[twoblink]

I'm reading about digital cameras, and some websites are so biased you think they worked for that company's marketing dept.

And then you look at who the sponser is, and you aren't surprised.

Some of the gun rag articles are biased from the get-go.. And so I pretty much don't bother reading most of the gun reviews anymore..

Do you believe the gun rags are objective?? Am I the only one that feels they aren't?

[Tamara]

Do you believe the gun rags are objective?? Am I the only one that feels they aren't?

Haven't done too much reading on this board, have you? :uhoh:

Jeez, 'blink, making fun of goofy & biased reviews is almost an art form around here.

I find most of the rags to be brisk, but manageable.

[matis]

Twoblink

Of course they're biased! They're shilling for their advertisers. Most articles are simply (thinly) disguised ads. Isn't it obvious?

As you mentioned, all such magazines do this: Photograpphy mags, bicyle mags, dog magazines -- they're all pushing the products of their advertisers

Now that I've said that, so what? Given the pressures of Capitalistic society, how else can it be?


On the other hand, without the blessings of Capitalism, you'd either have (not so thinly) disguised propaganda for the glorious revolutionary leader -- OR -- you'd have to pay the full freight, the full price for publishing the magazine yourself and subscription rates would be MUCH higher.

I mean -- is there something I'm overlooking? Is there a free lunch after all?


I read gun mags 'cause I like to read about guns and I like to look at photos of guns. As for the bias, I take the articles, like I take everything else in life -- with at least a few grains of salt.


Show me an unbiased human being (ain't no such thing -- I'm not one and you're not one, either) and then, maybe I can show you an unbiased article.


There is still tons of good info in such magazines as there is in most product advertising.

So, now that you are armed :D with a dose of reality, enjoy the magazines.




matis

[Skunkabilly]

I just look at them for the pictures :o

[Mike Irwin]

I spent 3.5 years behind a desk for American Rifleman magazine as Associate Editor, the no. 3 position on staff.

Largely the reviews were fair and relatively unbiased.

There was, however, one glaring exception made for the Colt AA2000.

[jsalcedo]

Gun mag articles are complete B.S.

They have an advert for the same gun they are "REVIEWING" on the next page.

They know what side their bread is buttered on.

[twoblink]

Tamara.. :D

Some think the theory of "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" applies..

It might just be indigestion, but lately, most of the articles just seem more blantently biased than I can stomach..

When you have a supposed review on Gun X, but the word "Glock" appears about 3 times more often in the article....

[kernal_panic]

i haven't bought a gun rag in many years. why should i? i have access to the best gun information via the internet. i get to interact with hundreds of shooters a day via message boards. gun magazines are out dated.

[Old Fuff]

As an "insider" (read that sometimes gun writer) I try to be as objective as possible. At the same time I'm aware that very critical comments will probably get edited. Some of the very top names can get away with things that others can't because the particular magazine they're working for doesn't want to lose a star.

That said, many writers will give the reader hints. Read between the lines and see what isn't said. An editor can't cut out what isn't there. Also articles on older out-of-productions guns probably show less bias. So do those that cover techical subjects such as reloading. You can get a lot out of gun rags besides product reviews.

Two outstanding magazines for more advanced readers are "Rifle" and "Handloader"

And finely yes, any magazine that doesn't stroke its advertisers will not be around long.

[Jaco]

Mostly yes, you must just know the writers style and read between the lines.....

[Waitone]

Maybe we can convince Consumer Union to expand their testing programs to incliude firearms.

I can't wait to see the annual report on revolvers in Consumer Report magazine.

Love those bingo card reports on used handguns.

IIRC there is a startup mag that takes no advertising while offering actual testing data on firearms.

[ceetee]

You want unbiased? Go get a subscription to "Gun Tests..."

BTW: A coupla months ago, G & A had an article wherein one guy reviewed a nice "name-brand" (read "cost more than I make in a month") 12 ga sporting clays gun... and his compadre reviewed one of the new cheap plastic-stocked pump models from (I think) Turkey that cost under $200.

They both shot a round, and the guy with the Italian wonder won by one bird...

[buzz_knox]

Go get a subscription to "Gun Tests..."

I wouldn't. It's biased towards the personal prejudices of the writers. If they don't like something, no one should like it. I've gotten better discussions over gun shop counters than from that mag. Of course, Marko and Tamara are the people I run into at gun shops around here. :)

As for other gun rags, they've convinced me that the paper gun rags are printed on would make the best toilet paper as it has an amazing ability to contain crap. Some of the writers are good, some of the information is great, but too much of it absolute drivel. Unfortunately, they are sometimes the primary and/or initial source for information on new products, especially the toys we serfs aren't allowed to have.

[Art Eatman]

First off, how many really-bad commercial guns have you run across, out of all the guns you've messed with?

When I run across a test of a new gun, I look at the pictures and the specs. That's straight info, without the writer's opinion. As to his opinion of the gun, I'm happy to sprinkle salt on it...By and large, I just don't pay all that much attention to most of the Oh, wow! stuff.

Therefore, kiddies, my innards don't get roiled and I remain my usual suave, debonair, mild-mannered self.

:), Art

[HankL]

Gun Rags? I only purchase them for the editorial content, I never look at the pictures :rolleyes:

[FPrice]

"Do you believe the gun rags are objective?? Am I the only one that feels they aren't?"

Repeat after me...

Gun rags good. Independent thought bad.

:scrutiny:

Seriously, gun rags, like any other product are out to sell themselves, keep themselves in business, and after a fashion, provide "some" service to their readers. I think that Art Eatman had the best analysis of how to read tehm. Look for information and hard facts, but don't take the opinion too seriously. Then go out and try one for yourself if you are interested.

[ACP230]

I have committed some gun prose. Some has appeared in national and regional magazines.

I almost always write on a gun I own, or that one of my shooting buddies owns. This means that I write about guns I like, which is bias of a sort. On the other hand, I can say whatever I want about the guns I review.

I have gotten some ammo from manufacturers to review. I felt no obligation to say nice things about the ammo, but most of it shot well enough to rate some good remarks.

If this be bias, make the most of it.

[Bacchus]

I definitely agree that they are biased, although I would be careful about using the term, "gun rag".

I got flamed on this board for it a while back. Thread even got closed down.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

[TheeBadOne]

There was, however, one glaring exception made for the Colt AA2000. :D :D :D

[Tamara]

The reviews tend to be combat accurate. ;)

[Gunhead]

As a gun writer myself, I tend to think that most US gun rags are everything, but objective. I cancelled all my subs years ago... :rolleyes:

These days I only browse through them in the office and then read the german gun rags like "DWJ" or "Visier".

In our mag we try to be as objective as possible - for example in this month's issue we unleashed hell on the poor SW1911 jammomatic (which since then went back to the factory). :)

[twoblink]

My favorite was an ad for a competing gun stuck between the reviews.. :D

Yep.. I now view them for the pictures and the nice side by side picture shots...

Also, things I can't get myself, like chronographed info.. That's about it..

[DJJ]

The reviews tend to be combat accurate. ;)
Now that has to be greatest comeback I've heard yet. Not "bust a gut" funny, but sublime and incisive.

[Sean Smith]

Gun rags are like Britney Spears: easy, but no longer cheap. :evil:

[garrettwc]

For the most part I would have to say yes they are biased. I was browsing one last night at the newstand that had an article about the Para CCW pistol. An no less than 3 ads including the back cover for the aforementioned gun.

There is only one gun mag I still buy (i.e. not included with membership) on a regular basis. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but if you want a magazine with a low to non-existent BS factor then check out SWAT.

[AJ Dual]

Anyone remeber reading the G&A review of the Vektor CP-1?

:D

It should have read: Jam-o-Matic. Gas-delayed blowback implementation is sketchy at best. Nice ergonomics, good pointer, and Buck-Rogers styling if that's your thing. Wait for the CP-2, if it ever comes out...

Now think of how much more column-inches G&A would have left over for even more ad revenue!

I read gun rags, and take them for what they are happily. I don't mind them one bit, they're good entertainment, and even a gun or gun-related advert is better reading than lots of other things I can think of.

[HankB]

Maybe we can convince Consumer Union to expand their testing programs to incliude firearms. I can see it now "This is a fine revolver, the barrel is 14" long so nobody will be tempted to carry it concealed, the trigger is 25 lbs DA with no single action option, making it safer for the kids, and it comes with no less than three integral safety locks. We rate this a Best Buy."

Consumer Reports is more interested in telling you what you should like rather than what you will like, and frequently their "experts" just miss the point entirely.

There used to be a magazine - Handgun Tests or Pistolero? - in which guns were purchased over the counter and tested by a . . . gentleman . . . who described their performance (or lack of same) in rather colorful terms. I remember his test of the L.E.S. Rogak (allegedly based on the Steyr GB) included a picture of himself holding a large boulder over the pistol, with the caption reading "The testers felt the gun would benefit from some stoning." They DID get the pistol to fire as many as three rounds between jams on occasion . . .

On the other hand most gun rags are shills for their advertisers . . . but sometimes even ad copy can be useful and entertaining. Just be sure your BS detector is activated when you read it.

And, if you're reading THR, you already know that, generally speaking, these forums are a better source of information than all the gun rags combined. (But keep your BS detector active here, too! ;) )

[Bainx]

1. "Concealed Carry" mag. Looked at one this morning. $10. Are they insane ?

2. A friend recently showed me an article [in Gun Test?] that slammed the Makarov as a hurlin' hunk of junk. I said..."where do they get these morons?"

[Tamara]

2. A friend recently showed me an article [in Gun Test?] that slammed the Makarov as a hurlin' hunk of junk. I said..."where do they get these morons?"

Oh, but it is!

It's just a very reliable hurlin' hunk of junk that happens to be quite accurate for the price point. ;)

[sw442642]

They are unbiased if the Playmates actually are nuclear physicists and Penthouse letters are true.

It's advertising. Combat Handguns had a story on the Korth. Guess what, there was an ad for Korth. Never saw one before.

What else is new?

Amazingly, you do see some negatives. Guns that don't fire and lousy ergonomics are sometimes mentioned. Probably the check bounced! :p

[Correia]

Perhaps one of the best TFL threads of all time:

TFL members review the BLASTMASTER: www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102389&highlight=SCNSOD

[redneck2]

guess I wouldn't paint them all with the same broad brush

I think American Rifleman and particularly Handloader are about as objective as one can expect. I particularly enjoy John Barsness in Handloader pretty much laying out how cheap, useless, or worthless some "accessories" are.

Then again, he makes light of the "drugstore cowboy" hunters that shoot running antelope over their shoulder at 400 yards in a driving rainstorm.

If you're the guy that has to have the latest, greatest super magnum because it shoots 1/2" flatter at a quarter mile, he'll nail you too.

Most of the ones that are made for news stand sales....well, they live and die by ad revenue. Remember, magazines are made for entertainment.

[achadwick]

I think TFS, TAR, PS, Rifle, and Handloader are pretty good. As for G&A and others I, like Skunk, mostly just look at the pictures.

[twoblink]

The magazines here in Taiwan are about $9!! I thought at first, it was an import tax.. But.. the prices are really almost that high!!

Some of the ads are pretty entertaining though..

There's a few mags like Riflemen, Big Game Hunter, etc.. that I like just for the scenic vista shots of Africa and Canada..

[Denny Hansen]

FWIW, as the editor for S.W.A.T. I am biased.

Let's see, I once said the stocks on Beretta shotguns were invented by Chimps for use by Gorillas. Yeah, that got us a lot of brownie points.

We recently lost numerous full page ads from one firearms manufacturer because we gave an honest review of their shotgun (an answer in search of a question) while others were singing its praises as the latest "best" gun. Gee, we must love losing money!

On the other hand, when we recently fairly well slam-dunked a Nikon scope, they wanted to advertise. Seems some companys actually want honest feedback. What a concept!

All writers for S.W.A.T. either purchase or return what they evaluate--no exceptions--and myself and publisher Rich Lucibella hold ourselves to the same standards as our writers.

Is there junk out there? You bet, but there is also some who believe that honesty and credibilty are not just words. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Denny

[Roadkill Coyote]

In every media, the reader/veiwer/consumer has to determine whose selling them wheat, and whose peddling chaff (and the folks over at SWAT seem to have a fairly high wheat content in my opinion).


:neener: On another note, does anybody else remember the issue of Pistolero, all those years ago, that had the article about escaping from an urban riot? That was a classic. They were unduly worried about, and making interesting ;) plans for the SHTF long before it was cool.

[garrettwc]

FWIW, as the editor for S.W.A.T. I am biased.

Well I'm NOT the editor but I still may be biased. I probably should have put this in an email direct to Denny, but folks S.W.A.T. is the best thing going out there in gun magazines for a number of reasons.

They have demonstrated this not only in how they review products but how they approach some of the "how-to" articles.

For example, most shotgun articles are all about how you must have the Uber Tactical Shotgun with all the bells and whistles @ $1K plus to defeat the evil doers. This month's S.W.A.T. has a great article by Ken Campbell on how to make a plain jane Remington 870 into a fighting gun on the cheap.

[twoblink]

S.W.A.T is pretty good. Some of the comments I've read from it are harsh (when harshness was due), which means they aren't bowing down to anybody. That's a great thing; people should have pride in their work, and be honest to their audience.

garrettwc,

You hit on one of the things that bother me; reviews on $2000+ rifles I almost don't bother reading.. Usually I'd like to read about something in a bit more "buyable" price range for the most of us..

Another comment (for S.W.A.T)

Due to someone (insert Twoblink here) bugging the local bookstores here in Taiwan, they have started to carry S.W.A.T last month..

[Dr.Rob]

Gun Tests, hahaha.

There was a waste of money.

We tested a a Colt SAA vs an Uberti and an AWA Longhorn. Our conclusions: the Colt costs More, its better fitted and we know it will hold its collector value. The others shoot bullets.

Never saw a 'test' that made a lot of sense. Why not 3 makarovs from three different sources?

Why not a round of BHP "clone wars". That kind of thing would have made sense.

I like reading Boddington's articles, sue me.

But I find it laughable that the last issue of shooting times manages to review a Beretta Stampede and USFA rodeo and a an EMF Great western 2... and NOT in a side by side comparison in the same magazine with a straight face. I did buy it to read up on the stats of the henrry Big Boy.. mostly curiosity since i am looking for 44 cal rifle.

I've been in magazine publishing for 10+ years, I know how product review magazines work. Sometimes the content gets bought and sold, sometimes it doesn't. Totally depends on the publisher.

Me? having written puff pieces for advertisers (which for the record is like chewing sand) I can say I don't care for the practice but I understand it. Case in point in a small market, one of our writers does a bar reveiw (not me), knocks the owner/proprietor of this place in a fun and snarky manner, totally in line with how content for the magazine. Suddenly, the OTHER 8 restaurants/bars the guy owns get yanked from the magazine's advertising... oops. said owner is now MAYOR of the fair city. Thats why sales/editorila/content all need to talk to each other.

A mistake like that can cost you.

[Skunkabilly]

We recently lost numerous full page ads from one firearms manufacturer because we gave an honest review of their shotgun (an answer in search of a question) while others were singing its praises as the latest "best" gun. Gee, we must love losing money!


Denny,
Does that manufacturer rhyme with 'enelli'? ;)

[Denny Hansen]

Skunk-
That's one of them: M4/M1014 evaluation.

Let's be honest, ad revenue is a vital portion of any publication but that does not mean, at least in the case of S.W.A.T., that ads dictate editorial. We keep the two as far apart as possible.

Most pubs strive for a 40/60 split between ads and editorial. When we reached that point, Rich decided that our readers deserve what they pay for: good editorial content. So he decided to raise the bar in the industry and increase the size of the book from 80 to 100 pages, beginning with the next issue--without increasing the cost to our readers. I'm very proud to call him a friend and be associated with someone who has so much honor and integrity.

I'm honestly not trying to pimp S.W.A.T. here. Just wanted to tell the other side of the story.

Denny

[Obiwan]

Gun mags are not objective....????

Great...now I gottat return all this stuff!!!!!

What was I thinking????

Seriously...I have just about given up on all the other mags except SWAT

Most of the others are just a rehash of the same old tired topics.

Denny...please promise me...no 9mm vs. .45 shootouts!!!

I am begging you man!!!!!

[Dr.Rob]

Why not? it could settle the dispute once and for all.

To be followed by AR vs. AK

and .223 vs 7.62

There Dnny.. three MONTHS worth of content.

Off to my creative meeting...

[Joe Demko]

If I do my part, I find the gun rags to be capable performers.

[FPrice]

"FWIW, as the editor for S.W.A.T. I am biased."

I'm sorry, I thought they said "Gun Rags", not "Serious Firearms Magazines published by Serious Practitioners".

OOPS!

As penance I have just purchased a subscription to SWAT Magazine.

[mec]

"....almost always write on a gun I own, or that one of my shooting buddies owns. This means that I write about guns I like, which is bias of a sort....."

Same here. In fact, with my longer lead times, the models I like get discontinued shortly before the article comes out. This probably upsets the advertisers.

The comments about "reading between the lines are good". Sometimes it goes like " Georgia, You sweat less than any fat girl I've ever met!" A while back, one fairly new and unjaded writer did up one of the new revolvers. His groups were somewhat larger than might be expected of a handgun suitable for small game hunting. He published the groups and called the gun "accurate". Most people would not agree with that summation but he did provide the relevent information for the reader to see what was going on.

Some writers don't particularly care if they upset the advertisers- or if they ever write another magazine article again. Check out the Hamilton gunsmithing column in AH for this. Back when one of the versions of the 625 ( probably theModel of 1989) came out, J.D. Jones got a bum one and evicerated it in print. This torqued S&W and also po'ed a bunch of the readers who own the gun.

A couple of years ago, the holster editor of AH really upset one of his advertisers. It was a deep concealement holster which he found uncomfortable " ..gives a whole new meaning to the word 'Squeeze Cocker.'" The advertiser protested loudly but still buys advertisments. The Handgun editor is now the editor of the magazine.