"Gun Test" magazine any good? - Page 2

Double Naught Spy · October 6, 2012, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Want to bet?

You'd be surprised at some of the stories I've gooten when contacting manufacturers about problems with guns we have for review ...

It certainly gives pause. If they treat someone who is going to write about their product that cavalierly, I pity anyone who might buy a gun from certain manufacturers.

Really? I have missed that in the gun reviews. I have seen gun reviews that sing the praise of wonderful CS, but not how they were jerked around knowing it was a gun reviewer. I would like to see some of those articles where the reviewers shared this with the readers.

DPris · October 6, 2012, 09:28 AM

Why?
What difference would it make?

A gun review isn't about the process of obtaining a sample, it's about the sample.
What would you want to see in print about the process?
Denis

Double Naught Spy · October 6, 2012, 01:20 PM

DPris, you misunderstood. We aren't talking about just obtaining a sample. We are talking about returning a defective gun.

The review isn't just about the gun if the gun doesn't work. It is about how the company will make things right so that the defective gun will no longer be defective. Just like so many gun reviews fail to note problems, they apparently are failing to note problems and followup CS problems in resolving issues.

When you buy a new gun, it usually comes with a warranty. It is part of the gun until which time it expires. So if the reviewers have to return a gun for service, that is very salient information. If a gun company is going to give a hard time to the reviewers of a gun rag that they know are reviewing one of their guns for publication, then they can't be counted on to treat Joe Public much better if Joe Public has a problem with one of their guns under warranty.

Old Grump · October 6, 2012, 05:06 PM

I used to subscribe to at least a dozen gun and outdoor magazines, probably more but I am down to Gun Tests. Not because everything they say is gospel but because they say what they feel like saying based on their own personal tests and not because the manufacturer sent them on an all expense paid hunt in South America or an African Safari to write a puff piece about the newest and greatest (scope, gun, ammo, coat, boots)....pick one. If a customer disagrees they print the letter. I like that.

DPris · October 7, 2012, 01:17 AM

Naught,
Ah, I did.
Y'know, even then it means very little.

Among the six or seven forums I frequent I'll see one guy post about how great Company X treated him with customer service problems, and in another post I'll see another guy post about horrific treatment by the same company's CS.

Like day & night, about the same company.
Seen it time & time again.

Denis

**4V50 Gary** · October 9, 2012, 08:22 PM

Quote:

The writers are not all that knowledgeable, and their conclusions ultimately are based more on their biases and prejudices than on the factual results of their testing. It's not unusual to read the final recommendation and wonder who the heck they reached that conclusion based on the facts they presented.

I approve of the above message.

I also approve of Double Naught Spy's first post in this thread.

I used to subscribe to Gun Tests over ten years ago, but gave up on them. Their comparisons were superficial, ignored the design or material (composition) issue and concentrated on the cosmetics of the guns reviewed. Asking the members of TFL has been more productive.

Nathan · October 9, 2012, 08:54 PM

Quote:

The writers are not all that knowledgeable, and their conclusions ultimately are based more on their biases and prejudices than on the factual results of their testing. It's not unusual to read the final recommendation and wonder who the heck they reached that conclusion based on the facts they presented.

This is the best summary of what Gun Tests articles are like.

I would take it farther than this though and say the ignorance often shows in groupings. . .like, it seems not to far fetched that the would compare an Ed Brown 1911, a Llama and a Colt DA 1911 in a 1911 comparison. Then, to make matters worse, the Colt DA would win because it had some inherent safety because it is a DA.

testuser · October 9, 2012, 09:09 PM

I currently have a subscription. I can't say I always agree with all of their conclusions, but at least the facts are there. It's very seldom you hear a critical review of any gun in most of the magazines out there.

I find it entertaining to read, much more so than American Rifleman, recently. NRA is always begging for money and talking politics...eleven articles in my current mag and three are political. I'd rather get eight articles and zero politics...save the political rants for American's First Freedom magazine.

dawg23 · October 10, 2012, 07:57 PM

I used to receive a free subscription to Gun Test. I quit reading them after about 6 issues, and ignored their mailings asking me to purchase a subscription.

As has been noted, their writers were (haven't read an issue in a couple of years) notably inexperienced. They often wrote about the "feel" of a gun, based on having allowed "people at the range" to hold and/or shoot the gun.

My biggest criticism deals with their inappropriate test criteria. They would test several "self defense" handguns, and invariably proceed to pontificate about the results of accuracy tests. (I'm of the opinion that virtually every pistol selling for $500 or more will deliver accuracy that is more than adequate for self defense use).

But they never attempted to test reliability. Worse than that, they would gloss over any jams, FTF's, FTE's etc that occurred during their "tests." They would report that "Except for a few instances where the gun failed eject the empty cases, the gun was virtually flawless."

Tests of sporting shotguns seemed to hinge on whether or not the author thought the gun was "properly balanced" -- along with comparisons of the lines per inch checkering on various makes and models.

I think the content was 60% garbage, and about 20% personal preference.

ohen cepel · October 10, 2012, 08:12 PM

I used to subscribe, now I think I am much better served by reading reviews on the net. On the net, yes I know there will be some worthless info, I hear about more than 1 sample. If they get 1 bad sample, they extrapolate that over all of that model, which I don't support.

For me, the 'net made them obsolete.

October 6, 2012, 01:20 PM	#28
Double Naught Spy Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas Posts: 9,736	DPris, you misunderstood. We aren't talking about just obtaining a sample. We are talking about returning a defective gun. The review isn't just about the gun if the gun doesn't work. It is about how the company will make things right so that the defective gun will no longer be defective. Just like so many gun reviews fail to note problems, they apparently are failing to note problems and followup CS problems in resolving issues. When you buy a new gun, it usually comes with a warranty. It is part of the gun until which time it expires. So if the reviewers have to return a gun for service, that is very salient information. If a gun company is going to give a hard time to the reviewers of a gun rag that they know are reviewing one of their guns for publication, then they can't be counted on to treat Joe Public much better if Joe Public has a problem with one of their guns under warranty. __________________ "If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 Last edited by Double Naught Spy; October 10, 2012 at 09:33 AM.

October 6, 2012, 05:06 PM	#29
Old Grump Senior Member Join Date: April 9, 2009 Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in a little hut in the woods Posts: 3,126	I used to subscribe to at least a dozen gun and outdoor magazines, probably more but I am down to Gun Tests. Not because everything they say is gospel but because they say what they feel like saying based on their own personal tests and not because the manufacturer sent them on an all expense paid hunt in South America or an African Safari to write a puff piece about the newest and greatest (scope, gun, ammo, coat, boots)....pick one. If a customer disagrees they print the letter. I like that. __________________ Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster--

October 10, 2012, 07:57 PM	#34
dawg23 Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2001 Location: Louisiana Posts: 379	I used to receive a free subscription to Gun Test. I quit reading them after about 6 issues, and ignored their mailings asking me to purchase a subscription. As has been noted, their writers were (haven't read an issue in a couple of years) notably inexperienced. They often wrote about the "feel" of a gun, based on having allowed "people at the range" to hold and/or shoot the gun. My biggest criticism deals with their inappropriate test criteria. They would test several "self defense" handguns, and invariably proceed to pontificate about the results of accuracy tests. (I'm of the opinion that virtually every pistol selling for $500 or more will deliver accuracy that is more than adequate for self defense use). But they never attempted to test reliability. Worse than that, they would gloss over any jams, FTF's, FTE's etc that occurred during their "tests." They would report that "Except for a few instances where the gun failed eject the empty cases, the gun was virtually flawless." Tests of sporting shotguns seemed to hinge on whether or not the author thought the gun was "properly balanced" -- along with comparisons of the lines per inch checkering on various makes and models. I think the content was 60% garbage, and about 20% personal preference. __________________ . www.PersonalDefenseTraining.net

October 10, 2012, 08:12 PM	#35
ohen cepel Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 1999 Location: Where they send me Posts: 1,011	I used to subscribe, now I think I am much better served by reading reviews on the net. On the net, yes I know there will be some worthless info, I hear about more than 1 sample. If they get 1 bad sample, they extrapolate that over all of that model, which I don't support. For me, the 'net made them obsolete. __________________ He who dares wins. NRA Life Benefactor Member

October 6, 2012, 09:28 AM	#27
DPris Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2004 Posts: 3,778	Why? What difference would it make? A gun review isn't about the process of obtaining a sample, it's about the sample. What would you want to see in print about the process? Denis

October 7, 2012, 01:17 AM	#30
DPris Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2004 Posts: 3,778	Naught, Ah, I did. Y'know, even then it means very little. Among the six or seven forums I frequent I'll see one guy post about how great Company X treated him with customer service problems, and in another post I'll see another guy post about horrific treatment by the same company's CS. Like day & night, about the same company. Seen it time & time again. Denis

October 9, 2012, 09:09 PM	#33
testuser Senior Member Join Date: September 8, 2010 Posts: 495	I currently have a subscription. I can't say I always agree with all of their conclusions, but at least the facts are there. It's very seldom you hear a critical review of any gun in most of the magazines out there. I find it entertaining to read, much more so than American Rifleman, recently. NRA is always begging for money and talking politics...eleven articles in my current mag and three are political. I'd rather get eight articles and zero politics...save the political rants for American's First Freedom magazine.