I could not agree more about gun media. I use to spend hours standing in a store reading every gun magazine that was published (every month - for YEARS). About four or five years ago I stopped doing this, because the quality of information had dropped to literally being an extended advertisement and the weapon analysis dropped to the level of "it has plastic grips". Really? Plastic grips - WOW - I need one of those.

This past weekend I picked up a gun magazine at WalMart to thumb through. This is the first time I've looked at one in a VERY long time. I was astounded to see that every gun in the magazine was "fit for zombie duty" after a grueling TWO HUNDRED ROUND "test".

200 rounds? I often shoot 200rds warming up.

How about shooting 2000rds in hot, wet, muddy conditions? That's a test.

Magazines are not paid for by subscribers. They are paid for by advertisers.

Gun companies are offering too many choices. How many variations of Sig are made today? When I bought my first Sig back in the early 1990's you had three choices: Sig P220, Sig P220 European in 38 Super, Sig P226. These were quality guns made in Europe. I'm not picking on Sig, but they're a "flavor of the week" company now with abysmal quality control and materials. They are nothing like Sig SAN was. I'd rather have less options and more quality.

Glock is another good example. They held true to their basic design for many many years. It wasn't until they introduced the Gen 4 that problems showed up. They started using more MIM parts (google Glock Extractor Problem) and changed the recoil system. The system had worked fine in the Sub-Compacts (which had extensive testing) so why wouldn't they work in full size guns (withOUT extensive testing...).