[JBledsoe]

.

I am bored with Brian Pearce and his listing of hundreds of handloads for his caliber of interest. It looks like just to fill space, hundreds of handloads that can be found in any loading manual are included as though they were his. What I look for is not hundreds but a few best loads, velocity and/or accuracy is my measure of "Best". Rather than re-inventing the wheel with 300 handloads for the 38 Special how about giving us something useful to the shooter. Best accuracy or best velocity or pressures....why not, or does Rifle/Handloader pay by the volume and not content? Anyway I have given up on said magazines, let my subscriptions expire and don't buy at the magazine counter. And they were my favorites a few years back.

 

[V1Rot8]

I feel your pain. I used to be a long-time subscriber to G&A. I enjoyed reading their staff writers. They wrote about what they knew about. Then the Big Shakeup. Mag suddenly--seemingly overnight--turned into crap. Writers with assignments outside their wheelhouse, lousy editorials, and the old editorial staff left. I let my sub. expire and haven't read that rag since.

Tim

 

[shawlerbrook]

I still read them , but they are a shell of what they were . Used to wait for my Shooting Times magazine back in the 70’s. Now they are 80% advertising.

 

[jwleeper]

Lymans reloading manuals give an accuracy load, but that really does not mean much as each rifle can be an adventure of it's own. Stick with the manuals. Just my thoughts.
Have a great day.
Jim

 

[mr surveyor]

Lymans reloading manuals give an accuracy load, but that really does not mean much as each rifle can be an adventure of it's own. Stick with the manuals. Just my thoughts.
Have a great day.
Jim

I agree.

The individual firearm has to be considered in the equation for accuracy determination in any load.


jd

 

[kingstrider]

Same here, don't read or buy gun magazines anymore. The internet has really killed stuff like magazines, newspapers etc.

 

[rob42049]

I still subscribe to RIFLE and HANDLOADER. Like anything else in life,it needs to be filtered. Take the good info,and reject what you don't want. Both magazines have a good percentage of useful loads,historical articles,and every once in a while some repair tips. I gave up on G&A and SHOOTING TIMES after 40 years of subscribing when they went all plastic tactical in 2007-08.

 

[phonejack]

American Handgunner is my only subscription

 

[northmn]

I have quit buying or looking at magazines of hunting and shooting as after a while I felt I could write the articles. One writer I kind of respected after reading his article had to test a new 300 magnum. Basically he stated that as there are already a plethora of 300 mags out there the one he tested was as good as any. Rifle and Reloader were one very good magazines where the authors were basically down to earth and seemed to have a solid basic background. Magazines today are slaves to their advertisers and write articles to sell you the latest a greatest magnum. I saw the same thing in bow hunting magazines where those that shot compound bows would find the bow they just bought was already obsolete. My recurves and longbows would not reliably kill the 4 deer I shot with them.

Like the bowhunting magazines they also establish arbitrary standards for "minimum" calibers. Minimum energy tables and that sort of thing. Once the old 30-06 was king of the hill and was said to be good for anything in North America. Now the 338 WM is supposed to be the best all around. Darned if I want one to shoot deer with. The 300 H&H mag was supposed to be a long range 30 cal. No claims were made for it to be used on bigger stuff than the standard 30's just longer range. Now the 300 H&H is supposed to be obsolete. Those that have had one and shot them kind of liked them. We now have the 6.5 Creedmoor that one sees amazing claims for, for such a moderately powered caliber. Of course if fired from an AR platform it must be able to do things the 260 R and 6.5X55 in a bolt can't do.

DEP

 

[Uncle Grinch]

I’ve been reloading since the early ‘70’s and have accumulated quite a selection of powders over the years. When I review the various loads featured in Handloader magazine, I find a lot of powders listed that are “new” to me. My inventory includes 33 different powders. It’s frustrating to see these loads and not find anything that matches my inventory.

 

[mrguvna]

I still read sections of Pet Loads from time to time. Mr. Waters always had interesting facts on the cartridge or rifles he was reloading testing at the time. Yes some of it is dated but makes for good reading.

I have not subscribed to magazines in a long while, I used to enjoy popular mechanics, the Smithsonian, and playboy. never really got into the gun magazines.

 

[Youper]

.

I am bored with Brian Pearce and his listing of hundreds of handloads for his caliber of interest. It looks like just to fill space, hundreds of handloads that can be found in any loading manual are included as though they were his. What I look for is not hundreds but a few best loads, velocity and/or accuracy is my measure of "Best". Rather than re-inventing the wheel with 300 handloads for the 38 Special how about giving us something useful to the shooter. Best accuracy or best velocity or pressures....why not, or does Rifle/Handloader pay by the volume and not content? Anyway I have given up on said magazines, let my subscriptions expire and don't buy at the magazine counter. And they were my favorites a few years back.

I'd like to see articles with fewer loads, but each examined more closely.

 

[JMAG54]

Because of my present station in life, for the moment, the closest I get to shooting/hunting is in pictures and hanging out here at MO.(a lot!) I still take Shooting Times, G&A and of course, American Riflemen. As soon as they hit my desk at work, I lick my thumb and run through the pages looking for anything interesting. Honestly, takes me about one minute and then directly into the waste basket. Very few times I keep them to read. Last one was an article on loading the 358win with powders I'm just not familiar with these days. I'm old an it's still 3031, 4350 and 4320. ;D That and honestly, the 'new' firearms and stuff featured in those rags are not for me. I think most new rifle/handgun offerings are flashy junk. Actually, I know they are. Still daydream of my old 270 Rem BDL. with that Bushnell on top.

John

 

[Tomray]

I've never needed more than one load for any of my firearms...............
When I acquire a new caliber, I research what powder is most efficient with my choice of bullet, then I build loads at different levels looking for the "sweet spot" in accuracy..................Once I find that "sweet spot", I'm done...........and that's what I load to.............

Re: Gun Rags.............I stopped subscribing to them all, because they are full of ads for things I can't legally buy or own in CT................Oh, I guess I can still have a bottle of Hoppes #9 here in CT, but not much else.

Tom

 

[JBledsoe]

.

When the gun writer (read that Ken Waters) or Lyman list a most accurate load, i am well aware that it is for their rifle....however, their load is usually a good starting place for my reloading. Some times it works for me and sometimes it doesn't but it's a place to start.

Someone said that the magazines are 80% advertising, it more like 100% anymore because the columns and articles are just INFO-MERCIALS designed to get you to buy the subject under discussion. Look at the Short Magnums, all the rage a few years ago with all the so called gun writers regurgitating wild claims of the manufacture (most of which were outright exaggerations). Where are all those wonder cartridges today? Did any of them live up to the HYPE? They were designed to sell guns, for that purpose they were successful.

I'm off my soap box now.

 

[Vooch]

I have quit buying or looking at magazines of hunting and shooting as after a while I felt I could write the articles.
DEP

Hell, I damn well know that I could!



Vooch

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Vooch]

Hell, I damn well know that I could!



Vooch

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

And so could the majority of the members here!





Vooch

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[hogbear]

I, too, have cut back or eliminated my gun reading for the reasons already listed. I rely on the loading manuals to find starting loads and then tune them to my gun(s). I used to be a velocity freak as long as the load gave good accuracy. I have since gone to loading to factory specs for anything I load. That means that I can shoot a particular load in any gun I have in that caliber with good performance. Someone once told me that a head of game could not tell the difference in a hundred feet per second one way or the other. I have found that to be correct.

 

[FrankenMauser]

Two years ago, my local newspaper announced that they wanted more people to use their website, so they were dropping the Saturday paper. There was already no Monday paper. ...But the rates were remaining the same.
I dropped my subscription in protest.
Eventually, I was persuaded to resubscribe at a lower rate.

The paper thinned down from 30+ pages to just a shell - often just 4-8 pages, INCLUDING weather, classifieds, puzzles, and obituaries, with articles or entire sections replaced with, "See more on our website at: ..."
The ad inserts dwindled. Yes... Ads. I know. But that was 80% of the reason I got the paper - for the coupons!

Then the paper announced that they were dropping the Friday paper. But, again, there would be no rate drop.
Done again. Screw that crap.
I voiced my opinion over the phone, via email, and via old fashioned hand-written letter.

I got a call from some one claiming to be in charge of circulation and operations, a few weeks later. We discussed my opinion. They affirmed that the paper was doing just fine, but that they were trying to push more people to the website, as the advertising was more profitable (mostly the tracking cookies, IMO). It was a shallow, but fairly honest and straight-forward conversation.

Then the lady goes into a spiel trying to talk me into subscribing to the 'weekend' paper, and they'll give me the weekday papers for free. I reminded her that there were no "weekend papers." Rather, it was just the Sunday paper. She, begrudgingly admitted such, and then tried to sell me again with, "but you'll get Tuesday and Thursday for free!"

"Wait, what?" I exclaimed, "you've dropped Wednesday now, too?"
She stutters a bit and comes back, "Wha. We. Wh-. Well, yes. We only publish Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday."

Good luck with that...

.

When the gun writer (read that Ken Waters) or Lyman list a most accurate load, i am well aware that it is for their rifle....however, their load is usually a good starting place for my reloading. Some times it works for me and sometimes it doesn't but it's a place to start.

Someone said that the magazines are 80% advertising, it more like 100% anymore because the columns and articles are just INFO-MERCIALS designed to get you to buy the subject under discussion. Look at the Short Magnums, all the rage a few years ago with all the so called gun writers regurgitating wild claims of the manufacture (most of which were outright exaggerations). Where are all those wonder cartridges today? Did any of them live up to the HYPE? They were designed to sell guns, for that purpose they were successful.

I'm off my soap box now.

It depends upon the magazine/website in question.
I know several writers.

For the most part, they say what they want, within the constraints of the particular website or magazine. (No one is going to publish an article berating S&W for quality dropping, for example. But they could get away with an article showing a particular example that was absolute garbage - like a 686 that showed up with no rifling [unregistered AOW], barely functioned, and had chunks missing from the frame.)

Only a few of the writers that I know say that they've ever been in the "write happy thoughts, or else!" situation. None of them published the article(s). One of them retired and sold his share (30%) of the magazine, because it made him so angry at his partners and the gun company.

 

[northmn]

I, too, have cut back or eliminated my gun reading for the reasons already listed. I rely on the loading manuals to find starting loads and then tune them to my gun(s). I used to be a velocity freak as long as the load gave good accuracy. I have since gone to loading to factory specs for anything I load. That means that I can shoot a particular load in any gun I have in that caliber with good performance. Someone once told me that a head of game could not tell the difference in a hundred feet per second one way or the other. I have found that to be correct.

If one looks at things a little more objectively, impact velocity is dependent on distance. Take the 270 I used to shoot. I loaded it pretty warm for top velocity, but in reality it was designed as a long range rifle considered to be adequate out to 3-400 yards. In other words, it would perform at lower velocities than muzzle velocities. Most look at fantastic muzzle velocities but if one looks at terminal velocities, then the gaps shrink as resistance is increased on higher velocities. The faster they are at the muzzle the quicker they slow down. While some of these hot shots have excellent terminal velocities, differences of 100 fps at the muzzle are basically differences in range as far as impact is concerned. In other words it might be 50 yards or a little more as the gap starts to diminish. The 270 would do a lot of damage at 200+ yards and too much at close range to suit me. High muzzle velocities kind of demonstrate the law of diminishing returns. Gets worse for some cartridges that use big blunt bullets of lower sectional density. A hot loaded 38-55 at 1700 fps will hit considerably harder further down range than a 44 mag loaded to close to 1800 at the muzzle. I had a handload that was listed at 2700 for my 300 Savage bolt. Shooting it raised some doubts about that listed velocity. Upon going through the chronograph it was closer to 2600. Still killed a deer handily with it.

DEP