Magpul Companies - Why You Need To Trust Them and What They Are Able To Provide You
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.