Handgun accuracy reviews in magazines BS?

I'll toss my hat in with John and Mike (I know they're just tickled pink now). In my experience most shooters are far from good. In other cases guns (especially small guns) are just plain hard to shoot accurately. Either/both will lead to groups far larger than any you will see in a magazine.

Take my Bersa T22. I was was far from impressed with it's accuracy when I got it. Or maybe I should say MY accuracy shooting that particular gun. Groups were far larger than any .22lr gun I had ever shot less one. But we locked that gun up in a rest and the groups were on the upper side of good. Since that time I've gotten better with the gun. Not Ruger bull barrel better but 2" spinners offhand at 50 feet are in serious trouble a good percentage of the time. Not great mind you but at least me and the gun aren't on the down side of horrible anymore. Just cause you or your buddy or some other guy at the range don't shoot a particular gun as good as a professional doesn't mean gun writers are passing off fiction as the truth. Truth is most of them shoot more in a month than you do in a year and maybe even a decade. They also shoot around other great shooters and learn more than you will do trial and error.

I'm not saying every handgun is gonna consistently roll golf balls at 50 yards but most handguns are capable of 2" or smaller (many times much much smaller) 25 yard groups if shot right. On the other hand, most shooters aren't.

LK
 
Last edited:
I tend to believe what is generally written in the gun magazines. They use a particular firearm and particular ammunition and get whatever results they get. But with handguns, they do tend to use factory ammunition as do most shooters. With rifles, you often get a mix of ammunition types used.
 
Of course we post pictures of the best groups, what would be the point of showing the worst? :)
The idea is to show the reader the best that gun did in that test session in our hands, to illustrate what that sample was capable of. Your results will vary, from better to worse.

You don't shoot a given gun exactly like your buddy does, I don't don't shoot one exactly like another writer, or reader, does either.
In my case, I KNOW there's always somebody out there who can get tighter groups out of a test gun than I can. There's also always somebody who can't.
BFD.

I give the gun my best efforts & write up what it does for ME. For YOU, could be better, might not be quite as good.
As one very perspicacious poster mentioned one of the last times this mag-bashing subject came up- view an article as an introduction to the gun, not a sterile lab test conducted under ideal conditions using exactly the same protocols each time, with results that'll be completely identical in EVERY shooter's hands under ALL conditions.

Get what you can out of reading the piece, and get on with life.
Every reader's different, every shooter's different, so's every writer.

And, might also be worth considering that not every gunwriter's a liar, a cheat, and a thief out to screw you out of your hard-earned money in buying magazines devoted solely to selling guns for the makers.
It's quite possible that writers are people doing their best to pass on good info and deal with an imperfect system in the process. :)
Denis
 
I am also a freelance writer, and no group I submit is false - ever!

But consider some other facts:
1. We writers only get to test one (1) gun. It may be better or worse than the gun you buy.
2. We have no control over what the maker sends us - some of them may be tuning them, rather than just shipping the next one available out. Sometimes I get guns that have been tested by other writers, and I never know how much they have been shot.
3. I have been shooting for over 50 years, both recreationally and professionaly (Law Enforcement and writing). I am a Distinguished Pistol shot.
4. Over the last 25 years I have AVERAGED 10,000 round per year, every year.
5. I usually have enough time with each gun to really wring them out and get familiar with them. I have ranges on my property, so I can shoot under ideal conditions.
6. As noted, we have no/zero/nada input as to advertising. It has no bearing on what I write. If the editors even suggested that it should, I would stop writing for them.
7. The publications I write for do publish negatives. But if the gun is a total piece of junk, it usually gets no ink.
 
I'll add, just for fun:

1. Single Sample Syndrome is never statistically valid.
2. Over the years I've had guns from Remington & H&K that I knew were pass-arounds, most have not been, for me. It obviously happens.
3. 40+ years of recreational & LE shooting here.
4. No idea, never estimated. :)
5. I rarely get ideal conditions, between lighting & wind.
6. Had one long-gone editor tell me once years ago "If it doesn't work, 'make' it work."
Told him no thanks, a gun either works or it doesn't, I'm not gonna dummy
up a review or lie about a gun.
7. Same.

Denis
 
I always wish that gun tests would be done like you and I shoot ... on our feet with our hands the only support for the gun ... telling me the latest whizbang shoots 2-inch groups at 25 yards from a rest doesn't help my decision-making process, since if I need the gun, I'll be shooting it minus the rest and the gun's accuracy is in large part dependent on how I control it ...

the reviews always say the guns were fired from a rest, if they were, so I don't feel like anybody is trying to put something over on me ... just wish they'd leave the rest at home ... or shoot a second round with the gun in their hands ...
 
"From a rest" does not mean Ransom rest. I suspect the gun is fired the same way most of use shoot "from a rest" (aka hands resting on sandbags on a bench). Why would I be particularly interested in a gun that shoots 5" groups at 25 feet off hand? I want to know HOW the gun shoots, not some statement about off hand situations. Shot in a combat type range is different and is usually stated as such.

I have always wondered how a freelance writer that gets at best $1000 for an article by a publication can afford to shoot box after box of ammo during their testing unless they are provided the ammunition for free (which I doubt)? They have no gurarantee that the article will be accepted by the magazine.
 
Bill,
Freestanding accuracy results are meaningless as far as gun tests go.
Utterly, completely, and totally meaningless as well as absolutely useless in determining the intrinsic accuracy of a given gun.

You could take five shooters of various experience and ability, hand them each the exact same gun with the same loads, and you'd get five different size groups with those same loads, as well as notable variations in where the groups strike the paper between shooters.

Some are steadier than others, some are younger than others, some have personal disabilities that affect their shooting results.

In testing a gun to see what the GUN can do, not what the freestanding SHOOTER can do, you get that gun set up so it's as immobile as you can realistically make it. You rest it or brace it to eliminate as much movement of the gun from shot to shot as possible.

You do the same with your own body. Reduce your own movement as much as possible.
Consistency is the key to small groups and realistic accuracy testing, and most of us can't get it standing up unsupported.

With freestanding groups, you have no realistically quantifiable way of determining if those groups reflect the gun's limitations, or your own.
Did the gun have a bad barrel, or were you swaying in the breeze, flinching, or pushing off? A rest gives you better answers & more reliable information.

You fire in a solid position, gun & body, and once you find out what the gun can do under the best possible shooting conditions in terms of accuracy with one or more loads, THEN you go try your field positions.

If you start out with six-inch freestanding groups, how do you know if that's the gun's fault or yours?
Eliminate as much wobble as you can in testing at the bench, and then if your groups are five times as large standing unsupported, you know it ain't the gun.

22,
$1000 per article would be nice. :)
No, we can't afford to shoot all day long on our own dime.
We depend heavily on the ammomakers for product samples.
For those of us who don't do this as a wealthy man's hobby, it couldn't be done without sample guns & sample ammunition provided by their makers. Period.

If I had to buy an $800 gun and $300 worth of ammunition to shoot for a given piece, no profit. I'd lose money.
As far as acceptance goes, few freelancers do the piece & then shop it around on spec after it's done and production money's spent. The way to do it is to shop the IDEA around first, and when the IDEA's approved, the article's done and sent to an already established buyer waiting for it.
Denis
 
Just like Denis said!

But if you know of a gun mag that pays $1k for an article, PM ME - NOW!

There are very few writers who do this for a living. One, a name you would all recognize, admitted to me he writes about the same guns in different pubs under different names giving different slants.
Not me! My name is on every article I write. You, the readers, deserve honesty and my best efforts to tell the entire story - good and bad. Sadly, not every writer has ethics.
 
I was trying to be generous and to make a point with the $1000. Many have little idea just how small the checks are from the magazines. But of course you get more when you include your own photos and so forth.

I always wondered about the ammo cost. I knew that sample guns were provided and in many cases offered for sale to the writer at a heavily discounted price (below dealer cost). But the ammo was another matter and that cost can be fairly substantial.
 
Other outdoor writers get paid by the story plus are paid for the photos that are used. But I guess it would not make a lot of sense to write an article about say... the Ruger SP101 22 and not include photos documenting your efforts.
 
You don't get rich writing for gunmags.
Staff writers are a different matter, but freelancers sell to pretty much set rates.
At least I do, anyway. :)
And a typical article goes for nowhere near a grand in my neighborhood.
Denis
 
A point of clarification on my remarks:

Of the 10,000 rounds or so that I shoot every year, 99+% of that are my handloads to maintain my profiency (such as it is) and for competition. Only about 1% or less is provided by anyone.

I do have an issue with the distances guns are 'tested' at. In a recient issue of a national magazine, they 'tested' various handguns at 7 yards (ok for very small, personal defense guns), 12 yards, 25 feet, 15 yards, and 25 yards - all in the same issue! How the heck are you supposed to draw conclusions from that?

I think 7 yards is good for 2 shot, fixed sight derringers and the like. Anything else should be tested at 25 yards, so we all get an idea of the potential accuracy, comparing like to like.
Obviously, Denis (or any of you) may outshoot me with one gun, I may better him with another - which means nothing. Thus we come back to the Ransom rest which, by the way, tells more about revolvers than semi-autos. On revolvers, the sights are fixed to the frame & barrel, which are locked into the rest. I tested a semi-auto (1911) once, where the slide to frame fit was loose, but the barrel to slide fit was tight. With the sights fixed to the slide, I could shoot better groups hand held than in the rest, as the rest did not realine the sights (and slide/barrel) with the target every time.
So, even using a Ransom Rest may not show the mechanical accuracy of a pistol. There is more to all of this than you may think.
 
My primary editor's standardized those distances, for the reasons you mention.
I've always tried to stick to 25 yards for most, since 7 tells me nothing useful regarding accuracy except with tiny guns. :)
Denis
 
Thanks for taking the time to write for the gun mags, Denis and Sleuth!

I for one, am one of those that enjoy reading about guns in magazines. I consider myself smart enough to make my purchasing decisions on my own, but it is really helpfull and interesting to see the new products in a gun mag. If it wasn't for the reviews you guys, and guys like you, write, I wouldn't have the exposure to as many new products!

I find the "gun rag haters" to be just that, haters. I mean, who really, truley believes they are going to get the exact same results as a gun writer with any given gun? Who would really, truely base their decision to buy, soley on a two page article in "Slam and Blam" magazine?

Reading your articles is a much, much more educational and ineresting way to spend my evenings than watching the latest "reality tv"!

Thanks again, fellas!
 
Last edited:
I find it a little humorous when a magazine gives out awards to guns that are heavily advertised in said magazine.

Example: American Rifelman giving the Kimber Solo 'handgun of the year'; even with the wide spread reports of reliability problems with it. You can't tell me that Kimber's 5 ads per magazine, plus an ad for the Solo in that very issue didn't have at least something to do with it.
 
DasGuy, it can also be the reverse.
Consider this: The editor sends advertising sales the list of articles coming up. Sales guys calls Kimber, and says "Hey, we have a big article on the Solo coming up in 3 months, how about an ad to go with the free publicity we are giving you?"

If I was in the ad sales department, I sure would do that - wouldn't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top