the only magazines i read with any regualrity is Fur-Fish-Game and Rifle. i also just recently dixcovered the backwoodsman, which is really neat and different from anything i've read before. i found with field and stream and others they seemed like a mouth piece for the big companys. the impression i got from a lot of there gun writers was if it isn't brand new, lightweight, didn't have a cartridge with "magnum" in the name and wasn't sporting high priced German optics, it's garbage. i noticed others like to slam the older rounds like .30-30 Win, .30-40 Krag, .303 British and others, but those are used a lot more then any of the newer guns/cartridges, and how many deer are gonna be killed at 600 yards and require enough power to knock down a bull African elephant? i will agree with what soem one else said about John Barness. i loved an article he wrote for Rifle about designing rifle scopes. he said that all optics designers should find an old, all steel Weaver K4 and base their design on that. i've tried a number of rifle scopes but only owned 2. the very same old school K4 previously mentioned mounted on a P&H .303, and a B4 on my .22. are they high tech and pretty? not really, but they always held zero, could take a beating and where deadly accurate.i wondered of topic a bit, but it seems to me that many of the "big name" magazines and writers are nothing more then tools of the manufacteurs. i'm sure one or two writers are probably lurking on this forum, and i mean no offence to them, but i think a lot of them are full of baloney.
