Guns & Ammo magazine

P

Photon Guy

New member
I was wondering if the magazine Guns & Ammo is a good source for knowing what the good guns to get are and how all the different guns and gun companies rate. Supposedly Guns & Ammo is supposed to be like Consumer Reports for guns so are they reliable?
 
Guns & Ammo (and the other gunzines) is more like a collection of company press releases. You will never see anything said bad about a gun or accessory. Any obvious fault is brushed off as a rarity not to be found in the next gun off the assembly line.
Any resemblance to Consumer Reports is in the minds of their subscription salesmen. Note that G&A is full of advertisements, they probably make more from advertising than they do from sales and subscriptions. They are not going to offend their big supporters.

I still take one last gunzine which makes a big thing out of telling it like it is. Maybe they do. Maybe everything they write about works. Maybe they just don't write about the stuff that doesn't. So, mentioned at all, good, not mentioned, doubtful.
 
Yep. What Jim said. If you need better reviews on a gun you are considering just ask about it here on the forum. I stopped buying gun mags several years ago. I do have some old G&A annuals from the 80s and 90s. But I like the revolver articles. Something you don't see much of anymore.

The last decent gun mags I have read were Rifle and Handloader from Wolfe publishing. But I haven't bought one of those in a couple of years.
 
"...anything said bad about a gun..." I've seen exactly one amongst the 9mm vs 45 ACP arguments in 40 some years. Cooper called the HK VP70 a Jam-o-matic. Don't think it was G&A though. Maybe.
"...supposed to be like Consumer Reports..." Not even close. Consumer Reports is totally independent of any marketing department. The gun rags are not. The gun rag writers get, um, perks, for articles they write. Hunting trips to foreign lands and stuff to play with, for example.
"...I stopped buying gun mags several years ago..." Stopped when they cost of 'em went way over $5Cdn., long, long ago. They're running over $10 now.
 
The closest thing to Consumer Reports in the gun world is Gun Tests. That said, the GT staff has definite biases, but then so does the CR staff. Likewise, they occasionally get something just flat-out wrong, e.g. their favorable review of the Remington R51.

For a while, GT was the only gun rag I was subscribed to, but now I've also let that lapse. I prefer shooting guns to reading about them. :)
 
I like thumbing through G&A to see if there are any new "cool" guns that I've somehow missed. Mostly, I just see 1911's and Glock-a-likes.
 
For a while, GT was the only gun rag I was subscribed to, but now I've also let that lapse. I prefer shooting guns to reading about them.
Click to expand...

So do I. But if I am going to buy a gun which I will then shoot I want to make sure its a good gun that Im buying and shooting. I prefer owning and shooting good guns over junk ones.

I used to be a big Remington fan, not so much anymore.
 
If you need better reviews on a gun you are considering just ask about it here on the forum.
Click to expand...

I do ask about guns here but I take what I hear or in this case read on this forum with some skepticism as I do with just about all sources. When I hear about a particular gun or gun company at a gun shop and how good or bad it is I then confirm what I hear by checking other sources such as this forum. That is how I react when I hear particular information about guns, I don't particularly believe it especially if I hear about it at a gun shop but I don't automatically dismiss it either in most cases. Some of the people on this forum don't seem to get that.
 
G&A is the only firearms magazine in which I have a subscription. I have little doubt that they pander to their advertisers. I will say I do own a few firearms they have written about and got it right-on. I know one was the SCCY pistol, and I seem to recall a fair description and evaluation of the Remington R1.

There are certain section I do enjoy like the responses to gun owners' inquiring about their guns age, values, and etc. Then it seems about every other month or so there is an article about older and sometimes antique war era firearms.

I wish they would do more in the way of comparison of competitive guns, scopes, sights, ammunition and etc. The biggest weakness I see is the total absence of reloading articles.

I am not all that trusting of Consumer Digest just as I am also very doubtful of the price values quoted in Fjestad's publication "Blue Book" of Gun Values. It is seldom you find a firearm meeting the price per condition as shown in the Blue Book. I have often heard others state the price there are most advantageous to Pawn Shops for buying purposes but they never claim to own a copy if a buyer want to look at it. I do think the Blue Book has some very useful information in helping one rate the condition of a used firearm.
 
Very rarely do I buy a used firearm. The one time I did buy a "used" gun, it was a gun that had been used as a demonstration piece so it had been put on display for people to see but it hadn't been fired, or if it had been fired only once or twice. So when I got it it was still pretty much a new gun and I paid about $200 less for it.
 
Many Moons Ago

Way back in the dark ages Consumer Report did do firearms reviews. I'm told, that was before my time. :rolleyes:
 
As others have pointed out, G&A is full of ads and "press release"-type articles.

That said, it's a good source for keeping up with what's new out there...
 
IMHO, the best source for information is right here. You'll hear the good, the bad, and the ugly, unvarnished and with no hidden agenda as far as I can tell.

These guys here are very knowledgeable of firearms in a technical sense and have real experience to back it up. After that, and assuming you've narrowed down your search and have an interest in a particular make of firearm, then find those forums that focus on that brand. Take your time. While there is an inherent bias towards the brand by the forum members, you will learn much from there questions, comments, and complaints. But, in the final analysis, you must handle and fire the weapon yourself.
 
IMHO, the best source for information is right here. You'll hear the good, the bad, and the ugly, unvarnished and with no hidden agenda as far as I can tell.

These guys here are very knowledgeable of firearms in a technical sense and have real experience to back it up. After that, and assuming you've narrowed down your search and have an interest in a particular make of firearm, then find those forums that focus on that brand. Take your time. While there is an inherent bias towards the brand by the forum members, you will learn much from there questions, comments, and complaints. But, in the final analysis, you must handle and fire the weapon yourself.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean. As far as I know none of the people here are being paid by Ruger or Remington or Winchester or any of the other brands to promote their products so they aren't going to be biased and presumably none of the people here work at the gun shops I frequent so they're not going to steer me towards buying a particular gun that would profit their store.

Interestingly enough though, a gentleman at a gun shop advised that I buy a less expensive gun if I wanted a better gun. He said I would be better off spending less money on a Savage and I would get a better quality gun by doing so if I were to spend more money on a Remington. Both brands were being sold at the shop he worked at. Anything I hear from a gun shop employee I will take with skepticism but I might ask about it here to see if what I was told has any validity. Its called doing research.
 
Photon Guy said:
I see what you mean. As far as I know none of the people here are being paid by Ruger or Remington or Winchester or any of the other brands to promote their products so they aren't going to be biased ...
Click to expand...
Just because someone isn't being paid doesn't mean he/she isn't biased.

I don't get paid by any gun companies (still working on that), but I can't honestly claim to be unbiased. For handguns, I like Colt and Para-Ordnance 1911s. I respect S&W, Rock Island, Shooters Arms Manufacturing, and several other handgun manufacturers. I do NOT like Remington or SIG 1911s, and I'm not shy about saying so.

Other people who participate on this forum site have likes and dislikes that are diametrically opposed to mine. My opinions on all of the above are based on my own, first-hand experiences with those brands. I don't know if the same can be said for those who hold opposing views, but it's entirely possible. Every gun maker sends out the occasional clunker in a box. I try to be aware of that and to reserve severe criticism only for those brands that seem to have a genuine pattern of problem guns, but I've seen posts calling Colts junk written by people who owned ONE Colt, twenty years ago (right when their quality was at its nadir) and they don't mind telling people that all Colts are still junk (even though the overwhelming consensus across the industry and among shooters is that current Colts are perhaps the best they've ever made).

Bottom line: We can be biased without being bought and paid for.
 
I was wondering if the magazine Guns & Ammo is a good source for knowing what the good guns to get are and how all the different guns and gun companies rate. Supposedly Guns & Ammo is supposed to be like Consumer Reports for guns so are they reliable?
Click to expand...

I consider Gun Tests the most objective. All other Gun Magazines derive their primary income from advertising. I am currently receiving most gun magazines because I get offers of $9.95 for an annual subscription, and that has to be less than the postage! I think I am charged something to show "good faith", but considering the balance of the cost is covered by advertiser's, you cannot expect objective evaluations.

Gunwriters get a fixed amount to write an article, they are not interested in shooting a lot of ammunition or putting a lot of test time on any item. Their fixed fee has to cover materials and labor and the less time and materials they put into an article, the more money they get to take home. Accuracy tests tend to be a joke, three shot groups. You won't win a National Championship with three shot groups. I recently shot the Small Bore Nationals and the winner fired 640 rounds for record and he only dropped two shots outside of the ten ring! The guy next to me was sweating it on the last relay because he was down three points. He could not win the match down three points but with a high X count, he could be two, three, or four overall. When we walked out to change targets, his last 100 yard shot was clearly out in the nine ring, and he was down four points, and at his level, he might as well not showed up for the match.

Advertiser's are not interesting in reading that their gun has failed or done poorly so I am certain there are reviews that were never written, or were re written so the failure went away!

By the way, notice all the hunting trips Gunwriters take? Who do you think is paying for the things? Do you really think these guys are millionaires who just happen to have taken X brand rifle out on a hunt, and wrote about it? If they don't write about the X brand rifle in glowing terms, they don't get another free hunting trip. Just count the number of times a Gunwriter uses the term "legendary" in his article to describe the company and the firearm he is writing about.
 
Gun Tests magazine makes a big deal out of claiming that they buy all the guns they test, so they don't "owe" anything to the manufacturers in the reviews. That was proven to be a lie several years ago.

Couple that with some of their comparison reviews, in which one firearm was clearly inferior to others in the comparison in every regard yet they chose the gun that fared worst as their recommended buy -- and I have no faith whatsoever in Gun Tests

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-212910.html
 
I don't get paid by any gun companies (still working on that), but I can't honestly claim to be unbiased. For handguns, I like Colt and Para-Ordnance 1911s. I respect S&W, Rock Island, Shooters Arms Manufacturing, and several other handgun manufacturers. I do NOT like Remington or SIG 1911s, and I'm not shy about saying so.
Click to expand...

I've never had a Colt although I've been wanting to get one and as it is, Ruger is one of my favorite handgun brands. Im not being paid by Ruger to promote their products but I can tell you from my own experience that their products are excellent and that if you buy a Ruger revolver you will get what you paid for and more. I also like S&W but now I like Ruger better.

So you don't like Remington, join the club I don't like them either. I used to but not so much anymore. Sometimes you might get a good product with Remington but from my experience its quite hit and miss with what you get.
 
Gun Tests magazine makes a big deal out of claiming that they buy all the guns they test, so they don't "owe" anything to the manufacturers in the reviews. That was proven to be a lie several years ago.

Couple that with some of their comparison reviews, in which one firearm was clearly inferior to others in the comparison in every regard yet they chose the gun that fared worst as their recommended buy -- and I have no faith whatsoever in Gun Tests

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/i.../t-212910.html
Click to expand...


I will have to look up the Rohrbaugh pistol test as I have Gun Test issues back to the 1990's. I tried to find the complaint letter by Mr. Rohrbaugh but the link was too old and it was busted.

I think Jim K did an adequate job in responding to the Rohrbaugh incident.


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=212910

Post 7:

Well, Mr. Rohrbaugh obviously sent the gun to GT because he wanted a favorable opinion, now he is unhappy because he didn't get it. So he is beating on them because HE sent THEM the gun and they made an exception to their rule of purchasing guns. They probably should never have tested his gun at all, given their policy, but I suspect there are not enough on the market for anyone to buy.

I can't talk about how the gun performed, but it sounds to me like Mr. Rohrbaugh is a typical hobby gun maker, who has managed to have his "baby" made up and it is, of course, perfection.

Does GT do "scientific testing." Nope, nor do any of the other gunzines. At best, they report informed opinion, backed up by whatever testing looks good in a photo spread. Nor does Mr. Rohrbaugh expect real testing, as evidenced by the fact that he sends the same gun out to all the magazines. If I were asked to wring out his gun, I guarantee there would not be enough left of it to send anywhere.

Mr. Rohrbaugh seems to have some good points, but he sounds more like a sorehead loser than the responsible head of a company.

Post 19:

I didn't notice how old the post is, but my point still holds. He sent them the gun expecting that in return for his generous "gift" they would respond with the usual gunzine crud about its merits. I don't recall the test, nor do I really care how it was conducted, but they panned the gun, and Mr. R didn't receive the favorable review he thought his bribe should get him.

So he criticizes the magazine for violating ITS OWN policy (which is not his problem or mine either), calling them liars, etc. Had GT praised his gun to the skies, he wouldn't care. No, his concern is not about a supposed violation of policy or that they didn't send him a check so they would be buying the gun. He is mad because they panned his new toy. Period.

After reading that rant, I wouldn't buy anything from him. If he jumps on testers that way because they date to criticize HIS product, I can just imagine his nasty response to customer complaints

Jim K
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top