With print media declining, and newspaper companies being sold for scrap value, gun magazine sales are soaring. It's a new world....
[Update: you should have seen gun mags in the 1980s.. then it was, every issue had a debate on revolvers vs. automatics...)
I refuse to be put on a mailing list in order to read the article. It has a "trap" to satisfy in order to read it.
Posted by: rspock at August 25, 2013 10:39 AM
I live in maine, and the BDN (Bangor Daily News) is the paper that was trying to gain access to our Concealed Carry License data...... anybody with a little time, Please, Please, PLEASE go comment on their site.. we need all the help we can get here in maine! Maine is home of the lefty collectivists independents ( too far left to be Dems)... and dumbocrats.. couple republicans, and us center right libritarians who dont stand a chance!
Posted by: DamDoc at August 25, 2013 03:22 PM
I won't buy gun rags, either. Every month the same tired cliches, the same nonsense about the latest derivative caliber creation from somebody and why it's the greatest firearm EVAH!
Posted by: Flight-ER-Doc at August 25, 2013 07:01 PM
I agree with RSPOCK and FLIGHT-ER-DOC that a whole lot of what is in magazine-aisle gun magazines is stale and tasteless baloney sausage: Revolver v. autopistol; 9mm or .38 v. 45 ACP; the latest gun -- you need one. But even if you look at something like the Cowboy Chronicle--SASS's membership newsletter, at last at the time I was a still a member a few years ago, it was full of "there's no gun but a .45 and the .38 or .357 or 9mm [Yes, I know there are no 9mm SA wheel guns!!]is a mousegun for wimps." Of course, this may represent the vocal minority who have the God-revealed common sense to see natural laws that no one else can fathom and the missionary zeal confirming they are always right no matter how vacuous. Can't help but think that such writers and opinionators are driving real "gun culture" down the tubes.
Posted by: Eldon Dickens at August 26, 2013 04:52 AM
I read G&A as a teenager way back when, but gave up when I realized every review was glowing and positive, even of guns that were clearly unsafe or unsuitable. I chalked it up to the very tight relationship between the few big gun advertisers and the magazine.
Is it any different now? Do they ever review a gun negatively?
Posted by: Sertorius at August 26, 2013 02:05 PM
80’s were wild times for sure, but I thought the mid-70’s worse for gun rags’ content. If memory serves me right this was the First Survivalist Wave in response to a series of oil embargos. I blush remembering how I followed Mel Tappan’s column in one of Peterson’s Publications. Mel lost me when he pronounced having less than three-AR type rifles and five handguns feed by less than 7k rounds was not enough to protect your survivalist cabin locked away at the end of a dead end trail.
As I recall Mel Tappan died from the affects from a high-ball glass cut at a pool party.
Posted by: Mark-1 at August 26, 2013 02:45 PM
Not that I ever treated him or read his files, my understanding is that Mel Tappan (PBUH) cut his fot on a glass (while in College, istr), suffered septecimia from it, and then never fully recovered - dieing from related kidney failure decades later.
Posted by: Flight-ER-Doc at August 27, 2013 08:15 AM
Eldon, I seem to recall Ruger making a SA variant with two cylinders - one .38/.357 and one 9mm....
Apparently a Blackhawk model, possibly a flattop.
Posted by: Flight-ER-Doc at August 27, 2013 08:19 AM