Why The CTR Magpul Stock May be the Right Choice for You

19/07/2013 18:09

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.