Handgun accuracy reviews in magazines BS?

Wyo,
You are entirely welcome.

Das,
Just get what you personally can find useful out of any given gunmag, and run with it. Ignore the rest.
If you can't find anything useful, don't buy any more and just live with the Internet. :)

Won't speak to the Solo issue, but you'd extend your logic to prohibit any gunmag ever saying anything nice about any product made by any gunmaker who advertises?
No more gunmags, if that happened.
No advertiser should get an award?
That'd leave you with things like Lorcins as the only ones eligible, since most of the major players do advertise.

Gunmakers advertise in gun magazines to reach people who buy guns.
Cheese Whiz, guy! Car makers advertise in car magazines to reach car buyers.
Furniture makers advertise in Better Homes & Gardens.
It's the way the magazine business runs! They CAN NOT stay in business without advertisers who pay for ad space. :)
Denis
 
I got in trouble with one of the members who is a gun writer the last time I posted on this subject. Therefore, It is not my intent to offend anyone specifically,

There are few gun writers whom I trust when it comes to a review. A guy by the name of Woods is the last one I trusted implicitly. His review of the FIE TZ 75 was spot on as was every other review he wrote which I had occasion to test myself.

Generally, when I read a gun review I all ways look at the amount of advertising which goes along with the article. If there is a big AD buy for the pistol which was reviewed then I am SUSPICIOUS. If there is a limited ad buy then I tend to take the article at face value.
 
If there is a big AD buy for the pistol which was reviewed then I am SUSPICIOUS. If there is a limited ad buy then I tend to take the article at face value.
Click to expand...
It's always wise to be suspicious--at least in the sense of not being willing to "swallow anything whole" without "tasting" it first. Using the advertising in the magazine with the review is, in my opinion, not a very good way to decide how suspicious you should be.

I generally want to see multiple favorable reviews from independent sources before I start looking to purchase or recommend. In my opinion, that's a much more reliable method for allaying suspicion.
 
It,
Any magazine review should be taken for what it offers, and what it provides.
It should be considered as only one source of information about a particular gun.

Read it, judge it on its merits, not on the degree of advertising present in the magazine.
I find the advertising ratio, frankly, a pretty poor way of evaluating article content. You've been told by two people who are actually in the biz & who actually know what we're talking about that writers know nothing about scheduled ads when articles are written. You've been told by two writers, not people on the outside looking in who know nothing whatever about the way the biz operates, that ads don't influence our writeups.

Remember that we are not here to tell you what gun to buy, that's your decision and your problem, and your decision should be made based on as much info as you can get on a candidate, and how the gun in question can work for YOU. I can tell you how it worked for me, and I do, which (again) has zero to do with the presence or absence of advertising.

I still read other peoples' work, I still learn from some that offer a different view or notice a different aspect of the gun in question that I hadn't thought of, based on THEIR experience & background, and I can certainly tell if the writer knows what he's talking about and if his information is useful to me. I can also weed out the parts of his impressions that are not useful to me.

I do all that by critical reading and using my brain to sift through the piece. Not by an arbitrary advertising ratio.
"Hmmm. Full page ad, article's gotta be all lies."
"Hmmm. Quarter page ad, I guess I can believe it."

I don't automatically regard any writeup as being an advertiser-induced fabrication, nor do I automatically assume a writer is lying through his teeth (as some Internet posters do) simply because results listed in a review don't necessarily match my own results.
I also don't automatically assume that everything in somebody else's review is totally valid for me regarding a particular gun.

In other words, as I keep saying:
A sample of one is a sample of one.
Writers, as with readers, vary in outlook, opinion, and experience.
It is NOT a lab experiment, it's one guy shooting one gun and writing up what he found on that occasion under those conditions.
The gun you try out may or may not replicate a reviewer's results precisely.
If it doesn't, see above.
Use multiple sources, and run with what seems useful to you.
If you have it so firmly implanted in your head that gunwriters can't be trusted, then don't waste your money on gunmags.
If you already know it all, ditto.

I'm with John. :)
Denis
 
Last edited:
It bothers me that many people believe that gun writers who do reviews of specific guns slant their results to favor advertisers. I can't say that this attitude is anything particularly new, but it is certainly speaks volumes about what you believe about people's ethics. Maybe you should take a long look in the mirror.

Freelance writers in any area do not make lots of money from writing. It is a pursuit that yields more than money to the writer. Like being an insurance agent, writing starts slow in terms of rewards, but the benefits accrue somewhat over the years. Being considered an "expert" in your field of interest is very important to many.
 
DPris said:
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.
Click to expand...
Somebody must think that's the best use of the maker's money, because that's the way the ads get placed very frequently, in more than two of the major gun magazines. Of course the author of the review doesn't control that, but the editor certainly has a hand in it.
 
Mike Irwin said:
It wasn't uncommon for the one tester to routinely use rifle targets to test handguns because that's what he preferred.
Click to expand...
I use six-up black powder rifle targets for handguns because they have a bullseye I can see at 25 yards, and six of 'em on one sheet of paper.
 
Bikerbill said:
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 ...
Click to expand...
I disagree. A particular firearm's accuracy is dependent on the mechanics and construction of that particular firearm. I've had people at the range complain about how terribly their new pistol shoots. I try it and I get 3" groups at 25 yards using cheap range ammo. Same gun, same ammo, different shooter. The gun's accuracy isn't in any way dependent on how you shoot it, your accuracy is dependent on how you shoot it.
 
Ag,
Obviously somebody does think it's the best use of the makers' ad money, but I don't & it'd probably surprise you to find out how little an editor has to do with the placement of ads.
Page layout is largely determined by others.

Even if the editor did stick an ad next to an article, so what? When the article was assigned the writer knew nothing about what ads might be appearing, and when the article was written, ditto.
Presence & proximity of ads assumes importance only to those who refuse to consider that the ads could possibly have had no influence on the article whatever.

To repeat: It's a total BFD if there happens to be an ad next to an article. We don't know up front, we don't care.

I can go back to this time & again, and say that the makers do not determine article content, either directly through "paying the writers what to say" as I often see stated on Internet forums, or indirectly through ads, but it never makes any difference to those who already have their minds made up & "know" how the biz works.

Also again- if you have such a hard-wired bias, DON'T BUY THE MAGS.
Just sail on through life with only the guaranteed-to-be-true-and-accurate info provided by nameless & faceless Internet posters. :)
Denis

Add note:
Even in the layout proofs I get from my primary buyer, ads are not shown.
The article will be laid out for the writer to run through in checking for errors, with ad space left blank. In my case with that company, right down to the wire in the only opportunity I have to see or know what an article will look like on the printed page before it comes out, I don't know what company's ad will be appearing next to it.
I find that out the same time & the same way you do- when I get a final print copy of the magazine.
 
Last edited:
Ok, here's an article by Dick Metcalf about the Ruger SR22P. He is a significant and respected gun magazine author. Show me a bias and Ruger does advertise with Guns & Ammo. The Daily Caller reprinted it on their website from Guns & Ammo magazine.

I am not going to print it out and I hope I am not doing something incorrectly relative to the forum. http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/07/all-rimfired-up-ruger-sr22-review/

This is the accuracy discussion portion of the article linked above.

Taking Ruger at its word, I put the little pistol to work with a half-dozen different varieties of ammo, ranging from standard velocity 40-grain to high-velocity 36-grain hollowpoints to hyper-velocity light-bullet loads. All functioned perfectly, assisted (I’m sure) by the gun’s pivoting extractor design. The only hiccup I encountered in several hundred rounds was with my first magazine, where I had neglected to remember that it’s as important to make sure all rimfire rounds are seated and aligned fully to the rear of their magazine tube as it is with centerfire .223 AR magazines (duh).

As for accuracy, the “groupability” specification for most pistols of this basic format is about four inches at 25 yards. The SR22P beat this standard easily, coming in with an overall three-inch 25-yard average for all groups fired. With the individual loads it liked best, it averaged in the 2½-inch range.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
And when I worked with that pistol, I had malfunctions with a couple of the test loads, which were included in the write-up submitted.
There you have real life mirrored: one gun performed one way, a different sample performed another way. He used a range of ammunition types & so did I.

Was Metcalf "lying" for an advertiser? Was I?
Nope.
We both wrote up what we found.

If you look at posts about that pistol on various forums you'll see a range of results, from "Mine had to go back to Ruger" to "Mine is super-stupendous!"

Another illustration of why it's beneficial to look for a variety of info sources, make up your own mind, and THEN SEE WHAT THE GUN DOES FOR YOU.

Instantly dismissing a magazine review because there's an ad for the maker or the gun in the same issue, or even on the same page, is just plain silly, in my opinion. :)
 
As for accuracy, the “groupability” specification for most pistols of this basic format is about four inches at 25 yards. The SR22P beat this standard easily, coming in with an overall three-inch 25-yard average for all groups fired. With the individual loads it liked best, it averaged in the 2½-inch range.
Click to expand...
"Specification"?

Whose specification? Where is this specification written down and promulgated? What is "this basic format" of pistols, anyway?

This is a perfect example (IMHO) of "making it work." 2-1/2 to 3 inches at 25 yards isn't bad for a .22 plinker, but it's hardly exceptional. Citing some mythical 4-inch "specification," though, makes that mediocre 3 inch group magically seem a lot better than it really is.
 
Ag,
I started reading gunmags almost 40 years ago (when I was two years old. :) ). During all those years, I've frequently seen an informal "standard" of acceptance of 4 inches at 25 yards mentioned for many handguns aside from target pistols, SA hunting revolvers & bittyguns.
Metcalf is far from the first to use it. I occasionally do myself.

Four inches is considered acceptable by most defensive instructors, and many handguns will do far better.
Many people plink with .22 pistols at much closer distances, and a four-inch gun would satisfy them.

It's hardly a "perfect" example of "making it work".
The results he got were very consistent with what I'd expect from that particular pistol, considering what it is, and none of my five best 5-shot 25-yard groups exceeded three inches, with four of the five running under two inches.
No "magic" involved.

Two samples, two different results. Mine was more accurate with the ammo I used, his was more reliable with the ammo he used.
Another point in favor of multiple info sources.

It IS a plinker, why does it have to be "exceptional"? I didn't notice him saying it was.
By his standards & by mine, the gun's perfectly acceptable for its intended purpose.
I'm not seeing your point.

If you feel the need to quibble over one man's opinion & terminology, go do your own testing & use whatever frame of reference makes you happy.
You're not attacking the results, you're just dumping on the guy, now.
If it'd help you sleep better at night, how about substituting "expectation" for "specification"?
Denis
 
I don't know about you guys, but I seldom "plink" with a handgun at 25 yds. Most of the time, it is more like 10 (15 at most) yds unless you just having fun with some longer range targets.

It is actually a pretty good article by Metcalf. They were pretty impressed with the gun. But you have to read the whole thing to figure that out. :)

An article like that was exactly what I was looking for before I purchased mine. My only hope was that it was "reliable" with adequate accuracy. I think it meets my standard.

One must remember that 1" groups are difficult to obtain consistantly with a rifle and bulk 22LR ammo at 50 yds. But the 25 yd distance equates to about as much difficulty as a rifle.
 
Last edited:
Ag,
To expand briefly, that piece is actually an excellent example of my earlier statement that you need to look through any given article review & run with what you personally find useful.

Rather than getting bogged down on a one-word semantics issue, look at the review information.

You got a description of the gun, you got accuracy results, you got reliability results, and you got an experienced shooter's opinion.
Ignore Metcalf's opinion if you disagree with his conclusions & impressions, and just apply your own standards.

Did the gun have features you like?
Was the price in line with what you'd be willing to pay for them?
Was it reliable enough to meet YOUR expectations?
Was it accurate enough for YOUR projected uses?
Did you learn anything you didn't already know about the gun?
Did it pique your interest enough to pursue additional info?

If the article answered those questions for you, what more do you want?
Denis
 
Aguila, you are certainly free to disagree with my opinion, but I'm not changing my mind ...

I follow several reviewers and trust their opinions, while assuming they get repeat business from mags because they know what they're doing. Telling me a gun shoots 2" from a rest tells me about the gun's accuracy. But shooting it freestanding and getting 3-inch groups is far more valuable, IMHO, because to me it reflects what a good shooter can expect if he does his part ... if I know one 1911 shoots 2-inch groups freehand at 15 yards and another shoots 3-inch groups, in the hands of someone whose opinion I respect, if all other things are equal (price, appearance, service) I'd tend to buy the one which shot the smaller groups in a good shooter's hands.

Shooting from a rest gives you a technical result, shooting freehand gives you a practical result.
 
DPris said:
Ag,
I started reading gunmags almost 40 years ago (when I was two years old. ). During all those years, I've frequently seen an informal "standard" of acceptance of 4 inches at 25 yards mentioned for many handguns aside from target pistols, SA hunting revolvers & bittyguns.
Metcalf is far from the first to use it. I occasionally do myself.

Four inches is considered acceptable by most defensive instructors, and many handguns will do far better.
Many people plink with .22 pistols at much closer distances, and a four-inch gun would satisfy them.

It's hardly a "perfect" example of "making it work".
Click to expand...
My math makes you 42 years old, then (and very precocious), which means I've got 26 years on you and I had never seen any gun writer refer to some "4-inch standard" prior to Metcalf's article. Even if others have used it occasionally, an informal criterion is not a "specification," which was his word, not mine.

However, I guess I had this discussion in the back of what remains of my mind while reading a new issue of Guns of the Old West that I just picked up. Not accuracy related, but a review in that magazine clearly exemplifies the way some gun writers shade and nuance their words to get around problems.

Starting on page 55 there's a review by Todd Lofgren of the new Colt New Frontier in .44 Special. On page 58 he gets down to some of the nitty gritty details. In discussing the grips, he says the following (and I quote):

Although nothing could be faulted with their fit, their finish left a little to be desired, with some sanding and filing marks in evidence. I also noted during late range sessions with this revolver that the leading edge of these grips where they met the frame was a little too proud and could use a slight bevel, as this sharp edge raised havoc with the thumb on my shooting hand during prolonged firing.
Click to expand...
Here, in the space of what is actually only half a paragraph, he tells us two directly contradictory things about the grips. First he says they can't be faulted for their fit. Then he proceeds to fault them for their fit, describing how the fit is so bad that it "raised havoc" with his shooting hand.

So he told us about the problem. But ... by preceding the description of the problem with a blanket statement that "Nothing could be faulted with their fit," he essentially blunted and covered up the import of the criticism.

You may disagree but, to me, this is journalistic and intellectual dishonesty. Obviously, the fit of the grips COULD be faulted, so the only explanation for including an untrue statement that the fit could not be faulted was to blunt the import of the problem.

In other magazines by other reviewers, I see similar verbal tricks played regarding reports of accuracy.
 
I once read that the numerous malfunctions the writer experienced with a gun being reviewed was a "great opportunity to practice stoppage drills". I wish I could remember where I read that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top