I think Scotch00’s video proved his point about the inferiority of YouTube videos to well-crafted gun magazine articles. In fact, if fast forward didn’t exist, I wouldn’t have inflicted this electronic gun wisdom upon TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia. My question to you: how has the internet changed the way you read—or don’t read—gun mags? I know you can’t take TTAG into the bathroom, although we have a neat mobile version. So there’s a need for the dead tree thing. But where does it fit in your firearms information inhalation scheme? What about the quality of the info? Is it easier to get the straight dope about guns now than before?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

20 COMMENTS

  1. “Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.”

    Adjust accordingly if it comes from ze interwebz…

  2. In the past prior to say 2000 gun mags were the it of it all. I’ve actually found that of late in my area it’s damnd near impossible to find two if any at all. They seem to be getting more scarse as time goes by. I know that I live in the very gun unfreindly state of New Joisy. As for the validity of the info found on the internet or in magazines. I tend to take everything with a grane o salt till I physically put my hands on that which I seek.

  3. I can’t take TTAG into the bathroom? Maybe you haven’t seen these newfangled laptops. They’re pretty cool. I hear tell they’ll be coming out with tablet computers soon, too!

  4. For me I would rather read the mag basically because the information therein tends to be pre-filtered. People pay big bucks to put up a publication. People pay big bucks for the ads therein. The Interwebs is okay but it is really saturated with shit and misinformation and gun guys poorly filming themselves poorly shooting a weapon.

  5. 10 years-ish or so ago there was a reviewlist that I subscribed to (and embarassingly can’ t remember the name of) that actually told how bad most guns really were, and that, duh, most ‘gun mag’ reviews were shit.

    Ferrari still does MSM ‘ringers’ to this very minute. The mainstream gun mags were nothing but propaganda and were you fool enough to believe, well, you did. I know I was that naive for a while.

  6. I use the internet for more intense research: This caliber vs. that, specific model reviews, in depth philosphies, etc. The printed page, as you said, is pretty much reserved for the backhouse, and consists more of catalogs that give me the raw materials to go back online for more research as well as feeding the Zombie Uprizing fantasies. Man, I need better bathroom fantasies!

    The NRA pubs are okay, but are a little TOO alarmist or spin heavy at times with too little meat and potatoes gun info. Plus if you have more than one subscribtion to their different magazines, you end up with a lot of copies of the same articles.

  7. I buy more gun magazines than most, probably 2-4 per month. I buy almost all of them at the Wal Mart magazine rack. I like to read them while I eat my extra value meals at McDonald’s and Burger King. I do not subscribe to any, except American Rifleman. My preference is Shotgun News and American Handgunner, but I’ll buy anything that looks like it has a couple of articles that are interesting. I view the reviews as ads. And that’s ok, as long as you understand what you are getting. There is a difference in the kind of information I get from the magazines compared to the internet. The magazines are broad but shallow. I get information from the mags I may have overlooked on the internet, but that knowledge is shallow.

    Rob

  8. I get just about every gun mag in the world for free at work. I check the table of contents of each for competitors’ new products. I check the “New Products” section of each for new products. I go to the “advertisers index” in mags that have them to see what the competitors’ ads look like, and what they’re pushing. Since I know the cost of most ads… at least my own… this gives me an idea how much the people across the street are spending on particular weapons or image campaigns. I enjoy FMG’s “Shooting Industry” because it keeps me educated on so many different trade topics. Sometimes I read it in the family room while the family’s watching TV. None of these printed mags get me the information I need daily… quickly… like the trade web-sites do. But that does not make them “zombies.” True zombies EAT your brains, they don’t NOURISH your brains.

  9. I though that a gun magazine was meant for holding ammunition. Why would I take one to the bathroom?

  10. I subscribe to about 6 gun mags. The one I trust the most is “Gun Tests” magazine. They do not accept advertising and do 3 head to head tests in each issue. 2 issues ago was 4 varmint rifles, 2 Tokarevs, and 3 1911 target-sight pistols. In March they did S&W 686 and Bodyguard 38 compared to the Ruger GP100 and LXR-BGXS, 2 MAS battle rifles, and 4 AR variants.

    • Right on about Gun Tests.

      No tiptoeing around bad guns because the manufacturer buys ad space; you get the real story, warts and all. And they test stuff that the glossies rarely mention.

  12. I usually sit at my fav BAM and see if any of the multitude of gun advertising periodicals(gun mag) have any articles of use to me. Unfortunately most of them go back on the shelf because it’s the usual:
    “Product X worked well for me”
    “Product J performed well for this article”
    “Product H was within parameters for this months selling quota”
    So I have grown tired of most gun mags. The internet is usually full of biased and opinionated reviews. There are only a few forums I regularly use as reliable sources of information to help with firearms.

  13. I like the Internet review better. Particularly nutnfacy Hickok 45 and iraqveteran8888. They seem very knowledgable and honest and they dont edit out a gun having a failure to feed or eject.

  14. I like the Internet review better. Particularly nutnfacy Hickok 45 and iraqveteran8888. They seem very knowledgable and honest and they dont edit out a gun having a failure to feed or eject. Oh and of course a good ttag review:)

Comments are closed.