Honest Gun Reviews

If you read the recent review of the Governor in the American Rifleman, IIRC, you can read between the lines about the flaws of the concept and how it shoot.

It is a common practice - a few years ago in psychiatry, a devastating review of certain drugs was accepted and then squelched by a famous scientific journal to maintain drug ads.

Big news - the world is corrupt.
 
But, you can't paint the entire gunmag industry & those who write for it with such a broad brush, any more than you can do so with any other industry.

I'll say again- If all you need is what you can get off a gun forum & you're firmly convinced the gunmags are totally worthless, don't buy 'em. :)

And for ITC-
When I query a piece & get the go-ahead, I rarely know which issue it'll appear in & NEVER know what ads may appear next to it when it eventually makes print.
I've had articles appear a month after submission, I've got one coming out shortly in one mag that's a year old, and the worst one appeared a full four years after submission.
I don't know who'll be advertising where when I do what I do, and couldn't care less.

No advertising department tells me what to write or how to write it.
If a company has bought ad space in an issue that happens to contain a product from that company (and this all occurs months before a given issue is assembled), it's automatically corruption & collusion if the layout people put 'em together when the time comes? :)
Denis
 
Gun Tests. It bills itself as the Consumer Reports of firearms. It reviews firearms, gear, and ammo. It takes no outside advertisements, and is not afraid to fail weaponry.
 
And its protocols & conclusions are frequently based on peripheral considerations that indicate a lack of understanding & typical usage of test samples.
An otherwise perfectly viable sample may be "failed" because it had a finish blemish. And so on.
And as I've said before, they do not obtain all samples off the rack.
Denis
 
DPris said:
And its protocols & conclusions are frequently based on peripheral considerations that indicate a lack of understanding & typical usage of test samples.
An otherwise perfectly viable sample may be "failed" because it had a finish blemish. And so on.
And as I've said before, they do not obtain all samples off the rack.
Denis
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that all of the guns tested by Gun Test were bought off the rack new or used. The only times I have seen this not be the case is when a comparison is being made of a rare gun and one is loaned to them such as a 100 year old double barrel custom African rifle.

I have never read about a gun failing in a test because of a simple blemish. I would like to see that review if you know which one it was. I have seen a gun lose a half grade - go from an A to an A- over something cosmetic - but never have I seen one get a no buy or F grade.

Also, please expand on what you mean by "peripheral considerations".

I subscribe to Gun Test and have found their reviews to be very honest. If I had any complaints it would be the limited number of guns they test in a month and the fact that, because they buy off the shelf, you can get a gun that everyone rates as a POS but works great for them or you can have the opposite; a well thought of gun that was crap for them.

Having a gun sent to you by the manufacture for review because your on a demo list is not bad but I would think that most manufactures will make sure those gun function, maybe going a few steps more on the QC end that if it was just going to xyz gun store. As I am not in the reviewing business I don't know. Maybe it's not a far flung notion that some gun reviewers might be a little hesitant to bite the hand that gives free guns to review.

It is certainly proven to work that way in other industries like the car industry.

As with any research you need to have several sources to get a good balance and ideally corroborating facts.
 
I subscribed to GT twice over the years & found their experiences & conclusions simply were not jibing with my own.

The one I recall as failing over a finish blemish was a Smith snub that had a tiny spot where the plating was starting to peel. Based on that, to the best of my recollection, the gun was deemed a "failure" & a lesser gun was chosen "best" of the two.

In another, the price was a determining factor, even though the slightly more expensive gun was a better fit for the task.

There have been numerous cases of comparing apples to cumquats that made no sense.

Their protocols & conclusions often show a lack of understanding of how a particular gun is used, with a corresponding faulty rating of "best" or a higher grade.

I know of one test sample obtained from the maker, no telling how many others have been.
Not all their revenue comes from the no-ads Gun Tests side, look at their sister on-line Gun Reports "publication" (link on their GT site). See any ads?

You also point out the problem inherent to a single-sample review.
That holds true whether with Gun Tests or any mainstream mag.

As I repeatedly repeat when this comes up, I'm not seeing hand-picked guns sent as samples. I've gotten clunkers & junkers, and so has GT.
Nature of the game.
I gave up on any further subscriptions with them.

Biting the hand that feeds?
I've cancelled several articles over the years because the guns weren't worth writing up. Only one maker has gotten snotty about it & pulled ads.

Your statement about using multiple info sources & your own judgement is right on. :)
Denis
 
DPris I do not know you. My comments were based on personal experience.
If you would privately e-mail me your details I will look for your reviews.

I allways like to read reliable sources.
 
I have no details. :)
Just look for something with DPris in the byline.
And, my comments were also based on personal experience. :)
Denis
 
Hickok45

If you haven't watched Hickok45's videos on youtube, you are in for a treat. He has some really entertaining videos, along with some very good reviews. He mostly only reviews awesome guns, though, so he doesn't do much trashing that I've seen. I think, he has become very popular in the shooting videos world. I think rapid fire II is still my favorite video.
 
i'll throw another one in for gun-test. they seem very honest, at least more honest then every other gun magazine out there. and yes they will take away grades for a guns finish. i think thats fair. if i buy a gun i want to know how eveything stands up, including the finish.
 
Do any members know of an honest gun reviewer, or review site, that will post both favorable and unfavorable reviews of rifles and shotguns? It seems like all the reviews I see online - from Field and Stream to Gunblast - are puff pieces where all the rifles shoot one MOA and are 'the best the reviewer ever fired'. It reminds me of Lake Wobegon on the radio, 'where all the kids are above average'.
Click to expand...


There's a dude who is a member of this site (Sturmgewehre), he's got a rather nice youtube channel with quite a few reviews. He seems pretty honest, unbiased, and not subject to the will of advertisers. He doesn't seem to have any problems criticizing a firearm when criticism is due. It's primarily about military-type weapons though, which is fine with me because that's where my interests happen to lie as well, but if that's not what you're after I guess it's not the source for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top