point to buy that issue. Chances are I'd buy it anyway, but it just seems like an honourable thing to do to support the gun writer who gives so freely here. I hope I'm not alone in this respect.

I'll jump in here. I work in an university library and have seen the internet grow almost imcomprehensively in the last 10 years. While desktop access of journal articles has mushroomed, the need for paper copies has not really diminished at all. Part of this might be due to the need for historical reference (remember this is an academic library) and that need might not apply to the recreational magazine reader. Our periodicals become part of our permanent collection, and electronic access isn't guaranteed forever as the publisher might go out of business or get bought out, a magazine might fold or become obsolete due to a variety of reasons. Once you buy a paper copy, it can last for a very long time given reasonable care. Access from a publishers database is dependant upon that publisher staying in business. A computer virus or hard drive failure can wipe out your entire downloaded collection in a lot less time than it takes to read this.

One format that is being pushed lately is downloading a magazine volume electronically. Some computer news magazines have gone to this format. The magazine is displayed on the screen just like the paper edition, similar to an e-book. I find these magazines, and the e-books, harder to read than a paper copy even with a good monitor, and portability is limited. That opinion is shared among many of the professors I've talked to. Neat idea maybe, but the computer technology isn't up to it yet. But even among the ones that do like the delivery means, there is a consensus that the page layout, just like the paper copies, is important to readability. So the editors and copy people should enjoy continued employment for some time to come. And the average reader will still want to see the authors pen new articles. Just like NASCAR, many have their favorite author/driver and will continue to cheer for them, even when they aren't writing anything they don't already know.

There is no satisfaction in having a shelf full of CD as opposed to well worn books, nor do I prefer to digest learned writing by scrolling the screen. Internet forums and chat rooms are the world of two minute snacks, little more. They do challenge however, short and sweet isn't always easy or kind.

RickF - I agree completly.

More than likely I would have bought the mag anyway - but I make ti a point when MD saws there is a good one comming down the pike. I also must say that I am a fan of the adds for various rifle makers and component makers that are in Rifle and Handloader. I buy the mag for them too.

Personally speaking,
I'm much more likely to buy magazines who carry articles by people who freely give of their time and expertise in forums such as this.
I do this for a number of reasons. One, I feel more "connected" to the authors when I have the ability to interact with them on a forum. I like the idea that we as a group might be influencing their ideas just as they influence our own.
Two, I appreciate the fact that they are offering their expertise free of charge. It seems only fair that I buy the magazines that employ them and help them pay their bills.
Third, no amount of internet reading can or ever will replace a basement full of ragged and well worn magazines that allow me the delightful opportunity to go back and re-read articles and look up things that I remember reading in the past.
To those professional writers who post on this list, I say "Have no fear that your posts on this forum will ever cut into the readership of the magazines that employ you." On the contrary, I hope that I speak for many others who (like me) will go out of their way to purchase the same magazines that employ the fine people who give of their time and expertise on this forum - as a way of showing our appreciation.
Brian

I agree in part.

For me, the Campfire has led me to cancel my subscriptions to marginal mags that I only subscribed to in order to help satiate my desire for content. Before the Internet, even the lowliest gunrag was better than nothing as the end of the month rolled around.

Now I can get gun content much more readily - new stuff, every day, and interactive to boot. The marginal stuff need not be renewed. I also found that some mags which I found interesting before are no longer so. Their content is not up to snuff when compared to what I get here.

On the other hand, the good mags are still a joy to receive. Among the things we don't see enough of elsewhere are high-quality, professional pictures of big-game animals in the wild. Those cover shots of huge elk with stuff hanging all over their antlers, dry-mud caked sides, and curled upper lips still drive the blood through my veins. The same for thick-antlered mule deer with swollen necks silhouetted against the skyline, or bedded down in the sage. Goosebumps.

I also find myself enjoying hunting stories more and more. I always enjoy good technical/how-to/reloading-type articles, but we get a lot of that type of content on this site, so a good me-and-Joe story is a nice change of gears.

I'd like to think places like the Campfire fill a unique niche, and raise the collective bar at the same time.

Rick

Rick - it does just that. Like you I don't subscribe to the marginal mags anymore. I really feel it is Handloader, Rifle and then everybody else.

I would like to think that in some small way we here at the campfire have helped, by giving feeback as to what we like to read and asking more indepth questions of stuff we just read. I think that can help the writters as they write the next article - maybe they don't get edited as much or the "me and Joe" stories get run a bit more. I don't know but I think the internet will only make those mags that want to be better better- competition in any form tends to bring out the best in industry.

It may be counter-intuitive, but over the past few years magazine circulation has INCREASED in most areas, despite the ever increasing use of the Internet. Why? People are eager for information.

This is apparent in the number and quality of shooting and hunting magazines. And when I say quality, I don't necessarily mean "good." There are far better magazines in the genre now than there ever were before--and far worse. This because the shooting/hunting public is so eager for information that we support (buy buying and reading) some absolute junk, written by semi-literates who often are spoon-fed article "information" by the advertisers.

Is this a bad thing? I can't say, but it does demonstrate that printed magazines are a growing rather than shrinking business, because there are far more magazines than decent content to fill them all.

Instead of seeing the net and magazines as separate entities, we might look at them as parts of the same whole. The net is much more conducive to instant, short bits of information, and I used it all the time myself for just that purpose.

But for an in-depth look at a certain subject, print is still king. There's no way I can go into the detail about a subject here that I can in a 3500-4000 word magazine article that's taken most of a week to write and most of a month to research. On the Campfire I can barely touch the surface.

For the same reason, no matter how knowledgeable some folks who log onto the Campfire and other sites are, there's no way they can match the amount of inside information some professionals have.

(Note how I said "some" professionals. There are quite a few who just repeat what others have written, never do original research, or even publish opinions when they've never done any research of any kind on the subject.)

There's no way, for instance, that the average rifle loony will ever get to tour several ammo, firearms or optics factories, spend several days in a hunting camp talking to the technical guys from the Big Companies, or spend days inside the shop of top custom riflemakers. The world just doesn't work that way.

So we have two complementary ways to get information. I even use the Campfire this way. I could spend the next five years personally asking people how they've been treated by the customer service departments of various optics firms. Instead I posted a question here, and within two days had 60+ responses. The synopsis of those responses will show up as an article some day, on paper, which hopefully will help shooters make more rational decisions about purchases.

So both cyberspace and paper'n'ink are part of the same information superhighway.

MD

IMHO the Internet has made it much easier to gain knowledge or get a question answered.

If I want to be entertained, I read a magazine (currently subscribe to four).

If I want to find out how to fireform cases, what scope to put on a certain rifle, how to book an African hunt, etc., I ask on the Internet.

One problem with magazines is that it's hard to get a valid evaluation of new products. Every new item is just great, perhaps because an advertiser introduced it, and there is seldom any criticism of anything. Not the case on the Internet, though you have to take some opinions with a grain of salt.

In recent years, I had pretty much stopped buying and reading gun mags as most of them re-cycled the same old b.s. and most of the writers struck me as urban journalists with very little REAL bush experience. I stuck with Rifle and Handloader although they have been difficult to obtain here; because some of the writers published in these journals impressed me. I very carefully read and re-read every article written by Ross Seyfried, he is opinionated and somewhat self-important, but, he knows a lot about guns and shooting, far more than I do.

I also read Phil Shoemaker's commentaries on Bear rifles, absolutely the finest material of it's type I have read in more than 50 yrs. of perusing gun mags. I have sufficient realtime bush experience to judge this accurately and actually carry some rifles identical to some of his with very similar loads.

As a general gun writer and especially regarding hunting rifle handloading, John Barsness is about my favourite; his lack of pompous chestbeating and willingness to change his mind on issues such as barrel breakin make his work both enjoyable and instructive. I second the thanks of the other posters here concerning the free sharing of info. which he might be able to sell and this comradely behaviour is why I will re-new my subscriptions to Rifle and Handloader.

Kutenay-

all i can say is "I wish I would have said that"

Your post was 110% spot on!

Well said Kutenay!

Gene

I enjoy the mags with reader articles. like: eastmans, big game adventures, varmint hunter,and big buck. Some of these have pro writers, but a good mix of subsciber articles. i like the 3 I get from Wolfe publishing. i stay away from primedia.(they publish Seventeen, and shooting times, along with other rags.)

I just can't imagine having to take a laptop to the bathroom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> So, no, I will keep on reading Rifle and Handloader as long as JB is around.

Huntr

What with all the time I spend on the net I just don't have the time to read maganzines. The only ones I get now are the Amerian Rifleman and the American Hunter as they come with the membership in the NRA. There is an cover article on a rifle I like and I did not even read it.

When I can get hands on real live current feedback from a Ray Atkinson who needs to read articles?

I got bored with magazine articles years ago anyway as it was the same thing over and over and never the truth about products.

I subscribe to 7 or 8 mags. The net has caused me to let some expire and then I have subscribed to others based on my increasing technical interests caused by forums such as this as opposed to general interests in various mags that only skim the surface on a variety of issues. Outdoor Life and Field & Stream have been replaced by Varmint Hunter as an example.

Not a chance. With all this raving about MD and Wolfe, etc., I just signed up for all three of their mags! The internet isn't free!

I hope I don't have to buy another gun (I'm loony, too, but am trying to knock some sense into my oak noggin; I can't go on enough hunting trips to use what I have!), so I don't need all the latest reviews; I'm not disciplined enough to bother with accuracy beyond hunting-practical, so I don't need to learn about the latest powders or concentricity guages, etc. - I don't need those new magazines, but I gotta have 'em!

I have not subscribed to any of the gun magazines for many years. Mostly because the mystery, the magic, of seeking knowledge seemed to be unnecessary. This is not to say I already knew it all but that I knew enough to seek my own answers and find my own solutions. Or so I thought. By interacting with other shooters and hunters in the flesh, as it were, I had all the information I could process and plenty of people interested in what I had to say.
I have come to believe though, while I may not have missed out on any earth shaking knowledge, I have missed out on a good deal of fascinating and entertaining writing by people who are worth reading.
When I finally decided to move into the modern era and get a computer I was amazed by the information which is available to anyone who can read. As well, I was able to converse with my fellow gun enthusiasts any time I wanted. It may be of some interest to note that, at the time I moved into the computer age, I had been living without electricity or phone for about 5 years. Talk about culture shock! Anyway, the internet has turned out to be a great source of entertainment and information. I feared that the existence of free information might well negatively impact the producers of the printed word but it almost seems that the reverse is true. I think these boards really help to stimulate interest which is good for all aspects of the firearms industry. Also, it gives writers and potential writers a sounding board for ideas for articles which might be of interest. This may mean magazine content will get even better and more worth reading.
I, for one, truly hope the gun "rags" continue to prosper and the gunwriters continue to entertain and even, occasionally, inform us. GD

Mule deer said exactly what I had on my noggin, even though the Internet forums provide a lot of good info some of the gun mags have articles that take a lot of time and testing, research, actual field and reloading bench work in order to complete several pages of info.



Take Rick Jamison from Shooting Times for example, every piece he writes is full of technical data and procedures that are properly researched, tested and documented.

I just reread his pages on case forming and neck turning in the Aug. issue and had a lot of questions and how to's answered.. Rick Jamison is the main reason I still subscribe to Shooting Times, I know a lot of you fellas consider it a "gun rag" but trust me , if you still have a stack of 'em in your garage or attic pull them out and read Jamison's stuff, I'm certain you'll find a lot useful information.



Another point to ponder is that a lot of us have bought, subscribed to and read these gun mags for years and all the info is starting to sound the same, 'cause we've read it somewhere before over the years and it's starting to sound stale.



A friend of mine newly addicted to guns and reloading because of me (his wife claims I'm a bad influence, even though I don't drink, smoke , do drugs or visit girlie clubs)

I guess it's the money he spends on gun "junk"..



Anyway he grabbed my staggering collection of gun magazines and reloading manuals about six months ago and trickles 'em back a stack at a time, now he's blurting out loading data, ballistics, gun makes and models from memory,

he's even quit hanging around with the drinkers and spends way too much time at the reloading bench. I can just imagine him getting a computer and getting on these gun forums, that boy would be a total gun junkie like me.. Last I heard he subscribed to six gun mags, I think his wife is gonna ban him from hanging around me for sure!! I think I'll introduce him to fly tying next, just to piss her off some more. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



Now back to the topic, no! I don't think the Internet will kill off the gun magazines, way too much interest in them with the new hunters and I still subscribe to eight of them.. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />



Come to think of it I've seen some in a local dentists and a doctors office with the docs names and business address on the label, both had the NRA mags and one had the NAHC mag too..

I, too, don't believe the 'net will kill off any print media any time soon, although it is having a detrimental effect on newspapers, from what I've heard, and THAT'S a good thing.

The 'net is just another option for information. The trick is to develop a finely-tuned BS filter, something that is lacking in too many people. To put it quite bluntly, a lot of people are just too lazy to think for themselves, but that has been going on since mankind began, causing most of mankind's suffering.
DAL

P.S. Rifle, Handloader, and SH are the only gun magazines that are really worth buying that I am aware of. The rest are suitable for flipping through and returning to the shelf.

Glad you've joined on, DAL.

My fervent hope is that Internet forums like this one will be the making, not the breaking of printed gun magazines � and it can, once more editors and writers begin to realize the truth of my long-time advice to my writers and govern their work accordingly.

Both as an Editor and in my writing seminars, I've long advised writers to keep themselves ever mindful of the fact that no matter what you write about, there are lots of folks "out there" who know more about it than you do. Sure, there are the masses of gullible readers � but only fools dare to count on 'em for the long-term acceptance and approval that we all need for a long successful career.

Even the gullible get wise after a while, and more than a few of our readers aren't gullible to start with. Our best aren't. Forums like this one are good reminders of the truth of my old advice. More editors and writers should join us here � not bitch about our forums or shun 'em.

Besides, I'm reminded of the prediction that was popular among computer folks twenty years ago � that the computer would mean that the "paperless office" would evolve as more offices turned to reliance on computers. One computer-hyping gal abandoned that notion with a hearty guffaw when I reminded her that even a floppy disc folded like a taco would never take the place of the vital paper in that little room down the hall.

"I know not what course others may take," but I buy lots more paper for my computers than I ever bought for my typewriters. (But no more and no fewer of those irreplaceable paper rolls.)

For my part, and I believe this is general, "rag" is not a pejorative, just the pseudo-dismissive slang of familiarity.
I agree. We old-timers notice the repetition (my pet .257 Roberts is faithfully featured once per year- "almost gone but prized by many"), but today's mags still have the power of the new to those who are where we've been.

I subscribe to plenty, especially hunting types, skip over much but enjoy passing the time. Keeps me dreaming of the next hunt, makes me plan hard hunting that I never follow thru on!

I used to run a 7-11. Hated folks like that!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I don't see the Internet replacing the paper magazines completely. Just this week, we had a terrible storm line pass thru the area, knocking out power for over 115,000 people in my city alone. NO internet, BUT we could take whatever ragazine we had and go outside, and read in the daylight, while waiting for the power company to replace the 2200 downed powerlines here. Sometimes you GOTTA go with old technology, not to mention swatting flies, dogs, and use in the "library". I don't read many of them, but I do read some of them, just to try to keep up with the newest stuff, which keeps growing in leaps and bounds. I read 'em, but mostly between the lines.

Amen...

Regards, Matt.

Not a chance.We have some good ones on this forum but there are others out there that I like to read and others I wouldn't give the time of day to.Know one knows it all but some are more interesting than others to listen to.I personally like up front experiences with up front opinions whether the opinions are for or against the beatin in thoughts were supposed to accept that really are not true to the real hunter.

To many holes left in many things that are not true but assumed to be.
Gotta love Brian Peirce.
Jayco.

A lot of you guys have simply out-grown the grand old gun magazines that taught and told you so much back when you knew so little. Back when I was Editor of Handloader and Rifle, a number of readers told me � in very nearly the same words every time � that what they liked the most about our magazines was that we didn't keep rehashing the same basic stuff year in and year out. They said they'd learned a lot, at first, from the "repeater" magazines but no longer found them as interesting, informative, or edifying as ours.

FWIW, one of my main editorial criteria was that articles on any subject should offer something to readers who already knew a great deal about that subject � no "Introducing the .30-06," for example. That's a tough criterion. It's nearly impossible for any one writer, no matter how good he is or how much he knows, to turn-in an article and a column that'll meet that criterion every month.

So I prefer both reading and publishing the work of one-time writers � guys who put-in the work, come-up with something good maybe once, and never turn-in another such article. I understand modern Editors' preference for a stable of dependable pro staff writers, but I don't like to see a magazine depend entirely on staff writers � especially when they tell their writers what to write about instead of turning them loose to think freely and creatively along their own lines of deep interest.

More and more, Internet forums like this one reveal the widening gulf between the interests of knowledgeable readers and the normal monthly diet offered them in the magazine racks.

[quote] [/quSo I prefer both reading and publishing the work of one-time writers � guys who put-in the work, come-up with something good maybe once, and never turn-in another such article. I understand modern Editors' preference for a stable of dependable pro staff writers, but I don't like to see a magazine depend entirely on staff writers � especially when they tell their writers what to write about instead of turning them loose to think freely and creatively along their own lines of deep interest. ote]

Boy do I have to disagree.One time writers with what knowledge accepted by whom?I really like getting to know the guys like Craig Boddington and one of his first killls in McCall Idaho with believe it or not a 30-06.He has a history and a good one at that and not afraid to call a spade a spade as would be expected from a Marine.There are others that have the experience and are not afraid to show it.Are we to rely on the editor or the actual shooter for actual what happened?Another good one is Larry Weis??(cant spell) and The bear hunter from BC Can't think of his name but young and usually reports on Muzzleloaders with long hair.Funny and personable.

You have to have credits to pass on your thoughts and have them believed.One time writers don't cut it for me and many others.You have to semi Know someone to believe half of what they say.Not a slam bam thank you mam and then another article.

Most of these guys have payed there do's and respectfully so with followers way past there demise in one magazine for instance G-Sitton from Petersons Hunting.Welcome at my fire anyday.

Political bull and know one should edit the actual for whatever.We can handle it......Jayco.

The internet, and sites like this are fun, and often offer good advice in an instant.

However, I doubt I will cancel my subscription to Handloader, Rifle or Sucessful Hunter any time soon.

i read in all these publications things that I have no interst in pursuing. Seyfrieds old rifle stories are a good example. I have no intersest in these old guns, right now, anyway.

However, I devour them with great intersest, because I crave knowledge. It is interesting, even if I don't ever intend to own or shoot one of these rifles.

I wouldn't check this stuff out on the internet, though...

I can't take my computer on a hunting trip, but I usually take a hunting mag or book along.

I eagerly await the arrival of my new Wolfe magazine in the PO box, but the internet is just here all the time.

I don't bohter reading alot of the Hunting mags these days...I have no interest in 270 vs 3006 articles, and I equate most of the magazines to be the PEOPLE magazine of gun mags- The articel that the average person can read while enjoying the average dump <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Good ones are GOOD. The mediocre ones are....well.. mediocre. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Logcutter,
I think you're talking about Jim Shockey,

I know some folks from Minnesota that have hunted for Black Bear with him in Canada a number of years ago, can't remember where offhand but might have been B.C.

They were very impressed with his operation and had tons of good stuff to say about him, according to them he didn't treat them as "clients" but rather as hunting buddies out to enjoy an exciting hunt..

I enjoy reading his stuff, especially the column "Shock Treatment" he's a funny guy but also drives the point home and has plenty of gun and hunting knowledge to keep this reader entertained..

Like many of the other respondents to the origional post, my magazine subscrition list has diminished from many to just a few. I believe Dr. Howell has stated the reason very well; when I knew little, I learned a lot. As my knowledge increased I realized many writers knew little. When rifles were my primary interest, I learned a great deal from several writers but had to filter a lot of wrong information from others. If I now have a rifle question, I find the answer here.

My primary interest is now double barreled shotguns. There are two sources of credible information- The Double Gun Journal and Gunshop.com. Each compliments the other and combined they provide a wealth of information unavailable elswhere.The same is true of Wolfe publications and this board.

Thanks, Rick, for providing us this resource.

Alonzo Tubbs

Jayco--

Yes, it's Jim Shockey. I know Jim pretty well, and have hunted with him and his cousin Guy and they are the real deal.

Part of the problem with magazines is that they usually have to assume that they're addressing both beginners and veterans. This becomes especially true as magazines become more successful. It's entirely possible to publish a magazine for, say, 10,000 specialized readers, but it isn't very profitable.

Most magazines need to sell at least 30,000 copies of each issue to make a profit, and even that is marginal unless you specialize in RICH readers. Get up around 100,000 and you'll lose some readers each year, sometimes due to the human failing known as mortality, some due to changes in interest, losing a job, etc. etc. In the biggest magazines they assume 1/3 of any year's paid readers will drop out, and a new 1/3 will come on. It's less in some medium-sized magazines, but the basic principle still holds.

So you always want to attract new readers. This is why .30-06 articles are run once in awhile. You have to explain the basics for the new readers, yet also offer more in-depth articles for older, more experienced readers. This balance is always a fine line.

Ken is certainly right about how one-time writers can often provide a more-in-depth piece than a staff writer. A few years ago, for instance, HANDLOADER published a piece about .30 caliber bullets, wherein the author shot about every brand of 180-grain bullet into test media, at velocities from 3100 fps down to where the bullets quit expanding. He shot 3 bullets of each type at 100-fps intervals in velocity.

It was one fo the most interesting things I've ever seen published in a shooting magazine, but must have taken months to complete. Which is probably why I can't remember the same author doing a similar piece, or indeed any other writing for general-circulation gun magazines. The cost in time and materials must have been incredible.

On the other hand, I have seen one-time articles by amateurs that featured such confused logic that the "information" was useless. One I remember supposedly told us how to handload the .338 Winchester, while tweaking a rifle at the same time. But the guy didn't just change one thing, then test the rifle. He changed two or three things, often a bullet and the barrel bedding and the scope, then reported on the accuracy. Which factor made the difference? We'll never know, so learned nothing.

Most amateurs also don't have the experience of pros. Most top professional gun writers I know have not only hunted on at least 4 continents, but with an astounding variety of rifles, bullets, sights, etc., that they've often tested extensively on the range. They often take more game animals in one year than the average guy takes in a lifetime. I don't take as many animals as some of my fellow writers, but have averaged about 20 big game animals a year for the past few years, plus a lot more bird hunting. In addition I normally accompany folks who take another 10-20 big game animals, mostly because I'm still curious and learn something new every day I shoot or hunt.

Some gun writers do more, some less, but in general I would say we all hunt more than the average rifle loony, and if we're good, honest observers should have something of interest to say. Some of us work too hard and so some of our stuff gets pretty thin at times, but in many ways that can be blamed on the shooting public, which apparently has an almost insatisable desire for shooting and hunting stories.

MD

I agree with Ken as in a good hunting mag the editor should be pretty knowledgable on the topic of the mag.

If he can't seperate the wheat from the chaff as it relates to what a 1 time writter gives him then he prob shouldn't be doing the job. A 1 time writter is ok in my book as more than likely he had to beat out the other guys to get his in the rag and must therefore offer SOMETHING above the norm.

I don't know - I read all the articles and figure out what makes sense with what I already know - I don't skip one unless the writter has already turned me off with a series of articles but I wont begrudge a writter because he hasn't had the chance to yet.

Or in the case of JB - the thing that made me follow him was he likes Rugers. It was a complete change (for me) from the writters that said "unless its a pre-64 Win M70 or a Rem 700 it don't kill." That attitude has changes some lately I think but when I first stumbled onto JB it wasn't - a case where a writter I had not heard of saying something that made sense givin my expirence.

Magazine paid circulation has been decreasing for a couple of decades. Even Readers Digest lost 1,000,000 readers last year- they still have ten million left though. The advertising industry notes an accelerated drop starting in about 1999. The gun magazines are falling off very rapidly. The only one-aside from the NRA Publications- left in the top 200 is Guns and Ammo and it has dropped fromt 600,000 in 2002 to 452.000 in late 2003. It has also moved form the mid 150s in rank to 179 on the list of the top 200.

In 12- 2003 the Audit Bureau of Circulation listed several gun titles and their circulation:
GUNS AND AMMO 452,473 Down 18,000 from June 2003
SHOOTING TIMES 171,620 Down From 200,000
AMERICAN HANDGUNNER 107,361 Down from 171,000
HANDGUNS 128,641
GUNS MAGAZINE 71,607 Down from 100,000

These figures are six months old and the numbers will be lower at next audit. The total circulation of the NRA magazines - Rifleman, American Hunter and First freedom total the membership of the organization. They all out-circulate all of the gun magazines audited by this company with the Rifleman being number 58 of the top 200.

A few years back (1999) was complaining that a magazine devoted to full auto and semi-auto "assault rifles" had a monthly circulation of 190,000. The magazine has since died from lack of interest.

On the other hand, the paid circulations of RIFLE, HANDLOADER AND SUCCESSFUL HUNTER are rising.

MD

and Outdoor life Field and Stream and some of the hunting magazines are doing pretty well too.

Actually OL and F&S have dropped considerably in recent years.

When I went to work as a staffer for F&S in 1987 paid circulation was close to 3 million. It's down to around a million now. Part of this is due to competition from speciality magazines, but part of it is deliberate--or so they claim:

Dropping circulation allows them to charge less for ads. This might seem stupid, but only a few companies can afford to pay the ad rates charged by the really large-circulation magazines. Mostly these are automotive, liquor and tobacco firms. By dropping circulation and ad rates, F&S makes their ads affordable to more "endemic" advertising, meaning guns, fishing tackle, etc.

One of the things many large magazines have worried about for years is the possible outlawing of advertising for alcoholic beverages and, particularly, tobacco products.

MD

That is some stupid reasoning-cutting your business by two-thirds so you can charge less for ads. I think I've heard it all now...

John Lott tried to correlate gun ownership with crime with gun magazine readership. He found some figures from the audit bureau of circulation for 1999 that seem to relate to subscriptions rather than total paid circulation. The NRA magazines are fairly close to what they are now.- adding up to the NRA Membership. Guns and Ammo was at 590,000 and dropping, Petersons Handguns was growing at the time and had 148,308 subscribers -much higher than the 12/2003 total paid circulation. Both of these were bought out by primedia and the industry rumor was that they were up for sale at that time. The prediction was that the news stand sales would plummet due to loss of support from the hugh number of periodicals fielded first by peterson's publications and then by primedia. Apparently the sale did not happen but the numbers fell way off anyway.

American Handgunner, at that time was claiming 190,000 paid circulation and showed total subscriptions at 147,100. Now they are claiming (12/03 171,000) AVERAGE paid circulation while their auditors put the total number at 107,000.
Their use of the term "Average" seems to be a attempt to get around the current reality and make it appear that the actual circulation is larger.

In the early 1990s there were a few more titles out there. Shooting Times had a Handgun magazine that folded due to low numbers, Larry Flint was into the game with Modern Gun which also folded. Myron Fass had a number of Magazines with changing titles and his creditors finally caught up with him.

Sounds suspiciously like my old quip "I planned it that way carefully after it happened" � except that I'm joking when I say it.
I used to have my own "Deep Throat" at the NRA who sent me in-house memos on the sly. One that I remember was from the then-new top-squat in charge of the NRA publications to the magazine staffers, instructing them to position and fill their magazines with material that would attract ad revenue from the three most lucrative ad-revenue streams � liquor, tobacco, and automotive.

The internet has caused me to lose interest in the standard gun rags. I don't need the press to tell me what's coming out or give me write-ups on new products, esp. since I don't really trust the reviews. However I always pick up a copy of "Handloader" and "Rifle", as these are a cut above the fray and actually give me in-depth knowledge I can use.

I don't like OL and F&S as much as I did thirty years ago. I liked the "me and Joe did this" articles instead of all the "how to" tutorials. To each is own, but there doesn't seem to be anything like Russel Annabell any more. David Petzal's artlcles also seem too brief and shallow compared with O'Connor's, which seemed longer and more in depth. Some of the specialized hunting magazines seem to have taken over this genre.

Petzal's articles ARE shallower and shorter than O'Connor's. This isn't so much because he writes them that way, but because that's what MOST magazine editors believe is the correct way to momentarily catch and hold the short attention span of the modern, TV- and Internet-oriented reader.

In the 30 or so years since I sold my first magazine article (on flyfishing in the winter to, of all places, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED) the average magazine "feature" has dropped from an average of 3000 words to under 2000. Some places (such as F&S) are running 1200 word "features."

This used to be the length of a column, and a short one at that. Some magazines run 500 words per column, which is just enough to say hello and then good-by. All of this supposedly attracts more time-stressed readers.

From what I can see it ain't working. RIFLE, HANDLOADER and SUCCESSFUL HUNTER all regularly run features of 3000 and sometimes 4000 words, and columns run 1000 words. According to the current publishing wisdom, readers should feel overwhelmed and/or bored with all those long articles, yet all three magazines are increasing in circulation.

MD

Do you have current (and past) circulation figures on Rifle and Handloader? People seem to appreciate those as being more technically competent than the other mags.

One editor advises his regular columnists to keep their features to 800 words with maybe a picture or two. Says the days of the 2-3,000 word columns, if not main features, are over. I don't know if it's attention span or a desire not to compete with the advertising space.

You're dead-center on-target.
"attention span" = excuse
ad space = money = reason

Many publishers fervently wish that they could eliminate editorial altogether and publish only advertising. Some magazines have eliminated paid subscriptions and news-stand "draw" in favor of free distribution (to carefully chosen recipients) solely supported by ad revenues, but soon failed miserably � in part because the lower quality and reduced space of their articles and columns failed to attract enough big advertisers. (One of my publishers tried this before I went there, and the aftermath of that humongous failure gave us misery for years.)

Magazines without ads have done better than magazines with too much space taken-up by ads. Reader's Digest was a giant financed by subscriptions long before it started taking ad money. But publishers (especially new ones) still believe that advertising is mandatory from Day One. One would-be publisher I worked for even went so far as to give free ad space to selected advertisers, to "prime the pump" and attract ad money to launch a new magazine. He published a grand total of one issue and virtually bankrupted his backer. The impact of that single issue was about half as loud as a feather dropped down a well.

engledrum took advertisments but no gun ads. Of course he was motivated. He had saved up his money and bought a mid 80s Smith 59 that didn't work. He decided to get the @$@s that were flooding the market with junk. It seems that shortly after his magazines started coming out, quality control got better across the industry.

The guy in florida took a different tact- advertisments were sparce and limited to really wierd stuff like reflective 3D stickers. He gathered in cash by getting distributors advances, having about 20,000 mags printed, telling the printer that he was awaiting revenues before paying and by the time 19,500 magazines got sent back from the news stands,he had already spent the advance money. This worked for an amazingly long time until his reputation became world-wide.

Mule Deer--

I agree with you that "it aint workin'" at least in my case "it didn't work" that way. So a world of sound bites, microwaves, fast food, the internet (well, here I am <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) is also a world of word bites? This is the major reason I've left the mags I have, including Pete's Hunting. I would differ in saying that when a guy is really interested or passionate about something he wants depth and breadth

GDV

Proman-Yes Jim Shockey-Serious but humorous with lots of experience to back it up.If he wrote something an editor edited it would be a shame as from what I can tell he tells it like it is and not welcomed by some I suppose.But what is to him may not be politicaly correct to others.

I like the old home town approach where one may or may not be better equiped to write on a given subject but gives it with the humor that every hunt has or breaks down the scientific stuff from Rocket Scientist to the plain old Joe.Mistakes we all make and it's a plus to me to see these guys admit theres and are really human like the rest of us.

I hope the internet does not stop the good writers as the internet is a nasty place some times and most of them would take there knowledge and leave us without it and there experiences.

Just my opinion.......Jayco.

While the editors may think that short articles are best for us time-stressed modern readers, with me it works the opposite.

Hunting and shooting are an escape for me. When I go to that world, I want to stay there awhile. I have enough short-term interruptions in my job and don't need them in my hobby.

One magazine I like (you have to like target shooting) is Precision Shooting. The only ads are for shooting related things and sometimes are as interesting as the articles.