Gun Test

M

mississippi_rifleman

New member
Anyone have a web site for them? I'd like to subscribe, but they don't sell it in my area.

------------------
Ben Lee
Student, Senior
Computer Science
Mississippi State University
Fear the man that owns only one rifle,
he likely knows how to use it.
- Anonymous
 
Thanks, Cawdor.

------------------
Ben Lee
Student, Senior
Computer Science
Mississippi State University
Fear the man that owns only one rifle,
he likely knows how to use it.
- Anonymous
 
Use to subscribe, but found our members here are a better source of information. Gun Tests will unfairly nit-pick a gun because of one minor (and easily remedied flaw). Major things (metallurgy, assembly techniques, ease of maintenance) were ignored.
 
Gun Tests isn't perfect, but it IS the best gun rag out there. If you're going to subscribe to any of them, make it Gun Tests.
 
Gary,

What else out there actually gives a review of guns?

------------------
Ben Lee
Student, Senior
Computer Science
Mississippi State University
Fear the man that owns only one rifle,
he likely knows how to use it.
- Anonymous
 
Post a question here at TFL. Our members will gladly give you feedback.

Gun Tests does not have their own laboratory and is not a Consumer Reports operation.
 
My $0.02 worth ...

The OTHER gunrags get a finely tuned gun from the gun maker who knows that the gun will be reviewed for publication. Therefore, chances are, the particular firearm that they get to test will be the best that that particular model can be. Additionally, you have to keep in mind that advertizing dollars also influences how the final review is written. I'm not necessarily saying that the author purposely making the gun sound better because of ad money but I am saying that before the final articule appears in print, the advertizing money played a part someplace along the way.

I recall a couple of years ago a gunrag did a negative review of thunderwear and the president of the company wrote in to voice his displeasure and say that he was ending all financial relations (running ads) with the gunrag. The bottom line is that gunmakers are the chief advertizers in gunrags and gunrags don't want to piss them off.

So you have a gun being reviewed that is the best that it could possibly be plus the ad money factor and you SOMETIMES have a review that bears very little to how the firearm really is.

GUN TESTS, on the other hand, accepts no ads and buys all of their guns themselves. As a result, what you see is what you get. Of course, they could get stuck with a lemon in an otherwise good model line or they could get "stuck" with a good gun in a normally bad model line. But if you go with the laws of average, chances are the quality of gun that they get will be the same quality of gun that you get.

I agree that GUN TESTS will SOMETIMES unfairly nit-pick a gun because of one minor flaw but they usually identify the reasons why they are giving it a poor rating and if that is a feature that is not important to you, then you can act accordingly. I recall one particular review that they did on compact 9mm's and one of the guns reviewed was the S&W CS. The other guns were DAO and they gave a S&W CS a poor rating because of the difficulty for shooters to go from DA to SA mode where as the other guns did not have that "problem". Well, I've been shooting DA/SA pistols for nearly two decades and going from DA to SA is not a problem for me so I just ignored that particular comment.

GUN TEST is not CONSUMER REPORTS but since CONSUMER REPORTS does not test guns, GUN TEST is the cloest PUBLICATION to a Consumer Reports for guns that we have.

FUD

Before anyone asks, No, I do not have any financial interest in GUN TESTS or am I in any way associated with them. I'm merely trying to share what I know. And, Yes, despite my negative comments, I do buy gunrags not so much for their product review but to keep up with things -- I hear & see all of the news on radio & TV but still buy the Sunday paper. ;)
 
FUD, I've seen several articles where the writer had to send the weapon back for repairs, declared that they'd gotten a lemon, or basically said the weapon was worthless. I've seen other articles where the writer actually purchased the weapon on his own and subsequently reviewed it for the magazine. I think it's sort of an urban legend based on a few incidents (like the Thunderware incident) that writers always get the "cream of the crop." Does it happen? Yup. I've even seen on author admit it. Of course, he mentioned it in the context of a weapon that wouldn't work right because a smith had heard it was going to be reviewed and polished it so much he wore the feed ramp down!

As for Gun Tests, I've found that TFL is a far better source of information. The magazine read like a couple of good ole boys hanging around the gun shop display case. Nothing wrong with that, but I can do that for free at my local shop or on line.
 
Buzz, I think that the comments that I made was the norm for a very long time (I recall reading great reviews of S&W first generation pistols, and despite my love for their recent guns, those guns were as bad as a gun could be but they received a great write-up). Recently, people have become aware of what has been going on and the gunrags have been trying to change that by doing what you said ... making mention that they got a lemon or that it had to be sent back to the factory to be correct or whatever. Like I said, from time to time I DO read the gunrags because I think that there is some value there. If I didn't think that there was, I wouldn't be spending my money on it. But when it comes to an honest review of a firearm, I'll take the word of GUN TESTS over any of the other gunrags.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind having a job like that (the folks at GUN TESTS) ... get a new gun to play with every month and write up a review of your findings. I wonder how much it pays (if I could quite my day job and still provide for my family) and where there are any openings and how to apply.

I do agree with you that the information found on TFL is better than in GUN TESTS or in any of the gunrags and that just gives me a brainstorm of an idea ... check out the following post: http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=30904
 
I like Gun Tests. They are pretty clear about their reasons for their BUY and DON'T BUY ratings. I would consider their opinions, then search TFL. I am more likely to trust Gun Tests than a magazine like "Shooting Times" which seems to be owned by Ruger. I enjoy reading both, but I prefer Gun Tests.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 4V50 Gary:
Use to subscribe, but found our members here are a better source of information.[/quote]

Ditto. Gun Test is really a waste compared to the information available here on TFL and on other sites on the web. Gun Test is too amateurish for my tastes. I guess I've grown out of it. It's OK for beginning shooters looking for a first gun or basic information, but then so are most of the other supermarket tabloids.

But hey, check it out for yourself. Looks like a few TFL'ers like it. Maybe you will too. Everyone has different tastes in guns and literature. You be the judge. Let us know what you think after your first issue.


------------------
Just one of the Good Guys
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top