I have subscribed for several years. I continue to take GT because I don't see any better gun evaluation rags out there. GT is not biased as to gun makers. That is a huge benefit in their favor, but that isn't to say that they are not biased. They are hugely biased, but more often than not, they provide adequate information for the reader to understand their final rating on a given gun inclusive of their biases.
For example, they review 3 handguns and of the three, only one functioned 100% with the various types of ammo and that model gun had the tighest patterns of the guns tested. However, it was not the best rated gun in the group because the people who shot the gun did not find it to be very comfortable in their hands. That is odd to me, but at least the bias is explained.
I understand folks don't think a sample of 1 is adequate for evaluating a product line. It isn't, but you currently don't find anyone buying a sample of multiple guns from a product line and testing the whole sample. It is a valid complaint, so you take what you learn in Gun Tests, query people on boards such as THR and at the range and determine for yourself if the findings of GT appear to reflect a consistent pattern or not.
What I don't like is that in a comparison of a suite of guns, usually three, but sometimes anywhere from 2-5, the guns are ranked compared to one another. Not all of the guns are a good direct comparison with one another and it is possible to have two good guns, one ranked less, because the comparison isn't valid. At some point, they did a comparison of 2 or 3 models of carbines for home defense. They weren't all the same caliber and the larger caliber .308 was picked over one of the other guns because it was a bigger bullet. The bigger bullet aspect may be valid as the gun does offer more stopping power based on the cartridge, but the gun wasn't compared against other .308s, but against .223s. I have no idea how it would stack up to other .308s.
They have also made some fairly substantial mistakes in the presentation of their data that isn't caught until subscribers write in. In other words, they don't double check their work.
Also, there is no consistency in testing, so similar guns from different issues may not have been evaluated in the same manners. What is even worse, some of their reviewers will try to review guns based on a 25 yard standard, but don't have a 25 yard range and will test to 15 yards and then provide a mathematical correction. There is much more room for error when you extrapolate from a shorter to a longer distance rather than vice versa.
Shot distances for testing can range from 5-75 feet, 1-25 yards, or 1-25 meters for handguns and various distances in yards or meters with long guns. So not only are the tests not consistent, they don't even use the same system of measurement on a consistent basis.
What really pisses me off the the downward spiral away from guns. In response to a reader that noticed non-gun items being review, such as knives, the editor said their survey of their consumer base indicated that the consumers want more than just guns and gun accessories such as ammo, scopes, holsters, and the like. So Gun Tests is now a review of things like binoculars, knives, and other non-gun items. Notice I didn't say bayonets, but things like pocket knives. Bayonets would be suited if tested in relation to being on a gun, as implied by the name.
One thing is certain, if I want to learn about knives and binoculars, I won't be trusting the range monkeys at Gun Tests to know the other product lines. I will look to "experts" in those fields. I am not even sure that the folks at Gun Tests are experts with gun and given the troubles, the only advantage over gun rags is that they don't take advertising from the makers of products they review like other gun rags do.