How on earth do those guys ever get such a cushie job? I just watched Guns & Ammo TV where Dick Metcalf attemped to answer the question "why are some bullet weights so popular in some calibers". He said it was generally the weight which was first intorduced, well OK so far. But then he tried to trace the .38 caliber 158 grain bullet back to cap & ball revolvers, claiming that "was about the weight of a .375 round ball". Well, I can excuse him not knowing a .375 roundball weighs only about 80 grains but you would think anyone with half a brain should deduce that a ball is much lighter than a conical bullet of nearly the same diameter. I also saw him fumble around the question of why .38 caliber bullets became .357" diameter. The man is a total dunce. But he sure has a great job!

I’m not a gunwriter but I have heard it does not pay very well.
My displeasure is not so much with the gunwriters as it is with the advertising agencies. I am thinking about the .327 Federal thread here. The .327 Federal will probably make a reasonable defense cartridge in short barreled revolvers. The cartridge does not need the “hype” to sell it as the most powerful self defense cartridge to ever be chambered in a short barreled revolver. A good ad or magazine review with details of what the cartridge will do and why it is a good choice for a carry revolver would help fuel a sensible debate on the new cartridge.

There are three active gunwriters posting on the Beartooth forum, PreditorAK, Rocky Raab and Terry Murbach. They may be able to add thoughts to this. I don’t understand why every new cartridge has to be the best ever and obsolete all others. I enjoy reading about, and sometimes buying the new cartridges. There is a place for most of them and I have no beef with a new cartridge that does not interest me personally. I just don’t understand the “ad agency” gun and cartridge reviews. If we look at the questions being asked on the forum there appears to be a number of small article suggestions. Color codes on military ammunition and the proper shooting stance for lever-action rifles come to mind immediately. Does anyone remember Herb Parsons demonstrating the Model 71 while shooting aerial targets? Herb demonstrated the proper hold of the lever action rifle and impressed us by breaking several clay birds thrown in the air.
<o:p></o:p>
While it is obvious to any of us who have studied the cap and ball revolvers that Dick Metcalf did not appear to know what he was talking about – in this instance – I have been interviewed and questioned once or twice and have been known to make a few statements I would like to retract after I saw them played back or read as a transcript. Occasionally we attempt to make things simple and complicate them instead. Some days I am pretty happy I don’t have cable or satellite TV.

I have a lot of respect for Craig Bottington, but you will note that he is not normally seen in writing reviews of new rifles and cartridges. Bottington is pretty much a "tell it like it is" kind of guy. I don't think he would be receptive to "taking direction" from manufacturers.

I'm a little disturbed that the NRA's "National Rifleman" seems to have a lot of articles on new firearms and cartridges that fit into this category.

Boddington loves the Lazzorni rifles, but then again, they are right up his alley for high volume cases moving bullets fast.

Think Mike Venturo (sp?) is another "tell it like it is" sort of guy and enjoy reading him. Rick Jamison was the same, but got crossthreaded with Winchester over a cartridge design and I haven't seen much of him since.

Guess most of the present day writers have to go along with what their editors and advertisers will allow. They have to make a living, and if you keep that in consideration, go ahead and enjoy the articles.

I looked through a Shooting Times magazine the other day and was amazed at how shallow, or "dumbed down" the articles were. I don't subscribe to gun magazines any more because they just don't seem to have any substance, nor do they have the guts to point out junk for what it is. I feel Rifle and Handloader took a nose dive when Seyfried stopped writing for them. Sam Fadala has some good stuff. Venturino is good with older guns. All the rest leave me feeling like I just ate at a vegetarian buffet... no substance, just shallow fluff and name dropping like "my old friend so and so, usually Elmer Keith".
Being a NRA life member, I get the monthly American Rifleman, but it's not hardly worth looking at unless I want to bone up on politics. Boddington is better than before, but I still get the same impression I got from him years ago which is: "Seyfried is what Boddington wishes he was". I'm sure Boddington is a swell guy, but I never learned anything from his writings, but Seyfried was usually a good learning experience for me. If any of you know of hard core gun publications for the connoisseur please let me know because I'm in the mood to subscribe... if it exists. thanks

Too many of those guys are writers and not shooters. Editors complained about Keith and Seyfried because their manuscripts required a lot of work- but at least they knew what they were talking about.

I was sorely disappointed to see several gunwriters I was familiar with on the various outdoor TV programs. I don't understand how you can be in that business for so long and still be so awkward handling firearms. You can practice your firearms handling skills in your own living room so not having access to a range (which would seem to me to be a necessity to make a living at writing about guns) isn't an excuse.

I'm also amazed at how ignorant some of them can be on video. Don't these guys bother to read their own magazines? Or, in some cases, their own (supposedly) articles?

I don't bother with the magazines. I can get better opinions-if not pictures- of the new products right here.

It is a fact that most magazines and all TV shows are just "infomercials" for the paid advertisers. Never believe anything you see there.
But even that does not explain Dick Metcalf's bumbling incorrect answers to viewers questions. It's not as if those questions were sprung on him out of the blue, he had all the time he might wish to research and rehearse his answers. But he didn't know the answer and was just too lazy to look into it so he spewed out a bunch of ignorance and stupidity.

Joe, I'm sure that you have a perfect memory and know every minute fact about even the most arcane and obsolete aspect of your chosen line of work. You've surely never ever made a mistake of any kind.

The rest of us, however, are not so godlike.

Magazines in general have indeed gotten smaller and have experienced a shift in ads-to-copy ratio. That's simply because it is incredibly expensive to publish a magazine, and getting more so every year. Articles that were routinely specc'ed at 3,000 words in years past now can run only 1,200 or so 1,500 maximum. I regret that as much as anyone, and it DOES leave the reader with the feeling of having been promised an entrée but given an hors d'oeuvre.

As to the infomercial aspect, when a company announces a new product, it only takes a few days or weeks before we start seeing posts here that start with "Has anybody used..." The public wants to know how every new thing stacks up. So magazines and writers MUST cover new things. It's the entire reason d'etre for the SHOT Show.

Most new products are also pretty good. So that's how they get reported. The few bad products are covered in a reverse way: if you DON'T read about the Acme Whizzer 1000, that's a strong clue that a writer or writers tested it, wrote it up fairly but negatively and the editors found it unworthy of precious magazine space.

Finally, and on a personal note, this "lousy writers" rant seems to be a recurring theme of yours. May I point out that mere finger-pointing and complaining achieves nothing. As your maturity-level equals would say on the playground, "Oh yeah? Why don't you show us how it's done?"

Rocky, you raise some good points, but I think that CoyoteJoe has a good point as well - if you are going to be writing articles about a given subject, shouldn't you be obligated to do enough research to be at least familiar with the subject at hand?

I may have mentioned this since I have been here, but as well as being a bit of a firearms enthusiast, I'm also a musician - trumpet for 27 years, drums for almost 5. I'm also a bit of a gearhead so I'm fairly hip to current equipment in drums and drumming. It's somewhat irritating when I go into a place like Guitar Center and I wind up knowing more on the subject than the sales staff behind the counter. In my opinion, since they actually work with the stuff full time, they should KNOW their product lines and they shouldn't need to be educatated about the products they sell from the customer.

To put that into perspective of the Guns & Ammo show - the viewer is the customer and we should be able to trust Dick Metcalf to be the expert - if he doesn't know it, then shouldn't he be obligated to research it to the point where he does?

Not to defend him overly (I'm not a Metcalf fan myself) but in a TV interview, that mic and camera in your face does odd things to your brain. Trust me, I've been interviewed more than 2,000 times!

And I'd bet that not one in ten active shooters could tell you how the .38 came to be called that - without looking it up first.

Not to defend him overly (I'm not a Metcalf fan myself) but in a TV interview, that mic and camera in your face does odd things to your brain. Trust me, I've been interviewed more than 2,000 times!
Fair enough. One of the most publicly embarrasing moments of my musical life came during the bugle feature of a small show we were performing and one of the three buglers (not me!) started hacking notes all over the place and eventually dropped out entirely - think three part harmony with one part missing. This show happened to be at the foot of the stairs of the National Archives on Independence Day while being broadcast live on both CNN and CSpan. :eek: There's nothing like coming through when the pressure is on! :D

Getting back to Metcalf, if he didn't know, shouldn't he have stopped while he was ahead?

Yup. But it's very hard to say "I don't know" when on camera. It's much easier to open your mouth and prove it!

The on-camera excuse doesn't hold when writing, for any of us. I've made errors when writing things that I "knew cold" - only to learn later that I was wrong. The embarrassment is that once it's in print, it's there forever. Things like that are worse than a bad tattoo; guys like CoyoteJoe can dredge them up at will to prove what a dunce I am.

Well Rocky, I don't know why you say this is a recurring theme of mine, to the best of my recollection this is the first time I have even visited the "periodicals' forum. I may indeed have at some point on some other forum said that gun writers are just shills for their advertisers, but who could disagree with that? Just what in **** did I say to get your feathers so ruffled as to launch a personal attack on me?:mad:

As for "camera shock", come on now, they didn't just walk up to Metcalf on the street, stick a camera in his face and ask him a complicated question! It is not a "live" show! Not only did Metcalf have all the time he might wish to research his answer but he probably chose the question himself! If he's plagued with camera jitters, that is understandable, but he could have written out his answer and read it off a teleprompter. And if he simply didn't know he shouldn't have tried to answer before learning.
Are we all so dumbed down that we don't even expect those who set themselves up as "experts" to at least have a clue?

Fellas - you're doing a pretty good job of expressing some strong opinions on this subject without getting too personal. Let's keep it that way and not end up in a peeing contest.

Feel free to continue with the debate - just keep it friendly.

If that was indeed CoyoteJoe's first attack on writers, I'll retract the "recurring" portion. But if someone attacks writers, kdub, I'm included. And it was just done again, calling all writers shills. That is personal. And slanderous. And a lie.

I'm perfectly capable of discussing the print world civilly. But do I have to have my occupation slandered and smile at it?

Nope - actual personal attacks are stomped on immediately on this board. I don't think everyone knows you write for the journals Rocky, so I wouldn't take it personal until specifically pointed out. I think CoyoteJoe's major gripe is with Metcalf. I did not see the interview, so have no idea what the issue is, other than he may not have been as prepared as he could have been, or as you suggest, have a mental block at the time. Yep - had those myself on more than one occassion. Seems to happen with greater frequency these days! :rolleyes:

When you plunk your dollar down for a magazine you are anticipating being entertained with personal stories or gaining technical insight. What a lot of readers don't understand is that they have been around as long or longer that the writers and are probably as well versed in the topic as the writer. That gets boring. Yet, lots of newcomers (such as we were once) are wide-eyed at the article and can't wait to get out and put the info to use. The generational cycle thing. That's why grandpa still considers his "thutty-thutty" the best hunting rifle while we cling to our 7 Mags and 338's. The younger generation has been told nothing but the latest WSM, WSSM, RUM, etc. are the only real slayers.

Guys - let's all exhale and consider the other point of view. Thanks

Rocky, I don't know why you guy's (writers) get all up in the air when some one puts info out in the public arena wether by writing or by the air ways that is incorrect (and they are called on it). The info that an authority puts out in the public arena first off should be correct and if it is not then they (the authority putting it out) should certainly be called on it.....

The hard part is separating our dislike for what we perceive as glossy pictured no content magazines from the gunwriters who are just like us, average guys and girls who love firearms and hunting. As I write this I am considering writing to Dave Scovill, editor of Handloader and Rifle. Dave is a good guy, a serious gun nut and I enjoy reading his column. I let my subscription to Rifle drop as it was no longer relevant to my shooting and reading needs but I continue to subscribe to Handloader. I admit that Dave Scovill saved Handloader and Rifle from oblivion and I am grateful. The balancing act between the average magazine subscriber – who only looks at the pictures and does not read the article – and we gun cranks who need to know the brisance of the primer used in the load test data – is a difficult balancing act with the life of the magazine and the livelihood of the writers and staff hanging from each side of the balance beam. Our attention spans are very short and, in general, good magazines are a bit expensive. The junk magazines are heavily discounted as recent promotions I have received from Outdoor Life and Guns and Ammo make very clear. With gun owners reluctant to give a gun store owner a shot at a 20% mark up – “shucks", I can mail order it for less - this has got be a tough racket to make a living in. I have re-written my submission to Ricky’s book three times now and believe I am getting close to sending it too him. Writing, it’s not as easy as it looks.

Here's my point. If CoyoteJoe had posted that Dick Metcalf made an error on a TV show, and that he should have known the facts better, I would have agreed with him and no hard feelings. But he didn't do that. He used ONE writer's error to generalize that ALL writers have cushie jobs (implying we don't earn our pay), that we are all shills for advertisers and that magazine writing and/or gun writing is a less-than-honorable job.

That's not only unfair, it's stupid.

Substitute ANY one person doing ANY job, and if that one person screws something up, does that mean everyone who does that job is a dunce? How about if it's the job YOU do? Would you take it as a personal affront if somebody on a website said everybody doing your job is an ignorant slacker? Yes, you would.

OK - thread locked.