Many men dream of having a magic gun - the one that rises to any event, is ready for immediate action any time they wish to utilize it, whose goal is true and may be sure to fire not merely once, but if needed, several times.

This is the James Bond-like image that links weapons and penises... Kiss-Kiss, Bang-Bang. This is not just the imagination in Ian Fleming stories. It is the shared imagery of amounting potency and women, men and power, desire and sexual pleasure. Connection could throw his manly approach to the heart of the villain's person, and save-the World in his time. Sex sirens like Mae West question their suitors, 'Is that a PMAG in your pocket, or are you just glad to find out me?'

Our Mother Earth alas had other plans. She invented sex for procreation instead of entertainment, and whenever a man was past his reproductive best-by day, she all too often disarmed him. This can be especially the case since with Hormone Replacement Therapy women are experiencing 'Post-Menopausal Zest.' They're preserving their strength and charm, along with expectations of an active sex life, into their sixties, sixties and even seventies and beyond. The thing that was regarded only as an occupational hazard for aging roués and rakes, has become a common problem for the majority of men in middle and later life.

If that's the correct word, of sexual gymnasts, the writer Frank Harris, this decline in effectiveness was well referred to as long ago as 1925 by one of the longest standing. In his five-volume autobiography 'My Entire Life and Loves', he describes his decrease in firepower with age.

'My Creator - when I was entirely without experience and had only just entered my teens, gave me, as we say, a magazine gun of sex, and barely had I learned its use and pleasure when he took it away from me forever, and gave me in its place a double-barrelled gun: after a few years, he took that away and gave me a single-barrelled gun with which I was compelled to content myself for the best part of my life.'

'Towards the finish the old single-barrel started to show signs of wear and age: sometimes it'd set off too early, sometimes it missed fire and killed me, do what I would.'

'I need to teach youths how to use their magazine gun of sex so that it could last for years, and when they come to the double-barrel, how to take such care that the good system will do them liege service directly into their fifties, and the single-barrel will then give them pleasure around three score years and ten.'

But, medical science has come up with two new developments which support the promise of changing this eternal sexual history of even the most naturally well maintained and endowed of men.

HRT for Men

The very first of those is Hormone Replacement therapy for men with testosterone, the theory that I presented in my previous book, Testosterone Revolution. As well as overcoming the lack of libido and energy usually experienced by men going through the male menopause or andropause, it might restore strength in the vast majority of cases.

In over two-thousand such men I've learned in London over the past ten years, in 65% erections increased with the male HRT treatment alone to the level where intercourse was sufficient. In the remainder, the party now most likely for additional advantage from what I call the unholy trinity, Viagra, Levitra and Cialis restored adequate erectile function in 90-95%, and in only 1% was treatment needed with practices such as the now fortunately generally updated penile injections.

Viagra - A Giant Leap for Mankind

In treating erectile dysfunction (E.D.) Viagra is, as described two years ago in my book, 'a huge leap for mankind.' Probably more men worry about putting the manhood back in the man than putting a man on the moon. In reality, this drug can put a man and woman over the moon. by ending the misery this causes. and the dreaded ED

In terms of media attention, it seems to get caught the public imagination as much, and not NASA's victory made the address of both American magazines Time and Business week simultaneously.

Does it deserve this degree of hype? There are compelling reasons for thinking it does, both as an important advance in a lengthy neglected area of men's health, and as the standard birth of a 'New Era of Lifestyle Drugs.'

Testosterone is the basis of desire in both men and women, and if it's low, so could be the libido. It is the desire and sexual pleasure that provides the nitric oxide that raises genital blood-flow and lubrication in both sexes, creating erections in the male, and by as do the alternatives Levitra and Cialis reducing its breakdown, Viagra extends these responses. That is why both in theory and in practice the two work better together, as my clinical experience at the the Centre for Men's Health in Harley Street is demonstrating again and again.

The original results of work utilizing the two together in another 100 men as described in chapter five, suggests not only a higher reaction rate, but that Viagra works at lower doses, and longer and stronger with extra testosterone. Another reason for combining these solutions is that, as far as we know, Viagra has none of the preventive medical advantages of male HRT with testosterone, especially to the heart and blood circulation, muscles and bones.

Like oestrogens, testosterone has recently been shown to increase nitric oxide production in blood vessels all over the body, which as in the penis relaxes them and increases blood flow. That is more likely to be impor-tant in reducing aging changes in both heart and brain.

The complete issue of nitric oxide and its many essential actions in your body can be a very interesting and in every sense of the term 'sexy' area of medical research. It was only just over two decades ago that a number of its many tasks were first found, and already it's the target for-a billion-dollar pharmaceutical arms race.

More details are available on this website.

With Viagra, Pfizer believed the initial prize, but other closely related drugs such as Cialis and Levitra can sell equally well. You will find more glittering rewards for those that can copy or improve on this great task of molecular engineering which made sure-fire erections possible for previously impotent men, the PMAG in stock of their dreams.

I have been reading gun publications off and on for two decades and have come to the conclusion that gun articles are just thinly-veiled adverts for the-industry. At one point, I subscribed to seven regular gun publications at once for 6 years. It was in this six-year period, I began to discover some interesting problems in the gun articles I read and I would like to get on my soap box and have them off my chest.

I owned and read gun magazine because I am really interested in rifles and handguns and have fell to and traded many over a twenty year period. I subscribed to and see the gun magazines to get information, and turn to experts with more experience then me for advice or suggestions. Now the writers' in the gun magazines and the gun magazines themselves attempt to give the impression that they do solution evaluations of weapons and other related accessories. Some even say they're writing the content specifically to check the gun or ammunition for your visitors benefit.

Now straight back in college, when you said you were planning to perform a test and analysis, that required certain methods to make sure that the results weren't spurious, but were valid and repeatable. Now, the only way to provide results with any credibility is proper 'study design.' Un-less the testing process offers barriers against any not known factors, specialist tendency and maintains steady practices, the whole process and answers are useless. Good research design is not that hard and can be carried out with a little planning. Unfortunately the gun authors frequently stumble on the first step.

For case, gun writers often begin a test and evaluation report by saying that a particular gun was mailed to them for assessment by the manufacturer so they got what ever ammunition was available or named an ammunition manufacturer for even more free ammunition. If you consider this for a minute you will understand immediately that there's already inconsistency in the ammunition tried, and a possible conflict of interest in the results. Ammunition is really a critical factor in how in how a gun performs.

A 230 grain.45 caliber cartridge from Winchester is not exactly like a 230 grain.45 caliber cartridge from Golden Saber. Confirmed container includes a few elements including the round, dust, metal case and primer. A change in any one component can significantly influence the accuracy and performance of the topic. Furthermore, when the gun writer calls up requests free ammunition and an ammunition company, there's a conflict of interest here. Can I trust the gun writer to give an honest evaluation to me of the tubes performance? Does the business stop sending him free ammunition, if h-e gives a negative review? Would you give free material to some one that gave a negative review to you per year ago?

Furthermore, if you test Gun A with a 5 different brands of bullets of various weights and types and then compare it to your test of Gun B with different brands of ammunition of different weights and types, is the comparison appropriate? I usually think it is amusing they give an impression of trying to be critical and specific once the base study style assessment process is indeed problematic, the outcomes are not valid.

The gun articles also have a tendency to you should be traditionally puff parts in place of comprehensive and concise reviews of the merchandise. I imagine and frequently try in what sentence the author will actually start to directly discuss the solution or what the thesis of this article is. In a small minority of writers, I might find the actual beginning of the article in the second or third paragraph, but for the most of gun writers I find the actual article starts in the 10th or more paragraph. The first five paragraphs were private view on living, the shooting publics' ideas of hand guns or some Walter Mitty desire of being in a dangerous spot where you can count on the product that's the matter of the article.

Next time you read a gun report read it from the idea of view of the great manager. Does the writer tell me what the item of the article is in the first paragraph, and create a position or belief? How much real relevant information directly associated with the product is in the article versus filler and nonsense about other matters. If you hi-light in yellow the facts and tips of the article you will be surprised how much product there is and how much text you can delete and make the article shorter and better.

I've even read some articles where the writer even says they only received the gun and were thrilled to check the gun immediately. So they grabbed what ever ammunition was available and went to the number. Some even say they didn't have a particular brand or the type they favored at home so they couldn't check the gun with that ammunition.

At this time you've to laugh. When I read statements like this I find myself saying for the article 'Then go buy some'! or 'Delay the test before desired ammunition can be acquired.' Duh!

When the writers extends to the range they all test fire the guns differently. Even writers for the same magazine do not have similar testing standards. They test at different temperatures, benches, and gun rests. Some will check with Ransom Rests and some do not. The best laughs I get are from the writers who refer to them-selves as old geezers with bad eyesight. After recognizing their poor eyesight, then they proceed to shoot the gun for accuracy and give an opinion how well the gun shot!

Now, I don't find out about you, but if I was a gun maker, I'd not want my new gun to be evaluated by some self identified person with poor vision. Moreover the magazines them-selves should try to identify some testing practices and younger photographers to accomplish the testing.

Now following the shooting at the range, the writer says the gun shoots effectively and then describes his six shots in-to a 4 inch circle at 2-4 yards or some similar collection. Okay, I'm thinking, what does this 4 inch group represent, offered the inconsistency in testing methods? Is this 4-inch group a direct result the great or bad ammunition, the weapons natural accuracy/inaccuracy or the shooters bad eyesight or all three? What does the 4-inch team really represent? , if all three elements are involved

Last but not least, after reading hundreds of articles, I could not ever recall reading a write-up where the author said the gun was a bad design, wouldn't recommend it, and that the finish was bad. Also on guns that are on the low end of the product line or are from manufactures that make trash guns, no bad reviews, if deserved, are ever given. Particularly if the accuracy resembles more of the shot gun pattern, the writer often says 'the gun exhibited great combat accuracy.' Because most shootings occur at about 3 to 8 feet, this means the gun will hit your 30 inch wide adversary at 5 feet away. (I hope so!) They will not say the gun is a piece of trash that could not reach an 8 inch target at 15 yards if your life depended on it.

Why? Because gun writers and the magazines don't purchase the weapons they test, they get free test models. Only 'Gun Tests' magazine buys their own guns. Therefore the authors have to express only good things about the gun and down play concerns, or even the producer 'Black Balls' them from future weapons. The harm is you, the consumer. You obtain bad reviews.

How do you trust what-ever the author says? For me personally, I do not. In fact, I more or less let all my subscriptions run out years ago, apart from American Rifleman.

Now, I read mostly read articles on weapons. Perhaps not articles selling me over a gun, sight, laser, or certain bullet.

Consistency to Death can be yet another gripe of mine. Over the years, not that many truly new gun models came out. Largely manufacturs' will issue a preexisting gun with a new color, night places, finish or some other minor feature. The difficulty could be the gun magazines and writers handle the new gun color as if it's the best thing since sliced bread and produce a four page article. These articles are usually the articles that contain information that is 95% rehash of information already said for decades regarding the particular gun. Often in these four-page articles only two sentences is actually new information or interesting.

The gun magazines also have a tendency to repeat articles concerning the same gun in the same year and year after year. The 1911 is an excellent example. Start monitoring the amount of times the 1911 model is the subject of articles in gun magazines each and on a monthly basis. Now the 1911 arrived on the scene in 1911, and has-been discussing from the time. Is there really anything out there unknown concerning the 1911? If a new feature on the 1911 is done, does it WARRANT a four page article on a 'feature' that may easily be adequately described in a couple of paragraphs?

If you would like to read gun magazines proceed, only read them with a critical eye. When I read. I read for content. I take to and get the following from an article:

1. What will be the writers' reason behind writing?

2. What will be the writer actually saying?

3. What new information was conveyed?

4. Are the outcome of any testing process identified valid?

5. Did the author provide any back ground credentials or experience?

6. What do I take away in the article?

Handguns are expensive, and unfortuitously the magazines are not much help in providing an honest assessment for your novice. They only say positive things about all weapons, the and never criticize a brand and or type. 'They are all good guns, some are only better then others'? Yes right.

My advice for the beginner. Speak with somebody who has been shooting for a-while and has shot and held various different guns, and has no vested interest promoting one product or brand.

More information are available here.

These are only my ideas, but after years of studying the gun articles, I have come to the conclusion that the writers really do perhaps not understand how to do constant assessment, and the editors have very low standards for accepting articles. I love shooting and am not perfect either, but I'd not say every PMAG in stock is a quality gun or deserves to be bought.

I've been studying gun magazines off and on for two decades and have come to the conclusion that gun articles are simply thinly veiled ads for the industry. At one point, I subscribed to seven monthly gun publications at the same time frame for 6 years. It had been during this six year period, I began to notice some interesting dilemmas in the gun articles I read and I would prefer to get on my soap box and have them off my chest.

I held and read gun magazine because I am very interested in handguns and rifles and have fell to and traded many over a twenty year period. I subscribed to and see the gun magazines to gain knowledge, and look to experts with more experience then me for advice or recommendations. Now the writers' in the gun magazines and the gun magazines them-selves try to give the impression they do solution opinions of guns and other related accessories. Some even say they are writing the content specifically to test the gun or ammunition for your visitors benefit.

Now straight back in college, when you said you were planning to do a test and analysis, that required specific practices to ensure that the results were not spurious, but were valid and repeatable. Now, the only path to provide results with any credibility is proper 'study design.' Unless the testing process offers barriers against any unknown factors, tester error and maintains regular techniques, the complete process and answers are useless. Good research design is not that difficult and can be carried out with only a little planning. Unfortuitously the gun writers frequently land on-the first step.

For example, gun writers often start a test and evaluation report by saying a particular gun was mailed to them for testing by the manufacturer so they really grabbed what ever ammunition was available or called an ammunition manufacturer for some more free ammunition. You will understand instantly that there's already inconsistency in the ammunition examined, and a possible conflict of interest in the results if you look at this for a moment. Ammunition is just a key factor in how in how a gun performs.

A 230 grain.45 caliber cartridge from Winchester isn't exactly like a 230 grain.45 caliber cartridge from Golden Saber. Confirmed cartridge contains several elements such as the steel case, powder, bullet and primer. A big change in anybody component can dramatically influence the accuracy and performance of the topic. In addition, if the gun author calls up an ammunition company and needs free ammunition, there's a conflict of interest here. Can I trust the gun author to provide me an honest evaluation of the cartridges performance? If h-e provides bad review, does the company end sending him free ammunition? Could you give free material for some one that gave you a negative review annually ago?

More over, if you test Gun A with a 5 different brands of bullets of types and various weights and then compare it to a test of Gun B with different brands of ammunition of different weights and types, is the comparison valid? I usually find it funny they give an impression of attempting to be accurate and critical once the foundation research style testing procedure is so problematic, the results aren't valid.

The gun articles also tend to you should be traditionally smoke parts in place of concise and complete reviews of the product. I usually decide to try and imagine in what section the author will actually begin to directly speak about the solution or what the thesis of the content is. In a tiny minority of writers, I might find the actual beginning of the article in the second or third paragraph, however for the most gun writers I find the actual article starts in the 10th or more paragraph. The first ten paragraphs were private view on living, the shooting publics' thoughts of hand guns or some Walter Mitty desire of being in a dangerous area where you are able to depend on the product that's the subject of the article.

Next time you read a gun article read it from the point of view of the great manager. Does the author tell me what the object of the content is in the first paragraph, and create a position or belief? How much actual related data directly associated with the merchandise is in the content versus nonsense and product about other subjects. If you hi-light in yellow the facts and tips of the article you'll be surprised how much product there's and how much text you can remove and make the article shorter and better.

I've even read some articles where the author even claims that they only received the gun and were excited to check the gun quickly. So they grabbed what actually ammunition was available and went to the number. Some even say they didn't have a certain company or the type they preferred at home so they couldn't test the gun with that ammunition.

At this time you have to laugh. When I read statements similar to this I find myself saying to the article 'Then go buy some'! or 'Delay the test before desired ammunition can be acquired.' Duh!

When the authors reaches the range they all test fire the guns differently. Even writers for the same magazine don't have similar testing protocols. They check at different temperatures, seats, and gun rests. Some will check with Ransom Rests and some do not. The very best laughs I get are in the authors who refer to them-selves as old geezers with poor eyesight. After acknowledging their poor eyesight, then they check out take the gun for accuracy and give an impression on how well the gun shot!

Now, I don't find out about you, but if I was a gun maker, I would not want my new gun to be evaluated by some self identified person with bad eye sight. More over the magazines them-selves should make an effort to establish some testing practices and younger photographers to do the testing.

Now after the shooting at the range, the author says the gun shoots effectively and then describes his six shots into a 4 inch circle at 24 yards or some similar collection. Ok, I'm thinking, what does this 4 inch group represent, provided the inconsistency in assessment methods? Is this 4-inch group due to the good or bad ammunition, the guns natural accuracy/inaccuracy or the photographers bad eyesight or all three? What does the 4-inch team really represent? , if all three factors are involved

Last but most certainly not least, after reading countless articles, I could not actually recall reading a write-up where the writer said the gun was a bad design, the final was bad, and they wouldn't recommend it. Even on guns that are on the lower end of a product line or are from manufactures that make junk guns, no negative reviews, if deserved, are actually given. Particularly if the accuracy resembles more of the shot gun design, the author often says 'the gun displayed good combat accuracy.' Because most shootings occur at about 3 to 8 feet, this means the gun will hit your 30 inch wide attacker at 5 feet away. (I really hope so!) They will not say the gun is just a piece-of junk that could not hit an 8 inch target at 15 yards if your life depended on it.

Why? Because the publications and gun authors do not choose the weapons they test, they get free test types. Only 'Gun Tests' magazine buys their very own weapons. So the authors have to state only good stuff about the gun and down-play problems, or the company 'Black Balls' them from future guns. The harm is you, the customer. You receive faulty reviews.

How can you trust what-ever the writer is saying? For me personally, I do not. In fact, I pretty much let all my dues go out years ago, with the exception of American Rifleman.

Now, I read mostly read articles on weapons. Not articles selling me on a gun, sight, laser, or particular bullet.

Repetition to Death is also still another gripe of mine. Over the years, not that many truly new gun types have come out. Largely manufacturs' will issue an existing gun with a new color, night views, end or some other minor function. The trouble could be the gun magazines and writers handle the new gun color as if it's the best thing since sliced bread and write a four page report. These articles usually are the articles that contain information that is 95% rehash of information already said for a long time in regards to the particular gun. Often in these four-page articles only two lines is really new information or interesting.

The gun magazines also often repeat articles about the same gun in the same year and year after year. The 1911 is a great example. Start monitoring the number of times the model could be the subject of articles in gun magazines each and every month. Now the 1911 arrived on the scene in 1911, and has been discussed since. Is there really anything out there as yet not known in regards to the 1911? If a new feature on the 1911 is established, does-it WARRANT a four-page report on a 'feature' which could easily be acceptably described in a few paragraphs?

If you want to read gun publications go ahead, just read them with a critical eye. When I read. I read for information. I try and have the following from an article:

1. What is the writers' basis for writing?

2. What may be the author really saying?

3. What new information was conveyed?

4. Are the outcomes of any assessment process identified valid?

5. Did the writer provide any background qualifications or experience?

6. What do I take-away from your article?

Handguns are costly, and regrettably the magazines aren't much help in providing an honest assessment for the beginner. They only say things about all guns, the and never criticize a brand and or type. 'They are all good weapons, some are only better then others'? Yeah right.

My recommendation to the novice. Communicate with someone who has been shooting for a-while and has shot and owned a variety of different guns, and has no vested interest advocating one model or brand.

More details can be found here.

These are just my opinions, but after years of studying the gun articles, I have come to the conclusion that the writers do maybe not learn how to do consistent assessment, and the editors have very low standards for accepting articles. I am not perfect either and love shooting, but I'd not say every PMAG in stock is really a quality gun or deserves to be ordered.

I have been reading gun publications off and on for 20 years and have come to the conclusion that gun articles are only thinly-veiled advertisements for the industry. At one point, I fell to seven monthly gun publications at once for 6 years. It had been with this six year period, I started to notice some interesting problems in the gun articles I read and I would prefer to get on my soap box and buy them off my chest.

I owned and read gun magazine because I am very interested in rifles and handguns and have fell to and traded many over a twenty-year period. I subscribed to and read the gun magazines to achieve information, and turn to experts with more knowledge then me for advice or suggestions. Now the writers' in the gun magazines and the gun magazines them-selves try to give the impression they do solution evaluations of weapons and other related components. Some even say they're writing the content specifically to test the gun or ammunition for your visitors benefit.

Now right back in school, when you said you were planning to do a test and analysis, that required specific methods to make sure that the outcomes were not spurious, but were valid and repeatable. Now, the only method to give results with any validity is appropriate 'research design.' Unless the assessment process gives barriers against any not known factors, specialist prejudice and maintains steady practices, the entire procedure and results are useless. Good re-search design isn't that difficult and can be carried out with only a little planning. Regrettably the gun authors frequently come on-the first step.

For case, gun writers often begin a test and evaluation article by saying that a particular gun was mailed to them for testing by the manufacturer so they really grabbed what ever ammunition was available or named an ammunition manufacturer for some more free ammunition. If you consider this for a moment you'll realize straight away that there is already inconsistency in the ammunition tried, and a possible conflict of interest in the outcome. Ammunition is a critical factor in how in how a gun performs.

A 230 grain.45 caliber cartridge from Winchester isn't the same as a 230 grain.45 caliber cartridge from Golden Saber. Confirmed cartridge consists of many parts such as the topic, powder, steel case and primer. A change in anyone part can drastically influence the accuracy and performance of the round. Additionally, when the gun author calls up needs free ammunition and an ammunition company, there is a conflict of interest here. Can I trust the gun writer to provide an honest assessment to me of the cartridges performance? If he gives a bad review, does the business end giving him free ammunition? Would you give free material with a one that gave a bad review to you annually ago?

More over, should you test Gun A with a 5 different brands of bullets of various weights and types and then compare it to your test of Gun B with different brands of ammunition of different weights and types, is the comparison appropriate? I frequently find it funny they give an impression of trying to be critical and exact if the foundation study design testing procedure is really flawed, the outcomes are not valid.

The gun articles also tend to just be mainly puff pieces as opposed to concise and comprehensive reviews of the product. I usually take to and think in what section the author will in actuality start to directly talk about the product or what the thesis of this article is. In a small minority of writers, I may find the actual beginning of the article in the second or third paragraph, but for the majority of gun writers I find the actual article starts in the 10th or more paragraph. The first ten lines were personal opinion on life, the shooting publics' perceptions of hand guns or some Walter Mitty desire of being in a dangerous spot where you are able to depend on the solution that's the subject of the article.

Next time you read a gun report read it from the idea of view of the great editor. Does the writer tell me what the item of this article is in the very first part, and produce a position or belief? Just how much real related data directly related to the product is in the content versus nonsense and gel about other issues. If you hi-light in tips of the article and yellow the facts you'll be surprised how much filler there is and how much text you can remove and make the article smaller and better.

I've even read some articles where the author even says they only received the gun and were excited to check the gun quickly. So that they went to the range and got what actually ammunition was available. Some even say they did not have a certain company or the type they preferred at home so they couldn't check the gun with that ammunition.

At this time you've to laugh. When I read statements like this I find myself saying for the article 'Then go buy some'! or 'Delay the test until the desired ammunition can be acquired.' Duh!

Then when the authors gets to the range they all test fire the guns differently. Even writers for the same magazine don't have similar testing methods. They test at different temperatures, benches, and gun rests. Some will test with Ransom Rests and some don't. The best laughs I get are from your writers who refer to themselves as old geezers with poor eye sight. After recognizing their poor eyesight, then they go to shoot the gun for reliability and give an impression how well the gun shot!

Now, I don't find out about you, but I'd not want my new gun to become evaluated by some self described person with poor eye sight, if I was a gun maker. Moreover the publications them-selves should try to identify some testing protocols and younger photographers to accomplish the testing.

Now after the shooting at the-range, the writer says the gun shoots effectively and then describes his six shots in to a 4 inch circle at 2-4 yards or some similar collection. Okay, I'm considering, what does this 4-inch group symbolize, given the inconsistency in testing methods? Is this 4-inch group a direct result the good or bad ammunition, the weapons inherent accuracy/inaccuracy or the photographers bad eyesight or all three? What does the 4 inch group really represent? , if all three elements are involved

Finally, after reading countless articles, I could not ever recall reading a write-up where the writer said the gun was a bad design, the conclusion was bad, and that they would not recommend it. Even on guns that are on the lower end of the product line or are from manufactures that make trash guns, no negative reviews, if deserved, are actually given. Particularly if the accuracy resembles more of the shot gun pattern, the author frequently says 'the gun exhibited good beat accuracy.' This means the gun can reach your 30-inch wide opponent at 5 feet away, since many shootings occur at about 3 to 8 feet. (I really hope so!) They'll not say the gun is a piece-of trash that could not hit a 8-inch target at 1-5 yards in case your life depended on it.

Why? Because gun writers and the publications do not choose the weapons they test, they get free test types. Only 'Gun Tests' magazine buys their very own guns. Therefore the authors have to state only good stuff concerning the gun and down-play disadvantages, or even the manufacturer 'Black Balls' them from future guns. The detriment is you, the buyer. You get flawed reviews.

How will you trust what ever the writer is saying? For me, I do not. In fact, I pretty much let all my subscribers go out years ago, with the exception of American Rifleman.

Now, I read mainly read articles on historic guns. Maybe not articles selling me on a gun, sight, laser, or particular bullet.

Consistency to Death can be another gripe of mine. Through the years, not that many really new gun models have come out. Mostly manufacturs' can issue a current gun with a new color, night sights, finish or some other minor feature. The problem may be the gun magazines and writers treat the new gun color as if it is the best thing since sliced bread and write a four-page report. These articles usually are the articles that contain information that is 95% rehash of information already said for decades regarding the gun. Usually in these four-page articles only two lines is really new information or interesting.

The gun magazines also have a tendency to repeat articles about the same gun in the same year and year after year. The 1911 is a good example. Start keeping track of the amount of times the 1911 model could be the matter of articles in every month and gun magazines each. Now the 1911 arrived in 1911, and is discussed ever since. Is there really something out there as yet not known regarding the 1911? If a new feature on the 1911 is established, does-it WARRANT a four page report on a 'feature' that may easily be adequately described in a number of paragraphs?

Only read them with a critical eye, If you prefer to read gun publications go ahead. When I read. I read for information. I decide to try and get the following from an article:

1. What may be the writers' basis for writing?

2. What will be the author really saying?

3. What new information was conveyed?

4. Are the outcome of any testing process identified valid?

5. Did the author give any background qualifications or experience?

6. What do I eliminate from the article?

Handguns are high priced, and unfortunately the magazines are not much help in giving an honest evaluation for that novice. They only say things about all guns, a and never criticize a brand and or type. 'They are all good weapons, some are just better then others'? Yeah right.

My suggestion to the novice. Speak with someone who has been shooting for a-while and has shot and held a variety of different weapons, and has no vested interest advocating one product or brand.

More information would be found on this website.

These are just my ideas, but after years of reading the gun articles, I have arrived at the conclusion that the writers do perhaps not learn how to do regular assessment, and the authors have very low standards for receiving articles. I am not great either and love shooting, but I'd not say every PMAG in stock is really a quality gun or deserves to be obtained.