Gun Tests, at the time in 2008 that I gave up my subscription, was a magazine presided over by low-lifes.
I liked the mag at first. They're kinda flooky and idiosyncratic (will say two different guns performed and cost the same, and then rate one WAY lower than the other), but hey, opinions are like that, right?
Then, in April '06 they did a review of the Ruger Alaskan revolver (snubby Super Redhawk), caliber .454 Casull. They rated it "our pick." What's the catch? The NEVER TESTED IT WITH .454 AMMO, only .45 Colt: "We were confident we wouldn’t be able to damage the Alaskan with .45 Colt ammunition."
I sent them the following note:
me said:
In reviewing Ruger's Alaskan revolver, you use the phrase, "If we are to be chastised for not testing with full power .454 Casull rounds...." Let me remove the "If."
As a fan of big-recoil revolvers, with time spent behind the .500 S&W, the .475 Linebaugh, and even the .44 Magnum out of a 26-ounce, alloy revolver, I can provide some muzzle-blast. Under the interesting recoil of such guns, I have personally experienced, or talked to other shooters who personally experienced, the following: cylinder unlocking from a weak cylinder-stop spring; cylinder tie-up from bullet-creep in unfired rounds; a broken hammer pin; unexplained double-action misfires; and a rear sight that dematerialized.
Would any of these problems happen with the new Ruger Alaskan? Given your so-called review, WHO THE HECK KNOWS? It is ridiculous that you would declare a .454 Casull revolver reliable without ever testing it with that ammunition! (And no, it doesn't matter that it was cold, you were tired, and there was a deadline.) Why not simply dispense with range-testing entirely, and say, "Gosh, it sure looks sturdy--we bet it'll work fine!"
Three suggestions: next time, hire some pinhead like me, who actually enjoys this stuff, to do your high-recoil testing. Or, get your own sorry collective rear out of that chair, buy some shooting gloves, and ask someone--anyone--where the nearest range is. But, if you ever decide to do such half-anatomied testing again, please keep that report for personal use in the smallest room in your house, and don't waste your readers' time by running it.
Once you've printed this letter, you can consider yourself properly chastised.
They never printed it. Never even emailed me. Cowards couldn't take the whoopin' they earned.
Then, one of their writers, Ray Ordorica, APROPOS of NOTHING, printed a gratuitous swipe at Peter Capstick, the noted African hunter and author:
Ray Ordorica said:
I am sorry to disillusion you, but Capstick was the worst kind of charlatan. Capstick did indeed want you to think he knew a lot about rifles and hunting. He was an excellent story teller. But he didn’t know much about either rifles or hunting, because, you see, he was never a professional African hunter. He was a bartender. He was a standing joke to those who indeed were African professional hunters.
Capstick had been dead 12 years by the time they published this in 2008, which makes it impolite at least (don't speak ill of the dead), and cowardly and cruel at worst (because Capstick can't defend himself, and his family may bear the brunt of those words).
I wrote again, pointing out both the poor etiquette and also the fact that Ordorica had provided no substantiation for his opinion other than suggesting that readers contact "my friends at Holland & Holland."
Again, no response from
Gun Tests.
Hey, everyone makes mistakes. But when they seem to stem from laziness (don't test a .454 Casull revolver with .454 Casull ammo?) or cowardess (attack a guy dead 12 years?) AND THEN CAN'T ADMIT THEIR MISTAKES...well, my conclusion is that these are not classy folks, and I'll keep my money, thanks.
The fact that they are now turning over to collection agencies those who accept their "free" offer comes as no surprise, although I do not know if it is part of a conscious scam or just sheer, inexcusable incompetence.
It probably appears or purports to be an attempt to collect a debt, but there is nothing they can actually do. You signed no contract promising to pay anything, and anything sent to you in the mail, by law, is yours to keep and use. THR doesn't permit foul language, or I would have a few suggestions as to what to say to them. 
