That's it! I've had it with Guns and Ammo! I just got the April 2004 issue today in the mail. I was flipping through the issue and came across an artilce "Position Sensitivty". It is about the effect of the powder shifting to either the front or the back of a cartridge prior to shooting light cowboy loads. I was like "Great! An article about something other than a 1911". I thought with would be a very interesting artilcle so I read on. My frustration can be summed up by the authors quote in the conclusion.

"I haven't named the powders that did poorly in these tests for obvious reasons."

Whats going on here? "You have to tell us" I thought to myself. It is a sad day when an informative article cannot give you a clear answer for advertising reasons.

My suggestion is "Guns and Ammo, grow a pair"

I get the NRA's American Rifleman and I like that mag, even more since they improved it with more gun stories. G&A is going down hill, or I am changing, or both. Time to find another. What's good out there?

I agree that G&A has become a very poor shell of a gun magazine. Any "road test" of a new gun that rates it with stars is is waste paper to me.
I like the new American Rifleman fine. I do not like the vehicle tests.... If I want to read about cars or four-wheelers there are magazines for that.

If you want some good advice on powder position sensitivity and solid recommendations for cowboy loads that work follow this link.

http://www.gmdr.com/

. G&A is going down hill, or I am changing, or both. Time to find another. What's good out there?

Wolfe publishing's Rifle Magazine and Handloader Magazine are BOTH TOP SHELF.
Pepe Ray

Guns and Ammo, Shooting Times, IMO are both wastes of good paper. Neither one has ever met a gun they didn't just gush over, neither give an objective review, and both think the 1911 is the only handgun ever made. I have let both my subscriptions expire (or about to) and I have no intention of renewing. ST is history and G&A is soon to follow. I too thought their powder position article was written by a spineless woose and in the end, told us nothing we didn't already know and served to inform us of nothing. There is five minutes of my life I'll never get back :mad:

With those slick pages they use, the glare is hard on the eyes and they don't even make for decent toilet paper!

Vote with your feet...vote with your wallet.
Gun rags are usually a waste of money (Handloader and Rifle are good...not as good as they once were, but still a cut above).

Don't buy the ones that offend you...save that $ and buy a BOOK. You'll still have the book in 10years.

What Pepe Ray said. Handloader and Rifle are the only two I bother to get.

broncobill86-

Don't hold your breath waiting for G&A to grow a pair. Theres too much $ and too many free guns/hunts at stake for that to ever happen.

Besides, you might pass out and hit your head.............. ;)

I agree partially with your opinions on a lot of the magazines out there. There are times when they do have excellent articles. Especially Shooting Times. G&A seems to be a promotional campaign more than anything else. One magazine that gets left out is Precision Shooter. If you want hard core data without the BS that is the one to go for. Its only downfall is that it can be a little too technical at times for the average reader.

That's it! I've had it with Guns and Ammo! I just got the April 2004 issue today in the mail. I was flipping through the issue and came across an artilce "Position Sensitivty". It is about the effect of the powder shifting to either the front or the back of a cartridge prior to shooting light cowboy loads. I was like "Great! An article about something other than a 1911". I thought with would be a very interesting artilcle so I read on. My frustration can be summed up by the authors quote in the conclusion.

"I haven't named the powders that did poorly in these tests for obvious reasons."

Whats going on here? "You have to tell us" I thought to myself. It is a sad day when an informative article cannot give you a clear answer for advertising reasons.

My suggestion is "Guns and Ammo, grow a pair"

Read the article...and I've got to agree. If you aren't going to list all the powders, then don't list SOME of the powders. Cynical side thinks: Great article if you don't want anyone to check the accuracy of your experiment...keeps others from questioning your results.

Practical side thinks: They don't want to lose the Ad-$ from the company that makes the powders that are position sensitive.

Certainly there are position sensitive powders...anyone who's worked with reduced loads has proof of that...but by disguising the powders he used, are we to assume he selected the BEST choices to test, or the WORST choices to test?

Ditto with William Iorg on the 4-wheeler stuff in American Rifleman. It's supposed to be about guns and shooting and, if they're going to do vehicles, they may as well do hunting clothes, boots, game calls and the like.

....they may as well do hunting clothes, boots, game calls and the like.

:( That is exactly what they do. If I didn't have a life membership, I would drop them in a heartbeat.

That is exactly what they do. If I didn't have a life membership, I would drop them in a heartbeat.

DITTO. :mad:

I get get american rirleman and american hunter only because the wife and I are both members. I subscribe to Handloader and Rifle, now that I have this computer I can get more practical Info. and knowledge off you guys from the different forums, so I could see myself not renewing my subscription to Rifle or Handloader.

I gave up on guns and ammo long ago. They are very biased towards their advertisers and have to many advertisers.

I do enjoy the heck out of American Rifleman and Fur-Fish-Game. They are great magazines.