Clay Shooting Magazine

[El Spavo]

Different generations, different age expectations. I'm mid 40s, and enjoy reading a book, but can't remember the last time I bought a magazine, I just go to the net... Some of the mags you're talking about I've never heard of cos it's not in my conscious so buy one. The people younger than me are going to be even more so. 

 

[MartynB]

That ones merging with shooting gazette.

Oh bugger.  Shooting Gazette is an expensive  ,worthless,  thin on pages , crap title , it’s always left on the shelf as it’s value is in question . 
You’ve just spoiled my day ! ( Even more than the blank of standing up to my waist in the freezing water of the river Wharfe for 4 hours flogging a fly rod ) . 
 
I hope the Shooting  Gazette bit quietly dies 

 

[JimO69]

I’m a journalist and I dabble a bit in magazine writing, including one shooting mag.

I think it’s a bit premature to say that magazines have had their day.

They’re certainly facing tough times and are struggling with declining advertising revenues. As readership drops, advertisers pay even less and they’re hit by declines in both revenue streams.

In this hostile environment, weaker magazines will struggle and some will go to the wall. I’ve written for better mags than Clay Shooter which have gone under. It is, in my opinion, a very poor magazine. Sporting Gun is considerably better and if they do it properly then the Clay Shooter section could be vastly improved under their editorship.

It’s true to say that there is a vast amount of free-to-access content online these but it’s worth stopping to consider where that material comes from. Much of it is written by shooting journalists and before it was put online it was probably in a magazine first. Magazines pay these guys’ wages and, believe me, it’s getting very hard to make a living from writing these days. When the mags go, the journalists will go too.  Sure there’s YouTube. I’m a big fan of Jonny on TGS but there aren’t many like him. Often these guys have something they’re trying to flog and even when they don’t it’s hard to be sure about their  experience and independence. 

 

[El Spavo]

there is a vast amount of free-to-access content online these but it’s worth stopping to consider where that material comes from. Much of it is written by shooting journalists and before it was put online it was probably in a magazine first

Yup, but unfortunately I'm not sure what groundbreaking news a shooting mag can profer other than a new bit of kit or hotshot interview, the former probably being the one most people actively search for in any medium, and if it's ending up on the net then that's where most people will look first as it's quicker. I know quite a few will still buy mags, absolutely, as it's quite nice to get randomly given a load of new info which isn't chosen by oneself, but on a technique point of view, I'd argue that most if not all the info is either out there already or needs to be shown/demonstrated by a real life coach, with neither scenario helping the shooting magazine industry.

Unfortunately, it's not like cars where there's a ton of new models, devlopments, and sports happening all the time... shooting is pretty stable and, in my limited experience, quite slow moving.

 

[Luke_(NL)]

both TGS & LP are honest in terms of the pros & cons of what they review such that whilst we all have different opinions I believe them when they say a gun, glasses, whatever, has good or bad features & quality etc.

I would agree, but of late there has been a fair bit of content from TGS focussed on the Browning and Miroku releases that I would struggle to call a "review". Once in a while one may find a gun that has no faults in the eyes of its beholder, but if that happens three consecutive times with guns that happen to shelter under the same umbrella of manufacturers, I suspect bias for whatever reason. Nothing wrong with the lads making a living or getting swag by endorsements, but it would be fair if thats made clear up front. I see contrast to the early days where they were unapologetic about all quirks and issues with any gun regardless of brand.  

In comparison to magazines I do put more faith in reviews on the web because of the sheer number of opinions that you can acces in a few clicks. Also the ads on page 7 for the gun that was reviewed on page 5 doesn't do wonders for the impression of a brutally honest review.  

 

[ExSCA]

Back when I tried to make ShootClay an 'online magazine', I also did some writing for the paper magazine.  I did reports and photos from some of the FITASC and Sporting Majors - and really enjoyed it. 

The fundamental problem is that a core part of the 'news about Clay Shooting' is results, and the process of writing, editing and getting something into peoples hands took weeks - whereas a blog/website/forum took hours.

In the age of video on FB, YT, Instagram - content can be virtually live, and democratised into anyones hands.  Why wait 4 weeks to see a gun review, when someone like Lloyd can do it in a couple of days into his webcamera and get it online for ALL the eyes straight away.  

Magazines are dead in paper format - readers eyes and attention have switched online, and so has advertising spend. 

 

[ColinD]

I would agree, but of late there has been a fair bit of content from TGS focussed on the Browning and Miroku releases that I would struggle to call a "review".

Jon on TSG has never hidden the fact that he's a fanboy of Miroku

 

[pigginspadger]

Jon on TSG has never hidden the fact that he's a fanboy of Miroku

Purely a personal opinion this-:-I have found myself to now much prefer the presenting style of Dave Florent, and his TSC YouTube videos, being the owner of Oxford Gun Company, and the associated Shooting Ground, does offer him a unique opportunity to showcase lots of different guns and being a qualified clay shooting coach, he just seems to impress me with his knowledge and experience, he comes across as an unassuming, likeable, very approachable guy, and has a sense of humour I can relate to. 

 

[jon1]

For some years now the only magazine that I subscribe to is “ The Field “ .  It’s one of the few general interest sporting magazine that had articles of general interest , quality photography and isn’t packed full  “groundhog days “ .  It’s also printed on quality paper and that’s part of the reading experience. The object of a magazine should be to entertain , and once they stop entertaining people stop buying . 

As we’ve decided print magazines are dead, I’ve subscribed to “The Field” on MartynB’s recommendation! 5 issues for £1 each - bargain (I hope)

 

[Wonko the Sane]

I don’t think it’s so much that printed media has had its day. Magazine and newspaper sales across the board are respectable if not what they were 10 years ago.

Clay Shooting’s problem, rather like this website, is that there’s nothing more left to say. Their contributors rehash old articles with a slightly different slant and call it new content. It’s not and people are seeing through it.

Pretty much the state of the world shooting-wise.  The mags here have been at the stagnant level for a couple decades unless you're interested in the latest 3-D printed black rifle or a sniper set-up you can't afford and have no place to shoot.  Or the latest CCW model you can hide up your bum.

AFA shotgun stuff goes, why would anyone need anything beyond the fantastic wealth of experience and cutting edge information available right here at shootclay?

just sayin'

Charlie

 

[pigginspadger]

Pretty much the state of the world shooting-wise.  The mags here have been at the stagnant level for a couple decades unless you're interested in the latest 3-D printed black rifle or a sniper set-up you can't afford and have no place to shoot.  Or the latest CCW model you can hide up your bum.

AFA shotgun stuff goes, why would anyone need anything beyond the fantastic wealth of experience and cutting edge information available right here at shootclay?

just sayin'

Charlie

You have that rare gift Charlie-succinctly and accurately putting into words exactly what I was thinking!!!

 

[Wonko the Sane]

You have that rare gift Charlie-succinctly and accurately putting into words exactly what I was thinking!!!

Obviously a case of Great Minds, etc   :thumbsu:

 

[ExSCA]

I don’t think it’s so much that printed media has had its day. Magazine and newspaper sales across the board are respectable if not what they were 10 years ago.

Clay Shooting’s problem, rather like this website, is that there’s nothing more left to say. Their contributors rehash old articles with a slightly different slant and call it new content. It’s not and people are seeing through it.

I don't want to be contradictory here - but this is wrong.  Sales are not respectable - hence many newspapers and magazines going to an online only operation or ceasing publication altogether.  The stats are clear here - this report shows a 60% decline in national newspaper sales over 20 years, and even sharper reduction in regional newspaper sales.   Magazine circulations have dropped from nearly 90m down to under 35m.   Advertising revenues are being switched to online first in almost every sector, with small business benefitting the most, as they can buy targeted ads at low cost and be seen alongside the competition. 

I'd also argue 'nothing left to say' - the opposite is proved true by the rise of social networks as the alternative, whereas previously the comments were in the hands of a select/elite few journalists, and editorialised letters into the publications - now, anyone can write, comment, create content.  It's up to 'us' whether that stuff is good or bad. 

This website has been a free place for people to come and comment/chat about the sport they love... I've left it up as an alternative for those that don't feel they want to play on Facebook (even though the Clay Shooting groups have a MUCH more active community than here) - the content is only as stale as the people that visit. 

 

 

[El Spavo]

I'd also argue 'nothing left to say' - the opposite is proved true by the rise of social networks as the alternative, whereas previously the comments were in the hands of a select/elite few journalists, and editorialised letters into the publications - now, anyone can write, comment, create content.  It's up to 'us' whether that stuff is good or bad. 

My take on this was not that there's nothing left to say, more that there's not so much in the way of innovation.

In shooting, there's ALWAYS tons to say, from diacussions/arguments about choke size, shot size, cartridge type, gun make, you name it! 

 

[Wonko the Sane]

My take on this was not that there's nothing left to say, more that there's not so much in the way of innovation.

Shotgun by their very nature make that a difficult task.  So inherently simple a device does not lend itself well to explorations of improvements.  There has certainly been an evolution in carts in many ways over the years but the changes to the gun system have to me proven to be more of marketing exploration than gun performance, per se.  Most of the "innovations" are little more than the history you don't know re-born.  Sorta like the way every couple years someone "discovers" the shooting methodology that Churchill documented decades ago.

JMO of course - I could be worng

 

[Jan Powell]

Shotgun by their very nature make that a difficult task.  So inherently simple a device does not lend itself well to explorations of improvements.  There has certainly been an evolution in carts in many ways over the years but the changes to the gun system have to me proven to be more of marketing exploration than gun performance, per se.  Most of the "innovations" are little more than the history you don't know re-born.  Sorta like the way every couple years someone "discovers" the shooting methodology that Churchill documented decades ago.

JMO of course - I could be worng

You’re right. Shotgun shooting’s a fairly simple activity. We throw small metal balls down a smooth tube at moving targets. Neither the shotgun, cartridges or targets have changed in any significant way for decades. This unfortunately means we’ve had a long time to examine and discuss the intricacies of our pastime. Collectively, the sport’s been discussed in great detail from top to bottom and from just about every angle both in print and online. There’s very little left to say.

This leaves the magazines two choices. Either rehash old stories, give them a slightly different twist and present them as new content or go down the gossip and scandal route as Clay Shooting’s short lived editor did a few years ago. Neither seem to pique a great deal of interest.

Websites, though contributor led, face the same problem. New posts about the same old topics discussed umpteen times before. Discussion boards have their place both as a knowledge bank for new shooters and as an opportunity to seek advice from the more experienced but as a means to discuss kit, techniques and ideas, I think we’ve just about run out of new things to say.

 

[Savage10fp]

You can be fooled or misled on social media! Depending what "shooting" group your are in? You only have too look at the administrators to know what there angle is or who they are connected too. They can simply control, manipulate, remove content, and block you from replying or simply remove you from group and they don't have to give a reason why either!! As long as they protect the money and there mates. You only know when you try looking for the group and it no longer appears in the search! Then you are left with your own timeline and friends who can see what you've posted!

Someone posts a plug and someone highlights there opinion on why it won't work or have seen "similar" devices. Generally get ridiculed, by "rent a mob" then secretly removed from group (silenced) So it looks like said individual was wrong and he's gone quiet or can't back up his claims . Despite the individual making valid points

Happens all the time. Its all about the £££££££££ not the reputation!!!

It's why it's good on here. If you follow the rules

 

[Richard59]

Purely a personal opinion this-:-I have found myself to now much prefer the presenting style of Dave Florent, and his TSC YouTube videos, being the owner of Oxford Gun Company, and the associated Shooting Ground, does offer him a unique opportunity to showcase lots of different guns and being a qualified clay shooting coach, he just seems to impress me with his knowledge and experience, he comes across as an unassuming, likeable, very approachable guy, and has a sense of humour I can relate to. 

MrFlorent does indeed “showcase” lots of guns, although understandably these seem to be only the brands his ground & shop stock / sell / promote? Personally am of the opinion that the media content from TSG and Lloyd is on another, more wider appeal ( in that all brands get looked at / commented on ) level. As you say each to their own.

 

[ExSCA]

It's why it's good on here. If you follow the rules

Luckily - there aren't many to remember! 

 

[El Spavo]

MrFlorent does indeed “showcase” lots of guns, although understandably these seem to be only the brands his ground & shop stock / sell / promote? Personally am of the opinion that the media content from TSG and Lloyd is on another, more wider appeal ( in that all brands get looked at / commented on ) level. As you say each to their own.

And that's the trick that some of these reviewers have forgotten or sold out on... Once you show bias, you lose credibility.

Purely as an example, I enjoy Lloyd's videos but even then it must be tricky for him to review anything completely objectively cos he can only see it through his eyes and with his frame body. No offence to Lloyd, but he's hardly Bonnie Langford, so would be tricky for him to visualise how a gun might feel to someone more slight. Still, does a very good job of trying to cover how it might be so fair play to him.