Gun Rags you Trust?
- Thread starter clintpup
- Start date
Aguila Blanca
Staff
No.clintpup said:
"Reviews" amount to advertising. Almost all the things in a gun magazine are but advertising. Years ago, I sent their prepaid subscription cards back with, "I do not pay to read advertising. Your magazine has deteriorated (mostly advertisements) to the point where I will not pay to read it...if you want to send it to me for free, I will read some/most of it." And of course they did not send me a free subscription. So, I have not read any gun mags in years...don't need them.
Pathfinder45
New member
This probably doesn't qualify, but I do have some regard for Handloader magazine.
FrankenMauser
New member
Trust?
It comes and goes.
What do I actually read?
Hunter.
Rifle.
Handloader.
American Rifleman and a few other "courtesy" subscriptions (free w/ membership, donation, whatever), are given to my autistic daughter to destroy with hardly a look (if any) at the pages. My daughter sure does love the sound of book or magazine pages being torn...
It comes and goes.
What do I actually read?
Hunter.
Rifle.
Handloader.
American Rifleman and a few other "courtesy" subscriptions (free w/ membership, donation, whatever), are given to my autistic daughter to destroy with hardly a look (if any) at the pages. My daughter sure does love the sound of book or magazine pages being torn...
random guy
New member
Trust? Sure, unless I have specific reason not to. But I'm going to verify as well before plopping down my cash. That means looking at every review I can find, published, online, offline, friends, in-laws...every review, weighing their cred and sniffing for fluff and payola.
The one type of review that turns me off is the unqualified glowing review. No acknowledgement that this gun is good for this purpose but less than ideal for another. Not even the slightest mention of ergonomic quirks or discomfort. Addressing accuracy vaguely or even evasively. Usually padded with fluff which might evoke feelings in a potential buyer (or just to make up for the lack of hard facts). Generally aimed at less experienced buyers. You may as well read the company brochure.
As the OP implied, the positive may or may not be true but the negative usually will be valid, at least for the example at hand. American Rifleman (and others I imagine) are not shy about reporting when they had to return a sample gun for repair/replacement. Their accuracy testing protocol is fairly rigid and meaningful, even though YMMV. The results are often not what you might expect, which in the real world is exactly what any experienced shooter has learned to be the truth. YMMV.
I got a kick out of it years ago when American Rifleman used the same exact target in reviews of two different pistols (Llama Max 1 and H&K USP, IIRC) in the same issue. Pretty sure that was an innocent oversight though. If intentional, they would have been a bit sneakier than that.
Every review is just a data point and due to the many variables, even objective facts will vary. As a whole, better than nothing.
The one type of review that turns me off is the unqualified glowing review. No acknowledgement that this gun is good for this purpose but less than ideal for another. Not even the slightest mention of ergonomic quirks or discomfort. Addressing accuracy vaguely or even evasively. Usually padded with fluff which might evoke feelings in a potential buyer (or just to make up for the lack of hard facts). Generally aimed at less experienced buyers. You may as well read the company brochure.
As the OP implied, the positive may or may not be true but the negative usually will be valid, at least for the example at hand. American Rifleman (and others I imagine) are not shy about reporting when they had to return a sample gun for repair/replacement. Their accuracy testing protocol is fairly rigid and meaningful, even though YMMV. The results are often not what you might expect, which in the real world is exactly what any experienced shooter has learned to be the truth. YMMV.
I got a kick out of it years ago when American Rifleman used the same exact target in reviews of two different pistols (Llama Max 1 and H&K USP, IIRC) in the same issue. Pretty sure that was an innocent oversight though. If intentional, they would have been a bit sneakier than that.
Every review is just a data point and due to the many variables, even objective facts will vary. As a whole, better than nothing.
The gun rags became extensions of their advertisers' marketing departments long ago. I've seen exactly one review that did not say the subject was the best thing since sliced bread in over 40 years.
Haven't bought any either for eons though. Ain't no gun rag worth the $12 plus tax demanded for 'em. Even if you could find any of 'em in any store.
Haven't bought any either for eons though. Ain't no gun rag worth the $12 plus tax demanded for 'em. Even if you could find any of 'em in any store.
I generally don't rely on gun magazines when making decisions related to firearms. I don't buy or read gun magazines except American Rifleman (from the NRA) and Bugle (from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.) I receive both magazines because I am a (life) member of both organizations. Both magazines are filled with advertising. I spend MUCH MORE time on The Firing Line than I do reading magazines.
Gunplummer
New member
No.
g.willikers
New member
I wouldn't rely on gun magazines any more than gun forums for choosing much of anything.
Too many opinions based on personal likes, dislikes and no way to tell if it's really useful information.
The best way to pick a gun is to try one if possible.
Like range rentals and begging to try something at the range.
Too many opinions based on personal likes, dislikes and no way to tell if it's really useful information.
The best way to pick a gun is to try one if possible.
Like range rentals and begging to try something at the range.
Kevin Rohrer
New member
Simple answer: No.
I "like" Handloader, but their reviews are just as bad as the rest of the gun mags. And the mag has badly deteriorated from what it once was due to it editorial policy of only using a small stable of writers who do nothing more than regurgitate the same info, month after month in different ways. They have not had a truly new and interesting article by an outsider in decades. Too bad.
The only mag I trusted was Varmint-Hunters. They welcomed and depended on outside writers, who wrote about different topics, both technical and general in ways the gun rags can only dream of doing. Too bad the Association mysteriously and suddenly went belly-up in 2014. I have yet to hear what happened.
I "like" Handloader, but their reviews are just as bad as the rest of the gun mags. And the mag has badly deteriorated from what it once was due to it editorial policy of only using a small stable of writers who do nothing more than regurgitate the same info, month after month in different ways. They have not had a truly new and interesting article by an outsider in decades. Too bad.
The only mag I trusted was Varmint-Hunters. They welcomed and depended on outside writers, who wrote about different topics, both technical and general in ways the gun rags can only dream of doing. Too bad the Association mysteriously and suddenly went belly-up in 2014. I have yet to hear what happened.
Last edited:
Not really. Like car reviews, you can find virtually any 'objective result' you want.
Just like I can buy 100, 1,000 or even 100,000 "likes" for Yelp, Facebook or other reviews / from overseas "Like Companies" who charge to rapidly improve your ratings, I believe that many (not all) of the reviews are paid, either directly, in-kind or otherwise to reach a particular result. That makes it all the more difficult to believe reviews.
On the flipside, I felt I received very good feedback on the 'best rifle for the least $'s thread here, and I'm guessing none of you who responded got a check or free ammo for your reply.
Just like I can buy 100, 1,000 or even 100,000 "likes" for Yelp, Facebook or other reviews / from overseas "Like Companies" who charge to rapidly improve your ratings, I believe that many (not all) of the reviews are paid, either directly, in-kind or otherwise to reach a particular result. That makes it all the more difficult to believe reviews.
On the flipside, I felt I received very good feedback on the 'best rifle for the least $'s thread here, and I'm guessing none of you who responded got a check or free ammo for your reply.
muzzleblast...
New member
I haven't read many "rags" since the days of Jack O'Connor, Elmer Keith, John Wooters, Skeeter Skelton, Charles Askins, Bill Jordan, George Nonte, et. al.
I really don't have much interest in the latest, greatest AR, or polymer wonder. So, as for current issues, there's nothing to see, for me.
I really don't have much interest in the latest, greatest AR, or polymer wonder. So, as for current issues, there's nothing to see, for me.