Ahh... Some "information" from a Gun Magazine.

[Colt Delta Elite]

A .45 fan here, but wait a minute....

Here's a hypothesis: many people with 9mm handguns have them because of logistics. Ammo is cheaper, recoil is less, capacity is higher. They are not necessarily "fans" of the nine.
A much higher percentage of those with .45 A.C.P. handguns have them because they love the .45 A.C.P. They are willing to accept lower capacity, higher ammo cost, etc. for a reason. Maybe that's what he was referring to?

What a stretch....
Boy, is this a case of trying to create "facts" to fit an assumption, or what? Generally, assertions are made based upon some type of data. What possible documentation exists showing folks reluctantly buy 9's for their practicality but they inherently dislike them, while a greater # of people purchase 45's in spite of their "shortcomings" out of some emotional affection.

Go look at the ardent followers for each in a "9 versus 45" thread!

And even accepting what you allege, all the 9mm guns and all the 9mm rounds sold for them should not be counted towards popularity, but the .45 vote should count more?

 

[birdshot]

i think saspic is exactly correct. i often shoot my nine because of ammo cost, when i would rather be shooting my 45. it is the same with 22lr.

 

[Magyar]

I will reserve my comments until DP enters the fray.....

 

[allenomics]

Editors of these magazines need to demand, especially from freelancers, better writing, accuracy and a willingness to check facts.

Obvioulsy, the push back is that publishers need to court advertisers, the very companies who are often the subject of the reviews.

Wouldn't it be interesting for these magazines to tell us the three worst guns, of 2008, ammo, scopes, etc. and why?

There also needs to be a clearer deliniation between a news report and opinion.

If "Consumer Reports" edited some of these magazines, we'd all be better for it and gun and accessory makers would be forced to make better products.

Let the sun shine on the facts and let us make intelligent decisions. The gun magazine that does that will get my subscription.

 

[Tamara]

Other than SWAT, the only ones I ever buy anymore are Shotgun News and American Handgunner, and the latter mostly just to look at the pictures.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I subscribe to SWAT - the others I glance at or read in Barnes and Noble with a cup of Yuppie coffee. I also get the American Rifleman but that's part of the NRA membership. The collector mags are sometimes interesting.

As far as cliches - does the word ULTIMATE on the cover ring a bell?

I do sometimes buy a Combat Handguns if Mas has a story I want to reference in some project.

 

[Sarge]

JohnK

The author apparently believes that this full-sized semi-auto with a "5 inch match grade" barrel should be tested at SEVEN yards. Yup, a whole 21 feet. So, all you folks willing to spend $1500 on this semi-custom pistol are no doubt extremely happy to know that it will keep all its shots under 2" at 7 yards. The best group was an "impressive five-shot string that measured only 1.5 inches" at seven yards. Wow.

Brother, you just hit a real sore spot with me. I am from the generation of folks influenced by gunwriters like Skeeter and Askins, etc. who could actually shoot. They made groups like that, and smaller, at 25 yards with the factory offerings of the day.

Hell, a smoothborre Daisy BB gun will usually keep "its shots under 2" at 7 yards". I have a mildly-accurized Auto-Ord WWII 1911, with the factory pipe, that will put 5 WW/USA 230 JHP's in under 2"- with 4 of them inside an inch:

What's sad about all this is that many of today's new shooters simply haven't been exposed to the likes of Skelton or Askins, or serious shooters of any stripe; so they have no idea that they are being fed fertilizer on the subject of acceptable handgn accuracy.

 

[Sevens]

I started buying gun magazines in 1988. I eventually subscribed to Guns & Ammo. Back then, there were no online discussion forums. Today, I get from TFL what I used to get from G&A. Back then, you either read magazines or you hung out at a Sportsman's Club. (I did both)

These days, the magazines are more for catching the eye of someone new to the hobby or maybe to draw someone in who knows nothing about it. In that sense, they are a good thing and they ought to cater to that audience. Frankly, the more new shooters we can find, the better, for certain, for our cause.

I don't subscribe any more. I do read through my old issues, but I do it for leisure. The 'net has changed the magazine industry greatly. I've read recent issues on occasion and I come away unimpressed. $15 a year is chicken feed, the money isn't stopping me from subscribing. I just don't see the attraction of them the way I did before the internet. I'm a die-hard handloader and I likely get more enjoyment out of the bench than I do from actually shooting. (sounds odd, but this is somewhat common) So I picked up an issue of Handloader magazine last year and prepared myself for an upcoming subscription. Figured it would be my new favorite thing. Well, it wasn't. It was completely forgettable. I haven't bought another.

Still remember my first ever gun magazine. It was mid-88 and Guns & Ammo, the one with the HK P7 on the cover. P7 guys must remember that issue! The next dozen magazine I bought were any one I could find with a feature article on 10mm or the Delta Elite. Still have them all. Remember Handguns Quartely?

 

[DPris]

Mag,
Nope, DP is tired of the fraying.
Been emailing John privately & having a friendly positive & mutually respectful discussion. I don't get the impression from him that he started the thread to open up the whole can of BS again.
Frankly, I'm tired of explaining things to people who already have their minds made up, regardless of whether they know anything about the ins & outs of the business or not.
So, Mag, if you want to keep it going, fray on, dude, I have better things to do.
Denis

 

[Magyar]

Frankly, I'm tired of explaining things to people who already have their minds made up, regardless of whether they know anything about the ins & outs of the business or not.
So, Mag, if you want to keep it going, fray on, dude, I have better things to do. Denis

Just teasing a little...You've always had your "radar up" on similar posts. Actually, I agree with you.

 

[Archie]

Have to agree with Sarge

I remember many of the 'old' gunwriters like Skeeter and Crazy Elmer (removing hat as I say his name) and Bill Jordan.

For that matter, I shoot in NRA 2700 competition (Sharpshooter). In my world, 'rapid fire' is five shots in ten seconds at 25 yards. The nine ring is six inches wide or so.

Okay, even if gunfights occur at seven yards and less, any handgun worth putting in a holster has to be able to keep a four inch group or less at 25 yards, minimum. My own standard is my sidearm has to be able to deliver a head shot at 50 yards. No, I don't have to do it often, but that's my level of comfort.

But then I hear guys who are delighted they can keep '... all the shots on a pie plate at ...' what amounts to powder burn range.

One fellow at a range - who happens to be a lawman - said something about how he was '... all tactical...' meaning he shot bursts in the general direction of the target from my observation. I asked if I could try his pistol, one of the plastic wonder blasters, and he said, "Sure".

So I loaded one round in a magazine, chambered a round and fired a one-handed offhand shot plugging his silouette center of the head. I put his pistol down on the bench and asked, "What's so un-tactical about hitting what you want to hit the first time?" And resumed my bullseye work.

Sarge, you ain't alone. Shooting still involves more than pulling a trigger. But it takes application and dedication.

 

[JohnKSa]

I don't get the impression from him that he started the thread to open up the whole can of BS again.

Nope. I didn't name authors and I didn't even name the magazine because I didn't intend this to turn into a food fight.

The magazine is one to which I subscribe (I pay them my hard earned money to send it to my door), and out of all the articles in that particular issue, those two were really the only two that stood out. The rest of the magazine was reasonably entertaining and relatively informative. In fact, even the two articles I commented on still had some interesting points.

I've got kind of a soft spot in my heart for the gun rags. When I first started learning about firearms, I had no resource to draw on--no one in my family was interested in guns and I had no friends with any useful knowledge or experience. For about 2 years I read every single firearms periodical I could lay my hands on from cover to cover. After about 2 years, I had enough knowledge to realize which magazines were worth the money and which ones were a waste of my time. I also had learned enough to find other printed resources and to locate experts to learn from.

People can learn a lot from magazine articles, but one can't expect that everything in each magazine or each article is going to be fully accurate and objective. Sorta like anything written by a human being...

 

[Sarge]

Thanks, Archie.

The gun I carry these days is no target pistol. It has a 4 1/2 pound trigger and will keep 5 rounds of either 200 LSWC's or WW/USA 230 JHP's in 4" at 50 yards.* This is what I consider basic service pistol accuracy; sufficient for a rested head shot at 50 yards if need, time and opportunity ever require it. I thank God every day that they don't.

The aforementioned level of accuracy is also just enough to keep recreational shooting pretty interesting. I am far from a bullseye ace but ever since this exercise in '06, I have been doing a lot more offhand shooting with my carry gun. The unexpected result is that I can shoot it about as well one handed now as I can with both hands, and at speeds approaching what I would have attempted before with both. Not always mind you, but often enough that I can tell it's not a fluke. Mike Cumpston, a fine shot and a writer I respect greatly, has noted this himself.

I think this is because shooting a particular gun one-handed just begins to feel natural over time. My dept. qualified yesterday (indoors) and I caught myself shooting one-handed to the furthest distance we shot, which was about 50 feet. I didn't have any trouble keeping up and chewed the middle out of a 14-1/2 x 21-1/2 reduced B27. As they moved the targets in I forced myself to shoot with both hands, unless weak-hand etc. was called for; but I could tell I wasn't gaining much by doing it.

Oh, I don't kid myself about the need for speed at at spitting distance I still practice the yank & blast drills. I'm not quite as fast as Lurper on those, nor as accurate as a bullseye ace on the deliberate shooting. I have reached a point where I'm real comfortable with either style of shooting, and able to switch back & forth in one session.

Now the trick is to just get better

*Ross Seyfried won a world championship with what he called a 'worn out' pistol that would group about 6" at 50 yards. Ross however could put the center of that group exactly on top of his front sight, at any speed he needed to do it. As always- It's the Indian, not the arrow, that makes the shot.

 

[DPris]

John,
When I was MUCH younger, that's how I learned a hell of a lot about guns in general. I had no family members to learn from.
For the two years I was stationed in England & only had access to military hardware, I literally read every gun mag I could find in the BX & greatly looked forward to new issues of everything as they arrived.
Denis

 

[RJM]

Frankly, if a gun rag writer is talking accuracy, I think that gun needs to be put into a ransom rest or a benchrest and fired for a couple hundred rounds at least. Then, those results can be mulled over, graphed, photographed and printed. If not, all you are doing is testing how the guy shoots, and frankly I don't give one hootin' hell how that guy shoots. What I want to know is hard numbers of the gun's potential and testing standards with regards to accuracy and function.

Feel of the trigger, feel of the grip, felt recoil and how the gun works, what the finish is like, sights and fit of the gun are all something I will happily read a writer's OPINION.

 

[Phast12]

Frankly, if a gun rag writer is talking accuracy, I think that gun needs to be put into a ransom rest or a benchrest and fired for a couple hundred rounds at least. Then, those results can be mulled over, graphed, photographed and printed. If not, all you are doing is testing how the guy shoots, and frankly I don't give one hootin' hell how that guy shoots. What I want to know is hard numbers of the gun's potential and testing standards with regards to accuracy and function.

Feel of the trigger, feel of the grip, felt recoil and how the gun works, what the finish is like, sights and fit of the gun are all something I will happily read a writer's OPINION.

I couldn't agree with you more. Its hard to find articles that contain more information than I can get for myself by stopping by a gun shop and fondling a gun for 5 minutes.

 

[P-990]

JohnKSa,

This isn't the same magazine where one writer goes on about how the bore-axis of DA/SA autos is going to be higher than other designs, and then goes on to say that the 1911 has the lowest bore-axis of all? If it is, then I think I know which one you're talking about. (I can't recall if it was the same article or two different reviews. Heck, it might have been 2 different rags.)

Sometimes after reading some of these reviews, I am ashamed of even wanting to be writer or any sorts. 25-foot and 7-yard accuracy tests, offhand, with "good" groups of 2-3"? Slowfire? Gimme a break!

 

[curmudgeon1]

I stopped buying gun magazines when the prices went from $4.95 to $7.95 last year.

 

[JohnKSa]

This isn't the same magazine where one writer goes on about how the bore-axis of DA/SA autos is going to be higher than other designs, and then goes on to say that the 1911 has the lowest bore-axis of all?

I remember reading that article, but I can't remember if it was in the same magazine.

 

[Mike40-11]

Whew, inch and a half at 7 yards....
This is FM23-35 (1911A1 field manual) from 1940:

That's what was expected of bone stock issue 1911s. 1.7" groups at twenty-five yards, 2.7" at fifty.
FM23-35

Those who expect so little out of their gun will never realize what it (and they) can do with practice.