Gun Tests: used 357 mag revolvers.

Impartial & incompetent.
Denis

Frequently don't understand a particular gun, intended use.
Odd rating criteria.
Fibbed in past about only using guns they bought.
Denis

I subscribed twice, and gave up twice.
They were simply neither accurate nor useful.
Denis

^^ Give him time to read it..

Aside from overly long & largely boring, current Combat Magnum Smiths have transfer bar ignitions?
The Ruger front end lockup does not derive from a "ball detent". Among my six GPs, none have a ball detent front lockup.

And I don't see that their "Best Buy" rating has any real basis in reality.
I frequently disagreed with their rating criteria and their conclusions when I subscribed.
Denis

I really didn't see any real value to the test. Started out by saying they going bargain hunting. Personally I don't see either Smith or either Ruger tested being "bargain" guns. I guess buying in a pawn show versus buying at full retail in a gun shop qualifies as a bargain. I spend a lot of time in Pawn Shops as well as regular Gun Shops and I see bargain buyers as looking at Taurus, Rock Island, Charter Arms etc. Next, they did just what is done almost every time a magazine runs a test on a gun. They picked some ammo and ran a comparison. The results could have varied greatly just by picking different ammo. I don't fault the writers for this, as they usually test whatever manufacturers have sent to them for testing and there is no way anyone could test all types of ammo available. It would take years. Can you really compare the actions? Of course you can, but its always been the general rule that S&W are smoother out of the box than a Ruger. Can both be improved? A knowledgeable gunsmith can do things with either that make the actions smoother than a baby's behind and can make SA triggers so light they are dangerous in the wrong hands. In my experience, a revolver buyer is generally more knowledgeable than the average Joe just walking into a shop looking for a bargain gun. Revolver buyers generally know what they are looking for and have a specific purpose in mind, whether its SD, target shooting or hunting. I'd like to see a real "bargain" test not only with revolvers, but semis as well. Go in a well stocked Pawn Shop and buy the 5 cheapest revolvers you can find and buy the 5 cheapest semis as well. Then buy cheap ammo to go with each one and then run a test. Id I had the time, I'd do that test and then try and sell the story and results to a shooting magazine. Not only would that be fun, I bet it would provide for interesting reading and there might be some eye opening results! I'm not trying to knock the linked article and if I sound like it, accept my apology. but after reading the article, was there anything learned? Since one of my best friends runs a Pawn/Gun shop, I think I'll approach him about borrowing a few bargain buns and running some test. The results may have us all shopping in the bargain bin!!

Thanks for sharing.

I loved the comments section where some Colt Dolt said the test was flawed because they didn’t include a Python.

The inclusion of a commemorative with knife & case among used "bargain" guns was idiotic.

NO current Smith Combat Magnum has a transfer bar ignition, and there IS a great deal of difference between a transfer bar that TRANSMITS hammer energy to a primer and a hammer block that PREVENTS hammer energy from being transmitted to a primer.

The difference between the two is very far from "academic only", since both are diametrically opposed in what they do.
As anybody pretending to be a knowledgeable gun reviewer should understand the guns he or she is reviewing, and this guy obviously didn't.

The statement about the ball detent keeping lockup tight was incredibly ill-informed.

All of the above is why I place pretty close to zero credibility in Gun Tests.
They don't know, they don't understand, they lied in at least one known case about only using guns they buy & accepting no guns from makers, their comparisons are frequently skewed, and their Which Is Best criteria are often ludicrous.
Denis

What DPris said is exactly my thoughts on them. I subscribed for a while years ago. Found them to be worse than useless.
Sad really because the concept is great. Their execution of that concept is poor at best.

Denis covered my sentiments about Gun Tests "testing" results. I seem to remember reading an article they did about AR-15 National Match rifles years ago when I started shooting Highpower Service Rifle, and their evaluation of the different rifles had little bearing on how the rifles were meant to be used. I also disagreed with their conclusions based on first-hand firing line experience. (Naturally, I can't seem to Google my way to the article again.) Ever since I've kind of ignored any Gun Tests results that come up when I'm researching things.

As for the article on used .357s, it doesn't really contain a whole lot of actual substance in my opinion. The reality is any of the guns they picked are perfectly functional and adequate for what they were looking for. None are truly premium guns. And frankly, if you're going to review a GP-100 based on it's size, you might as well throw in a S&W 586/686/581/681 if you can find one.

I also noticed the comment about adding a Python to make it a complete .357 comparison. Luckily I wasn't drinking anything at the time, or I would've choked or lost a keyboard...

I must have a different GP100. The “ball detent” they described is just a pin on my gun. The pin is held in place by a detent. The pin’s purpose is to hold the thingamabob that locks the crane.

So they tested “budget” guns, but they bought higher end guns from a pawn shop and called them budget guns??? And to limit themselves to DA is equally nonsense.

No. Dumb.

They should have gone on a search for:
EAA windicator
Taurus 66
Model 15 beat to hell Smith
Beat to hell Colt Trooper
Anything that says Rossi on the side
Llama Comanche
Ruger GP100s
Ruger security Six
Ruger sp101

And then started looking at the common SAA clones and lookalikes from:
Uberti
Pietta
Chiapas? (Do they have one yet?)
Taurus gaucho
Heritage Manufacturing

I can understand drawing a line to avoid guns considered dangerous (RG for example) or culling J frames in general for .357 due to the ouch factor.

When you don't understand how a particular gun is intended to be used (or normally is used), and rate it poorly because you apply inappropriate criteria, you skew the results, do not provide any useful info for readers, make a fool of yourself in front of people who do know the gun, and leave people who don't know the gun with erroneous information & perspective.

When you don't understand how a gun works, don't know the terminology, and give out bad information regarding same, you make a fool of yourself in front of people who do know, and you have not positively enhanced the knowledge base of those who don't know.

When you use mismatched exemplars, apply the same criteria to both, and ding one for failing an arbitrary & inappropriate evaluation process, you again make a fool of yourself among those who know, and you have done nothing to help your readers learn anything useful.

When you base a "Best Buy" recommendation on utterly idiotic criteria, same same.

When you lie about where you get your exemplars from, that's an integrity issue.

And on it goes.

These comments are directed at the Gun Tests operation in general, and not confined to the article or author linked.
Just a long history of unqualified people who don't know what they're talking about.
Denis

DPris said:

When you don't understand how a particular gun is intended to be used (or normally is used), and rate it poorly because you apply inappropriate criteria, you skew the results, do not provide any useful info for readers, make a fool of yourself in front of people who do know the gun, and leave people who don't know the gun with erroneous information & perspective.

When you don't understand how a gun works, don't know the terminology, and give out bad information regarding same, you make a fool of yourself in front of people who do know, and you have not positively enhanced the knowledge base of those who don't know.

When you use mismatched exemplars, apply the same criteria to both, and ding one for failing an arbitrary & inappropriate evaluation process, you again make a fool of yourself among those who know, and you have done nothing to help your readers learn anything useful.

When you base a "Best Buy" recommendation on utterly idiotic criteria, same same.

When you lie about where you get your exemplars from, that's an integrity issue.

And on it goes.

These comments are directed at the Gun Tests operation in general, and not confined to the article or author linked.
Just a long history of unqualified people who don't know what they're talking about.
Denis

Click to expand...

Nice summary and spot on.

That article is all over the place and a mix and matched bunch of odd conclusions and weird criteria. A lot of the discussion is irrelevant.

Don't think I'll be subscribing.

It's unfortunate, but when a supposedly knowledgeable reviewer demonstrates quite clearly that he doesn't even know the basics, it only takes one or two statements to completely blow his credibility on everything else he might have to say.
If you're going to be speaking about various guns, KNOW those guns.

Rugers have transfer bars, Smiths don't.
Rugers use a front pivoting latch lever that engages a slot in the frame for lockup.

Those are two extremely basic items that anybody professing to be worth listening to in a comparison of gun features & performance should absolutely know & understand.
If you don't, what else are you wrong about, what else do you not know?

As a reader, if I see somebody display such an appalling level of ignorance in a gun review, the rest of what he says is immediately suspect, his qualifications to reach a conclusion are very doubtful, and his conclusions themselves have to be viewed with caution, if not outright suspicion.

If I'm going to pay for somebody to tell me something I don't know, the guy damn well better know what I don't know, and he'd better be correct in passing it on.

I find a source that consistently demonstrates its content is not worth buying, I find some other place to put my money.
Denis

Aside from all that, .357T, Gun Tests is great, huh?
Denis

I'd say the biggest conceit is the prices they paid. I bought the same blued 4" GP100 new last fall for $539 from a LGS. They paid $480 for a used example with an unknown round count. While I appreciate that Ruger fully supports guns bought used, I'd have to save more 60 bucks to consider one over a new gun. Perhaps the most useful thing illustrated by this article is that you have to have a lot better pawn store than the one they used if you are going to mess with used examples of in-production guns. The used gun pricing in LGSs and pawn stores in my area is just as pointless 9 times out of 10. On the 10th time it's priced higher than new. I have to go to gunbroker to find a deal worth pursuing on an used gun, and then it's probably going to take some time and patience.

Seems to me that they just wanted to spend money and write stuff without a clear idea as to what they intend to accomplish. No defined objectives, no controls, no coherence.