I read most if not all the available gun magazines and I've come to have a couple pet peeves. I'd be interested to hear others
First I hate non-critical reveiws. Some magazines just show pictures and list add copy makes me wish I'd saved money.
Second I hate odd colored type on pictures that makes it hard to read.
But my pet peeve of all is when Shooting Illustrated doesn't print the continued on page in the lower right corner! It's the ONLY correct place for it. I shouldn't have to look back to the top of the page to find out where the article in continued. For that matter articles that are in more than 1 or two places are a p.i.t.a. anyway........DJ

Another one comes to mind:
Pedandtic overuse of Acrynyms. I remember any article by Gary Paul Johnson where he stated something to the effect of - It's not a picatinney rail it's a MIL-STD 1913 Compatable rail. The Cop and Military oriented publications seem to be particularly bad about this.
Whether he is technically correct or not I think that 9 of 10 people will know what you're talking about with "Picatinney" and wouldn't have a clue about "MIL-STD-1913" out of context.
Language evolves and IMHO it is more important to be understood than to be perfectly correct technically........DJ

Feedback from my mid-1980s survey of readers' preferences and peeves confirmed the impressions that I'd formed over years of hearing from readers � and from having been a reader myself for even longer. Some that were highest on the list �

� pages printed on card stock
� bound-in reply cards
� blown-in reply cards
� articles jumped ("continued"), not printed on consecutive pages
� articles jumped onto back pages that were bracketed by several pages of full-page (unnumbered) ads
� reverse-print text (white letters on black backgrounds)
� pages of text printed on hard-to-read colored backgrounds

One respondent gave me an understanding, sympathetic chuckle with his reply � "articles on any subject by Colonel Askins."

Oh, and one thing that every magazine should have, is an ad index. I've used the one in "Rifle" magazine several times to locate a remembered add and bought their products........DJ

You'll be happy to know that based on some reader mail, they changed that as of the current issue.

My A numba 1 biggest , swearin at the mag thing(s) are those little cards for subscriptions in the magazine.

I understand having 1, but I have opened mags to have 6-7 of them fall out. Seriously how many times could I subscribe?

I really hate the ones that are bound in - splitting up the article.

Sorry just really hate those things more than poor writting somedays,

I've always called those things magazine seeds. They fall out of them like dandelion seeds. I always keep one or two for bookmarks, and I use them to read by holding them under the line I'm reading.

The most unforgivable error of magizine is not numbering the ad pages, especially when in combination with spliting articles.

Showing only portions of photographs of a gun and not the whole gun. Thanks...

There isn't room on a magazine page to show both (a) the entire rifle and (b) its significant details. The best editorial judgement is that the details are more interesting and more important than how the entire rifle looks in a necessarily smaller scale at which all rifles look pretty much the same anyway. If this is your worst bitch, you're a remarkably satisfied reader.

How about the buildup of a big article on "The best gun for _____" which concludes with "Really, I just couldn't pick out a winner, because all the guns have their strengths and weaknesses..."! The author then does a complete rundown, manufacturer by manufacturer, on how each gun could be successfully used as "The perfect gun for _____"

OR you're on the edge of your seat, the brain absorbing all it can take in on the first reading of an article that you know you will be rereading many times to come. You're already starting to formulate plans for this new project the article has inspired, you get to the bottom of the page and you're met with, "To be continued next month"!

I guess my smallest pet peeve is when I see an ad for a contest or subscription that I'd like to get, and the only form is on the page meaning that I have to cut up a magazine to complete the form. It's trivial, but it bugs me. The biggest pet peeve is something that's happened recently. A while back, I read an article in American Rifleman by Lt. Gary Paul Johnston where he related the history of some old guns he owns, specifically a Colt SAA and a Trapdoor Springfield cavalry carbine. The tale was interesting, especially since he inherited them from the guy that they were issued to. He also alluded to the possibility of turning the guy's journals into a book (One that I'd buy, since the journalist served in the 6th Cavalry during the days of Wyatt Earp and in the Philippine Insurrection). Flash forward a couple of years and the very same story turns up in an issue of GUNS! Now, I'd never hold anything against a guy making an honest living, and the writing game has to be as tough as it comes to make a living doing. I think the thing that peeves me is that I'm getting old enough to finally start seeing reruns in the gun rags <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Why not just take those little cards ("seeds") and drop them in the mail box. Don't fill them out or write on them. The magazine has to pay the incoming postage. If enough people did this, the practice would stop.

I can see that but I like the magazine, would hate for them to then increase the cards in an effort to attract more subscribers to cover the new increase in postage costs.

It really bugs me when I see a photo where the negative has been flipped.

I have seen Fred bear as a right hander, a left handed rifle with a right handed bolt, Martinis with a left handed cocking indicater, et.

It isn't a really big thing for some, but it drives me nuts!

Catnthehat

I notice that too but for the life of me can not figure out why that would NEED to be done? I understand a mistake but the need for them to do it? Maybe Ken can let us know.

Almost to the last man (or woman), art directors are artists who care only how their graphics look on their layouts (they don't care a whit about accuracy, authenticity, or reality). If the photo shows a rifle with its muzzle to the right, and they think it looks better on their layout with the muzzle to the left, it gets flipped � in their "minds," legitimately.

I can remeber reading some chopper magazines when I was younger, and boy, was the crap flying when someone flopped a negative in those mags.! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

It bugs me for sure, but not enough to scribble in some self rightous POS that some of those guys wrote in the letters to the editor!

Of, course, the response from the same type of editor would be

pretty good, as well.. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Thanks for the exlpanation, Ken.

artists are, well, artists.....

Catnthehat

I fully realize that magazines that bash their advertiser's products don't last long. The result is that we are very unlikely to read any negative evaluations deserved or not. That being the case, most articles that purport to be evaluative or even comparative tend to come predictably down somewhere in the middle or on a positive note for everything spoken of. This has become such a formula that one has to wonder-why bother. Surely there is some fresh ground to be broken somewhere. Seyfred seemed to be doing some of that but it seems he is now gone. Maybe introducing some fresh writers or, failing that, fresh editors would help. There is just so much any one individual has to contribute to any endeaver. Frankly, the rags are becoming uniformaly boreing. There has to be more to it than the latest short magnum, or the best scope or bino for deer hunting. I really don't mean this to be overly critical because I do think that we have some of the best writers now active that the shooting sports have ever seen. Nevertheless, some new blood seems needed.

KH: I read years ago that art directors like barrels to point into the fold, not to the outside of the page. Irritating.

Jaywalker

KH: Yet these crimes continue. Where's "60 Minutes" when you need them...



Jaywalker

My pet peeves came to me last evening. I get my november issue in october and just about as soon as I get my camo out of the closet, the next issue deals with post season gun care, etc. in the southeast, we hunt from october (some earlier) through early january. I do not want to read about spring gobbler season before thanksgiving. give me a break. I am just getting started with fall hunting when the mags call the season quits. it makes me believe that big game season is over in the west and north by the end of october. I shot one of my best bucks ever last january. we're still swattin' skeeters in november and waiting for a "cold front".

I remembered this post as I was looking at other threads. The two pictures in this thread are, IMHO, excellently done and show the proper way to photograph a rifle:



https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...amp;amp;sb=5&o=7&fpart=1



I like to see the entire rifle as well, believing that it shows off the lines of the firearm, then another shot can show the details. The lighing in these photographs brings out the details of the rifle nicely, but in addition the setting by itself is beautiful, it contrasts in color to the rifle to bring out the rifle's details even more but would still be a beautiful picture even without the rifle in it.



Kudos to bxroads for some excellent photography.

Easy fix is to just renew without having to be asked. If that happened there would be no need for the cards, the seven mailed renewal notices, and the telemarketing effort.

But, since that doesn't happen, you're stuck with the annoying cards because they work.

The thing I hate the worst is when a new gun doesn't shoot as well as one would expect, but then the gun doesn't get blamed for the poor performance, it gets blamed on several other factors. IMO, G&A is about the worst when it comes to this. The mag will test a gun and it won't be what most people would call "accurate," but they try to skirt around the real issue and offer reasons why it didn't shoot well. As an example, some of the commonly cited reasons that come to mind are, "the trigger pull was a bit heavy, we only had a small selection of ammo to try, we were running short on time and the light was fading quickly." Well of course all that will result in less than spectacular groups, and that I don't dispute. However, this happens way too often in the gun mags for it to be the real issue, and the first thing that comes to my mind when I read it is, "it doesn't shoot worth a crap." I know most experienced shooters see through the BS, but I would rather read 100% honest reviews. I like reading gun mags for the information, not to test out my BS meter.