Guns & Ammo sucking up to Beretta?

Its not just to Berreta either. Its hard to find an article that is a true and honest article. I havn't read a gun review in a long time that truly points out the bad things of the rifle. If they do say something they dont make a huge deal about it, regardless the size of the problem. Saying something like "the action cycles a little rough" or something like that. Or on an article about the GSG-5 I read something about the action, how they had a "few" problems with the operation. I was able to shoot a friends and found out about every 3 rounds the thing jammed. A .22 with a 20 shot mag, thats no fun when you cant go through the whole thing without jamming. I wasnt feeding crappy ammo through it either. CCI, Federal, and Aguila. But it seems nowadays they sugar coat a lot of things and definitely promote things a little hard.

Gun rags make their money from advertising.

Cheese off a particular gun company and they stop advertising in your magazine, and its hits you in the pocket book.

Its all about the Benjamins.

I gave up on the gun mags about 15 years ago on account of that in it's infancy. The only mag I get now is from the NRA (American Hunter)and it's no better, just like the TV show where they are patting the advertisers on the head and never have a bad review. Heck it you took the ad's away you would have 4 pages of articles.

I've been reading internet conspiracy theories and heard other shooters say the same old line.

There is a major loophole with the idea that gun companies won't advertise in the gun magazines if anything bad is said about their guns.

If that's true, then where in the world are they going to advertise? There's not too many other options out there. A handful of magazines and a couple tv shows on sportsmens cable channels. That's it.

I know for a fact that guns are taken off the shelf and sent out for testing/evaluation/review without any custom gunsmithing. No matter what the review says, the company will still advertise because they don't have any other options.

As to Beretta's President's angry letter to G&A complaining about the 92 being left off the list, apparently he wasn't angry enough to follow the conspiracy theorist plan and not advertise with G&A. Beretta has the most expensive spot on the back cover for their PX4 Storm....

Despite all the talk, no one has ever been able to find a magazine review that was bad which then led to a manufacturer halting their advertising. This is one of those "the reverse must therefore be true" concepts.

The same thing happened in the NRA magazine lately. They have been doing so much Beretta butt kissing in their magazines it's sickening. So they didn't include the 92 so what? It's their opinion Beretta, get over it! What intense narcissism.

Gun rags are gun rags though. By the way if anyone reads Combat Handguns, does it seem like lately it's become 1911 magazine? I mean almost every review is on a 1911.

I do wish the gun magazines would be more objective highlighting the negatives as much as the positives. I don't want to buy a gun after reading about "a couple failures to feed" and find out the expensive way the thing is a certified jam-o-matic.

There is a major loophole with the idea that gun companies won't advertise in the gun magazines if anything bad is said about their guns.

If that's true, then where in the world are they going to advertise? There's not too many other options out there. A handful of magazines and a couple tv shows on sportsmens cable channels. That's it.

Click to expand...

There are a surprising number of gun magazines out now. On the other hand, they may be owned by the same company (Petersons, or something?) since they tend to all review the same 3 overpriced 1911s each month.

I view gun magazines with a grain of salt, like advertisements, and then look to the web for honest reviews from people with nothing to lose in the deal. No gun is perfection (sorry Gaston) and I want to hear about all the negatives too, then make an informed decision.

There IS an alternative folks. It's called Gun Tests. They don't accept advertising, except for American Gunsmithing Institute. They keep the doors open with subscribers and book sales. It's the only true non-partisan magazine I've ever read if you consider the "advertising dollar" argument.

Having said that, I have read their articles that gave a particular gun a "Don't Buy" rating, while G&A, among others to be fair, have ranted and raved about how wonderful it was. MY choice? I passed on the purchase, only to hear a few months (maybe a year) later of a Factory recall. I've been a subscriber to GT for close to 10 years-ish, and would take THEIR recommendation over ANY mainstream mag that's full of advertising. I still read them, to help keep money circulating to support the cause, but for my down and dirty "proofing", I'll stick with Gun Tests. Check them out, they have saved ME quite a lot of money, and I have NO regrets.

Also, while not 100% "gun only" related, the United States Concealed Carry Association has some pretty straight forward testing. Since they are devoted strictly to self-defense issues (get the name?), they call it the way they see it. I would suggest taking a look at that Organization as well. I've been a member there for quite a few years also. Never got any bad info there either.

Oh, and for the disclaimer...... I am not now or ever have been, an employee, stock-holder, or stand to gain in any way from the sales, marketing, membership, or subscriptions of said magazines and Organizations. I HATE the BS that we as a society have come to allow ourselves to require.

I'll stick with Gun Tests. Check them out, they have saved ME quite a lot of money, and I have NO regrets.

Click to expand...

I did. It was worth exactly what the free trial offer cost me.

Fair enough Cajun, how much has Guns and Ammo cost you? It has cost me a helluva lot more than the Subscription for sure.

I didn't say anything at all about "Guns and Ammo" did I? I said in a roundabout way, I didn't see where "Gun Tests" was any better/different. Just another magazine.

G & A sucks up tp however buys the full page ads

^ My main issue with gun mags they dont typically review guns I cant honestly afford. Example review's on
Kimber tactical
Wilson Combat
Night Hawk
They very seldom in my review affordable guns for the average joe. I know some of you have such guns, but its like if every car magazine reviewed ferraris, maserati, lamborghini.

+1 Ben86

The magazines might highlight high dollar 1911s because they look good on the cover and are a thing a good amount of people drool over....but I see a ton of articles on lower priced guns, especially lately. I've seen a trend where they seem to be doing "guns on a budget" type of articles. It was either G&A or shooting times that did a large article recently where every gun was under $500 or so. I have even seen a Hi Point and a review of the Kel-Tec PF9 in these magazines in the last couple of months.

I do take their reviews with a grain of salt though.

One of the best selling firearms designs on the market is the 1911. That's pretty amazing considering the model is 99 years old. Next year there are bound to be many 100 year commemoratives and articles galor about the 100th anniversary.

I know that most gun owners buy one version of a particular gun. Let's say one 1911. Then they're done. They don't need another 1911. But there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of gun owners who don't own a 1911. But may be interested in buying one. If there wasn't, all the manufacturers should just close up shop and stop making them, right?

It's truly amazing if you really stop and think about how many 1911 makers there are and how many variations there are. Kimber is staggering with how many different models they make alone.

Let's use DoubleStar as an example. They've come to market with what they believe is an affordable, but very high end 1911. Should the gun magazines review the DoubleStar? Or should they simply say, "It's just another 1911. It's the same as all the others so we'll just ignore it."

Dan Wesson is going to have several new models of their 1911s for 2010.

Gun magazines review new guns. If new guns happen to be 1911s, they're going to get reviewed. People buy 1911s.

I have my 1911 and I have no need for another. But I don't mind reading about new ones or high end ones I'll never be able to afford.

I also get Car & Driver, Road & Track, Automobile, and AutoWeek. I love cars. I drive a Ford Focus. I can't afford 95% of the cars and trucks that these magazines review. But I still enjoy reading about them.

A guy can dream, right? What if I win the lottery one day? I need to know which supercar I will buy. I also need to know which $3500 1911 I will need to buy as well!

I've had this conversation with shooting buddies. I'm a bit amazed at the anger and outrage some people have at a magazine entirely devoted to the interests of gun owners.

I've been shooting for 35+ years and I find I learn new things every month with the gun magazines. I like looking at the pictures and reading about new guns. There are so many new guns in so many new materials and designs that I really enjoy them all. I obviously don't own them all, but they're still neat.

Money talks, BS walks, unfortunately.

Gun magazines that do reviews, and computer magazines, video game magazines, car magazines, any magazine that runs advertisements paid for by the manufacturers of whatever reviews is of course just going to have biased reviews in their favor.

If [company] is paying [magazine] thousands of dollars for an ad, it's in their best interests to make it worthwhile for companies to advertise there by helping them sell their products, by giving good reviews.

A magazine, or TV program, whatever, is simply a way of selling ad space.

^^^I'm not sure thats really how it works... Motortrend just claimed that the Honda Insight is the worst quality car honda's ever produced, and they have been huge fanboys of the accord and civic.

I think its more that readers would rather be dazzled by new and cool stuff, not debbie-downer articles. Plus, there really aren't any handguns from major manufacturers on the market that are garbage... get rid of personal preference and they're all pretty much the same.

RedLion: Thank you! You get it! 100%!

The honesty of the various gun magazines is best summed up with the favorable press treatment afforded Sturm/Ruger, despite putting out three pistols that are in perpetual recall mode, you'll find yourself regaled with fabricated tales of durability and precision accuracy that you'd be hard pressed to duplicate with a $3500.00 Wilson, Brown, or Baer full custom effort!
Why Patrick Sweeny went as far as saying he was making 100 yard offhand shots on the mark evertime with his review SR9, which also went 5,000 rounds without cleaning or any malfunction before doing so!
It's this type of clearly dishonest, biased, reporting that has relegated these magazines to the junk bin in my estimation, want an authoritative review of a firearm? Go to the range and rent one.

I used to like Guns & Ammo but they rate everything as great and really fluff over any bad points of a gun.

"Well......... there were 23 FTF (failures to feed) out of a box of 50 but we're sure that it's only due to the gun being new and stiff."

"The performance was 'not bad' (the chart showed a 3.5" 3-shot group at 100 yds.) but plenty good enough for the average deer hunter." Huh?!?

Every magazine needs advertising. You need to learn to "read between the lines".
They love everything they test. Their minor complaints would be major complaints were it not for ad revenue.

Despite all the talk, no one has ever been able to find a magazine review that was bad which then led to a manufacturer halting their advertising. This is one of those "the reverse must therefore be true" concepts.

Click to expand...

How would we ever know?

Gunwriters also know who butters the bread. While they can always refuse to write a glowing review on a bad gun, they know if they turn down too many assignments, the editor will stop sending them work.

I was told by an ex G&A writer, you just wrote about the features you liked.

I gave up on '1911s & Ammo' a long time ago. In fact, I gave up on magazines in general, except for 'JP'. They're all nothing more than monthly ads that you are expected to pay for. If noone bought 'em, the advertisers would mail 'em out for free. Shoot, I bought a 2-year subscription a few years ago to G&A and some other equally forgettable sister rag on e-Bay for like $11.00 for both...

In my opinion the NRA, AARP, and the gun mags are all the same--All they care about is the profit line on their business plan. The AARP endorsed the Health Care Plan even though the majority of their members were against it. Why? Only 1% of their revenue is from memberships and 99% of their revenues are derived from insurance plans. They lost several 100 thousand members by doing so. I ended my 22 year membership/association and insurance the day they endorsed the bill.

If you look at the motorcycle industry, magazine reviews really shaped the modern (and now really spectacular) bike.

Through the 70s, 80s, and 90s they just picked apart any little shortcoming. They ranked bikes within a given class every year .... "This one is best... this one sucks hind tit". None of the magazines went away. And it appeared they actually flourished as enthusiast didn't want to get left behind and get burnt on purchasing a dog.

I haven't kept up so I don't know if they still do this today.

Anyhow...

Bike were evolving and improving at a mind numbing rate for quite some time.... disc brakes, tire technology, damper design, suspension design, water cooling, one piece wheels, o-ring chains, etc. Stronger materials were used and parts were built to better tolerances. The bikes got lighter and lighter and more power was continually being found.

Things have slowed somewhat now, but none-the-less the magzines really played a big role in driving massive improvements in technology by the manufacturers. If it was on a Works bike, the people would likely see it on a production bike in a couple years.

The gun mags do just the opposite for our industry. They excuse away and overlook shortcomings. They don't head to head compare competing guns or ammo.

Why is there a rifle built today, or ammo manufactured, that won't do 1 MOA?

Why is there a gun today that has a trigger pull over 5 pounds, or that has perceptible creep?

Why is it not almost unheard of for a gun shipped today to malfunction straight out of the box?

My take is it is because industry gun writers, decade after decade, keep shooter's expectations low by not condeming mediocre or even piss poor performance. Additionally test don't compare results between models form different manufacturers.

The "hunting mentality" contributes. Accuracy that is "good enough" for big game is commonly considered good enough.

The mags have lost their credability. I don't read them anymore myself. I do browse them time to time in the grocery store and it looks like they have become quite thin. I suppose they are struggling as others see no need to bother reading them either. Too bad, I miss good objective monthly reading material like I used to enjoy as a motorcycle enthusiast.