Handgun accuracy reviews in magazines BS?

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.
Click to expand...
Unless the same author did both reviews, I wouldn't consider that to be anything other than proof that different people have different ideas about what is acceptable accuracy.
 
I don't actually have a boss, I'm self-employed. :)

But, as I've said many times before, space is limited & reserved for non-POS products.
I can & do put in a minor glitch or two when encountered, but if it's a total POS, it's just DOA.
If it's a complete POS, there's no article to call it anything in. :)
Denis
 
IMO most of the "quality" guns these days are more accurate than 90% of the people that will actually shoot them. If they write the gun shoots a half inch at 25 yards (pistol) or .25 inches at 200 yards (rifle) I'll take their word for it. I'm a decent shot (not super awesome DN's great) and with a Ransom rest, a stress free day and some good ammo I can pull groups like you see in the magazines shootin $2k dollar customs with my unmolested right out of the box RIA. Modern guns are really good guns.
 
Along these same lines, I notice when reading many [not all, but many] of those articles that the grouping on the target is way off-center. In other words, the target photos show a tight group, yes...but said group is off to the right, left, above, or below the X ring. Anyone have any answers / opinions on that?
 
Sure, it's quite simple.
Why bother to zero precisely on a gun we're not going to keep?

If a particular gun's close enough to point of aim to produce repeatable groups in accuracy testing & it's not going to be used for hunting in a given piece, why waste the time & ammunition to adjust for perfectly centered groups on paper, or final zero? It's the accuracy we're looking for, and whether everything lines up for a pretty picture or not just isn't a factor. :)
The gun's going back to its maker, the photo is only there because some readers like to see group images.

Time is money. There are production costs involved in every article. There is no endless supply of ammunition. The more time & the more ammo used, the more it cuts into the profit margin & the more it depletes resources that can be used in other articles.

Sometimes a range session may involve more than one gun, and if four or five are bundled into a single range day, taking time to precisely zero each one multiplies the waste of time & ammo.
Also multiply that waste of time & ammo by re-zeroing for EACH SPECIFIC LOAD FIRED, and you really get behind the curve.
If I shoot six different loads (different bullet weights, different velocities) during one test session through the gun, in most cases I'd have to re-zero with all six to get you perfectly centered target photos. Not gonna happen.

I'll make sight or glass adjustments if needed to get a gun at least close to POA, but if a gun's only off an inch or two out of the box, as long as it's consistent that's all I'm after.

Some editors want those target photos, some don't. I personally prefer not to bother, since it adds more time & effort to the production process.
In cases where an editor doesn't, I've not bothered to correct an occasional rifle that may be printing 6 or 8 inches low at 100 yards, for instance. If I know there's enough adjustment in the gun or glass to correct for that elevation, I don't care where it hits on paper, as long as it does hit on paper, and consistently.

Even on a test gun I may decide on the spot I want to buy & keep, I generally don't take "company time" for final zeroing. I get business done & go back later for the final sighting in.

Many people don't realize that being a gunwriter is neither entirely a charitable situation nor entirely a matter of ego. Many of us do it as a for-profit endeavor, and when the costs of producing an article are bigger than the check we get for it, we don't make any money.

You wouldn't work for free, I don't either. :)
Denis
 
Along these same lines, I notice when reading many [not all, but many] of those articles that the grouping on the target is way off-center. In other words, the target photos show a tight group, yes...but said group is off to the right, left, above, or below the X ring.
Click to expand...

If I'm doing load development, that's the way I want it to be. If you are shooting five shot groups with a .350 Remington Magnum and using one inch orange circles at 100 yards, you sure as heck don't want to be sighted dead on. One or two perfect hits and you won't have anything to aim at. You want those shots to be several inches away from your aim point. The aim point stays nice and pristine. Then you can just concentrate on shooting for group size. Once you have the load all figured out based on group size and velocity/pressure signs... THEN you bother to adjust your sights for preferred zero.

Gregg
 
I know rifle projectiles have a better ballistic coefficient,and most folks expect them to shoot at least MOA,at 100 yards,but why would a handgun not be able to shoot MOA at 25 yards?
I wouldn't think the bullet design would have all that much bearing at short distances.
I am saying hand gun,not shooter,to take human error out of the picture.
 
I recall one magazine that described the great 25 yard groups from a new pistol. But somebody blew the whistle, and I always wondered if it was deliberate. The article repeatedly talked about 25 yards, but the target in the picture was marked 25', which is 25 FEET, not 25 YARDS, just a little bit of difference. The groups were still fairly good, but not super.

The same issue had a two page ad for the new pistol. Coincidence?

Jim
 
On that perpetual ad issue:
Lead times between the day a particular article is submitted and the day it becomes part of a layout on paper can be typically anywhere from one month to six months. And that's AFTER it's been assigned, which can involve another month or three to get the piece done & in.

The longest lead time I've personally had was four YEARS, there was no way I knew what'd be running ad wise that far away.
Just proofed a piece for one magazine that's now two years old, have another one that'll be 18 months old by the time it hits the newsstand.

No writer knows what ad content's going to be that far ahead, and writers have no influence over layouts.
Editors usually don't know what'll be running next to ads when an assignment's made. Editors don't do layouts in the mags I write for.

In my case as a freelancer, I have no more idea when I pitch an article to an editor what ads may be in the same magazine with it, or on a facing page, than you do till we both see it in print.

A couple things for consideration:
The largest names in the business have standing accounts. That means you're quite likely to see their ads in just about every issue that they advertise in.
If I pitch a Ruger article & it's green-lit, by the time the piece makes print there's about a 95% chance that there'll be a Ruger ad in that same issue, somewhere.
I don't know that for sure when I pitch the idea, nor do I care if there is or if there isn't. It has exactly no bearing whatever on what I write or how I write it.

Same with other makers.

If a layout person decides "Aha! We have a Ruger (or Kimber, or S&W, or whoever) article slated for Issue XXXX and we have a Ruger ad slated for Issue XXXX, I'm gonna lay 'em out facing each other!", I don't know that, I don't care about that, and it's no grand & inter-related conspiracy as many seem to think.

In other words- yes, it most likely IS coincidence, at least as far as writer involvement goes.
Most of what I write is self-generated, as is the case with most freelancers. I do get an occasional "Hey, y'wanna do a piece for us on the new such & such gun?"
But, when I pitch & when I get an assignment, it's NEVER in the form of "Denis, we plan to run a specific ad from the maker of that gun in 6 months and we want you to do a write-up to match it."

Besides the which, do you think it's necessarily the best use of a maker's money to stick an ad right next to a product evaluation?
The idea of advertising is to inform and to get somebody (the reader) thinking about either that product or that company.

If you've just read an article on a new Winchester, you're already thinking about Winchester, and any Winchester ad that runs on a facing page at the end's not going to draw your attention much after the 2000 words you've just gotten through reading about Winchester, anyway. Is it?

Diminished effect.
Put that ad ten pages farther in, and it'll be a subtle visual reminder that tends to re-inforce the first Winchester (or whoever) mention in your head.

Lump article & ad together, less effect with the ad, they become one product or company blurb in your mind. Separate 'em, and your mind moves on to another subject till you run across the ad. At that point, it becomes TWO blurbs, and two reminders about anything are usually more effective than one.

Cheese whiz! Sometimes a cigar's just a cigar. :)
Denis
 
...why would a handgun not be able to shoot MOA at 25 yards?
Click to expand...
All things being equal, there's no reason it shouldn't be able to shoot 1MOA at 100 yards.

The problem is, things aren't equal.

Locked breech autopistols typically have "floating" barrels with the sights attached to the slide, not the barrel. The barrel may not come back to exactly the same spot with respect to the slide (and the sights) for every shot. Even when shooting using a Ransom rest, the frame is what's held steady, but the barrel may or may not be (probably isn't) in exactly the same position with respect to the frame for every shot. The necessity for it to be able to move freely in order to achieve proper function means that there must be a certain amount of play between the moving parts.

Revolvers typically give up a little bit of accuracy to small misalignments between the various chambers and the barrel. Even small differences between the multiple chambers can affect accuracy even if the bore alignment is perfect for all chambers.

There are more issues, those are just a couple of the major ones.
 
Tnglock you may have known Bob Milek. Bob was a friend of mine. He did a lot of the handgun testing when long range handgunning was starting up. He wrote for many magazines. He was Handgun editor for GUN & AMMO at the time of his death in 1993 as I recall.:)
 
Yes i remember Bob Milek he wrote a lot about hunting cal handguns. I can believe some accuracy on revolvers but some of the combat auto accuracy i still believe is a pay off. Kimber for instance they have some nice pistols. My friend has a top of the line kimber and i have a mil spec springfield with a 45 dollar trigger job a friend of mine did. Off hand i cant shoot the kimber better than the springer and neither can he. We have never bench shot em but off hand a 600.00 dollar gun against a 1200.00 dollar gun accuracy is just as good.
 
And every Internet post made by anybody who goes by the name of Hawg Haggen is all BS.

Your statement is every bit as valid as mine. :)
Denis
 
"I recall one magazine that described the great 25 yard groups from a new pistol. But somebody blew the whistle, and I always wondered if it was deliberate. The article repeatedly talked about 25 yards, but the target in the picture was marked 25', which is 25 FEET, not 25 YARDS, just a little bit of difference. The groups were still fairly good, but not super."

I wouldn't read anything into that at all.

When I was with NRA we didn't pay a lot of attention to the particular target or what it was intended for.

We matched targets to the sights on the gun to allow for the best aiming point.

It wasn't uncommon for the one tester to routinely use rifle targets to test handguns because that's what he preferred.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't pay attention to the talkie talkie on accuracy, I look at the numbers themselves.

The discussion or ergonomics anr eliability/feeding issues seems particularly adjustable in many magazines, or nothing negative is said regardless. I prefer Gun Tests as they don't take company samples or advertising and often will fail guns. Its particulalry interesting when you hear complaints on boards about a certain new firearm and then some glowing review from an advertiser laced magazine that makes it like the weapon is the second coming of Browning.
 
Isn't the Ransom Rest the key here?
Even a good shot is going to have a very hard time matching shots made from a rest.
The idea with shooting from a rest is to test the accuracy of the gun, not so much the shooter. I don't think the point of the accuracy tests shot from a rest is to say "if you buy this gun you will have groups like these", but rather to give the theoretical ceiling for how accurate the gun might be if you do everything perfectly.
Also, I suspect that gun writers - much like the rest of us - only post pictures of their best groups. Maybe I'm reading different magazines, but while I do think the groups are usually very very good, but they don't seem impossible. After all, these are guys that shoot for a living - it'd be pretty sad for them if they weren't better at shooting than me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top