Handgun accuracy reviews in magazines BS?

T

Tnglock

New member
Do some of you call BS on some firearm's magazine's about accuracy? I think a lot of em are BS and have never seen anyone shoot that well. I'm an average shot but know a couple guy's who are above average one a deputy the other a shop and range owner. They both call BS and say it's a pay off just wondered what your thought's were. TNglock
 
they really are BS in some ways.

sure they dont take the time to find the perfect load foreach gun, but heres a few things that ive noticed years now.

1. more advertising from that guns company means larger groups are "good".

ive seen articles where the author stated that accuracy needs to be 3 inches at 20 yards minimum. but then shoots the gun and determines 5 inch groups are ideal because you know the whole torso region will get perforated.

2. certain brands get more leniency.

ive seen one article from a guy who stated a 5 inch group from a 1500 1911 was fine combat shooting, but derided a charter arms revolver because it was only capable of getting a 2 inch groupat the same range.
 
Unless a Ransom Rest is used an great deal of the "accuracy" of a gun in a magazine article is due to the skill of the shooter and the particular load used in the gun. Some of those writers are pretty good and some of them ain't. Think of it this way - most guns are far more accurate than most humans that shoot them. I worked in a shop for years that had a Ransom Rest and you never saw very many "inaccurate" guns unless something was really wrong with the barrel. Remove all of the human error and THEN you see what the gun is capable of. Quite a few times when a customer brought back a gun we had "accurized" or worked over and claimed it was inaccurate we would clamp it into the Ransom Rest and shoot a 1 in cloverleaf while they watched. I am sure it was somewhat embarrassing for them but they stopped complaining about the gun and decided to work on their skills more.
 
Drail is correct regarding the Ransom Rest. Take out the human element, and accuracy will improve.

Almost all publications take advertising money from firearm and ammunition manufactures. You also usually have the situation where a manufacturer sends a firearm or boxes of ammunition they have hand selected to a writer for review. Even then, sometimes the firearm or ammunition do not function properly.

When malfunctions do occur, it is common for the writer/reviewer to not make an issue of the malfunction. If the writer has a reputation of being critical (unbiased IMO), they are not likely to have many items sent to them for review. No items to review, no money for their review article. The writer might be allowed to keep the firearm they review or another of the same model to add to their personal collection.

Bottom line: Take these reviews with a grain of salt.
 
I think a lot of em are BS and have never seen anyone shoot that well.
Click to expand...
I don't see many people at the range shooting groups like the ones the writers get. Then again, I don't see many people at the range shooting groups with a Ransom Rest or over shooting bags.

In my experience, most decent quality centerfire autopistols, using ammo they "like", will shoot 3" groups or so at 25 yards. Some will shoot a good bit better than that, some not so well.
 
I was associate editor of American Rifleman magazine from October 1990 to April 1994.

I can verify to you that every grouping reported in the magazine between those years were fired either on a Ransom Rest, by one of the members of staff, or both.

More than once I fired some of those groups.

Oh, and not just handguns, either. Also rifles and shotguns.
 
The only person I have ever seen at my range shooting from a seated position over a rest is me. I typically shoot 5-shot groups and don't count the worst shot in each group. Following this protocol, it's a rare pistol that can't beat 3" at 75 feet with at least two types of ammo.

Some magazine reviews explain the protocol accurately (is it the best group, or an average of ___ groups? Does the reviewer drop the worst shot from each group? Etc.) and others don't. Regardless, I don't find their results to be all that far outside the realm of possibility. Shooting from a rest makes a huge difference, IMHO.
 
Not really all that surprising. Money talks. Advertisers won't pay for ads if they aren't getting favorable coverage in the magazine. I used to be a cigar smoker. Cigar Aficionado magazine regularly does reviews, and non-cubans ALWAYS outrank Cubans, despite not being sold anywhere but the US.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2
 
I don't know about accuracy but I do know that they downplay and possibly conceal reliability issues. IMO, that's a lot worse than embellishing groups.
 
I take most reviews with a big grain of salt. Most service hand guns are capable of 3" to 4" groups at 25yds, some will shoot much better. The small and light guns are more accurate than most of us can shoot them.

I do not ever recall a bad review of any gun in the gun magazines but I have owned some of those guns that were not great. You have to look at what was not said about the gun to get an idea of the writers true opinion. :D
 
Yes, other than Gun Tests, I rarely see anything negative on guns being reviewed in gun magazines. In a couple of cases where a problem was noted and the gun sent back to the manufacturer, the reviewers gushed over the great customer service in making things right, as if a gun maker standing behind their poduct is uncommon.
 
It's been my experience that most handguns are mechanically more accurate than I am unless the sights are spaced at least 4" apart.

I shoot full size 1911's much better than shorter guns, I don't believe it's because they are so much more accurate as it's that I am incapable as being as accurate with the shorter iron sight radius as I am with the longer sighting radius.

Give me a nice 1911 with a good trigger and good sights, I'll shoot 1.5" groups with decent ammo, assuming the target is bright enough and precise enough.
 
Regardless, I don't find their results to be all that far outside the realm of possibility. Shooting from a rest makes a huge difference, IMHO.
Click to expand...

I'll have to agree. I've had many gun mag subscriptions and never really seen any handgun accuracy reults that seemed too good to be true.

I have magazines from the 1970s and 1980s , before the Ransom Rest started to become widely used and the groups posted in tests were indeed larger than most modern tests when the Ransom Rest is more common.

The first time I scoped a revolver and shot from a rest I was really impressed on the accuracy achieved, and it also showed me how far off I was from shooting to the potential of the revolver when standing and shooting with no support.
 
I typically shoot 5-shot groups and don't count the worst shot in each group. Following this protocol, it's a rare pistol that can't beat 3" at 75 feet with at least two types of ammo.
...
Regardless, I don't find their results to be all that far outside the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...
Your results and conclusions agree pretty well with mine. That's always very comforting! :D
 
I personally find every accuracy test result I produce to be non-BS. :)
No payoff, Tnglock.
Your friends are wrong.
Denis
 
gun writers have to satisfy the gun companies,
their bosses and the people that buy the magazine.
They flip flop-nothing new.
Everyone wants an accurate gun but loads of people
can't deliver good accuracy.
A gun writer has to make these people on both sides of the coin
feel warm and cozy.

Talk about flip flop-Look at Zumbo (or that other guy-can't remember
which) but one of 'em said black rifles have no business
being hunted with.He was suspended and who knows what else
but now he lives and breathes the Black rifle religion.
Look what new cartridges have come out since that,
for the AR platforms and now every major "hunting" rifle manufacturer
sports one or 2 models.
A writer can't just hug one side, he's got to please everyone!
 
heres something to ponder,

a few years ago i read a gun magazine that actually reviewed the 4 inch 357 adjustable sight charter arms revolver. the author shot it two handed, standing up at a range for 20-25 yards. he said he merely grabbed 150 rounds of random 357 ammo, and shot it up. his worst measured group was 3 to 3.5 inches. He said that was very good considering it was a new gun, and the ammo was so random.
however he then went on to say that the accuracy results were meaningless as he didnt shoot enough ammo. or use a rest.

yet in the same magazine issue a semi auto that was fired with the same number of cartridges, on a shooting bag, and at the same distance grouped the same, but was hearalded as perfect and proven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top