Gunwriters...

Ever notice the format these idiots seem to religiously follow? Pick up any given gunrag and almost every new review will follow it.

Each article starts off with a skeptical assertion about the product...

"I was doubtful if I'd like... etc."

"I was curious if *company name* could maintain their strict standards of quality... etc."

"Of course *company* has long been known for excellent products, but will their latest offering have any use in the real world?"

Then he gives the obligatory "history" of the model firearm the gun is derived/copied from, even if it's been beaten to death already. Ie. do we really need to hear the freakin' history of the 1911 or AR-15 every time yet another variation comes out? Is there anybody here who isn't already 100% familiar with the story? And for those few obscure proprietary models, do we really need a century's worth of history about the time-tested action it employs?

If it's just another company's clone of an existing gun, and doesn't have anything new to offer, they start tacking on mini-reviews/plugs for various after-market acessories to put on it. You can't read an article on a new AR-15 without getting several mini-reviews for red-dot sights, rail systems, "revolutionary" new flashlights etc. Sometimes they even throw in a "tactical combat special forces special ops black bag cloak n' dagger fighting supremeo knife" of some sort and review it.

Then the "firing impressions." If it's a quality gun, they shoot at 25 yards. They then proceed to express awe at the fact that the latest $2,500 1911 variation happens to group at around 2-3". (Does anybody have a over-a-thousand-dollars 1911 that doesn't?) If it's a crappier gun, they move the testing to 15 yards, and express the same awe because it groups 2-3" at "typical tactical engagement distances".

They sum it up typically with something along the lines of "I was skeptical at first as to whether or not we really needed yet another stock A2 AR-15 clone with nothing new to offer, but I really think this fills a niche in the market. After evaluating this product, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to all my friends, relatives, grandmother etc."

When discussing the MSRP, if they have another pistol of the same breed in the same issue that costs $4000.00, they'll call the $2500.00 version one that "won't break the bank."

Blah blah blah.

I think Fortier's one of the worst offenders, as he seems to be unable to stop raining obsequious praise on everything Century Arms puts out.

Kokalis just insults our intelligence by playing dress-up in every f*ckin article, taking numerous pictures of himself in various costumes holding the gun in a "menacing" manner. It's no wonder sometimes why non-gunn people have a skewed view of us as illiterate, irresponsible cowboys.

On kind of a side-note, in my crusty old age (23) I'm even beginning to take umbrage at the slew of aftermarket acessories designed to make perfectly functional guns more "tactical". I'm sick to death of that friggin word. They even stick it on the side of the Springfield TRP, as if it somehow makes it more likely to kill terrorists than if it weren't "tactical". "m-16 stocks" for the SKS, "homeland defense" ar-15's so laden down with acessories that it looks like an ad for radio shack. Gratuitous pictures of scantily-clad women holding a particular product. Granted, I have nothing against scantily-clad women, but honestly people!

Then again, maybe I've just been reading too much and not shooting enough. The gun rags do occasionally make nice targets.... :)

If I ever pick up one of these magazines and actually read a review with something negative to say, I'd probably subscribe on the spot. Like how about admitting that the 5.7 pistol is actually just a fun plinker, instead of trying desperately to find something positive to say about it's apparent equality to the .22 mag?

GRRRRR.... rant over.

+1 on the over-tacticalizing of things these days. It was a cliche years ago. Personally, I won't own a weapon intended for self defense if it has a tactical or menacing sounding name. Just one more reason for a jury to come to the wrong conclusion.

On the subject of the reviews and mini-reviews, I think you need a more realistic perspective of what the gun mags are in business to do. Theirs is a business like any other, and they need to make money. That money comes from advertisers, not subscriptions (you don't really think the $18.95 for 12 issues covers the cost of printing and postage, do you?) They must review new products to generate advertising dollars and, not incidentially, reader interest. If they had nothing new to write about, what the heck would you read about? Who took first place in the second annual coon holler bowling pin shoot?

Finally, you might try American Handgunner. They do have some of the same faults as the others, but will generally call a turkey a turkey. If the rear sights comes flying off a $2500 1911, they'll say so. They'll do it kindly and say how good the customer service was when they returned it, but they will acknowledge problems.

Gotta admit, all the tactical BS gets pretty tiring...

So quit whining and get your own articles published.

I just quit buying the gun rags. Problem solved.

Gun test magazine kept sending me stuff on how great they were because they did fair and impartial testing. Then they say free issue.

I figured it was worth a shot, in their free issue they had a pistol which jammed 1 in 20 and they still gave it 4 stars!?

After that i gave up reading the mags for gun reviews entirely.

I like Zak's idea, why the hell not? The internet is cheap publishing.