Ever notice the format these idiots seem to religiously follow? Pick up any given gunrag and almost every new review will follow it.

Each article starts off with a skeptical assertion about the product...

"I was doubtful if I'd like... etc."

"I was curious if *company name* could maintain their strict standards of quality... etc."

"Of course *company* has long been known for excellent products, but will their latest offering have any use in the real world?"

Then he gives the obligatory "history" of the model firearm the gun is derived/copied from, even if it's been beaten to death already. Ie. do we really need to hear the freakin' history of the 1911 or AR-15 every time yet another variation comes out? Is there anybody here who isn't already 100% familiar with the story? And for those few obscure proprietary models, do we really need a century's worth of history about the time-tested action it employs?

If it's just another company's clone of an existing gun, and doesn't have anything new to offer, they start tacking on mini-reviews/plugs for various after-market acessories to put on it. You can't read an article on a new AR-15 without getting several mini-reviews for red-dot sights, rail systems, "revolutionary" new flashlights etc. Sometimes they even throw in a "tactical combat special forces special ops black bag cloak n' dagger fighting supremeo knife" of some sort and review it.

Then the "firing impressions." If it's a quality gun, they shoot at 25 yards. They then proceed to express awe at the fact that the latest $2,500 1911 variation happens to group at around 2-3". (Does anybody have a over-a-thousand-dollars 1911 that doesn't?) If it's a crappier gun, they move the testing to 15 yards, and express the same awe because it groups 2-3" at "typical tactical engagement distances".

They sum it up typically with something along the lines of "I was skeptical at first as to whether or not we really needed yet another stock A2 AR-15 clone with nothing new to offer, but I really think this fills a niche in the market. After evaluating this product, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to all my friends, relatives, grandmother etc."

When discussing the MSRP, if they have another pistol of the same breed in the same issue that costs $4000.00, they'll call the $2500.00 version one that "won't break the bank."

Blah blah blah.

I think Fortier's one of the worst offenders, as he seems to be unable to stop raining obsequious praise on everything Century Arms puts out.

Kokalis just insults our intelligence by playing dress-up in every f*ckin article, taking numerous pictures of himself in various costumes holding the gun in a "menacing" manner. It's no wonder sometimes why non-gunn people have a skewed view of us as illiterate, irresponsible cowboys.

On kind of a side-note, in my crusty old age (23) I'm even beginning to take umbrage at the slew of aftermarket acessories designed to make perfectly functional guns more "tactical". I'm sick to death of that friggin word. They even stick it on the side of the Springfield TRP, as if it somehow makes it more likely to kill terrorists than if it weren't "tactical". "m-16 stocks" for the SKS, "homeland defense" ar-15's so laden down with acessories that it looks like an ad for radio shack. Gratuitous pictures of scantily-clad women holding a particular product. Granted, I have nothing against scantily-clad women, but honestly people!

Then again, maybe I've just been reading too much and not shooting enough. The gun rags do occasionally make nice targets....

If I ever pick up one of these magazines and actually read a review with something negative to say, I'd probably subscribe on the spot. Like how about admitting that the 5.7 pistol is actually just a fun plinker, instead of trying desperately to find something positive to say about it's apparent equality to the .22 mag?

GRRRRR.... rant over.