[Lovesbeer99]

I keep getting these adds and it sounds like a refreshing alternative to some of the other mags reviews, but is it any good? Photos, reviews, do the people actually know what they are doing?

Thanks
Lovesbeer99

[strat81]

I subscribe. It's a step-above photocopy quality. I.e., it's not glossy and it's black & white. The writing is down to earth... no grand-standing stories about being perched on the edge of the verse with your .766 Ultra-doobie-magnum duck rifle and making a shot at 700 yards with iron sights.

They actually come out and say "This gun jammed way too much. We give it an F and don't recommend it." Pretty good magazine, I recommend it.

ETA: They also tend to test/compare more "relevant" guns. From my short subscription period, I haven't seen them test the latest and greatest just because it's new. I like comparison tests. It's good to see how something performs relative to something similar.

[RPCVYemen]

The strengths and weaknesses of the magazine can be derived from their methodology:

Buy one sample each of a number of similiar guns.
Run all of the guns through some set of tests.
Report honestly how each gun fared.
Rate the gun on a grading scale that includes test resutls and non-test data (such as price, propriety, etc).


The first issue to understand is that they do no go out and buy 10,000 samples of each weapon. So if their one sample fails, the report it as a failure. This makes some people upset - largely manufacturers and people who own/love that gun. For example, they tested two Makarovs and both sucked - as I recall, one fell apart. The Mak fanatics on the web all think that should have produced a glowing review. :) After a gun falls apart, the manufacturers representatives always write in, claiming the must have gotten a lemon. :)

I am not sure what folks really expect when a weapon fails to function, but everybody on the web "knows" it's a high quality weapon.

You may or may not agree with the tests.

You may not agree with the non-test factors in the final grade. But the truth is that since they give you the test factors, you can grade it yourself.

In general, there is a lot of whining on the web when someone's favorite weapons gets a poor review. "But all the gun writers say the safety is supposed to fall off occasionally."

Mike

[hso]

They're the only gun publication you can trust the opinion of.

[Hawk]

I've subscribed for several years. It is definitely not for the easily offended or anyone with confirmation bias issues. If you own a moderate number of firearms chances are at least one has gotten bagged on by Gun-Tests.

They typically won't allow a manufacturer to fix a NIB before printing the review. I find this refreshing but many find it distressing. Most recently they tested .44 Mag revolvers and gave the top slot to the Redhawk, Taurus came in second and S&W dead last with an "F" due to a malfunctioning cylinder latch - not something one would usually see with a glossy publication that accepted advertising money. Knowing a bad latch made it out of S&W would not dissade me from buying one but I ancticipate great angst in the letters column from that article.

They do a servicable job of separating opinion from observation and identifying which specific aspects of a firearm they viewed favorably or didn't like. It's easy to adjust to suit your own priorities. They panned the Ruger 1H in .416 Rigby because the recoil pad was hard and the ejected shells caught on the tang safety. I advised them real men like rock hard recoil pads and they had misidentifed the shell catcher as a safety. Bought one anyway.

The new "letter grades" seem to be a smidgin less controversial than the earlier rating system.



SWAT is pretty good about "telling it like it is" as well.

[Princi]

I've subscribed for several years, but I doubt very much if I'll renew.

They rated the Ruger 22/45 as a "Don't buy" because it is "difficult" to assemble/disassemble. I own several Mark II's, and after reading their article, I went out and bought the 22/45 Hunter version, and I love it.

If you have at least a 3 digit IQ, and will take the time to see how the hammer strut works, you won't have any problem assembling the pistol.

They recommended the Phoenix HP-22A. Need I say more?

[ambidextrous1]

I've subscribed for several years, and always find the magazine an entertaining read.

They always give reasons for their conclusions. I don't agree with their evaluations from time to time, but hey, it's a free country!

They run no ads in their mag, so aren't obligated to any manufacturer who runs full-page ads every month.

[MinnMooney]

Gun Test mag. is quite different from the rubber stamp gun magazines. They will actually say, "this (insert brand, model & caliber here) is not worth buying. It jams, is inaccurate and/or generally sucks!"
The problem with the mag. is that they're pretty low budget and test only one example of each gun in the comparison (which is exactly what all gun writers do) so if that individual gun jambs on them then they make the statement to not buy it and that could be dead wrong. Maybe they got a 1-in-a-100 lemon but most of that model are great and near flawless. The reverse can also be true. They happen to buy the one flawless gun out of a bunch of near-rejects and proclain it to be great.
Why do I subscribe then, you ask? It's because they publish the readers' experiances with those weapons in the next issue. That's where you really find that most of the time the Gun Test editors are correct... but not always.

[The Lone Haranguer]

It's glossy and has good photography now? :confused:
(You can tell I haven't read it for some time. ;))

It is certainly true that their reviews are unbiased, but having a problem with one sample and condemning the entire line because of it works against them.

[RPCVYemen]

It is certainly true that their reviews are unbiased, but having a problem with one sample and condemning the entire line because of it works against them.

What should they do if they test a gun and it fails?

(That's a question, not an argument).

Should they report that it failed?

Go out and buy another? If the 2nd gun exhibits the same problem, do they buy a 3rd?

I understand the issue, but I can't figure out what they should do.

BTW, I am not sure that they "condemn the entire line" - people read that into the review, but I think Gun Tests just reports what they found with a very specific sample. I don't think they claim to do more than that.

Mike

[esq_stu]

I've subscribed for several years and will continue.

I've also been pissed about certain issues like the 22/45 one. But several guns, including Ruger .22s, have been evaluated more than once and sometimes a gun comes out on top in one report and not on the top in another. That does not mean the mag is worthless. That means you have to take into account the type of comparison they are making.

You have to look at the test protocol. Sometimes it's a comparison using timed rapid fire. Sometimes it's bench accuracy. A super accurate gun may look great in one test and suck in a shootout.

In the case of the MAK, I think they goofed.

For example, they tested two Makarovs and both sucked - as I recall, one fell apart. The Mak fanatics on the web all think that should have produced a glowing review.I was upset, too. That's because the gun did not fall apart. Rather, they did something you're not supposed to do and accidentally DISASSEMBLED the slide. It never happened again and they liked the MAK in another report.

In my view, it is one magazine's review comparing selected guns with a specified purpose or protocol. Your mileage may vary. That's why you cannot base a decision on one opinion.

Overall, I find the information very useful in buy/not buy decisions, COMBINED WITH OTHER INFORMATION such as trying the gun yourself, asking friends, and this website.

And when stuff doesn't work right out of the box, they tell you in detail what happened, what they did about it, and why the gun flunked. That alone is worth something.

I recommend the magazine on that basis.

[RPCVYemen]

They rated the Ruger 22/45 as a "Don't buy" because it is "difficult" to assemble/disassemble.

As I recall they were comparing it to other .22s that were much easier to assemble/disassemble. As I recall, they pretty much liked the gun other than that.

They recommended the Phoenix HP-22A. Need I say more?

Can you quote or cite the review? I don't remember this one.

Mike

[Mannlicher]

I view Gun Tests Magazine as a bunch of non gunners writing about a subject of which they know little, and coming to conculusions based on the wrong criteria.
I don't trust them to come up with a correct evaluation.

[Red Tornado]

The Phoenix review was a few months ago, but I don't remember which issue. I'll try to remember to check, I save them all.

I agree with everyone's arguments here,(pro and con) but the deciding factor for me is "Do I get $2 worth of entertainment out of each issue?" My answer is yes so I'm happy with my subscription and will probably renew. YMMV.

FWIW, GT will probably never be the deciding factor in which gun I buy.
RT

[ozwyn]

The phoenix was review was probably in one of their low budget series of reviews where they get a bunch of sub 150.00 budget guns.

reading how badly some of them failed was pretty funny. I recall the intro picture to one of them had a Lorcin being held over a trash can with a slide that shattered.

like any other source, take with a grain of salt and mileage can vary.

[Hawk]

The Phoenix was June of '07 in a set with a Beretta and High Standard. Doesn't make me want to run out and buy a Phoenix but I'd be disappointed if they didn't report what happened as it happened.

A well running Phoenix shouldn't be much more surprising than a S&W with a dysfunctional latch.

[rc135]

Like it a LOT. I do not always agree with their conclusions, but just reading how they get there is priceless. I learn a bunch of new things with every issue.


"Just because we [the U.S.] fight with one arm held behind our backs doesn't mean they will play so fairly or nicely."

"I am deeply offended by people who are easily offended. Save me from the good people who think they know what's best for us."

"Socialism can only succeed so long as there are capitalists to fund it."

"The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad girls live."

[skinewmexico]

I'd believe them days before I'd believe any of the "guns and ammo" type magazines, who never met a gun that wasn't great. They're all great, and if you advertise a lot, greater. At least Gun Tests tries to be subjective. Doesn't always work. I let my subscription expire, because I got tired of the way they grouped guns to test. Seems like they were always testing something like a Savage rifle, a Mossberg rifle, and a Dakota Arms rifle. Always had one that was way out there.

[Highland Ranger]

There are multiple threads here on THR on the virtues (or lack of) of various mags. The upshot is you can get more and often better advice live on this and other forums.

Gun Tests suffers from what I call consumer reports syndrome - they rate a gun based on certain criteria which may or may not be my shopping criteria.

[theCZ]

My only beef with the magazine is they seem VERY partial to pistols, and their shotgun reviews are done by people that are mostly non-shotgunners, or at least not as avid as I am! Being a huge CZ fan, I'm happy to see that they almost always give a "best buy" rating to their rifles.

[Gator]

I view Gun Tests Magazine as a bunch of non gunners writing about a subject of which they know little, and coming to conculusions based on the wrong criteria.
I don't trust them to come up with a correct evaluation.

+1

[Princi]

...and always find the magazine an entertaining read

Hmmm, maybe I was taking it too seriously. If you just view it as entertainment, then it is probably worth the price and me thinking about renewing it when it comes due.

Of course I never took it seriously ( I'm lying - I had to buy the Phoenix just to see for myself. Goofy lock, but no problems with the gun - they were right in the case of the gun they got and the one I got; your mileage may vary.:) I don't like it as well as I do the Wolverine though).

[RPCVYemen]

I view Gun Tests Magazine as a bunch of non gunners writing about a subject of which they know little,..

I am guessing they gave a bad review to a gun you own. :)

Can you define gunner and "non gunner" and describe why you think that the folks at Gun Tests are "non gunners"? The editor seems like an opinionated guy, and I don't always agree with him, but he does seem to enjoy playing with guns, and he's pretty strong on RKBA.

Overall, they seem to me to be very "function oriented" - they don't really care how cool, fun, or historical a weapon is. They care solely about function. In general, this leads them to like Glocks, and the super reliable modern polymer pistols. I think they have a pro-1911 bias, but general, all they care about is functionality. They are also relatively unimpressed by brands - if a Ruger shoots as well as a S & W, they don't mind saying so. They care first and foremost if a weapon reliably delivers rounds downrange within the accuracy standards they have established for that test.

Since I shoot almost exclusively for fun, many of their tests and reviews don't match what I am looking for. I shoot at 25 yards (when I can keep them all in the black there, I will move on out to 50 yards). They shoot at much shorter distances. I also tend to enjoy shooting 150-200 rounds at a time - by the end of a session, so I am glad for every ounce of my 45 LC Blackhawk!

They tend to shoot lighter handguns at shorter distances than I do. I really wouldn't want to shoot 150 full power .357 magnum loads through a compact polymer pistol or a scandium/titanium revolver. Relatively small groups at 7 yards does not match the accuracy I am looking for. But I don't think their tests are somehow wrong - their tests just don't match my interests.

Maybe, as I think about it, their attitude towards guns is more or less like Consumer Reports attitudes towards cars. If you are a Corvette fanatic - you will be poorly served by Consumer Reports. You are willing to put up with various deficiencies in reliability/mileage/safety/comfort to drive a cool car. The people that I think of as car "hobbyists" don't pay any attention to Consumer Reports.

If you are a gun "hobbyist", then you wouldn't find much useful information in Gun Tests. If you are the kind of person that like a particular kind of gun because it's cool, then you may not be happy with Gun Tests - where cool doesn't matter any more than it does to Consumer Reports. On the other hand, if you were looking for a gun for SD, and all you wanted was the least expensive reliable weapon with that met a particular level of accuracy, their tests would make sense.

I have no clue about their high end shotgun tests - I don't know anything about that aspect of our sport.

Mike

[SlamFire1]

So if their one sample fails, the report it as a failure. This makes some people upset - largely manufacturers and people who own/love that gun. For example, they tested two Makarovs and both sucked - as I recall, one fell apart. The Mak fanatics on the web all think that should have produced a glowing review. After a gun falls apart, the manufacturers representatives always write in, claiming the must have gotten a lemon.


The funny thing to me is that people don’t like to read negative articles on guns. Gun Tests will slam firearms. And as you have seen in this thread, folks who own those pistols now hate Gun Tests. Folks want to read positive reviews of guns they own, or guns they plan to own.

And that is why Guns and Ammo, Shooting Times, and all other other shill magazines are so popular. They tell you want you want to hear: Wonderful!, wonderful!, wonderful!

I feel better already. :)

I know gunstores hate Gun Tests because a negative review reduces the value of their inventory. Until the memory evaporates, which in today’s world, can be quick, can be slow.

I have been subscribing to Gun Tests since 1992. Sometimes I disagree with their reviews, disagree with the comparisons (like comparing a new rifle to a used one that has been highly customized), but overall, I like it. And their experience pretty much tracks my experience. The dogs stay dogs (AMT), and a good manufacturer like Smith, occasionally puts out garbage, and some manufacturers, like Taurus, have really improved in 15 years.

[beaucoup ammo]

We've hashed this over before and my opinion remains the same. I let my subscription lapse. For what the magazine is, it's quite good and unique.

What I don't like, however, is although I've paid them money, I'm not allowed access to past reviews on their web sight. Each one costs an absurd amount of dough. Others may say.."that's ok, I have no problem." Fine.

If I pay for something, however, I expect Full Service. And that includes past reviews.

[ranger335v]

ALL reviews of anything show either the writers opinon or the editors position. Glossy magazines tend to be the latter - the company needs the advertizing money to survive - but I prefer to see what the writers think, as many of them as I can find.

I NEVER let any review substitute for my own brain, I ALWAYS do my own analysis and frequently come to a different conclusion from what I've read. The writers are, I think, honest enough to be heard but I have different perspectives than they. Like the question of Ruger assembly, it is likely a real problem for some but not me, so...I disagreed. But I don't slime the writer for that difference.

[zeroskillz]

Good to know, might be orth a look. I seem to get something in the mail from them every month or so, and it always looked so low budget it made me skeptical.

[RPCVYemen]

disagree with the comparisons (like comparing a new rifle to a used one that has been highly customized)

I couldn't' agree more with that. Overall, I am a fan. However, I recall at least one article where they compared an NIB rifle with one that had significant trigger work, etc.

That seems wrong. To be fair, they explained exactly what they were doing in the review, but it still seemed wacky to me.

Mike

[RPCVYemen]

What I don't like, however, is although I've paid them money, I'm not allowed access to past reviews on their web sight. Each one costs an absurd amount of dough.

Yeah - that sort of frosts me, too.

Mike

[SlamFire1]

Overall, they seem to me to be very "function oriented" - they don't really care how cool, fun, or historical a weapon is. They care solely about function. In general, this leads them to like Glocks, and the super reliable modern polymer pistols. I think they have a pro-1911 bias, but general, all they care about is functionality. They are also relatively unimpressed by brands - if a Ruger shoots as well as a S & W, they don't mind saying so. They care first and foremost if a weapon reliably delivers rounds downrange within the accuracy standards they have established for that test.

When I think about what I care about, function seems to be a real important criteria.

I can remember a Guns Annual review of the Bren Ten. While the writer noted that the factory supplied expected malfunction rate was 2%, the article did not make a point of that being unacceptable in a self defense firearm. I consider two potential jams every one hundred rounds rather awful.

I do not have a running score of the number of people who have talked to me about functioning problems with new factory firearms. But it has been alot. And they usually get rid of the firearm after the factory fixes it. I do not understand that, if the mechanical item is now functional, why not keep it?

First and foremost, a firearm ought to go bang each and every time you pull the trigger. And point of impact ought to be reasonably close to point of aim. And I think we have all seen shill magazines gloss over these points. Or note that once the firearm was sent back to the factory, then it came back OK.

I think a firearm ought to leave the factory OK.

In my opinion, no matter how "cool, fun, or historical a weapon" might be, if it don't function, its junk.

Am I wrong on this?

[RPCVYemen]

In my opinion, no matter how "cool, fun, or historical a weapon" might be, if it don't function, its junk.

Me too. I suspect that what rankles people is that the "cool, fun, historical" doesn't matter very much at all to Gun Tests. So if the gun functions well, it's not junk.

I looked up the Phoenix Arms 22 review that annoyed someone earlier in this thread. In the Gun Test review, the point was that even though the gun was cheap, and the frame was zinc with steel inserts, it was very reliable, and more accurate the the other two weapons they looked at (a Beretta, and a High Standard). So even though everyone, "knows" the Phoenix is junk it functioned better, and they gave it a higher rating.

From Gun Tests point of view the Phoenix functioned just fine for what they wanted - .22 plinking. I find that kind of logic hard to argue with.

Just because it's Friday, I'll be honest. I suspect that a lot of people who post on places like THR love guns that impress other gun owners. :) The "brag factor" is important to folks that spend top dollar on 1911s for example. It's sorta like hot rodding. But the "brag factor" doesn't figure even a little into the Gun Tests review.

Evil

[Deavis]

And that is why Guns and Ammo, Shooting Times, and all other other shill magazines are so popular. They tell you want you want to hear: Wonderful!, wonderful!, wonderful!

Part of that is simple, those magazines don't feature crap guns. You aren't going to a Tec-9 being evaluated in G&A, because they already know it is crap. Why fill your pages with crappy guns that readers aren't going to want to buy? they aren't catering to a lower-income or the super-cheap guy crowd IMO.

I subscribed to gun Tests for a while but found their reviews and writing to be inconsistent, amateurish, and for the most part out of sync with my observations. The things they find difficult on guns are, in my opinion, someone who still drags their knuckles would find difficult. Some things are so subjective, "I didn't like the way the forend felt against my hand," that they shouldn't be used in an objective article without more data points. If it doesn't feel right to you, get 5 other people to try it out and see what they think. In other mags you'll often read, and my 3 buddies all said XYZ about the feel of the gun.

I just don't think the reviews are worth the money. I can spend 5 minutes in a gunshop and glean more info. If you are buying a quality gun, then you know it will shoot straight so all you need are the ergos. I wouldn't waste m money on the magazine

[GunTech]

What you should understand about reviews in gun magazines:

Aside from the revenue gun magazines get from adds, there's another reason you don't see any nrgative reviews. When gunwriter A is doing a review of a particular gun, they call up the maker and say "we're doing a review of you new rifle. Can you send one down for us to test"? They don;t buy one at the local gun shop. You think the maker just picks a rifle out of the inventory? Of course not. Also, the usual practice is that the writer gets to buy the gun after the review for a token amount.

I sometimes disagree with Gun Tests, but at least they are reasonably objective and aren't afraid to point out problems. Have you ever real a bad review in the mainstream gun press?

[kymarkh]

The magazine is not too bad, I just found better sources of information. I was a subscriber for 2 years - then I found out about THR.

[Stevie-Ray]

Is this a Peterson publication? I used to read a Peterson's Handgun Tests way back in the early 80s. Sounds like the same type of thing. I always found the information garnered valuable from this pub, though I didn't always heed their warnings or take their advice to heart, similar to what most are saying about the OP's Gun Tests. This pub was rather thick and would today cost an easy 5 bucks per.

I remember them saying the Detonics Power 9 had too much recoil for them. I found it blatently refreshing.

But then they were also thrilled when the .45 ACP was scrapped in favor of the 9mm in the Govt. sidearm.:scrutiny:

[4v50 Gary]

Used to subscribe. I prefer going to the 'net instead.

For instance, consider how the S&W & Taurus are rated. OK, the cylinder jams. That's a major thing and the factory will fix it. It should never have left the factory.

Now, take a look at the insides of both guns-that is, the internal lockwork mechanism. S&W is better engineered. It has a rebound slide which serves as an internal safety that prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin (by physically blocking the complete forward travel of the hammer) should the hammer slip. Taurus use to have this feature in their earlier guns. They deleted it. I'll buy S&W and fix it myself.

[RonC]

I enjoy reading Gun Tests even if they review a gun I have negatively. There are small points I can glean from the tests and the writing. For instance, they will mention that the wood to metal fit on a long gun (including shotguns) is poor or, in some cases, good. That at least gives me a hint about the quality control and care in manufacturing. It also guides me to what to look for when I go to the gun shop.
I find it helpful when they report that a single-action revolver shoots 5" below point of aim at 25 yards, or even that a gun I longed for and now own shot no better than 4" groups from a rest. I can use all this information as part of all the info I gather on particular guns. Notice that I said 'part.' My decisions are not based on only one source.
Compared to their honesty, no matter how flawed, the shiny publications I find intolerable - like when Guns and Ammo reported that a 40 S&W pistol shot 4.5 - 5" groups at 25 yards, then said that it wasn't great but was certainly acceptable for self defense distances. How can they say that and look at themselves in the mirror the next day?!
Ron

[hemiram]

They kind of lost credibilty recently, IMO, when they bought an Astra A-100 for a "classic" test for $425. $325, maybe, but $425? Seems quite high for a used gun with no warranty.

They bought it from Fountain Firearms, who last time I checked had another(?) A-100 for $425. The A-100 I bought recently for less than $300, delivered, with 3 17 rd mags seems to be a totally decent enough gun. 100% reliable with everything I have put through it, and after a thorough cleaning, looks to be in nearly 100%condition, and it was never fired before I got it.

[redneck2]

Just because it's Friday, I'll be honest. I suspect that a lot of people who post on places like THR love guns that impress other gun owners. The "brag factor" is important to folks that spend top dollar on 1911s for example. It's sorta like hot rodding. But the "brag factor" doesn't figure even a little into the Gun Tests review.
You tend to get two sides of this. It's either the snob that bought the $30k O/U or the guy that says he always outshoots him with his single shot H&R Topper.

Statistically, one sample of something is typically insignificant.

Years ago I worked for John Deere Company. Consumer reports did a test on riding mowers and gave one of our competitors an "Excellent" rating. It was such a piece of crap that my dealers that handled that line wouldn't even carry that particular model.

Gun Tests opinion is no better or worse than someone on the errornet. It is obvious that some of their testers have extremely limited experience with the type firearms they're working with.

[buenhec]

Good magazine, I just renewed. They dont get influenced by gun manufact as the guns & ammo magazines. You can also go online and download articles.

[jpcampbell]

Very good and from what I see honest about the guns they are testing, I don't think one sample is a very good test of any product but they can't afford to buy dozens to test. I remember another mag. a few years ago that was also honest about testing it was called Pistolero I believe, They did one of the best tests on the 45 verse the 9mm for stopping power, they shot a live pig with a 45 and shot another live pig with a 9mm in the guts, they then reported the results in graphic detail, entrance and exit wound size, secondary shrapnel affects, the pigs had just eaten corn, blood loss and time to incapacitation and death.