The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Is there a link to an online version of the latest edition?

I have to say, based on the last one, I honestly think I could make a better job of producing a shooting magazine focusing on NRA disciplines than Blaze. It really comes across as a group of journalists with no knowledge of shooting at all have been given a very vague brief and just left to get on with it.

Looks like the latest version is not there yet.

Easy to see though which one is from Blaze...

http://www.nra.org.uk/common/asp/genera ... p?site=NRA

Hi all to do with the anti pirate advert I would think that the companey has paid a fee for the ad and with the state of NRA finances they need all the funds they can get.

I also belive the NRA has a few ex/serving soldiers that might be interested in doing these courses with a chance to get a civilian contracter job.Also some of the ranges that are used
by most shooters offer these courses one off the top of my head is WMS.

As for the cover I would have done a diffrent one with that nut jobs trial starting yesterday.
But there is nothing wrong with the photo it's self.

Watcher wrote:The Imperial is clearly important but not that important.

Yes it is. Thousands of people shoot in it - there's over a thousand in TR and then you add in the Schools Meeting, Service Rifle, Match Rifle, etc...

Watcher wrote:Especially if its a four or five page article in black and white.

Black and white's a pretty good format for text. The Imperial article had lots of photos in colour, often including a two-page spread.

Watcher wrote: Similarly five pages on the exciting adventures of the Athelings in South Africa, Canada, New Zealand or wherever can be a bit irrelevant to someone who has to Google 'Athelings'.

The Athelings only go to Canada. GB teams go to lots of places and, rightly, set an example to which others can aspire. That applies to GB teams in all disciplines, though one might argue that the bigger the selection base in numerical terms, the more important.

Watcher wrote: If the NRA and its Journal is to reflect the entirety of shooting then it needs to think hard about the image it displays. Personally I think it has moved in the right direction.

It's not meant to reflect the entirety of shooting. Not smallbore, for instance, or shotgun.

I am not averse to the inclusion of all the NRA's disciplines. I AM, however, averse to inaccuracy, obvious failure to understand a sport, omission of important items and results and the rewriting of people's letters so as to render them inaccurate as well as unrepresentative of the writer's meaning.

cheeky wrote: I am not averse to the inclusion of all the NRA's disciplines. I AM, however, averse to inaccuracy, obvious failure to understand a sport, omission of important items and results and the rewriting of people's letters so as to render them inaccurate as well as unrepresentative of the writer's meaning.

As I've said, I'm not saying its perfect and it sounds like it needs to look at its editorial procedures, but if I apply the simple 'Watcher test' I'm much more likely to read and enjoy the new version than the old. Perhaps the problem is that I'm too 'Altcar centric'.

Cheeky....I am with you on this....the new "Journal" is a shadow of it's former self and mores the pity......although I do understand the reasons why this has happened.....shortage of money....and I think we all know why that is.....hopefully things will improve with time.....but I fear it will be a long time.

honsu wrote:Hi all to do with the anti pirate advert I would think that the companey has paid a fee for the ad and with the state of NRA finances they need all the funds they can get.

The NRA pays a fixed fee to get the Journal produced. All the advertising revenue goes to Blaze Publishing.

IainWR wrote:

honsu wrote:Hi all to do with the anti pirate advert I would think that the companey has paid a fee for the ad and with the state of NRA finances they need all the funds they can get.

The NRA pays a fixed fee to get the Journal produced. All the advertising revenue goes to Blaze Publishing.

Does the NRA approve the advertising?

IainWR wrote:

honsu wrote:Hi all to do with the anti pirate advert I would think that the companey has paid a fee for the ad and with the state of NRA finances they need all the funds they can get.

The NRA pays a fixed fee to get the Journal produced. All the advertising revenue goes to Blaze Publishing.

So the NRA pays for the journal to be produced and none of the revenue from advertising, etc, comes back to them??

If that's true, I really do have to wonder at the decision-making behind that one. The Journal goes out to a virtually captive market with a massive potential for advertisers to plug all manner of niche products to a demographic it's difficult to reach by other means. I'm not accusing the NRA of mismanagement, but it would seem difficult to produce a publication that couldn't at least break even, in commercial terms.

targetman wrote:I do understand the reasons why this has happened.....shortage of money....

I DON'T understand, precisely for (among others) that reason.

If one-off team brochures can raise lots of money every time, then it would seem to be reasonable to expect that the Journal ought to be a vehicle for raising money for the NRA rather than a cost to it. Advertisers in the Journal know they will get a steadt stream of visibility to members. Sure, there is less 'goodwill' available - advertisers will approach it on a commercial basis rather than a generous one - but still...

Perhaps Karen or Iain will enlighten us as to the realities of Journal finance; I am just going on intuition.