Gun Writers

[stomp442]

For fear of taking another thread to far off topic I decided to ask my question here. How much stake do you put in gun writers opinions? I know Jack O Conner was reveared back in the day and seems a lot of people took what he wrote and said was gospel. Take the 270 for example, he made that cartridge almost magical in its ability to take all kinds of game. We all know that there were other cartridges out there that could have done just as well if not better, but because they didn't get the praise of jack their popularity floundered. I for one read gun and hunting mags constantly and while I may find something interesting I don't take it to the bank until I get a chance to mess with it first. Just wondering how many out there follow my line of thinking or just believe the print.

[Sheldon]

I don't think I would put much stock in any of these guys since Finn Agaard.
They are all more-or-less shills for the manufacturers since they depend on them to provide products.
Take the recent situation where a gun writer had established himself and then stabbed gun owners in the back.

Sheldon

[Hotolds442]

O'Connor, Milek, Keith, Cooper. All well respected. Since they have all passed, things have changed. Writers now all seem to write for the manufacturers, giving stellar reviews to pure junk. I get all my information now from Al Gore's interwebz and believe everything I read there.......bonjour?

[Texas Solo]

I've never seen a gun or product reviewed in a magazine that the writer didn't like. What's that tell ya?

[ShawneeB]

When it comes to product reviews, the above posters about nailed it.
If I want a review on a firearms related product, I'll look at several reviews on the interweb before a gun rag rundown. Now not that I don't read the rags but more for stories than reviews. Like American Hunters articles.

[Westcliffe01]

One of the first "classic" books I read was Robert Ruark, "Use enough gun". It was not so much about any specific gun manufacturers product as much as using adequate power for dangerous game and involved telling many stories that went right and wrong. Those were the days when white men who would face the wild beasts in the african jungle alone were still revered by the natives...

Today, it I read something on Chuckhawks, like this piece http://www.chuckhawks.com/straight_scope.htm it just pisses me off that I should (according to the writer) make myself their subject and allow them to dictate how I should live my life.

[mikein]

I have found that the most accurate and unbiased gun write-ups are found in the little Gun Tests magazine. No advertising, no b.s., each firearm is rated as A, B, C, D, or F, and all the reasons for the grade are given. http://www.gun-tests.com/ They also provide subscribers with access to their archives so you can go back and look for a specific firearm review. Gun Tests is now the only "gun magazine" I subscribe to for all the reasons stated above! It's too bad, but I guess the staff writers have to do what the publisher tells them to or they would have to go out and get a real job.

[yobuck]

well im very rapidly closing in on 80 years here. that certainly dosent make me any smarter or better
but it does allow for more hindsite. we all know about hindsite.
writers are for the most part like all the rest of us. (opinionated selfish jerks who will grab a buck anyway they can) lol.
i joke but im also serious. most of the ones i respected ended up on my bad list. sooner or later all magazines run out of things
to say. at least things that interest me. it wouldnt be possible for writers like o conner to reach that level today.
thats no doubt a good thing.