Airgun World Magazine

[Brad3]

I'm sure an avid clay shooter would argue against your opinion,
just as young people might argue against reviews of old air guns, that mean little to nothing, in todays world,
There are people here on the BBS who think FT & HFT are the be all & end all of airguns & .177 the only calibre,
while I & others don't give a hoot about either &/or happily shoot larger cals.

Simple fact is that a magazine has to try & appeal to everyone, especially youngsters because oldies are going to die sooner, problem with that is youngsters don't buy hardcopy, they live on line.

I think FT is a fun sport as is Clay shooting, but it's almost impossible to make such content fun To read about. You need to get out and do it for it to be fun.
Think Shooting Times article of a ripping yarn into a Scottish Woodland after ground game and pests versus the latest 25 ex 25 (mind numbingly dull) at Packingtington.
The majority must share my view, or it wouldn't be dead in the water like AGW.
Looks like it's also in its last throws, or they would not be wanting suggestions.
Make your broad appeal suggestion on that link maybe.
I am not saying I'm right. You maybe right. It's just my opinion.

[Steyr]

They cover a wide range of disciplines. Buy it or dont.
Shooting is a niche sport so limited revenue stream.
Each discipline becomes even more niche and we are not short on choice.
Some contributors are ace, others wont float your boat.
Advertisers are probably the mags main income. They less people who buy, the higher the price.
I buy shooting mags very occasionally.
Comments on here now are the same as they were 10, 15 and 20 years ago.
You will loose interest when you have attained a certain level of interest.
But at least you can dip your toe in as and when you want.
There are only so many topics one can discuss and then it turns into a revolving door.... calibre debates a case in point.
I shoot air, rim, full bore. I do target and pest control and hunting so I do have a wide list of topics. I did FT which I swapped for HFT as it was more relaxed as far as I was concerned.

I do watch a lot of shooting stuff on utoob which to me, holds my interest better than the airgun shooting mags.

But the choice is yours.

[Blackrider]

Airgun mags aren't all that common in my neck of the woods, the local newsagents and supermarkets don't stock them. If the need arises, (which it doesn't often) I have to visit WHS in either Perth or Dundee.
Plenty of Game(shottie) and rifle mags though which is fine !

[rapidresponse1]

i used to get mine sent

[ballisticboy]

The factual errors are annoying, and I have seen plenty in some of the recent months. If you write and tell them in a polite email, they just ignore it. At least Terry used to reply and acknowledge what you said.

[Josie & John]

The factual errors are annoying, and I have seen plenty in some of the recent months. If you write and tell them in a polite email, they just ignore it. At least Terry used to reply and acknowledge what you said.

Apologies if any of the errors were mine.

There have been quite a few changes in ownership and management over recent months but I'd urge you to get in touch via the Production Editor if you have any constructive feedback.

I also urge you to complete the reader survey, which will give the new management team a feel for what readers want to see in future. What works and what doesn't is a good start.

John M

[Shed tuner]

The factual errors are annoying, and I have seen plenty in some of the recent months. If you write and tell them in a polite email, they just ignore it. At least Terry used to reply and acknowledge what you said.

you really don't want to read some of this month's issue then... like the comments on heavier pellets in the wind, and .22 being worse than .177 cos it's slower. I read it, thought of yours and Jim's excellent, tecnically informed article in the same mag a year or two back, and literally groaned out loud...

[Phil Russell]

Have to agree with the above re errors.
But to the survey. I have not completed the survey yet and I have to admit I have been deliberating whether to or not, verging on 'not'. Why? Because this survey, and others, is getting too intrusive. What has my income got to do with it? Is my age relevant to what I would like to see in the magazine? Occupation? Why? Member of other organisations? Again, why? Other hobbies, why? Last time I filled this info in I was inundated with adverts / e mails asking me to spend money on said other hobby. Insurance ... again are they looking to sell me some? And so it continues .... gathering information on me that is not relevant to what I like or would like to see in the magazine. And if I have missed them .. will someone direct me to the questions asking me about what I like / dislike and what I would like to see included in future articles. All these topics are included in the first 5 lines of the introduction to the survey but then are not mentioned again.
To me it is a duff survey no doubt commissioned but with no interest in finding out what people want from the magazine. It should have been proof read by the owners of the magazine to vet its relevance.
And if you wonder ... I do have a subscription and have had one for many years.
Cheers, Phil

[Brad3]

Have to agree with the above re errors.
But to the survey. I have not completed the survey yet and I have to admit I have been deliberating whether to or not, verging on 'not'. Why? Because this survey, and others, is getting too intrusive. What has my income got to do with it? Is my age relevant to what I would like to see in the magazine? Occupation? Why? Member of other organisations? Again, why? Other hobbies, why? Last time I filled this info in I was inundated with adverts / e mails asking me to spend money on said other hobby. Insurance ... again are they looking to sell me some? And so it continues .... gathering information on me that is not relevant to what I like or would like to see in the magazine. And if I have missed them .. will someone direct me to the questions asking me about what I like / dislike and what I would like to see included in future articles. All these topics are included in the first 5 lines of the introduction to the survey but then are not mentioned again.
To me it is a duff survey no doubt commissioned but with no interest in finding out what people want from the magazine. It should have been proof read by the owners of the magazine to vet its relevance.
And if you wonder ... I do have a subscription and have had one for many years.
Cheers, Phil

Blimey...really, I won't bother then. It's probably game over anyway.

[Josie & John]

Have to agree with the above re errors.
But to the survey. I have not completed the survey yet and I have to admit I have been deliberating whether to or not, verging on 'not'. Why? Because this survey, and others, is getting too intrusive. What has my income got to do with it? Is my age relevant to what I would like to see in the magazine? Occupation? Why? Member of other organisations? Again, why? Other hobbies, why? Last time I filled this info in I was inundated with adverts / e mails asking me to spend money on said other hobby. Insurance ... again are they looking to sell me some? And so it continues .... gathering information on me that is not relevant to what I like or would like to see in the magazine. And if I have missed them .. will someone direct me to the questions asking me about what I like / dislike and what I would like to see included in future articles. All these topics are included in the first 5 lines of the introduction to the survey but then are not mentioned again.
To me it is a duff survey no doubt commissioned but with no interest in finding out what people want from the magazine. It should have been proof read by the owners of the magazine to vet its relevance.
And if you wonder ... I do have a subscription and have had one for many years.
Cheers, Phil

Fair point Phil. I don't like marketing junk either.

Why not just answer the questions that apply to AGW content and leave the others blank or enter N/A?

Or alternatively forward your answers direct to the editor using the contact email for the letters page.

I'm conscious that with a new Production Editor, it's important for readers to let the mag know what they like and what they don't like as this will shape future content. We were told for a long time years ago that most readers liked hunting content but I'm not convinced of this and surveys like this are a way of telling the editor what you want to see.

John

[Phil Russell]

Fair point Phil. I don't like marketing junk either.

Why not just answer the questions that apply to AGW content and leave the others blank or enter N/A?

Or alternatively forward your answers direct to the editor using the contact email for the letters page.

I'm conscious that with a new Production Editor, it's important for readers to let the mag know what they like and what they don't like as this will shape future content. We were told for a long time years ago that most readers liked hunting content but I'm not convinced of this and surveys like this are a way of telling the editor what you want to see.

John

Fair point John. I did think that a 'Letter to the Times' was called for but maybe a letter to the editor of AGW would be more appropriate. And just so that you know, I really enjoy your articles and would be very disappointed if AGW turned into a 'Hunting' magazine.
Cheers, Phil

[gsxrman]

Used to have subscription to both mags.
Used to read them to learn.
Once you stop learning then what is the point.
Other media is much more readily available etc.
I would imagine sales are down on all magazines compared to decades ago, just like Newspapers.

[ashf9999]

I always take magazines and their articles to be a matter of the writer’s opinion. Opinions vary. I agree that wildly inaccurate or misleading statements have no place in a magazine that makes out they’re indisputable, but, for example, if I read something re calibre choice I didn’t agree with, I’d just ignore that - in the same way I would on here. I see the magazine as a longer print version of what gets discussed on the forum (with hopefully better photos). Bits appeal differently to different people.

We get the same in medical journals - we can disagree with what’s written, but there there’s been an element of a checking process before publication. With the likes of AGW we tend to do the peer review on here, after things have been published. However, that is part of the editors remit too. One editor vrs many peer reviewers will lead to different results.

[ballisticboy]

Apologies if any of the errors were mine.

John M

The one I wrote in about was an "On The Bench" article which contained a number of basic mistakes, so no, I don't think it was one of yours.