Why The CTR Magpul Stock Is the Right Choice for You
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.