FWIW to curious readers, let me tell you about a few examples of how not to treat a gun-writer � not this one, at least.

For a good many years, I've enjoyed the respectful courtesy of the manufacturers and importers of guns and closely related accessories. I've bought a number of the products that I've written about, usually at the "friendly" price, and I've been given very few "freebies" � which I've never expected or asked for.

� A few years ago, a sales executive from the importer of a well known and excellent line of products (which I happen to be a long-time fan of) asked an industry friend of mine to nominate a writer who could help his company publicize their new model of a certain especially fine product. My friend highly recommended me. The sales exec, a stranger to me, heartily approved the nomination and said that he'd like very much to talk with me. My friend told me, and I immediately called the exec and offered my help � specifically to buy the product, to use it extensively, and to devote a chapter to it in each of several books, to write a magazine article about it, and (for no fee) to write and illustrate a promo booklet about it for the importer.

He approved heartily and referred me to the person who'd have to approve the acquisition. (I should mention that I know one writer who got one as a gift from that importer.) That person would not even consider giving me a discount � not even a little one � or to sell me one outright. I've bought one from an authorized dealer, at full retail price plus shipping and handling, because I know its quality and look forward to using it a lot for a long time.

� One of the books that I'm doing involves a project that would give a highly regarded American manufacturer-importer's certain product immeasurable positive advertising. I wrote the company's top squat � a couple of years ago � with details of the project and asked what I'd have to pay to buy one. That company gives production samples of its products to some writers like big fat licorice sticks, but I haven't even got an answer to my inquiry.

� A month or two ago, I wrote to the president � whom I know � of an American manufacturer of an especially good firearm, asking for the price of the model and caliber that I want to buy for my use (a) to enjoy and (b) to write about. No answer.

So I've concluded that these people don't care whether I write about their products or don't want me to. So I'll enjoy their products � bought on the retail market � but won't mention 'em in print or show 'em in any photographs in my books or articles.

Fair enough?

In the usual way that these arrangements work, the manufacturers and importers get a lot more from the top writers than the writers get from them. Well, not those from this one. My keyboard is now completely unable to enter their names into my prose, but my check records show 'em, so the deals are complete. No manufacturer or importer who cold-shoulders me is going to benefit from my exposure of his product. I'll enjoy it and benefit from it and so will my work and my readers. Period.

Seems fair enough to me.

Ken,

You seem more than fair on that. Personally, if I was in your position and I got cold shouldered, I wouldnt even let them benefit from the profit of me purchasing their product. And I wouldn't put it in print, but Id be maligning their company by mouth on a regular basis...though you couldn't malign the product if you didn't own it or never had used it, bad company-consumer relations is often enough to turn me away from even a great product.

How does the old saying go?

Please a customer and he'll tell ten people. Offend a customer and he'll tell everyone . <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Truer words have never been spoken!

In Ken's situation it sounds like the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.

Sounds like, If they can't buy you, they don't want you...
Or, am I missing something?
By the way, If I were a writer, your way is my way.. No ifs ands, or buts.

Don

I'm not in the boycott business. Besides, even bad-mouthing is advertising, so I don't mention these twats' brand names in print in any way. And their products are superb, so bad-mouthing them would be lying. So I'm content to do my thing (including enjoying the use of their products) and get along quite well with plenty of other good stuff to write about.

As a consumer not familar with how these arrangements work, I have to ask, does receiving a product for review gratis or at a discount obligate the writer to write something favorable about a product? Would a negative but truthful review of a product make it into print under these arrangements? Would such a negative but truthful review impact the writer's ability to receive goods to review from same company or others in the future?

No.

[color:"brown"]Sounds to me like they lost a "mighty champion" for lack of a little common courtesy.

It's THEIR loss, Ken... not your's.


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

Ken,

I think there�s another perspective that should be considered. There�s a good chance that what might seem like a �cold shoulder� from a manufacturer is actually honest ignorance.

A plague of any industry are gifted loonies that are crappy businessmen. We see that all the time in the firearms world � a great gunsmith that�s clueless on how to get the word out, a designer that can�t manage his books, and maybe the most common - a successful garage shop that goes from quality to slop while trying to ramp up production to meet the increasing demand.

Large companies aren�t immune to this either. The folks that are actually designing and building products didn�t go to school to learn how to market and sell them and probably couldn�t care less except in an abstract way. Their focus is on the product and building it - selling the product doesn�t get them out of bed in the morning. Talk to them about business strategy and they nod their heads while thinking about tolerances and due dates.

No doubt, dealing with folks like that can be like beating your head against a wall. It�s frustrating to show someone a potential path to success only to have them fail to consider it, but business smarts and design smarts rarely reside in the same brain.

Answer from Ken:



And I absolutely believe him! To make it long term in Ken's business, I think you have to be honest and tell it like it is. "Being bought" might line your pockets for the short term, but will cheapen your opinions in the long run and thus negatively affect your career as a writer. I get tired of people accusing every writer of having an agenda, or being a "shill" for this product or that company. Writers, like all hunters and shooter, have their opinions, and if they favor a product or a company, it may be for the reasons Ken has stated...they put out a good product or offer a quality service. Simple as that!

Ken,

I�ve had much the same experiences. Just about three weeks ago, I contacted a manufacturer of an outstanding product and asked for a good price on one of their widgets. As soon as they learned that I was a writer, they seemed to get tunnel vision. At no time was I asking or even hinting at a freebie, just a good price. I had credit card in hand and was ready to buy. They responded with an e-mail that said if I didn�t have a magazine article assignment, they weren�t interested, but that if I did, they would send the product to me free of charge.

To make matters worse, I then logged onto their web site and ordered the product at the regular retail price�I mean, it�s a good product and I want one. My credit card hasn�t been billed yet and I haven�t received a product or heard a word. I kinda get the feeling that they�re not taking my order.

I have a friend who lives close to their factory, so I asked him to drop by and pick the product up for me. He did and I have it in my hot little hands.

So, if I was going to get them some free press, I could have it. But if not, I couldn�t even buy it�Howz that work?

Im learning something here...if you're a gun writer, and you wont take some companies' "pay off" then they wont let you buy their product at all? Is that really true?

I suspect that there are some in the gun industry who think that a freebie DOES obligate a writer to a glowing report, but if a writer is buying it with his own shekels, that he intends to bash the product.

I'm not sure how we convince bozos like that we writers do have a concept of integrity - that our word (in PRINT yet!) is indeed our bond.

The only thing that bothers me more is that there are some readers who remain convinced we're all on the take. One way to reverse that opinion would be to write mostly negative reviews - thereby spiting our faces with "nosectomies". Can't win, maybe.

Exactly. I gotta attribute a part of what happened to Ken to what you just mentioned JOG. Much of my life was spent working in the industrial world. Promotions where given to those who excelled in the area they worked in. But, no consideration was ever made as to whether or not the guy they promoted could handle the 'bigger" job.. Implicit with the "bigger" job is a sense of "marketing" for the company; being able to see when to act, such as in Ken's case, doing what's courteous. Many of these guys who were promoted don't have a clue about how to treat people, including their own employees.

Don

Just sent this e-mail to the gun-company president whom I mentioned above:

"****:

"Some little while back, I sent you a letter of inquiry.

"No answer.

"So I sent you an e-mail.

"No answer.

"So I conclude that you�re just not interested in having me buy a ******* ******** or writing about it.

"Fine.

"I won�t.

"Regards,

"Ken

"Ken Howell � Editor, Smokelore magazine
"Box 28
"Quemado, NM 87829
"505-773-4342"

I think that might get some ones attention.

JOG, DMB, in one case, I was dealing with an employee, albeit a high-echelon one. The completely unresponsive "contacts" are the other companies' presidents, one of whom knows me personally and has excellent past reason to remember me favorably. The other is the son and successor of a now-dead president of the other company, whom I knew and had a good relationship with.

If you're original letter of inquiry included the above, me thinks you were intentionally put on ignore, and not just lost in the shuffle. If I were a gun company/hunting or shooting sports company muckity muck, Id see to it you got some attention, even if it meant just selling you a product retail if you wouldn't take my offered discount/freebie. I cant phathom how they think ignoring you will keep their product out of your hands if you really want one, but surely can see how ignoring could lead to worst case, bad pub, and best case no good pub.

Color me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> on why they'd treat a gun writer that way.

I gather you believe in the "there is no such thing as bad publicity" rule, which is why you wont write about them at all. If it were me, and I genuinelly liked their product, Id write that, AND also write how I were treated by the company in an effort to obtain the product. Not that you, Ken Howell, need to do it for credibility, but if I saw a writer write: "This company treated me like crap, I bought their product anyway and paid retail, I loved it and here's why...", Id have to believe that! Atleast then you give your readers some honest info to chew on about the product and the company. And you tell those like you who would buy this product in spite of your treatment about a good product, and also those like me that don't like to buy products, good or otherwise, from companies that do business that way. I do understand your reasons for not calling their name...not being in "the writing/marketing biz" I know you know more than I about it and probably yours is the best way. So, I guess Im just stating what I'd like to know about the product and the company. I also would wager if you wrote an article like that, you'd certainly hear from the company in short order.

Apparently I'm missing something here. Set aside for the moment the fact that magazine articles are primarily intended to get people to read the magazine so they will buy products from the magazine advertisers.
Now let's assume that the pupose of an article about a product is to be helpful to the reader concerning the value of that product. Further assume that a particular product is useful, but if the maker won't "play ball" to the writer's standard, the reader will not have the information he would have had regarding something he might need because of fit of pique by the writer. So after all this talk of writer's ethics, the reader's need to know means nothing compared to the maker doing business in a way that meets the writer's "standard." Is this really what you meant to say? If your ultimate goal is to give useful information to your reader, this is, IMHO, indefensible and would disqualify one from having an ethical journalist standard.

This certainly gives ammunition to those who are suspicious of all "gun writer's" objectivity. (Not me, I figure I can usually tell who's BSing and who isn't. And some definitely are. Some definitely aren't.)

I sincerely hope you didn't mean what it sounds like.

t

Well Ken, your rep and name aside, would suspect we've just got a good indication of how important their consumer rapport is.

No, it's not true. At least it would be very rare, in my opinion.

I think many of these stories are due to plain old incompetence on the part of some manufacturer's reps rather than any devious practice. Too many seem to know little about guns and even less about business. This is why some companies hire gun writers as liasons between the writers and the company. It usually makes things run smoother.

There's a lot more to it than what little bit you're considering.

I'm not obliged to write about any certain product � ever. I'm not primarily a product writer, anyway � more of a people and principles writer who mentions products along the way. (Which is far more beneficial to the supplier than a purchased ad or a dedicated review, by the way.)

There are many other products to use and to write about, besides those that I have good reasons not to write about. Lots more, more than I can cover anyway. Omitting all mention of a certain few is by no means a disservice to the reader. Also, I figure that a company's rudeness to me suggests an on-going pattern of poor dealings and sloppy or arrogant relations with average customers.

My position is just an adamant refusal to be used by a supplier to his advantage despite his rudeness. If he figures that he doesn't want or need whatever I can provide, I'm not going to use any time and effort to provide it. Why should I crawl into a supplier's stove to keep his house warm?

Quote: "Also, I figure that a company's rudeness to me suggests an on-going pattern of poor dealings and sloppy or arrogant relations with average customers." -- Ken Howell

---------------------

Bingo.

It did.

Just got a 'phone call and had a nice long, friendly chat. Now have the answers to the questions in my letter, including the price that I'll have to pay to get one of those fine guns. It's still (gasp!) four figures, so I won't be writing a check right soon, but at least I know now how much I'll have to write it for � and how much I'll have to raise by selling some of my current darlings.

I can understand the problem with rudeness and poor business practices, but cannot understand why any writer should expect to be able to buy any friearm or any pice of equipment that any company makes for less than what it is sold to the general poublic.

Maybe I missed somethinng here. My apologies if I did. If a writer doens't want to write about something because of the attitude of the manufacturer, fine. But if he doesn't want to write about something because the company won't give him a discount, that is another matter entirely

How would any reasonable person (writers included for the moment!) be expected to give a positive appraisal of a product when being badly treated by the company's rep's???

The only benefit that a supplier gets from an individual typical buyer's purchase is a portion of that buyer's cash outlay. The writer's ink pumps a lot more into the supplier's pocket. A lot more. The supplier with any smarts knows this and is usually eager to offer the writer a break as a matter of business policy. A writer would have to be a fool to forgo this break. The supplier who scorns the writer's inquiry about this routine break (which varies with different suppliers), yet wants to enjoy the benefits from his writing, is worse than a fool and deserves none of the writer's attention.

Like my friend John Barsness, I have a federal firearms license and can buy wholesale anyway � and often do. A supplier's refusal to sell to me retail is nothing less than nearly felonious arrogance, not just arrant stupidity.

If you knew that you could get a break on a desirable gun that you wanted but didn't know the amount of the break, wouldn't you check it out?

If the supplier coldly ignored your inquiry, would you be eager to help him boost his sales?

I have bought a number of guns, scopes, etc, wholesale and retail, for my own use and enjoyment. In what way and to what extent am I obliged to write about any of these?

That's the answer to why writers get discounts. When we accept a reduced price for something (no matter how much or how little reduced) it DOES obligate us to write...something. It may be a full-blown review. It may be a passing reference to a product used. It may be positive or negative, offer suggestions for improvement or note how it has already been improved from past versions. But some mention of the product is expected by the supplier. And rightfully so.

As Ken says, a mention that product A was used pays enormous benefits for the maker. When I include a particular powder, primer or bullet in a loads table, you can bet that readers decide to try those same products - even if the combo wasn't the best load mentioned. It doesn't matter if I bought the product at retail, got a discount or a caseload, gratis.

But you can also be sure that if I were snubbed by a supplier for a product, that product will not get mentioned. I call it fair trade.

My thoughts are that truly objective writers should use a completely anonymous or blind reviewer approach. I believe outfits like Consumers Guide and some of the insurance institutes work that way. Any one running quality control inspection or product review should assure that they have a random sample of the product. They simply purchase the desired units off the shelf, do their testing, and write up their reports. I suggest that informing a company that their product might be evaluated and the results published prior to purchase could potentially bias the whole deal. As a manufacturer or seller with that knowledge, I would likely send that person a select item, that had been given a thorough examination and perhaps a bit of testing before delivery. Be it a firearm, it would carry better wood, the smoothest slick feeding action, perhaps the best air guaged barrel, and a lot of ammo known to produce 0.1" one hundred yard groups. I would not simply reach in the bin and deliver an untested, production run unit. I do not personally evaluate products for publication, although I have had offers in the past. When I intend to make a purchase, I will seek the best deal, but there is no need for the manufacturer to know what my subsequent intentions are. I suggest writers simply buy their products and do their evaluations. The consumers will likely appreciate the honesty from such a system, and with a proven and productive track record, some publishers would likely foot the bill. 1Minute

You have done a good job of saying how we should do our job.

Then you go on to show that you don't know B from bull foot about how we have to do it or why.

Mark Twain said that if a man was determined to carry two cats home by their tails, let him. There's no match for what you'll learn by trying the way that you advocate and theorize. So try it your way and see how well you do.

I'll wait.

Gosh Ken: I sincerely apologize. I had no intention of raising any hackles, because my comments were directed to the thread in general. The goal was simply to present my perceptions of the route needed to obtain objective research and reporting. That thought train, and the discussions herein, reinforce why I do my own reviews before buying meals, movies, or 40 grand pickups. We will all continue to live in an imperfect world. Unfortunately in most realms, reciprocal back scratching is the reality that makes the world go around and life is difficult for those that don't follow suite. It's especially tough when dealing with entities that hold a grudge. I do enjoy the exchanges here, particularly those that stimulate some thought. Take care and happy hunting this fall. 1Minute

Just one question, 1minute: how many articles a year do you think the average writer would be able to turn out if he had to purchase every item he mentioned at retail?

Just a personal example of a major piece I'm working on now: I'll need 500 each of four different bullets, twelve kinds of powder, at least 100 cases, 2000 primers, custom dies, a rifle in a cutom chambering, a good scope, a chronograph, a pressure testing system and a laptop to run it. Pictures? need a high-end digital camera, too. I'll let you add up what it would take to buy all that. Oh, and add in the gas for a couple dozen trips to the range while you're at it.

If I'm lucky, I'll get maybe $300 for the article - IF it gets accepted. Even if I spread the cost of the chronograph, camera and other multiple-use items out over several articles, it's still a losing proposition if all the up-front money comes out of my wallet.

I'm not crying about all this, just trying to show what your rather idealistic proposal entails.

I have to thorw out the BS flag here.

It takes money to conduct any business. Some more than others.

Two examples:

Farmers typically buy straight retail and sell wholesale. They don'get special treatment from dealers to use thier John Deere or a particaulr type of seed. Many times they have to put up with rude sales person becasue there is no other shop around to buy thier part from

My wife is an outdor photogarpher on the side. I can guarantee you she has more wrapped up in her equipment than someone that has a chronograph, computer, etc. One lens cost $15K. Her film runs a lot more than brass, primers and bullets. She might take 500-100 shots and sell ten or twenty if she is lucky. Most businesses want to buy from a stock photo company and those companies want tp pay pennies on the dollar for images . Just to print and put an image on matting runs $50-$75 and she might get $100 for it. Fieldler and Shaw don't do much better.

Even if a writer or whoever is as honest as the day is long and is overflowing with integrity, there is a perception of the public that something is amiss if he is writing or reporting on a product that he obtained with a discount.
That is why Consumers Guide is so well respected. They go out and aquire products as 1minute mentioned .

I'm not telling anyone how to run thier business, just stating the obvious. Maybe someone couldn't stay in business running it like that. I don't mean to tug on superman's cape here. So don't kill the messenger

It does take money to make money. But how long should a writer keep on "investing" it at a loss just to write?

If I told you it will cost you $20 per hour to work for me, and I'll pay you $8 per hour, would you plan to make it a career?

I don't know how Consumer Reports is funded, other than subscriptions. If 250,000 people subscribed to my writings, I'd be able to buy shooting stuff at retail to test it, too.

As Ken said, I'm waiting.

I have read all the posts pro and con and this is my opinion.
I think a company, that already had a favorable opinion from a gun writer, would be stupid to stiff aforsaid gunwriter.
I am in a business handling peoples money. Often times they ask for a small item, I never say no. Good will buys a lot.
Just like they never will pay for lunch and/or dinner with me.
Heck, I am just glad they put up with me. What is manufacturers cost on one item vs. what being decent can do?
At the bank I worked at each year I used to end up with ten or fifteen bottles of high grade hootch from car dealers I bought contracts from. Not one thought it influenced my decisions, and it didn't.
I personally don't mind a break being given to a writer.
Heck I get a break through my C&R with a lot of places.
Guess why brownells gets so much business from me?
As to integrity, that shows through. I can tell y ou some of the authors in a certain byweekly magazine shilling for various companies. I would NEVER say that about Howell, or those I read all the time in Handloader. What I WANT to know is what of those babies you are going to sell to get the new toy? Private email preferred please!!! Just kidding.

No hackles, Amigo � more like disgust but not quite that either � just a candid reply to an impractical opinion firmly stated but based on logic less firm than Jell-O.

When someone calls a company to buy something they should respond in a polite professional manner regardless of who it is. It doesn't matter if you were a gunwriter or not.
If an FFL holder contacts a company to buy a firearms they should either sell it to them or assist them in contacting whatever wholesalers or proper channels to purchase one. Some of the new Marketing restrictions some gunmakers are putting on selling their guns are IMHO a bad idea. I know Beretta for example is gone to a direct to dealer program and then force their dealers to carry stuff that they don't really want too. You can't just call up a distributer and buy a gun or two. I realize that they are trying to protect their dealers but IMO price fixing sucks and I don't want to buy stuff that is sold that way.
I have no idea if the reason that they wouldn't sell to you is something similar to this or not. But it shouldn't cost any extra to be treated politely, Gun Writer or not.................................DJ

Bingo!

It would seem that a writer with an FFL should receive the same courtesy from a company as any other FFL holder.

But, maybe that is what is actually happening.

And maybe that is why we should not be surprised to hear about these firms being in financial trouble.

Thanks to all for sharing some interesting rationalizations.
t

I recognize the fiscal realities, but to come right to the point, buying stuff directly from the manufacturer for review still creates the possibility, if not probability, of a biased sample.

It's bad enough that most gun reviews are based on single samples. Buying it directly from a manufacturer who knows the purpose of the purchase is a fatal flaw in the "system". Even affording the writer the presumption of no bias, he can't write an unbiased article with a biased sample.

Perhaps the "system" is set up so that there is no other way to get the materials for a test. Perhaps there is no sample bias in most cases (powder and bullets come to mind). But for major items like optics and firearms, all the protestations to the contrary, if the system leaves no choice but to use potentially biased samples, then the system is biased.

Based on what I read on this forum, the large majority of readers came to that conclusion, long before. Gun magazines (or any other advertising driven publication, for that matter) do not "review" things in the sense that Consumer Reports reviews things. You do not get the "good, bad and the ugly". JMO, Dutch

The "thinking" that's so abundantly evident in the opinions of all you fellows who aren't gun-writers is "that's how it would be with me, so that's gotta be the way that it is or oughta be."

It ain't necessarily so, Bub!

You aren't me � or Rocky � or Steve � or John � or Bryce � so your imaginings of how it'd be with you don't apply to us at all, in any way.

Has any of you given a nanosecond of thought, for one thing, to the notion that I (for example) already have a strong positive leaning toward any product that I request a quote on or a consignment sample of? That I buy for review or simply for my own use?

Has any of you given a nanosecond of thought, for one thing, to the notion that we often buy at discount items that the suppliers know (because we tell 'em so, up front) are for our personal use and not for review?

I could go on ...

... but I'd just be adding things that you don't know about � probably can't imagine � if you're not one of us.

So what is your honest opinion about us and our modus operandi really worth outside your mind? How much real-world value does it have even there? How accurately or justly can you judge anything that you know so little or nothing about?

trying hard to think longer than a nanosecond here.
here are some opinions:
1) ken's key issue was one of courtesy.
2) some of you guys did not understand that, and chased the full-disclosure rabbit through the briar patch and down the hole.
3) these are separate issues, period, no matter what you "think" of networking for a better price.

This is getting complicateder and complicateder! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

... and more � of giving us credit (a) for integrity, (b) for good judgment, and (c) for knowing how the Hell to do what we do, in the best way possible, all things duly and carefully considered ...

... which you can not know or judge from afar, no matter how intelligent, imaginative, or ethical you are.

Hey, wait a minute, Ken! You guys don't have something going like Yale's ultra-secret Skull and Bones society, do you? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

(added: the silence is so deafening, I'm going to add a smiley just to make sure I don't get on the bad side of them!)

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I'm not sure if Mr. Howell responded to my post, or not, but let me re-state --- explicitly -- that at no point did I ever imply bias on the part of any writer.

Rather, I stated that even a super-naturally ethical, even handed and unbiased writer will write biased articles if the manufacturer has the opportunity and motive to bias the sample. The basis of any scientific work is randomization. If a sample is not random, it is biased. If the sample is biased, the conclusions will be biased. FWIW, Dutch.

Having published a few scientific studies in peer reviewed journals, the heart of the matter was stated rather plainly by Rocky. 99.9% of the populace have no idea how much effort (inclusive of time, money, etc) goes into good publications - be they groundwater fluff like I do or a "short" article on handloading. The peer review process alone really sucks until you get the hang of it. I guarantee there ain't too many "rich" gunwriters.

Getting a break on components so that the rest of us benefit (both manufacturer and consumer) is a reasonable request; especially for a thorough review by a competent evaluator/writer.

Then you're using the statistician's sense of the term bias in a forum populated by ordinary mortals who sense the term as a personal inability or refusal to be objective. Fair enough but misleading.

Good point, bwinters. In truth, I don't have a gripe with gunwriters and their integrity. Those who don't have it will be shown up.

I am really interested in the secret society I betcha they have, though! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" /> When bored, I just love to investigate things like that. I may soon switch to my Sherlock Holmes avatar for this one. I actually do Sherlock one better -- sometimes when I get going not even facts can deter me!

My experience � many years, many suppliers, many products (good and bad!), for review and for personal use � indicates without exception that the samples sent to writers are not carefully selected by the suppliers but are truly random. So in this again, we have a firm outsider opinion that's based on assumptions that are less firm than Jell-O � because the opiner flat doesn't know the real-world facts of what he's talking about.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

I wrote: "Even affording the writer the presumption of no bias, he can't write an unbiased article with a biased sample".

Misleading? Or long toes? FWIW, Dutch.

I might add that any writer who will trade his professional/personal integrity for X dollars off a review item ain't working for very long. I'm sure there are those that give benefits of the doubt on occasion but ask yourself how many of those writers are you reading on a regular basis.........

I can think of a few that I don't even read the opening sentence <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />.

And to carry this line of thought a bit further and from the perspective of the manufacturer, if you do provide a "sample" is that sample going to be random and the same product Joe Sixpack would get if he bought it at Wally World? Or is it going to be a tuned up, especially selected one for what may be an evaluation?

Also from the perspective of the supplier or manufacturer, how many calls do they get from writers or wannabes, or down right frauds, to get a break on a product?

Being a confirmed skeptic I'd think more of an evaluation or a mention of a product if I knew it was the same product I, Joe Sixpack, would get if I went to a retail store to purchase. I suppose that's why I don't place my stock in evaluations of any kind short of Consumer's Reports and the like.

Over the more than 40 years I've been reading gun articles it seems to me that if the manufacturer sends its best examples, those best examples have, nonetheless, been criticized by gunwriters on many, many occasions.

I simply want a well-informed analysis of an item. The problem with some "unbiased" outfits is that they don't know enough about the specific field of interest to be all that illuminating.

All that I can tell you comes from long experience.

All that you can opine comes from conjecture and suspicion.

Which is more likely to coincide with the facts of the real world? Experience or conjecture?

Dutch - If I may counter, while the product may be biased, the writers findings will not be, he reports what he sees, tests or finds out, if he wishes to maintain integrity. I'm of the the mindset I would think it would be very difficult for a writer to report or find on any product he found above normal for its use.

Of what advantage would that be to manufactuer? He will be getting report on product that the product is not going to deliver on average.

It is a Catch-22 situation. Manufactuer I would think would hope for report that is average representation of product, instead of what they public would view as not. I would also think the manufactuer would DESIRE to have a fair write-up, as to what the product can deliver, in order to make a favorable for public opinion. Word of mouth still sells best, no matter how many commercials/ads costing millions reach. Whose word or info would you hold to be true, and in what order: commercial, advertisement, write-up from well-inown source, or trusted personal contact.

Would think general public would be aware of this (OK, there are exceptions to that, sad to say). If consumer not aware of this, why should manufacturer or writer be responsible for stupid.

Bias may exist anywhere, why it is important for those whose integrity is at stake to guard against.

Above being said, why I'm the only person in the world who has no bias, LOL!

"I can think of a few that I don't even read the opening sentence <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />." - bwinters

-----------------

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Yeah, but you're probably smarter than I am. I'll confess once again that what I read maybe 30 years ago has likely forever damaged my sensibilities ("the raw, stump-busting power of the .44 Magnum..."), but I'll betcha if the same dude were to offer similar hyperbole today in an article of even vague interest I'd read it. Would I blow gaskets? Sure.

People like me never learn.

Ken,

Your getting a big heaping helping of what lawyers get everyday...everybody knows the law...except lawyers of course!

True in spades of the very few appraisals of guns that I've seen � long ago, now � in Consumer's Report.

� Consumer's Union didn't select the guns that were most likely to be of interest to shooters who were seriously concerned about performance, quality, and reliability.

� The evaluators didn't know guns well enough to know which features to evaluate.

� The evaluators didn't know how to evaluate the features that they considered.

Result: The Consumer's Report evaluations were totally, frustratingly useless to shooters. Total objectivity is fine, but not at the cost of pertinent familiarity. Some hobby or professional interest and knowledge ("bias") are necessary for an evaluation to be of any use to the shooter who might buy the product. Gun-writers are usually intensely interested in the products that we write about. Independent evaluators are not.

Also:

My experience indicates that the products that I get directly from the suppliers are 100% typical of what anybody with a checkbook or credit card can buy across any local counter. The skeptic can suspect careful selection and tuning all his suspicious little mind desires, but my experience argues vehemently that they occur only in the imagination of the skeptic.

All I stated are basic scientific reseach principles, practiced by every reputable scientist, worldwide. The opinions, presumptions and aspersions are yours, entirely.

Remseven, you are saying the same thing. The writer can be honest as the day is long (and I have no reason to "suspect" otherwise, nor do I imply otherwise), if the manufacturer cherry picks the goods, all that work is wasted. Garbage in, garbage out, as the computer boys say.

If someone wants to claim "unbiased" reporting, it takes more than personal integrity. It takes proper sampling.

Am I "suspcious" of manufacturers cherry picking? Yup! A good review is better than no review (there are no bad reviews). Does it happen all the time? I don't think so, but how am I, the little guy with my $5.00 in my pocket buying the magazine, to know which article is based on an average item, and which was the best out of 10 boxes the manufacturer opened? FWIW, Dutch.

Business relationships begin and develop, or end, between people, not companies.

You win some, and loose some, man to man. And without grudge, and then go on.

At least it seems so from where I stand, outside here on the jello.

.Mike

Dutch, my friend, your head is too high in the clouds to leave your feet firm on the ground. Haven't you read anything that I've posted here? Can't you imagine that I know more about all this from being in the middle of it for so long than you can accurately imagine by looking at it through a reversed telescope with rose-tinted lenses? How did you ever learn anything from somebody else?

Let me get this straight. If you are not a gun wrtiter, you are as dumb as a rock and don't know squat about guns, unbiased sampling or writing for a gun magazine. If you are a gun writer, you know it all about what it takes.

I believe the mention for Consumers Report was thrown in with the intention of showing how they acquire thier test article, not how they report.

I reiterate, it is time to throw out the BS flag.

There are a great number of folks on this forum who know a hell of a lot.

My final assumnption is that you, Mr Howell, got treated the way you did because of your attitude, if the contents of your post regarding this thread is any indication of the type of correspondence you have with the manufacturers. The old "I am right and everyone else is wrong and can go suck eggs" went out a long time ago

Ladies and gentlemen: I believe we are beating a live horse here. Most notably Ken. Ken: I think the common perception is that priviledge will introduce bias. A glance at the world and the corruption of perks surfaces in all sectors of society. You (and I apologize for using that term) may or may not be above that plain. I have no personal familiarity, so no justification what so ever for judgement either way. I will admitt my concern surfaced when the initial text inferred one was soliciting priviledge. Some of us might be jealous of that potential because we have less opportunity or are not in the proper circle. Others of us may worry about tainted reporting. Both of these realities and concerns will remain with society into infinity, and no amount of banter will resolve either issue. Admittedly, most of us at one time or another will take advantage of priviledge. Everyone of us here, with the likely exception of myself, can make constructive contributions to the many subjects discussed on this board. We are friends after all, and my best arguments have been with friends. I hope this does not degrade further. I would like more members here, not less. While some of us may not have come up with the ultimate quip yet, lets go on to more enjoyable and constructive banter. I think Ken should get in some final licks, and we all send peace and a hand shake around the board. I will check this thread one more time and not open it again. Ken, a handshake. 1Minute

From the outside looking in, the fact that a writer calls a company and asks to "buy" a rifle from them suggests that he's looking for a freebie, which is fine, but don't make it out that you're looking to outright buy one.

If I want a product, I buy it from a retailer like any other consumer.... and I my "review" is 100% without bias.

I view the products you "buy" as a tool for you to do your job, no different than your computer or your shooting bench.

I simply have trouble reading a "review" about a product that is only when the product is purchased factory direct (hinting at endorsement only when profitable).

What about the other good products out there... those that must be purchased over the counter? Readers deserve that much!

280_ACKLEY

Dr Howell and all,
I've learned a bit from this thread. Thank you.

I will offer my perspective again as a consumer...that it is often times perception that matters more than reality. Thank you for sharing the "reality" of gunwriters trying to get access to goods to review for our benefit. I believe that some of the others have shared the "perception" that some hold of product reviews and the challenges in coming away with valid fact and unbiased thoughts when that little man in the back of your head is wondering how the dots in the background are connected.

I recall a while back that there was a magazine called Gun-Test that was founded on a premise similar to what some have floated here; That to avoid the "appearance" of bias or undue influence, they would not accept industry advertising, would purchase the goods being reviewed as ordinary shooters would. I subscribed in years past and saw more than a few recommendations to NOT BUY. A recommendation that in conventional magazines I'm sure would have resulted in consequences from so named manufacturers. In fact it was no small validation of my "fan-dom" that one of my favorite writers had an article published in Gun-Test because now I "knew" he had passed muster with the editorial board as being unbiased!
http://www.gun-tests.com/performance/jun96cases.html

I read the gun magazines for pleasure. I read other things for work where industry bias is a real concern and disclosures are a standard part of each article. That may be one way to help with consumer "perception" in the more skeptical.

saddlesore, I don't think that is what was meant. I made a few fun posts regarding "insider knowledge" simply because in about every industry I've been involved in there has been a normal, routine way of doing things that from the outside can and often will feed suspicion regarding integrity and such. Bad things can happen in any field and they do. It's clear to me that Clay Harvey, for example, is not praised for his past performance.

That a gunwriter will correspond with a gunmaker shouldn't surprise us, nor should it seem odd that discussion of items and possible testing thereof would follow. With that comes price in one form or another.

Some great part of a fine gunwriter's work reflects his association with the manufacturers and that can be of great benefit to people like you and me.

This is a general comment on this thread, and not directed at any particular person. I can't figure out how to get rid of the [Re:] in the heading.

Anybody in a management position in the gun business, and related fields, where the objective is that the company make a profit, should know who Ken Howell is. He should also know what Ken Howell's reputation and competence are. Ken Howell should not need a photo ID and a letter from his mother. If this manager can't figure this out he should turn in his MBA and do and do something else for a living.

There have been, and will always be, individual writers who take advantage of their positions and abuse the system. Several of that type have been discussed on this forum. The bad ones make their bad reputations, just as the good ones make their good reputations. They can always be weeded out.

These matters should be handled in the real world by people with the experience to make good judgement calls, not in the theoretical world of a debating society.

How ridiculous!

I've tried to say simply that any gun-writer knows more about how his craft works than anyone else can possibly know about it without having tried it.

If you aren't a gun-writer, your skeptical conjectures about gun-writing are far less valid than what the gun-writer's experience has shown him to be the case. This point is no different from how invalid a child's concept of medical treatment is, compared to the knowledge, judgment, and experience of an old country GP.

Your deep, intimate, and detailed knowledge of guns can not possibly qualify you to guess accurately about how suppliers select the products that they send to writers.

And neither ridicule nor burlesque exaggeration is a substitute for fact or logic. Nor are they honest argumentation. Your ridiculous misrepresentation of my assertions exposes your unreasonable and unfounded bias, not mine.

Yes, but lawyers deserve it......grin

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Let me assure you my own hackles are still down. I am fully aware of the fact that some people think gun writers get VIP treatment from product makers, are given vast quantities of free stuff in return for "wink wink" objective reviews or product mentions - or that even the more honest of writers are subtly influenced by the generosity of suppliers.

I've tried to show a small slice of "our" side of the issue, not to defend gun writers, but to illuminate the real story just a bit. If I seem to be defensive either on my own behalf or the behalf of other writers, it's because of the sheer inanity of opinions voiced in this and other posts about gun writers.

To those who would espouse a theoretical ideal of how the gun writing business ought to be, may I very cordially invite you to enter the business yourself? If you can get published on a regular basis for several years using the ideal methodology you preach, more power to you and I'll give you my undivided attention to learn how you did it. But until then, I'd sooner listen to the wind blow. Because Ken is right: you may know a lot about guns or shooting, but you have no concept of the business of gun writing.

That's neither an insult nor a putdown, merely a fact. Most of you have no concept of the business of being a pilot, an architect or a ditch digger. And are as little qualified to judge how those businesses should be done.

Off of soap box.

I guess you could make an argument to that effect! Ken doesn't deserve it. And I see the same types coming out in judgement of his ethics, morals, and ability to be objective, and all on so little evidence, and some based solely on the fact that they can't call a manufacturer and get a freebie, so if Ken can and does, he's unethical. Im calling BS. He's not a cop or judge on the take...he's a writer for a publication, the manufacturers can make decisions to give away their product to anyone they choose...the smart bet is on someone that has the ability to reach many people to tell them about it.

However, all that being said, this thread as earlier stated was not about that, but Ken's being put on ignore by this company, and treated rudely. And I think he also said he was calling to buy, not ask for a freebie.

I believe you, Rocky. But never mind that stuff. The secret society you guys have... does it have funny handshakes and things of that sort? Codes? Decoder rings? Now that free guns are gone, I'm looking for something to motivate me to really get involved.

here's a tidbit to chew on:
joe gunwriter calls a company and asks, basically, to bypass the wholesaler and retail man, and pay the company directly. the company still makes a profit.
now, why do this?
joe gunwriter is not gonna review the sales process, so why should he pay a profit to the middlemen? joe's gonna review the product, period. using this method, joe is not tainted by association with a dealer.
it is a whole 'nother thing if joe calls a friendly retailer, gets the item at dealer cost, then mentions the dealer's name in the article that follows. got some disclosure and ethics issues there.
good grief, this thread went awry.
ken can take care of himself - big time.
i know that, but feel compelled to get his back anyhow, probably 'cause i know just a little bitty bit about the publishing business.

Well.............

It appears to me there are the two camps on this issue. Those that believe all writers are whores and those that are willing to accept how business is done. Don't think you'll convince either side to change their minds.

I find it hard to slam anyone's integrity when I don't know them personally.

I ask this question: How the Hell is a writer supposed to acquire all the wherewithal to put an article together unless (s) he's rich enough to buy the material and rag he's writing for (b) takes discounts where available and purchases the stuff, or (c) prostrates himself and begs for "freebies" in any and all manner?

(a) If the writer is wealthy enough to purchase every thing needed for an article he probably would be doing something else besides writing the articles.

(b) A person known to give both positive and negative reports on articles that come his way, either through purchase or "freebie" loan demonstrates character that is above the moral acceptance line and reports honestly on his findings.

(c) the scribe that never finds anything wrong with material, heaps outlandish praise upon the item and appears in photo's decked out head to toe in brand name apparel most likely sold his soul to the devil and should be given short shrift.

Of the gentlemen writers associated with this board, I've never harbored the (c) feelings toward any of them, and believe they fall into the (b) catagory.

As stated earlier, I think it's time to bring an end to this overcooked turkey.

Look, you gunwriters, I'm going to give you some time before I do the Sherlock thing and really dig into things. But when I do get going, folks, like I said before, the facts won't deter me one bit. (I'm like the NY Times that way!) Your secret society is soon to be exposed!

"From the outside looking in ... " � a very pertinent phrase! What I've tried to do is to show how it really is, seen from the inside, on the basic assumption that the view from the inside is always more accurate than the view from the outside � especially when the view from the outside is determined more by a bias formed before-hand, at a distance, than from actual close-up observation.

" ... the fact that a writer calls a company and asks to "buy" a rifle from them suggests that he's looking for a freebie, which is fine, but don't make it out that you're looking to outright buy one."

That's your "take," as you honestly indicate � but it isn't mine, and it isn't how the suppliers whom I know understand it. I call. I ask for a price, which is usually already a matter of company policy that varies from company to company. If there were a standard policy that were the same for all companies, I wouldn't have to ask every company that I contact. Some companies even publish lists of their prices for writers.

The basic concept of courtesy prices for writers is a long- and well established standard that varies only in specific dollar or percentage detail from one company to another. If asking for a price were a sneaky way to beg for a freebie, there'd be no such standard policy and no such list.

I've gotten many products direct from suppliers through the years because in many cases I wasn't able to find 'em locally.

I ask what that company's standard writer's price is for a certain product. My contact tells me. I order one and give him my Visa number, or I mail him a check and a copy of my current license if a copy of the license is required and I haven't sent him one already. The entire matter is a standard, straight-forward, every-day proposition � a completely normal business transaction, not begging, haggling, or negotiating. It's all very old-hat and ho-hum ordinary.

The supplier's designated writers' contact takes my order or refers me to sales � somebody, at any rate, at a desk. He sends a shipping order downstairs, and some nice Hispanic lady sticks my address label on a box that contains whatever product I've ordered. She doesn't have or take time to open the box or others just like it right there in the same location to see whether the product is run-of-the-mill or somehow better than that. That box goes into a waiting FedEx or UPS semitrailer at the loading dock, along with pallets of similar boxes that are on their way out to other purchasers.

The very few times when I've asked for "special selection," I haven't gotten it unless "special selection" was an advertised extra-cost option that I paid extra for. Twice, I got specially selected items without extra cost � handgun grips and stock blanks � when Steve Herrett and Frank Pachmayr let me pick through bins and racks of 'em for the woods that most pleased me. Twice. In over fifty years. Hardly a prevailing practice.

None of the above is distant conjecture or skeptical suspicion.

Another side of this coin is this: I had a writer for a well known magazine approach me with the idea to build a switch barrel combo of .308 and 6mm AI. He would furnish all the components, I would build it and he would write the article. He chose a Model 70 for the action and we went to work. He got the .308 and shot it. Wrote/called to say that it wasn't shooting as good as he'd hoped. He was not using wind flags (claimed he didn't need them) and stated that he had four shots in the 'ones. (.1xx) and the fifth shot blew out to almost 1/2 inch. Thought it needed rebedding. I tried to tell him that was good for a .308 that was not a full blown target rifle. In the end I rebedded that rifle FOUR times and there's never been a word printed about it yet.

Had another writer recently (in the past three weeks) call about doing some chambering for him. He wanted to come down and wait for me to do them. I explained, as nicely as I could, that I had others whose work had been here 2-3 months and I couldn't, in good conscience, run him in ahead of them. He said that he understood and would get back to me. I heard from a mutual friend that he was a little 'put out' and I wouldn't be hearing from him.

The third case happened to Charlie Hood, maker of the great Hood press. A writer approached him for a press to 'test' and it would get written up. There was no concern that the press would satisfy because it's the greatest press for loading at the range that's ever been. Charlie provided the press but to date, several years later, nary a word from the writer who, at last word, still had the press. This same writer approached a gunsmith who builds benchrest rifles and hit him up for a custom paint job on his benchrest stock stating that 'he would get a lot of business' from the paint job. The gunsmith declined.

None of the three mentioned here have ever posted, to my knowledge, on this forum. These anecdotes only are given to show that there is some reason for skepticism on the part of those standing on the Jell-o.

Good one, .280! Darn, now Igot to admit even lawyers have a sense of humor, LOL.

What is it you care to know? You think these writers are putting on some communist plot in code in their articles? Or are you just PO'd that you're not an "insider" that can deal directly with the manufacturers, get discounts, special items, freebies, etc? Writers can even have some bias and still be credible. I have no doubt the John Barsness, Ken Howell, have at times in their lives or all their lives had a preference for a certain item, manufacturer, product, etc. Whats wrong with that. What in the hell do you propose that you'll expose by "exposing gunwriters." Me thinks you take some things way to seriously. If you think one has done something to affect their credibility, then don't read them or dont believe them...its up to you...but its not some communist plot dude! Pretty much, I think you're just a little jealous of them, and their contacts, and ability to move about in an industry that you can only see through the retail outlets.

Good rant man!

And correct, not just for gunwriters but every other aspect in the arena of "common sense" issues.

The truth, .280Rem, is just about the very opposite of what you suggest. The post was made in jest. It was preceded by other posts of the same nature and those were actually clarified at one point.

If you want more definition from me after a re-read of the above posts, let me know.

aaaaaiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Sorry but I feel it is a safe ascertain that the vast majority if not all the �Gun Writers� regularly prostitute themselves as evidenced herein. We have seen in this thread statements made to the effect that the �product� no matter how much it would benefit Joe Q Public would not be mentioned in the writings of certain scribes resulting from a failure to provide some type of discounted �Most favored Customer� type pricing. The �Quid Pro Quo� adage was mentioned and while I appreciate the honesty that absolutely personifies the rational why I only read PS and VH!! Now we have established the �whore� part and the only thing that remains is the �price� part. Have some friends in the firearms manufacturing business that have told me some pretty ugly stories about some scribes over the years and the subject being discussed here so mark me down as on of the ardent skeptics.

The old saying goes like this:

�Be Advised---ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE, WAR, AND GUN DEALS�

can no one remember the theme of this thread was courtesy, not the pecadilloes of some gunwriters other than ken?
mercy.
there are abuses in every business, guys ...
mercy, again.

Boss Hoss, the good thing about this place is that it's a Campfire and not really a battleground of the worst order. Continue saying what you want to say and I'll read it, giving it my attention. It doesn't bother me that people disagree with me or I with them (I actually have friends who are totally out to lunch regarding their STUPID opinions of my stuff <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> but I don't let it bother me.

EDITED: (For flavor, if nothing else.) I still expect the gunwriters speak in code and do other things like that when they're just by themselves. You can't fool me! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Why would a gunwriter come here to post?

Fellas, Ken is stating his honest appraisal of the gunwriter business from the standpoint of many years in the business.

Why would anyone impune his credibility and basically tell him he is full of shiite. This thread started out with reasonable doubts, beliefs and opinions but has degenerated into non-gunwriters telling gunwriters how it is.

I need shoulder surgery in December, anyone care to tell the surgeon how to perform the surgery...........................

Really and truly, 41Keith, the "secret handshake" is performed thusly when two gun writers meet:

Each one cups a hand behind the same-side ear, leans forward a tad, squints and says, "HUH?"

"My position is just an adamant refusal to be used by a supplier to his advantage despite his rudeness. If he figures that he doesn't want or need whatever I can provide, I'm not going to use any time and effort to provide it. Why should I crawl into a supplier's stove to keep his house warm?"


The reader is the customer and the sole reason the scribes exist. As the customer I have very high expectations with what I pay to read and this tells me that the ego of some will not allow my best interests to be served. I have been advised. Not trying to be ugly just making light of what has been said.

Thanks a lot, Rocky! I just knew if I kept the pressure on the "society" would permit someone to give me a break with this one.

(I might have a deal on hearing aids I could pass on, but let's keep that between ourselves for the moment, okay? It's a volume thing, so you'll have to give me the numbers.)

Granite can be cracked, which makes granite so much more useful than opinionated brains.

Doctor Johnson wrote that the value of travel � for seeing at first hand versus imagining from afar � "is to regulate imagination by reality, and instead of thinking how things may be, to see them as they are" [emphasis added].

One of the silliest Westerns that I've ever seen � watched part of on TV and nearly lost my lunch � was, I found-out later, made by the Brits from a book written by a German who'd never been to the States. Logical. The Brits and the Germans know everything (including us) better than we do.

Was it Ambrose Bierce, in The Devil's Dictionary, who defined being opinionated as "being wrong at the top of your voice?" I can't remember for sure who wrote it, but he was right on.

I'm not gonna say whom I almost asked, above, "Did you have to teach your mother how to squat 2 P, or did she already know more about it than you did?"

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Well said.

I'll offer something else, Ken, along these very lines. It seems to me that some tend to consider you an old duff who's a whole lot more fragile than you really are as a man.

You're a tough old coot, Howell. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Corollary: why would those who distrust us so rigidly come here to see what we say?

Some of that might be normal, Ken. The young bulls test the older ones. Dominance can pay a dividend, you know.

Regarding Johnson, one favorite mention of his wit was encapsulated in the mention of his response to a detractor. He said she was "fundamentally sound."

It didn't escape some that he referred more to her intestinal constipation than anything else.

That subtlety seems long ago lost these days.

My favorite example of instantaneous wit in real life was PM Benjamin Disraeli's retort to his much less witty nemesis in Parliament (whose name I can never remember, so I call him "Lord Starchblood"). In response to the taunt that he was doomed to die from either the hangman or the plague, Disraeli shot back "That, Sir, will depend on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

A close second is the anonymous Englishman who (in court!) called a duchess a pig. The judge said he couldn't do that.

"May I call a pig a duchess?"

The judge said that he could. The man turned to face the duchess.

"Hello, Duchess."

Isn't that wonderful stuff? It's simply sweet.

Instead of editing my reply, I'd rather respond to it. Some of the finest writing is more sweet and sour than sweet alone. Some, although beautiful, is purely sour.

Some cooks have a knack for this and others have a knack for that. One might as well ask how to spell Jambolia, or Jambalaya.

MColeman, your post is too good to be ignored or passed over.

It deserves a fine response. It deserves several apologies as well, but it doesn't seem you'll get them from the people involved.

Everyone is human.

I can be damned hard on people who stiff gunsmiths.

Mickey, what I wrote in the last post wasn't done carelessly. I meant it. I mean it. If you'll give names, I'll be decent but hard in pursuing the concerns you mentioned.

It'd be better if the fellows were to police themselves here, but if I'm all you've got, I'm game for it. I'm one of the nicest SOB's around...

My guess is Mickey don't play that way. Let the shame be on the on the bad apples and allow Mickey his integrity.

Steelhead, I expect your take on this is spot-on, entirely accurate. Good advice. I'll shut up.

Ken,

Having been ignored by several manufacturers when requesting a product for review (always on consignment terms), I know full well how annoying it can be. I can graciously accept a refusal for whatever reason, but having a request ignored is simply rude and unprofessional.

One specific occurance that still chaps my bottom was a certain new optics manufacturer I had stumbled upon at the 2005 SHOT Show. Having looked over their products and spoken with their representative for a fair amount of time, I felt what they were offering was innovative and something that many of my readers would be interested in.

Upon returning from the show I tried numerous times to contact this manufacturer to arrange receiving one of their products. Several unanswered emails, numerous unreturned phone calls, and even a certified letter via snail-mail to confirm receipt. Not once did I ever get a response out of them.

Needless to say I no longer have any interest or desire to have anything to do with products from that manufacturer. If they can't respond to a phone call or an email inquiring about their products, just imagine how horrible their customer service would be like after the sale?

This is a generalization, not aimed at one person. Maybe it it the name of this thread that has everyone all worked up. Maybe it should have been how not to treat a CUSTOMER! Gee, you're a writer, and you got lousy service and couldn't get things at a discount. Guess what, welcome to our world.

The gun writers seem to be the only ones that won't say anything bad about a product. I've read it a bunch on here. You try a product out and it is crap, doesn't work or is of shoddy quality. You guys give them a chance to make it right, or you don't say anything at all. Maybe you are not on the take, but that gives the impression you are. I read magazines on my other hobbies; flying, scuba diving and cars. All these other publications seem to have no problem bashing a product. Hold the industry folks to a high standard, demand it. If they turn out junk, call it junk.

You may say that we are not in the writing industry, and dont understand how it works. You're right, we don't. We end up buying the POS products that you put high praise on or won't say a bad word about. Remember, we are your customer. Keep up the bad service, and watch your subscription numbers drop. This is just the opinion of someone who is not in the gun writing industry.

Curtis,
I appreciate it but in the instance of the Hood press my dog warn't in that fight and the other two I'm just not comfortable giving out names. Scripture tells us to 'mark those that cause division among you' and I have them 'marked'. Not for revenge, mind you, but just being 'wary as a serpent' while remaining 'harmless as a dove'.

If a little money is involved I don't worry about it. I really detest shabby treatment. Somebody once said, "If money will solve your problems, you ain't got any problems."
That's true to my way of thinking. I'm not rich so far as money goes but I do have two nickles to rub together these days.

Ken - May not belong here, but putting up anyway.

After all of the slapping around Clair Rees has taken at some times on this forum, would suggest everyone here go read his piece in Wolfe on review of Tauraus "Gaucho" revolvers.

Then come back to post your "critique". Read ALL of it, including the sidebars.

My critique: Article seems matter-of-fact, straightfoward, he reveals his weaknesses at evaluation, knows where to source for help to evaluate, resolves the problem, and reports a fair in-depth degree of his methods.

So I tend to believe what he reported, and would take his findings as fact, especially what to look for if I were purchasing product.

He also gives enough information that you can visiually see the quality of product, and if you can't see the obvious product quality, why would you even buy THAT item.

As Dutch mentioned previously, if your too stupid realize that is an example of one (or even a few samples), then probably no evaluation can help other than your own.

And yeah, I've been there, my stupid!!!

I was briefly concerned that Mule Deer's upbeat review of the Lee Loader may have been tainted by Lee's having rewarded him with a lifetime supply of them little contraptions, but now feel reassured that such was not the case.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Purchased a Lee Loader in 1978. When it wasn't conventient for me to head over to a bud's place and use his RCBS equipment, used to stuff my own 22-250 loads with the Lee. Eventually acquired my own "real" reloading gear and got away from the Lee, but have been using part of that gizmo to neck size my 22-06 cases for the past few years.

Mule Deer's article brought back some good memories of the days when I was still tappin' with the nylon mallet and learning the trade, one round at a time.

The Lee Kit Loaders are neat little outfits. Have a friend who uses one exclusively for his hunting, practice, and yep he can smoke you with his groups sometimes, (thank goodness for sometimes, LOL). I tease him a lot, and he just goes on with his thing, and it is right for him.

By the way most of his practice stuff he dips powder, and I checked him out with scales. He has no problem staying with and under two tenths grain with his choice of powder. Tells me it is a secret technique he learned from reading Sam Fadala, LOL!!! Don't know if he is on the level there or not, anywhere he got it from, it works.

I've been using Lee dippers (mostly with extruded powders), for over 25 years - but don't tell anyone lest I become the object of someone's ridicule. I'm too old and sensitive to abide much criticism.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

New loads go through the process of careful weighing vs dipped loads in the trial process, but once a load has proven itself, the dipped version is the one that goes afield. Other than a few handgun loads that are near max and thrown with an old Ideal powder measure, most of the rifle loads come from them awful little yeller scoops and none are close to a max load. I do still weigh, scoop and compare from one powder lot to another though, just in case.

I once timed a batch of dipper-charged rifle cartridges and compared the results to my bud's use of his RCBS measure for the same cartridge and similar IMR powder, (4064 vs 3031). Turned out it didn't take me any longer than it did him and my 22-250 loads were every bit as accurate as his were. I cut no corners in the interest of speed, as I still eyeball every case multiple times prior to bullet seating and anything that doesn't look right, gets dumped and recharged.

A repetitive procedure is all that's needed to use dippers once the research part is over, but some can't seem to develop the technique well enough to comfortably load with dippers.

Wow! Have I learned a lot on these couple of threads. I have a few published articles and did not know you got paid for such. I always thought a gun writer was born with a golden spoon so he could do all these things needed. And the writing was more of an ego trip of what he could do.

This has been a very interesting discussion. I only wish I had seen it before so that I could have participated before now. It�s really been fascinating to me how defensive some of the gun-writers have become over this post. For example, calling others� opinions �less firm than Jell-O� while insisting on the veracity of one�s own is a particularly dumb way to debate the merits of an idea. It�s cute but still dumb. Such a person would seem to want to imply that writing about guns was such a highly specialized field that no one who wasn�t doing it themselves could ever have a legitimate point to make. The comparison was made relating to asking some lay-person to tell a physician how to do a surgery. Now, I may not be a physician but, I sure can tell when I'm dealing with one who is worth his salt. I also can teach a physician a thing or two about dealing with his customers.

I have a couple of thoughts on this topic; first related to the practice of �friendly� pricing of products and then, relating to the idea of reviews and magazine articles in general.

My uncle had an interesting experience about 15 or so years ago. Although not a writer, he held a position that gave him the opportunity to receive a binocular for �testing and review.� The optic in question was a 10x25 Zeiss binocular. This binocular retailed for something like $300. He was told to put it through its paces and instructed that he could return it whenever he was done. A full three years later he finally got around to taking the binocular back. He had decided that he really liked the optic and wanted to buy it so, he inquired as to his price. It was $50. Now that truly is �friendly� pricing.

Now, I�m not saying that writers get this kind of deal but, they do get �friendly� pricing on most of the things they receive for review. What�s more, the exact nature/degree of this special pricing is not exactly public knowledge. This naturally makes easy fodder for rumor and speculation and is probably the source of the majority of feelings relating to the notion of a potential �quid pro quo� expectation.

Now about reviews in general:

One of the things I have noticed about writers (and a �few� other kinds of people) is that they have seemingly developed some notion that they should be able to eat � preferably on a regular basis. Their families also seem to have this same insane expectation. This in turn, means the writer must publish something � again preferably on a similarly regular basis. Two potential obstacles to this plan for regular publishing are: 1. editors and publishers and 2. the manufacturers of whatever product.

Let�s pretend that I am a writer in a popular magazine. Let�s also say that a brand-name rifle maker sends me their newest, most innovative offering (I�ll let you imagine the details.) Here is a product that has involved a great deal of R&D, labor, cost, and advertising. They send the gun to me because I am going to use it on a sponsored hunt and write about it for my magazine. Let�s also suppose that I don�t like the gun and I write a scathing article in which I describe everything that is wrong with this weapon and state at the end that no one should buy it. Obstacle #1 will come into play here as few (if any) editors/publishers are going to print such an article. They rely heavily on advertising dollars and printing my article is sure to scare plenty of companies from spending money on their publication. Thus, they most surely will require (at the very least) a complete rewrite from me.

If by some miracle my article did get published, obstacle #2 will come barreling down full force. Having seen my scathing review how long do you think it will take for the manufacturer (and probably a host of its peers) to black ball me from receiving any more products to review or invitations to participate in sponsored hunts?

This is why I believe you rarely see much in the way of real critical, objective, scientifically valid reviewing done in magazine articles. This is also why, for example, magazines (and even just individual writers) don�t establish standard, regular test procedures for each type of product tested against which all similar products can be objectively evaluated. Instead each author comes up with an individualized battery of tests for each specific review that will allow him the best chance at finding something positive to say. We are to simply defer to the author�s wisdom and experience in selecting these tests. This is why we so often read such phrases as, �accuracy was adequate for the intended uses of this gun� rather than an objective assessment of the guns real accuracy as tested on a standardized format or, �this binocular was bright, clear, and showed good resolution� without doing actual measuring of these factors and publishing how the optic actually performed. It�s not that writers, editors, and publishers are being dishonest. It�s just that they recognize the need to stay in business so; they try to find the best (rather than the worst) things about various products to report on.

Generally I have found that when I treat all magazine copy as just long versions of advertising copy, I tend to come out ahead of the game. I love reading about the new stuff on the market but, I don�t for one second presume that the writers of these articles represent some bastion of integrity and trust that puts them above question or reproach or that their reviews are to be heralded as canonical fountains of objective reasoning.

My reply here is simply a "bump to top."

The good thing about this place is that the gunwriters respond. The bad thing I know I can easily be a part of is not doing my homework. Some of what we seek is already here. Searching the archives will often work.

as if all this really mattered..............

My last article involved finding a range that would let me turn off the lights and shoot night sights against plain sights. Most ranges wouldn't do that. The owner asked me what was in it for him. I said I'd pay for the range time out of pocket and write the article. Or, if he wanted to participate, I'd write the article and mention his fine facility (it was fine). As it turned out, he loved being mentioned in the article and it saved me about $20 bucks of range time. Now, I have a place to shoot if I have a favorable query response, and several employees who want to get photographed for a magazine while holding and shooting guns. What's more, the range has about 100 different rental guns I can use as well. It's a freebie. At the same time, I do not go to that range for personal reasons. Not even once, without paying for it. The only time I'll accept the freebie is if I'm working on something that an editor wants to see. Every other time, I'm merely a customer.

I've read some interesting stuff here; some of it perfectly, rediculously and maybe deliberately confrontationally aimed at a writer who simply wanted to offer clarification. If a writer asks for a sample of ammunition to use during an evaluation of a rifle, merely mentioning brand X ammo during the article is not doing the company more than a little free advertising, particularly if there is a chart of the accuracy results that demonstrates where brand X fell on the ladder in comparison to the other brands.

I get a kick out of some of the articles I read, however. Paragraphs like: "I readied my X-brand rifle after firmly seating my X-brand headset and my X-brand shooting glasses, and carefully readied my trigger finger lovingly encased in X-brand shooting gloves available from X-retail store, before putting 10 rounds downrange into an X-brand target held steady by X-brand target stand. As my old legs won't take the repeated trips to the target, my X-brand spotting scope tells me what adjustments I need to make to my X-brand rifle scope secured by X-brand rings and bases."

That maybe too many freebies!

Dan

OK, like everyone else I read through the whole thread...

I'm prepared to believe that manufacturers do NOT hand pick products they know will be tested.

I'm also prepared to believe that writers will NOT be influenced at some level to offer favorable reviews to products provided at a discount, or else that a writer ALREADY likes the products they request so any additional added bias doesn't matter.

However if some kid did a science project based upon similar assumptions it would be summarily tossed out forthwith.

OK, so gunwriting is in part subjective and not meant to be science.

For the rest of it, the sentiment....

"They weren't courteous to me so I won't mention their product at all"...

....is perfectly OK as a personal choice on the writer's behalf, but as a reader I guess I won't be finding out about that particularly fine product in that article, and will be therefore less well-informed than I might have been.

Don't write about 'em if ya want, but neither try to sell that decision here as virtue.

Business maybe, but not virtue.

Birdwatcher

There won't be any "that article," Birdy, and you'll see plenty of hype about that particularly fine product* in print � just not from me, and not by my choice alone.

*which I believe so much that I spent $x,xxx to buy one from an authorized dealer, BTW. I'll enjoy using it in my work, and you'll see in my work excellent results from my use of it � so you and I will benefit from my use of it, but you'll have to get the hype from somebody else. (I know one writer whom the company gave one, which I didn't ask for or expect. I'll let him tell the world how wonderful it is.)

The notion of virtue never once entered my mind, Birdy. My post is just an ordinary guy's report that I thought might let some interested Campfire folk see that the companies don't bow and scrape for writers but on the contrary, sometimes treat us like barnyard scrapings. So much, I figured that some here would like to see, for the notion that the big companies fall all over themselves to make sure that they're keeping the writers happy. Likewise, I thought that some here would like to see, so much for the notion that all writers are pimps or touts for the companies.

I just didn't suspect that suspicion about my motives was lurking so close in so many minds, so ready to promptly attribute meanness, pettiness, or sleaziness to me. My stupidity lay in assuming that Campfire folk come to this forum to learn writers' "take" on one thing and another, not to psychof--k imagined personality flaws with cheap shots at guys whom they've never known and don't have any respect for.

Dr. Howell,

Don't know many guys that won't take a "freebie" when given the chance. It just doesn't happen to many of us and I suspect ENVY is eating up those who complain the most.

I do come to this forum to read the professional's take on things and appreciate it very much. Like everything else, there is much more to any story than the headline ... and you guys provide the back story. Soldier on and let not your heart be weary. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Ken... With all due respect, I'm not sure how else you could expect one to interpret...



Other than, "they didn't extent me any reasonable consideration, therefore I won't mention 'em at all."

As for the rest of it...



Point of fact I didn't imagine ANYTHING you would write or have written to be mere "hype", even if they had PAID you to write the stuff.

Second time you've slammed my motives in the most demeaning terms. The first was a reference some time ago to "hysterical twistery" on my part without any specifics to back it up. Now you accuse me of "psychof--k imagined personality flaws with cheap shots"...

Talk about a lack of respect.

Birdwatcher

Edited in: Ken, I don't mind being despised. Just don't expect it in return. It ain't worth getting upset over.

You're taking personally comments that referred collectively to a number of people. Cool down. Look around. You're not the only one whom I've been answering or referring to.

My phrase ""psychof--k imagined personality flaws with cheap shots" refers to a general trend of cheap shots taken at me by a number of hostile people and isn't focused on any one person.

I haven't been slamming motives that don't seem abundantly obvious in the posts that I'm referring-to collectively and generally � seldom specifically and personally.

One other thought � if it's acceptable for others to conclude from my posts that I'm arrogant, biased, senile, and whining, or in some other way mean-spirited or petty, don't their posts entitle me to comment on their motives according to what they post about me?

At any rate, my friend, if you haven't meant to be offensive, I regret having seemed to "slam" you personally.

IMHO, emotional negative discussions of strangers' personalities and their imagined flaws aren't what this forum is here for. Ad hominem "arguments" are patently foolish attempts to circumvent facts and/or logic that the "arguers" can neither accept nor answer. This false "logic" makes it seem that those who stoop to use it either can not understand or can not honestly answer whatever it is that they don't want to accept or tolerate.

You're not the only person who'll read this, Birdy, so to all who may, let it be known that I will no longer let personal insults and attacks go unanswered or necessarily answered more politely than the insults and attacks deserve. I'm not the ball of sleaze that some choose to think that I am, and I won't put-up with insinuations and allegations that I am. Bash me all you like, but don't expect to be exempt or immune from fierce resistance.

Every post in this thread that has attributed low motives, tendencies, traits, or intent to me has been as inaccurate as it has been insulting.

I hope that this statement is clear � and easily understandable � to all who read it.

Olive branch gratefully accepted, and offered in return tenfold <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> Personal offense was not my intent either.

Regards,
Birdwatcher