Rifle Reviews in magazines...along with other reviews.
- Thread starter fpgt72
- Start date
- Status
As Craig says- there's no place for reviews of total junkers & we've gone over this several times over the years.
These gunmag bashes are cyclical, rotating around two or three times a year, always with the same ratio of truth (10% valid, 90% misinformation, ignorance, old myths, and misplaced expectations).
I'm no shill.
I give the good and the bad.
If it's a total POS, it's cancelled.
I'm not your personal tester.
I'm not your personal shopper.
I'm not in the biz to make your decision to buy or not to buy.
I'm not here to write ad copy for gunmakers.
I'm not paid to write mag reviews by gunmakers.
I'm not getting free guns in trade for positive reviews.
I DO get "free" ammo, I couldn't do my job without it.
I DO get loaner guns, same deal.
I AM here to do a fairly decent test of a product, within the constraints imposed by the paycheck I get for selling an article to a publisher on that product.
I AM here to give an honest review. And I do.
You take what you find (as I've said about 30 times before) in any gunmag as ONE point of information, exactly like you do with a thread on an Internet gun forum.
If you find the mag writer, or the forum poster, to be generally credible, you incorporate that info into your life, to whatever degree.
If you don't, you move on.
There are more useful mag writers, there are less useful mag writers.
There are more useful forum posters, there are less useful forum posters.
If you never find anything useful in a gunmag, then don't buy one.
Same deal on the Internet.
I'll tell you this- pound for pound, there's a metric a lot of more bad info on the Internet than in gun mags.
Years ago, on another forum, Clint Smith (look him up) made the mistake of joining, to participate in gun discussions.
He was immediately attacked by the ignorant, the unknowing, the brainless, the arm-chair commandoes, and the video-game players, over statements he was making in efforts to discuss various gun-related things.
If you know who he is, you know his character & qualifications to make those statements.
I think he lasted about a week before he said goodbye. Not worth his time.
That forum lost a great reference source, a very knowledgeable guy, and a chance to LEARN how it is in the real world.
The Idiots With Pitchforks & Torches won the day.
This thread here is one reason why you see very few writers participating in Internet gun forums.
And I'm not sure that's a positive thing for the forums.
Some of these guys really know their stuff, and have a lot to offer.
I stick around because I still learn here, and I can pretty much ignore most of the "Writers Are Shills" BS.
Denis
These gunmag bashes are cyclical, rotating around two or three times a year, always with the same ratio of truth (10% valid, 90% misinformation, ignorance, old myths, and misplaced expectations).
I'm no shill.
I give the good and the bad.
If it's a total POS, it's cancelled.
I'm not your personal tester.
I'm not your personal shopper.
I'm not in the biz to make your decision to buy or not to buy.
I'm not here to write ad copy for gunmakers.
I'm not paid to write mag reviews by gunmakers.
I'm not getting free guns in trade for positive reviews.
I DO get "free" ammo, I couldn't do my job without it.
I DO get loaner guns, same deal.
I AM here to do a fairly decent test of a product, within the constraints imposed by the paycheck I get for selling an article to a publisher on that product.
I AM here to give an honest review. And I do.
You take what you find (as I've said about 30 times before) in any gunmag as ONE point of information, exactly like you do with a thread on an Internet gun forum.
If you find the mag writer, or the forum poster, to be generally credible, you incorporate that info into your life, to whatever degree.
If you don't, you move on.
There are more useful mag writers, there are less useful mag writers.
There are more useful forum posters, there are less useful forum posters.
If you never find anything useful in a gunmag, then don't buy one.
Same deal on the Internet.
I'll tell you this- pound for pound, there's a metric a lot of more bad info on the Internet than in gun mags.
Years ago, on another forum, Clint Smith (look him up) made the mistake of joining, to participate in gun discussions.
He was immediately attacked by the ignorant, the unknowing, the brainless, the arm-chair commandoes, and the video-game players, over statements he was making in efforts to discuss various gun-related things.
If you know who he is, you know his character & qualifications to make those statements.
I think he lasted about a week before he said goodbye. Not worth his time.
That forum lost a great reference source, a very knowledgeable guy, and a chance to LEARN how it is in the real world.
The Idiots With Pitchforks & Torches won the day.
This thread here is one reason why you see very few writers participating in Internet gun forums.
And I'm not sure that's a positive thing for the forums.
Some of these guys really know their stuff, and have a lot to offer.
I stick around because I still learn here, and I can pretty much ignore most of the "Writers Are Shills" BS.
Denis
.308 Norma
Member
Does that include posts in threads about gun magazines - maybe only 25% of them are "useful and correct?"
Just kidding around reddog81.
CoalTrain49
Member
Does that include posts in threads about gun magazines - maybe only 25% of them are "useful and correct?"
Just kidding around reddog81.
There's a gem in there someplace, you just have to keep reading.
Old Dog
Member
Shucks, I'm totally unashamed to admit I still read the gun rags (magazines). American Rifleman, American Handgunner, Guns and Ammo, Combat Handguns, SWAT, Recoil, I pay for them and read 'em cover to cover. I like reading about guns, and I especially like really good photos of guns that I don't own, but want to buy.
I not only can afford to buy these periodicals, I can read between the lines. Having actually known some magazine writers, I'll willingly support their livelihood.
At least the gunwriters use their own names, unlike anonymous internet posters ...
I not only can afford to buy these periodicals, I can read between the lines. Having actually known some magazine writers, I'll willingly support their livelihood.
At least the gunwriters use their own names, unlike anonymous internet posters ...
entropy
Member
I will say Denis does not pull his punches when reviewing a gun-just like in his threads here, he'll tell it, good and bad, in his articles. Maybe that's why I like reading his articles. With Peter G. Kokalis gone, there are damn few like him left still writing for gun mags.It was about time for another gunmag bashing thread.
Used to show up quarterly, it's been a while.
While I agree that the article in question is meaningless when testing accuracy in doing it off-hand, this has been a continuing gripe of mine on Internet forums where posters proudly stick up pictures of 7-yard off-hand groups and proclaim how accurate their gun is.
No accuracy testing is valid in free-standing off-hand shooting.
You use a rest, period.
As for the other assertions-
Mag sales AND mag subscriptions are both demographics used to wave in front of potential advertisers. If an ad guy or gal can tell a company "Your ad with this mag placement will reach 50,000 readers", it's a metric for that company to use in deciding whether or not to buy ad space.
Like it or not, without the ads there'd be no mags.
And, since I'm still selling articles to them, I'm assuming people do still buy gunmags.
The "most are given to them" myth still persists.
I've been doing this for going on three decades.
I do have to borrow test products to review, it's a for-profit biz & I'd lose money bigtime if I had to buy everything off the shelves.
On the more expensive items like guns & high-dollar glass, I get the option to BUY at the end.
Typically a writer's discount, usually comparable to dealer cost.
I am NOT paid to write nice things about products.
As a freelancer, I've written for four major companies during my career, and never have I been told by an editor to write a positive review on a POS.
Never have I been given an assignment & told how to write it up.
I won't argue about other writers' work, beyond the above statements.
Sometimes a less-informative piece does get through.
Of course, that never happens on the Internet....
Denis
Funny American Rifleman got bashed already as well. I was gonna mention how much I like their accuracy standards. Pretty solid, 5 consecutive 5 shot groups @ 100 with a bunch of different loads. Their pistol testing is no slouch either. Far cry from "typical 3 shot groups are..." 
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,159
As Craig says- there's no place for reviews of total junkers & we've gone over this several times over the years.
These gunmag bashes are cyclical, rotating around two or three times a year, always with the same ratio of truth (10% valid, 90% misinformation, ignorance, old myths, and misplaced expectations).
I'm no shill.
I give the good and the bad.
If it's a total POS, it's cancelled.
I'm not your personal tester.
I'm not your personal shopper.
I'm not in the biz to make your decision to buy or not to buy.
I'm not here to write ad copy for gunmakers.
I'm not paid to write mag reviews by gunmakers.
I'm not getting free guns in trade for positive reviews.
I DO get "free" ammo, I couldn't do my job without it.
I DO get loaner guns, same deal.
I AM here to do a fairly decent test of a product, within the constraints imposed by the paycheck I get for selling an article to a publisher on that product.
I AM here to give an honest review. And I do.
You take what you find (as I've said about 30 times before) in any gunmag as ONE point of information, exactly like you do with a thread on an Internet gun forum.
If you find the mag writer, or the forum poster, to be generally credible, you incorporate that info into your life, to whatever degree.
If you don't, you move on.
There are more useful mag writers, there are less useful mag writers.
There are more useful forum posters, there are less useful forum posters.
If you never find anything useful in a gunmag, then don't buy one.
Same deal on the Internet.
I'll tell you this- pound for pound, there's a metric a lot of more bad info on the Internet than in gun mags.
Years ago, on another forum, Clint Smith (look him up) made the mistake of joining, to participate in gun discussions.
He was immediately attacked by the ignorant, the unknowing, the brainless, the arm-chair commandoes, and the video-game players, over statements he was making in efforts to discuss various gun-related things.
If you know who he is, you know his character & qualifications to make those statements.
I think he lasted about a week before he said goodbye. Not worth his time.
That forum lost a great reference source, a very knowledgeable guy, and a chance to LEARN how it is in the real world.
The Idiots With Pitchforks & Torches won the day.
This thread here is one reason why you see very few writers participating in Internet gun forums.
And I'm not sure that's a positive thing for the forums.
Some of these guys really know their stuff, and have a lot to offer.
I stick around because I still learn here, and I can pretty much ignore most of the "Writers Are Shills" BS.
Denis
Good and valid point. There are nuggets of great information in magazines just as there are some great deals at gun shows.
tark
Member
I know who Clint is and he told me about the experience years ago at a Shot Show when he visited out booth. Heidi was with him and after he and Les finished their strategy session I got a few minutes with him. Few people can speak with more authority , gained from actual experience, than Clint. He is a Marine and a combat veteran. I would say ex-Marine but there is no such thing. He's been there and done that. We both agreed that the problem with internet forums is this; Everyone's an expert, and if you don't agree with their preconceived notions then you are just stupid!
Most of these chairborne rangers don't know the difference between a turd and a turnip. They are best ignored.
And some gun writers do know the difference.
You just need to decide for yourself, after ACTUALLY READING their stuff, who's who.
As I've also said numerous times, making the broad statement that ALL gun writers are paid shills has as much validity as saying ALL Internet gun form members are ignorant assess.
Denis
You just need to decide for yourself, after ACTUALLY READING their stuff, who's who.
As I've also said numerous times, making the broad statement that ALL gun writers are paid shills has as much validity as saying ALL Internet gun form members are ignorant assess.
Denis
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Let's ask a basic question, that Denis touched on, but I've never seen asked directly.
What are your expectations from firearm magazine articles? What do you expect or want that you are not getting? Do you expect them to make your decisions for you? Make them easier? Do you expect their experience to hold true for every single example of the firearm in question? Do you expect them to save you from making mistakes? When you buy a product from Amazon and it doesn't work how you expect, do you then get online and call out every person who wrote a positive review?
Most of the crap here is purely assumption based on zero information.
What are your expectations from firearm magazine articles? What do you expect or want that you are not getting? Do you expect them to make your decisions for you? Make them easier? Do you expect their experience to hold true for every single example of the firearm in question? Do you expect them to save you from making mistakes? When you buy a product from Amazon and it doesn't work how you expect, do you then get online and call out every person who wrote a positive review?
Most of the crap here is purely assumption based on zero information.
CoalTrain49
Member
No, you give them negative feedback once and are blocked from giving anymore feedback on anything you purchase.
It's a one way street. You don't actually see all of the negative feedback, probably very little. The negative feedback is censored and you only see what Amazon wants you to see.
As this relates to gun writers, they are self censored as you say. It's funny that one can go on YT and see all kinds of negative reviews. I saw one on a new M1 carbine and a new Remington rifle. Both very negative. A viewer actually gets to see all of the bad stuff. That kind of review would have never made it into a magazine......ever.
The very best way to sell anything is to tell people what they want to hear. Gun rags are mostly a medium for guns and ammo sales and their advertisers.
Last edited:
A review containing SOME warts easily makes it onto the printed page.
A total POS, no.
And remember- ANY idiot can make a You-Tube video, just like any idiot can make an Internet post.
And many do.
Once again- you take what you can get from a NUMBER of sources, each & every one with strengths & weaknesses.
Keeping in mind the Sample Of One Principle, which says that I may get a good one, you may get a bad one.
Works equally well in the opposite direction, too.
I've cancelled articles on guns received that were not worth writing up, while at the same time I'd see Interneters raving about the things.
And I've seen YouTubers who had no clue about quality, function, history, or context, in doing their "Here I am in my parents' basement with my brand new Zombie Killer, ain't it supercool?" reviews.
I've even seen some of the better & more established YouTube people provide errors, and/or superficial reviews that are not very informative at all.
Point again is that you use MULTIPLE info sources, and you use your own judgement in weeding out those INDIVIDUALS that don't provide anything useful.
You neither say "EVERYTHING on an Internet forum is gospel", or "EVERYTHING in a gunmag is gospel", or "EVERYTHING on YouTube is gospel", any more than you condemn any one of those sources as entirely useless across the board.
Denis
A total POS, no.
And remember- ANY idiot can make a You-Tube video, just like any idiot can make an Internet post.
And many do.
Once again- you take what you can get from a NUMBER of sources, each & every one with strengths & weaknesses.
Keeping in mind the Sample Of One Principle, which says that I may get a good one, you may get a bad one.
Works equally well in the opposite direction, too.
I've cancelled articles on guns received that were not worth writing up, while at the same time I'd see Interneters raving about the things.
And I've seen YouTubers who had no clue about quality, function, history, or context, in doing their "Here I am in my parents' basement with my brand new Zombie Killer, ain't it supercool?" reviews.
I've even seen some of the better & more established YouTube people provide errors, and/or superficial reviews that are not very informative at all.
Point again is that you use MULTIPLE info sources, and you use your own judgement in weeding out those INDIVIDUALS that don't provide anything useful.
You neither say "EVERYTHING on an Internet forum is gospel", or "EVERYTHING in a gunmag is gospel", or "EVERYTHING on YouTube is gospel", any more than you condemn any one of those sources as entirely useless across the board.
Denis
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I've had many an argument on YouTube with people 'thought' they were knowledgeable enough to post a video as an authority but were obviously clueless. There are as many idiots on YT as there are on Facebook. Forums are actually better because the morons and trolls are usually weeded out. Still a lot of nonsense, myth & legend getting passed as fact. Like this thread for example. People who don't have a clue passing judgment, operating on assumption and arguing with those that do.
There is a HUGE difference between not publishing negative reviews and lying about positive ones.
Again, what are your expectations?
Nonsense. I have written many 1 star reviews on Amazon. Nothing gets censored, even the really stupid ones.
There is a HUGE difference between not publishing negative reviews and lying about positive ones.
Again, what are your expectations?
CoalTrain49
Member
So you must be passing judgement here solely based on your experience with Amazon. You do know that you are only one of 300 million Amazon customers don't you?
Might be something wrong here in your *because it didn't happen to me it's never happened to anyone else* logic.
Last edited:
It got to be a bit of a scandal in late 2017, about the number rape, robbery, and druggings by resort staff in Cancun Mexico against tourists. At least one, if not all, travel web sites had been regularly deleting negative reviews, because it would affect bookings on its web site.
TripAdvisor apologizes after removing claims of rape and assault to keep its forums ‘family friendly’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...riendly/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2ae56f5173b0
TripAdvisor removed warnings about rapes and injuries at Mexico resorts, tourists say
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...juries-mexico-resorts-tourists-say/817172001/
Corporations are amoral, only in it for profit now. I recommend reading the book
The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, https://www.amazon.com/Corporation-Pathological-Pursuit-Profit-Power/dp/0743247469 or the summaries about the book to understand the personality of the Corporation. http://vitalitymagazine.com/article/the-corporation-the-pathological-pursuit-of-profit-and-power/
After I read the book, I began to compare how other organizations acted, and found all large organizations, be they Government, Business, or Religious, all share the same personality type. All of them are highly manipulative, grandiose, amoral in their pursuit of their goals, no guilt, no shame, and never ever admit fault. The list can go on, but I think those are the big characteristics.
Basically, I trust what regular people have to say about their guns, their experiences with their guns, than I do those in print authors who have to keep the advertiser happy. By the way, anyone remember Dick Metcalf? Dick said a boo boo in print, and advertisers demanded his head, and got it, and, they got his boss's head too.
Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html
I thought this was an interesting quote from the article:
Reporters and editors say that reviews are often written in close consultation with manufacturers. If a gun is judged to be of poor quality, magazines will quietly send it back for improvements rather than writing a negative review. The system is broadly accepted at these publications, gun writers say.
Mr. Venola, the former Guns & Ammo editor, described the relationship between the magazine’s editors and the gun makers as a necessarily cozy one. “You have to be in cahoots with the manufacturer, in order to make the publication appeal to the readership,” he said. “Say you write about boats. At some point you’re going to end up on the sun deck of a boat, downing sundowners after testing one, with the guy who makes it. It’s just how it happens.”
Hmmmm.
I know Venola, still trying to work in the industry after two mistrials for murder pretty much killed his career.
Let me explain some things.
Close consultation with manufacturers, of course.
I frequently consult closely with a maker, when I have questions about a gun.
It's called research, not collusion.
I need details.
I need thoughts behind the model.
I want to know why they went a certain route.
I want to know what materials.
All of that so I can do an informative piece for the reader.
On occasion that process, involving feedback, can actually result in a better product for the consumer.
I've worked with Rugers for many years.
On four occasions my feedback about problem areas helped bring about production changes, notably in the early LCP, the initial 4.2-inch .22 SPs, the .44 Special snub GP, and most recently the 7-shot .357 GPs..
Most recently, with Savage's new 110 Scout, I was telling the Savage rep that they had a scope rail on the sample sent that obscured fully half of the sight picture through the iron sights.
A corrected rail was sent to me, and I was told it'd be standard on the rifles going forward.
And so on.
It's always been my opinion that a good mag article should provide solid info for readers.
In many cases, I've got sufficient background between military, LE, recreational, and hunting experiences, to be able to look at a new model, note features, figure out why those are there, detail them in the piece, and place them in context for readers who DON'T know everything, as so many forum members do.
The new Smith 2.0 pistols are an example.
When I did my Kindle eBook on the M&P 2.0 9mm, I talked to a product manager at S&W for details not immediately obvious.
While Internet forums were complaining about how hard the right-side ambi slide release was to operate, I was finding out it's deliberately engineered to be that way, and it's not intended to BE an ambi release, because one of the upgrades of the 2.0 was a re-engineered slide lock intended to reduce the 1.0 tendency to auto-close on a mag insertion.
I was also getting info on upgrades in the barrel/slide relationship to address consumer complaints of poor accuracy in the 1.0s.
This is being "cosy" with manufacturers.
This results in more info for me, and more info I can pass along to readers to both justify the money they spent on the mag and to help them make an informed decision on whether or not they may want to pursue the gun in question. Note I said HELP them make a decision, not make the decision for them.
You bet your ass I work closely with gunmakers.
I have to.
It's a part of the publishing industry.
I can't walk into a gunshop & buy every gun I write up, I'd go broke.
I HAVE to depend on loaners.
I can't, on EVERY gun, hold it against my forehead & psychically sense what's in it, what's behind it, why it has what it has, and how it came to be.
The interaction between me and the makers varies with the maker & with the gun.
Right now, I've got a Traditions/Pietta Peacemaker clone rotating around.
I know those guns.
There's very little info about this one that I need to get from Traditions.
On the other hand, much discussion with Savage on that Scout a couple weeks ago.
When Ruger's .44 Special snub GP came out, wildly variable chamber throats, and a LOTTA discussion with Ruger about those.
Problem corrected, and in the write-up I noted those.
LOTTA discussion with Ruger on the new 7-shot GP, resulting in production changes.
Noted in the write-up published.
On a recent three-gun .380 piece, talks with two of the makers got me info I didn't know in just pulling samples out of their boxes, the third I didn't need to.
None of this, with very few exceptions, kills off a working relationship.
Problems encountered & published are typically an "OK, we're sorry, we screwed up" thing.
In three cases in 29 years of doing what I do have the makers attempted to interfere with publishing results I found in testing their products.
One was the son of a builder in Arizona; who objected to my questioning certain features & performance on an expensive fantasy long-slide 10mm 1911 variant he'd sent, was not happy when I pointed out a box-stock Colt 10mm at less than half his price had previously shot twice as well, and who threatened to pull all of Daddy's advertising until the publisher fired me. They did pull their ads, I was not fired, but I did cancel that article as not being worth writing up.
The editor was nothing but supportive to me, and it was my decision to cancel the piece.
The second was a builder of tiny peashooters in Utah who took exception to my writing up the mediocre accuracy of a new model.
The gun was a prototype, quickly built for me to cover. In discussing with them, I said I was noting that it WAS a proto, WAS put together quickly for the review, and that production models should show the accuracy their products were known for.
Both general manager & the owner said they did not want that accuracy mentioned.
Joint decision was made between me & the editor on that one to cancel the coverage rather than submit to their attempts to influence the review write-up.
I'd previously written up at least a dozen of their products with no issues, I have never since then touched that company.
The third was an importer who was unhappy that I was going to note in a review that the model in question was not actually an authentic repro of a Patton gun, as they were claiming.
Article cancelled, no further business with that company.
And on the other side of the coin, most companies will just apologize about minor glitches & let it ride.
Gunmags do not exist to sell guns for gunmakers, any more than gun forums do.
ANY magazine & EVERY magazine does exist to sell something.
They are for-profit endeavors, in a business environment.
There is (and has to be) a symbiotic relationship between gun mags and the gun makers.
The makers produce stuff for us to write about, which sells copies; and we get the word out on products, which helps sell products.
It's not just gunmags, this sort of symbiotic pairing exists in many other fields, and there's nothing about it that's inherently evil or collisional.
This very forum is paid for by advertising.
It's dependent on ads to exist.
Don't forget that.
I'd take severe exception to Venola's use of the term "in cahoots".
I used to sell to him, I know him, I was sorry to see his decline.
But- his depiction there leaves an unfortunate and erroneous impression.
As I've mentioned repeatedly before, print space is expensive.
There's no room for a POS.
There are other issues involved, too.
If we publish a short blurb, saying "Was gonna do a write-up on Gun X in this issue, but it was so bad we gave up on it", we'll be inundated with cards, letters, and emails going in two directions: "We demand a detailed article on what was wrong with it", and "Mine runs fine, you're all idiots."
If we run a full-length piece describing it in detail, with lots of nice photography, as we normally try to do, and then end with "But it wouldn't cycle anything reliably & couldn't hit a barn from 10 feet out", we've taken space away from guns that actually do work just fine, and we'll be inundated by cards, letters & emails saying "Why did you waste so much of my time reading through that long article just to find out at the end that it's a junker", and "Mine runs fine, you're all idiots."
It's a no-win deal, all the way round.
No point in covering a total POS.
In rare cases, when I've thought a particular gun was important enough, I've returned a sample for the maker to either correct the issues, or send a replacement sample.
Years ago, when S&W sent a T&E sample on a new .44 Special model that was getting a lot of attention, I got one in that was so bad I returned it for another one.
The second was so bad I returned it & cancelled the article entirely.
Took two tries with Ruger's LCP, two with their 4.2 .22 SP, two with their .44 Spec GP snub, and three with their 7-shot .357 GP.
All four of those were high-interest guns, I went the extra mile on 'em for readers.
One Chaparral levergun years ago was so bad, returned & cancelled. I had no faith in the company's ability to do any better, as badly done as it was, so did not pursue a replacement sample.
Moderator on another gun forum has one he says was just fine.
Sample Of One Principle.
An early Nighthawk 1911 was so badly built it was returned & the article cancelled.
I've never gone back, but they have a following, so again- Sample Of One Principle.
And I discussed it in detail with them when I cancelled it, as I did with the editor.
That's the "cozy" relationship at work between maker & gunmag.
That's being "in cahoots" with the manufacturers.
Unfortunate that Rich paints such an exaggerated picture of the process.
Denis
I know Venola, still trying to work in the industry after two mistrials for murder pretty much killed his career.
Let me explain some things.
Close consultation with manufacturers, of course.
I frequently consult closely with a maker, when I have questions about a gun.
It's called research, not collusion.
I need details.
I need thoughts behind the model.
I want to know why they went a certain route.
I want to know what materials.
All of that so I can do an informative piece for the reader.
On occasion that process, involving feedback, can actually result in a better product for the consumer.
I've worked with Rugers for many years.
On four occasions my feedback about problem areas helped bring about production changes, notably in the early LCP, the initial 4.2-inch .22 SPs, the .44 Special snub GP, and most recently the 7-shot .357 GPs..
Most recently, with Savage's new 110 Scout, I was telling the Savage rep that they had a scope rail on the sample sent that obscured fully half of the sight picture through the iron sights.
A corrected rail was sent to me, and I was told it'd be standard on the rifles going forward.
And so on.
It's always been my opinion that a good mag article should provide solid info for readers.
In many cases, I've got sufficient background between military, LE, recreational, and hunting experiences, to be able to look at a new model, note features, figure out why those are there, detail them in the piece, and place them in context for readers who DON'T know everything, as so many forum members do.
The new Smith 2.0 pistols are an example.
When I did my Kindle eBook on the M&P 2.0 9mm, I talked to a product manager at S&W for details not immediately obvious.
While Internet forums were complaining about how hard the right-side ambi slide release was to operate, I was finding out it's deliberately engineered to be that way, and it's not intended to BE an ambi release, because one of the upgrades of the 2.0 was a re-engineered slide lock intended to reduce the 1.0 tendency to auto-close on a mag insertion.
I was also getting info on upgrades in the barrel/slide relationship to address consumer complaints of poor accuracy in the 1.0s.
This is being "cosy" with manufacturers.
This results in more info for me, and more info I can pass along to readers to both justify the money they spent on the mag and to help them make an informed decision on whether or not they may want to pursue the gun in question. Note I said HELP them make a decision, not make the decision for them.
You bet your ass I work closely with gunmakers.
I have to.
It's a part of the publishing industry.
I can't walk into a gunshop & buy every gun I write up, I'd go broke.
I HAVE to depend on loaners.
I can't, on EVERY gun, hold it against my forehead & psychically sense what's in it, what's behind it, why it has what it has, and how it came to be.
The interaction between me and the makers varies with the maker & with the gun.
Right now, I've got a Traditions/Pietta Peacemaker clone rotating around.
I know those guns.
There's very little info about this one that I need to get from Traditions.
On the other hand, much discussion with Savage on that Scout a couple weeks ago.
When Ruger's .44 Special snub GP came out, wildly variable chamber throats, and a LOTTA discussion with Ruger about those.
Problem corrected, and in the write-up I noted those.
LOTTA discussion with Ruger on the new 7-shot GP, resulting in production changes.
Noted in the write-up published.
On a recent three-gun .380 piece, talks with two of the makers got me info I didn't know in just pulling samples out of their boxes, the third I didn't need to.
None of this, with very few exceptions, kills off a working relationship.
Problems encountered & published are typically an "OK, we're sorry, we screwed up" thing.
In three cases in 29 years of doing what I do have the makers attempted to interfere with publishing results I found in testing their products.
One was the son of a builder in Arizona; who objected to my questioning certain features & performance on an expensive fantasy long-slide 10mm 1911 variant he'd sent, was not happy when I pointed out a box-stock Colt 10mm at less than half his price had previously shot twice as well, and who threatened to pull all of Daddy's advertising until the publisher fired me. They did pull their ads, I was not fired, but I did cancel that article as not being worth writing up.
The editor was nothing but supportive to me, and it was my decision to cancel the piece.
The second was a builder of tiny peashooters in Utah who took exception to my writing up the mediocre accuracy of a new model.
The gun was a prototype, quickly built for me to cover. In discussing with them, I said I was noting that it WAS a proto, WAS put together quickly for the review, and that production models should show the accuracy their products were known for.
Both general manager & the owner said they did not want that accuracy mentioned.
Joint decision was made between me & the editor on that one to cancel the coverage rather than submit to their attempts to influence the review write-up.
I'd previously written up at least a dozen of their products with no issues, I have never since then touched that company.
The third was an importer who was unhappy that I was going to note in a review that the model in question was not actually an authentic repro of a Patton gun, as they were claiming.
Article cancelled, no further business with that company.
And on the other side of the coin, most companies will just apologize about minor glitches & let it ride.
Gunmags do not exist to sell guns for gunmakers, any more than gun forums do.
ANY magazine & EVERY magazine does exist to sell something.
They are for-profit endeavors, in a business environment.
There is (and has to be) a symbiotic relationship between gun mags and the gun makers.
The makers produce stuff for us to write about, which sells copies; and we get the word out on products, which helps sell products.
It's not just gunmags, this sort of symbiotic pairing exists in many other fields, and there's nothing about it that's inherently evil or collisional.
This very forum is paid for by advertising.
It's dependent on ads to exist.
Don't forget that.
I'd take severe exception to Venola's use of the term "in cahoots".
I used to sell to him, I know him, I was sorry to see his decline.
But- his depiction there leaves an unfortunate and erroneous impression.
As I've mentioned repeatedly before, print space is expensive.
There's no room for a POS.
There are other issues involved, too.
If we publish a short blurb, saying "Was gonna do a write-up on Gun X in this issue, but it was so bad we gave up on it", we'll be inundated with cards, letters, and emails going in two directions: "We demand a detailed article on what was wrong with it", and "Mine runs fine, you're all idiots."
If we run a full-length piece describing it in detail, with lots of nice photography, as we normally try to do, and then end with "But it wouldn't cycle anything reliably & couldn't hit a barn from 10 feet out", we've taken space away from guns that actually do work just fine, and we'll be inundated by cards, letters & emails saying "Why did you waste so much of my time reading through that long article just to find out at the end that it's a junker", and "Mine runs fine, you're all idiots."
It's a no-win deal, all the way round.
No point in covering a total POS.
In rare cases, when I've thought a particular gun was important enough, I've returned a sample for the maker to either correct the issues, or send a replacement sample.
Years ago, when S&W sent a T&E sample on a new .44 Special model that was getting a lot of attention, I got one in that was so bad I returned it for another one.
The second was so bad I returned it & cancelled the article entirely.
Took two tries with Ruger's LCP, two with their 4.2 .22 SP, two with their .44 Spec GP snub, and three with their 7-shot .357 GP.
All four of those were high-interest guns, I went the extra mile on 'em for readers.
One Chaparral levergun years ago was so bad, returned & cancelled. I had no faith in the company's ability to do any better, as badly done as it was, so did not pursue a replacement sample.
Moderator on another gun forum has one he says was just fine.
Sample Of One Principle.
An early Nighthawk 1911 was so badly built it was returned & the article cancelled.
I've never gone back, but they have a following, so again- Sample Of One Principle.
And I discussed it in detail with them when I cancelled it, as I did with the editor.
That's the "cozy" relationship at work between maker & gunmag.
That's being "in cahoots" with the manufacturers.
Unfortunate that Rich paints such an exaggerated picture of the process.
Denis
If 90% of the products a company makes work perfectly and 10% are defective the product will be considered junk. And rightly so. I worked at a job during my college days where I was graded on my accuracy. If I fell below 99.97% in a month I would have gotten 2 weeks off with no pay. If that happened 2 times within 12 months I would have been fired. You can bet that a manufacturer will carefully select which guns go out the door to be evaluated by gun writers. I don't blame the gun writers, they are simply reporting the facts as they see them. Once a product gets released to the general public that 10% of defective guns get into enough hands for problems to show up. Even if 5% are defective you'll start hearing rumblings about poor quality.
And even with extensive testing issues show up later that were not expected. The Ruger P345 was a decent gun with a lot of potential. It was only after being released was it was discovered that dry firing without the magazine in place would damage the gun. Ruger didn't even know this and the original owners manuals stated that dry firing was OK. Once the problem was discovered Ruger changed the wording in the owners manuals to state that dry firing was OK, but only with an empty magazine in place.
Overall I think most gun writers are doing a commendable job. No matter what they print they aren't going to make everyone happy, but they are reporting accurate info. That doesn't always happen on gun forums. I take every evaluation, or recommendation I read either in a gun magazine or internet forum with a grain of salt. Everyone has different experiences. I wouldn't put much weight on any one evaluation regardless of who wrote it. But over time you see trends. Certain guns develop a reputation, good or bad.
I've had negative experiences with several guns that generally get positive reviews on the net and in the gun magazines. That doesn't mean the gun reviews were lying. Plus some things that I may see as a negative, others may see as a positive.
And even with extensive testing issues show up later that were not expected. The Ruger P345 was a decent gun with a lot of potential. It was only after being released was it was discovered that dry firing without the magazine in place would damage the gun. Ruger didn't even know this and the original owners manuals stated that dry firing was OK. Once the problem was discovered Ruger changed the wording in the owners manuals to state that dry firing was OK, but only with an empty magazine in place.
Overall I think most gun writers are doing a commendable job. No matter what they print they aren't going to make everyone happy, but they are reporting accurate info. That doesn't always happen on gun forums. I take every evaluation, or recommendation I read either in a gun magazine or internet forum with a grain of salt. Everyone has different experiences. I wouldn't put much weight on any one evaluation regardless of who wrote it. But over time you see trends. Certain guns develop a reputation, good or bad.
I've had negative experiences with several guns that generally get positive reviews on the net and in the gun magazines. That doesn't mean the gun reviews were lying. Plus some things that I may see as a negative, others may see as a positive.
To that I will add that I frequently see the vendor comment on the one star reviews with offers to make good. I have even experienced this after writing a poor review of a product.
In many cases, the vendor response to a poor review will motivate me to purchase; because I expect the vendor, or manufacturer to stand behind it. To many manufacturers and vendors, a poor review is not a serious problem, it is an opportunity.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
No but you realize that works both ways, right? If Amazon was going to be cherry-picking reviews, there's a lot of crap I read by others that wouldn't be there. Is this another tinfoil hat conspiracy?
Besides, that's not what I asked. I asked if you buy a product with positive reviews and have a negative experience, do you then go and call out all those who wrote a positive review? Or do you be an adult and accept the fact that every experience is going to be different and sometimes you lose?
Question still unanswered. Do people want to be able to surrender their own judgment? Or do they just want to operate in a safe environment, free of mistakes, misfortune and bad experiences? I know what you believe, I want to understand why.
Last edited:
And here's that "hand-picked writer sample" BS again.
Did you not see the above where I mentioned the Rugers that shipped with problems?
The Chaparral?
The Smiths?
The Savage?
In the most recent case with Ruger, the first sample 7-shot .357 GP 2.5-inch snub sent for review was rejected by my gunsmith/dealer who called & said "It's here, but don't bother driving in, the action's messed up".
The second test sample sent had NO FRONT SIGHT, just a naked dovetail.
The third was a go, with the low percentage of rimlock previously discussed.
Tell me those first two were "OK, this is going to a writer, we gotta pick the best one in the plant."
How does a gun without a front sight even get boxed up, if ANYBODY has both eyes open during routine boxing, even without a magnifying glass and a set of micrometers for deep inspection to make sure it's the best sample the plant ever turned out, because it's going to a writer?
The Chaparral had so many problems that were visible (sights, etc) plus the lousy shooting, you'll never convince me that was a hand-picked sample for a writer.
The first Smith had an ENGRAVED (not just a rubbed) turn line on a brand new gun (too sharp an edge on the bolt stop), canted sight, a gap between the grip panels almost big enough to insert a dime, and failed the GO/NO GO gauge on the forcing cone, among other things.
The replacement was every bit as bad, also with the engraved turn line & failing the forcing cone gauge.
If those were the best of what they were shipping in that model, then I can't imagine the absolute junk you guys must have been happily buying at your neighborhood gunshop.
The sight issue on the Savage Scout should have been picked up in the design phase, certainly by anybody LOOKING though that aperture & missing half its sight picture. Hand picked? Really?
I didn't mention two ArmaLite .30 cal ARs, both of which would not feed reliably, one of which jammed a round halfway into the chamber so tight on the 21st shot that I had to shut down & take it to the gunsmith for surgery.
Both articles cancelled.
The company president that I told exactly what I thought of his guns took it well, and a year or two later when I asked for T&E samples of 9mm pistols they were importing from Turkey, they came with no hassle.
It IS possible to tell these makers when they screw up, without jeopardizing the professional working relationship, with most.
The Nighthawk 1911 sample sent was the first one my gunsmith/dealer and I had seen, so we took it apart to see how they'd built it.
Excessive headspace, marked gap between barrel hood & slide's breechface, good fit of bushing to barrel, but the bushing itself was so loosely fit to the slide hole that we could jiggle it around with a finger.
More concerning was the fact that they'd apparently drilled a frame hole just slightly off spec, and rather than junk the frame, they'd filed the paddle on the disconnector down so far to compensate & make it fit that it was thin enough to almost shave with. And they'd had to alter the wall thickness where it pivoted around the pin, as part of making that disconnector fit in with everything else.
That pistol was so bad as a conglomeration of errors that I didn't even bother to take it home, just had the gunsmith return it unfired.
Now- tell me THAT one was cherry-picked as a writer sample.
One test sample .30 Carbine sent by Kahr had several function problems.
The second ran fine.
Hand-picked on the first?
Nope.
A Remington Model Seven with a stuck ejector plunger that left empty brass sitting in the open action, and a bore so rough it looked like alligator hide inside (seriously).
Hand-selected writer sample?
Seriously?
Speaking of the Ruger P345- my test sample had to have its chamber final-finish-reamed by my gunsmith before I could do the shooting part.
Cherry-picked for a good review?
Not quite.
Recently worked with Springfield's new 911 .380.
Several feeding failures, two misfires, results duly noted in the write-up.
Hand-picked?
Not hardly.
Discussions with the rep? Yep. Apologetic, as most of these are when it happens.
I could mention others, but you can get the idea.
In nearly three decades of doing what I do, I have seen NO indications that I'm getting cherry-picked guns as ringers to ensure rigged reviews by makers.
Most guns don't have problems, simply because most guns are pretty good nowdays whether it's you buying off the shelf or me borrowing off the maker.
I get a certain percentage of problem guns here, just like you do there.
I get mostly good stuff here, you get mostly good stuff there.
This cherry-picked writer sample BS is simply one more of the myths that refuses to die among people who cannot believe the system could possibly be honest or accurate in its reporting.
Denis
Did you not see the above where I mentioned the Rugers that shipped with problems?
The Chaparral?
The Smiths?
The Savage?
In the most recent case with Ruger, the first sample 7-shot .357 GP 2.5-inch snub sent for review was rejected by my gunsmith/dealer who called & said "It's here, but don't bother driving in, the action's messed up".
The second test sample sent had NO FRONT SIGHT, just a naked dovetail.
The third was a go, with the low percentage of rimlock previously discussed.
Tell me those first two were "OK, this is going to a writer, we gotta pick the best one in the plant."
How does a gun without a front sight even get boxed up, if ANYBODY has both eyes open during routine boxing, even without a magnifying glass and a set of micrometers for deep inspection to make sure it's the best sample the plant ever turned out, because it's going to a writer?
The Chaparral had so many problems that were visible (sights, etc) plus the lousy shooting, you'll never convince me that was a hand-picked sample for a writer.
The first Smith had an ENGRAVED (not just a rubbed) turn line on a brand new gun (too sharp an edge on the bolt stop), canted sight, a gap between the grip panels almost big enough to insert a dime, and failed the GO/NO GO gauge on the forcing cone, among other things.
The replacement was every bit as bad, also with the engraved turn line & failing the forcing cone gauge.
If those were the best of what they were shipping in that model, then I can't imagine the absolute junk you guys must have been happily buying at your neighborhood gunshop.
The sight issue on the Savage Scout should have been picked up in the design phase, certainly by anybody LOOKING though that aperture & missing half its sight picture. Hand picked? Really?
I didn't mention two ArmaLite .30 cal ARs, both of which would not feed reliably, one of which jammed a round halfway into the chamber so tight on the 21st shot that I had to shut down & take it to the gunsmith for surgery.
Both articles cancelled.
The company president that I told exactly what I thought of his guns took it well, and a year or two later when I asked for T&E samples of 9mm pistols they were importing from Turkey, they came with no hassle.
It IS possible to tell these makers when they screw up, without jeopardizing the professional working relationship, with most.
The Nighthawk 1911 sample sent was the first one my gunsmith/dealer and I had seen, so we took it apart to see how they'd built it.
Excessive headspace, marked gap between barrel hood & slide's breechface, good fit of bushing to barrel, but the bushing itself was so loosely fit to the slide hole that we could jiggle it around with a finger.
More concerning was the fact that they'd apparently drilled a frame hole just slightly off spec, and rather than junk the frame, they'd filed the paddle on the disconnector down so far to compensate & make it fit that it was thin enough to almost shave with. And they'd had to alter the wall thickness where it pivoted around the pin, as part of making that disconnector fit in with everything else.
That pistol was so bad as a conglomeration of errors that I didn't even bother to take it home, just had the gunsmith return it unfired.
Now- tell me THAT one was cherry-picked as a writer sample.
One test sample .30 Carbine sent by Kahr had several function problems.
The second ran fine.
Hand-picked on the first?
Nope.
A Remington Model Seven with a stuck ejector plunger that left empty brass sitting in the open action, and a bore so rough it looked like alligator hide inside (seriously).
Hand-selected writer sample?
Seriously?
Speaking of the Ruger P345- my test sample had to have its chamber final-finish-reamed by my gunsmith before I could do the shooting part.
Cherry-picked for a good review?
Not quite.
Recently worked with Springfield's new 911 .380.
Several feeding failures, two misfires, results duly noted in the write-up.
Hand-picked?
Not hardly.
Discussions with the rep? Yep. Apologetic, as most of these are when it happens.
I could mention others, but you can get the idea.
In nearly three decades of doing what I do, I have seen NO indications that I'm getting cherry-picked guns as ringers to ensure rigged reviews by makers.
Most guns don't have problems, simply because most guns are pretty good nowdays whether it's you buying off the shelf or me borrowing off the maker.
I get a certain percentage of problem guns here, just like you do there.
I get mostly good stuff here, you get mostly good stuff there.
This cherry-picked writer sample BS is simply one more of the myths that refuses to die among people who cannot believe the system could possibly be honest or accurate in its reporting.
Denis
CapnMac
Member
I fear you may be an optimist with those numbers.
Recently I saw it summed up thusly.
Wow, people are passionate about this subject. Here's one thing I have noticed, I'm now older than most of the writers out there. The information they are spouting is older than I am. While they may think they are passing on "new" information, most of it was written before they were born, and it likely wasn't the first time then.
I'll read an article to get the specs. But as to performance, I'll leave that up to my own experience. And yes, if I'm that interested in a product i'll buy it.
I'll read an article to get the specs. But as to performance, I'll leave that up to my own experience. And yes, if I'm that interested in a product i'll buy it.
CoalTrain49
Member
I generally don't make purchases based on a companies reviews because I know it's weighted, rigged or otherwise not a good barometer of how well it might work for me. My requirements are different enough from most buyers that I'll just make the purchase based on my own experience. If I have no experience with it I'll just figure it was a bad choice and move on. I have a long list of companies I won't buy products from based on my own experience. I also have a list of companies I turn to when making a purchase because I know their stuff works for me.
Actually, I would rather use the information I find here rather than some companies so called rating system. People that post here have no financial incentive to give anything a good review. For instance, you know your way around revolvers. I would surely use your recommendations over some review I read in a magazine article.
Having said that I just subscribed to Shooting Times to see if Dpris is right. I haven't had a magazine sub in probably 15 years.
Last edited:
SwampWolf
Member
At least the authors who write articles and report firearm tests printed in magazines are somewhat accountable for their work; something that anonymous internet contributors don't have to worry about.
I've been an avid reader of gun magazines of every stripe since the late fifties and still read them regularly. I've had my favorite writers over the decades and, like on the gun sites, over time it's easy to determine who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. I'll never understand the animus some have toward gun magazines and gun writers. They are on our side; they're not out to scam you and they've always been a resource for information on firearms and advocates of and proponents for the Second Amendment.
I still have an old photo of me taken while I was still stationed at the Wurtsmith Air Force Base near Oscoda, Michigan in 1964. I am pictured leaning up against a rear fender on my 1956 Ford coupe, holding a Browning Double Auto shotgun in one hand and a ruffed grouse ("pat" for you Michiganders
) in the other. Proudly affixed to the back bumper of that old Ford is a bumper sticker that reads "Support Your Right To Keep And Bear Arms". I got that bumper sticker free when I first subscribed to Guns & Ammo magazine.- Status
Similar threads
