Gun Tests magazine

[Phaetos]

Got an offer in the mail today for this mag. Does anyone receive it and what do you think of it? For those that do get it or have gotten it at one point, did you ever buy a gun based on their testing and agreed with them or disagreed, which of course is a totally objective question as to whether you did or did not?

Offer is for 1 year, $24, which they say is 6 months free. Is the magazine actually that expensive

 

[JerryM]

I used to take it, but found their tests, and conclusions were often not from a standpoint of great knowledge or experience. I dropped it.

Jerry

 

[Phaetos]

How's that Jerry?

 

[Sheldon J]

I like my subscription, and they do have good reviews of guns, just is sometimes their review will not match your opinion of a gun you may have prior experience with. Which brings us to they test new guns and quality can change.

 

[Surefire]

I've subscribed for almost 10 years.

I like them.

They do make stupid mistakes, but it is hard to find a magazine that doesn't.

 

[Phaetos]

They do make stupid mistakes,

How's that?

 

[JerryM]

Hi Phaetos,

It has been so many years that I do not remember the specifics, but I seem to recall they once thought the Mossberg 500 was a better gun than the Rem 870. Having used both there was/is no comparison.

I am not prepared to argue that issue, but in answer to the question I do not think much of the expertise of the testers of that magazine. I do admire the fact that they do not accept advertisments, and are unbiased in that manner.

I also have the perception that they did not test multiple guns of the same model. If they got a bad one that meant that all were bad.

Guess that is about all I can say. If one likes it go for it, I just did not. Question asked and my opinion provided.

Jerry

 

[Lashlarue]

I find the car mags the same way, one which thinks the Germans build the finest cars, rated a BMW that had $1500 worth of problems as the class of the field.I think the wheels could fall off a 3 series and Motor Trend would love it, saying it added to the driving excitement!

 

[MartinBrody]

I

their tests, and conclusions were often not from a standpoint of great knowledge or experience

I agree, and was surprised by this, I thought they would be more of an authority. I do like it and subscribe, I like reading about guns and they are different from the typical Guns & Ammo" articles which seem to be just ads to me.

 

[g88]

I've been taking it for years. They tell you which guns they think are great, and tell you about production defects they find, and defects in design. They also test ammo and accessories. I go by what they say, which has cut my disappointments and saved me money. You get straighter dope from Gun Tests than from the regular gun rags.

 

[Smokey Joe]

Gun Test Mag

I was offered a free issue when they first came out. Accepted the offer. Was not impressed with the magazine--seemed to lack expertise about the guns they were testing, as noted above. Then they billed me for a year's subscription, and when I didn't sign up, turned me over to a bill collector.

Explained the situation to the bill collector and the collection agency immediately let me off the hook, which I don't think they'd have done so easily if they thought their case had a leg to stand on.

Anyhow, after that experience, and hassle, I wouldn't subscribe to the thing if you paid me.

Another thing--I buy VERY few new guns. Almost every gun I purchase is used, execpt the milsurps, which are very used. So even if I hadn't had the bad experience with Gun Test Magazine, it just doesn't seem to apply to my needs terribly much.

As to the "other" gun mags, I have never had much trouble separating the B. S. from the good reporting, and anyhow, most of the info from those mags that is of use to me is either bullet or powder writeups, or ballistics and handloading info.

 

[rc135]

Gun Test Magazine

Like it a lot. Although I might not agree with a particular opinion on a certain gun, I always learn a lot reading their articles. Well done -- nothing at all like the so-called 'gun reviews' that one sees in the gunzines. Much. much better done.

"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country." Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, DC.

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." William S. Burroughs

 

[Onmilo]

Like any objective magazine, or message board, most of the writing in Gun Test magazine is based on personal hands on experience.

I have read this magazine, on and off, for several years.
I have seen this magazine test a particular brand of firearm one time and write a very negative review.
One year later they will test the same firearm and write a very positive review.

The writing is all based on the tested item first hand and does not generally waste article space in what accessories you really must buy for, or add to, the firearm before it is perfect.
This is something many, many other 'objective' magazines fail to do as they use the space of the article as a greater advertising space rather than a genuine in depth review of the titled product.

Gun Tests does not accept advertising funds to support their magazine, they fund the magazines through the purchasers subscription fees alone.
They also know this is not going to make them rich but wish the magazine articles remain as objective as possible without advertising fluff money forming the basis of their opinion.
I do admire them for this even though the opinion they express may not jibe with what the reader wants to see or believe.
Truth hurts sometimes.

I personally have given up receiving hard copy magazines and find information available on the web to be much more objective since the majority of posters do not have advertisers lining their pockets for the opinion expressed.

Most people don't get paid to place an opinion on a message board, they do it so others may form their own opinion without advertising dollars forming the basis of the original opinion.
Everything is wonderful when somebody is paying you to say it is.
I fear it is but a matter of time before this begins to change if it has not started already.

 

[john1911]

They do have advertisers. Just looked through my last 12 issues, six of those had full, 2 page ads in the centerfold.

Lots of their comparisons end up; "Gun A was the best but Gun B or C would work equally well".

It's not bad for $24.00, but no way would I pay the full cover price.

YMMV

 

[Double Naught Spy]

How's that?

Simple, they published wrong information. They have reported wrong weights of guns, features, function, etc. In comparison with other models not shown, attributed wrong information to the models for the comparison.

GT is also inconsistent in how they report test information such that it is not always readily comparable between similar guns in different issues. The 1" accuracy noted for a given gun versus 1.5" for another may be 1" at 25 FEET versus 1.5" at 25 YARDS.

Do a search on "Gun Tests" and you will see several similar threads.

 

[JMusic]

JerryM I think you summed it up pretty good. I was a long time subscriber and found I ended up disagreeing as much as agreeing. I do think the one gun in theory is correct.

Jim

 

[foob]

Don't remember the details, but I think once they tested a makarov, safety fell off (which is a pretty damn impossible thing to do), and they just said makarov sucks too dangerous for us to test. Also they got technical details of the handgun wrong.

Dude, ***. At least get a second makarov, or at least detail why the design of the makarov is somehow unsafe.

At least consumer reports test anonymously and more comprehensively. And actually have experts in their field.

 

[hrgrisso]

Double Naught Pegged It

They don't compare like firearms and so they rip guns they don't perform to their expectations.

I kept expecting to see a comparison between the M1 Family, the Garand, the Carbine and The M14. They'd end up going with the Garand for it's history and range. The Carbine they would like for quick reloading, but would drop it because it can't compete with the other two for range. And they'd Drop the M14 because the military did and it can compete with the garand in range and works as quickly (or quicker and easier) in the reloading, but doesn' have the history.

They just don't seem very objective, - PRE- test when they should be planning.

 

[Princi]

I've been taking the magazine for the last couple of years, and on occasion they have really ticked me off. Unlike other magazines, they do say negative things about a gun.

I have bought a gun because of their report: they said you should not buy the Ruger 22/45 because it was too difficult to field-strip and put back together.

I bought the 22/45 Hunter version and I love it.

Another magazine recently wrote about a particular gun and they said that if you define quality by the conformance to specifications, then the gun was a quality gun. In other words, if the specifications don't say that the gun will not jam and it jams 3 times for every magazine fired, then it still is a quality gun.

 

[Hawk]

I rather like it and will continue to subscribe. They do a servicable job of keeping opinion distinct from observation and it's easy to give greater weight to whatever is important to the reader.

It's far from perfect but beats the glossies which always seem to have a full page advertisement for whatever they're reviewing and have never seen a gun that wasn't near perfect.

Gun-Tests is not for the easily offended or those afflicted with confirmation bias issues.

 

[Clipper]

This month they rated the Phoenix HP-22 as a best buy trail gun above a couple of high-dollar names, which will incur the wrath of the brand snobs, but is something I have known for the last couple years...They also rated the Hi-Point carbine as better price and accuracy wise than the Beretta Storm. I agree. However, opinions like these will cause the snobs to scream and cry foul, so if you aren't used to seeing a real independent opinion based on real-world, Joe Blow criteria, you should stick with '1911s & Ammo'...

 

[Alan Fud]

I've been a subscriber for over a dozen years but will NOT be re-newing my subscription when it expires. The past few years they haven't been making a whole lot of sense as far as I am concerned. They would give a gun a really great review and end up giving it a poor rating, or, vice versa; they would say really bad things about a gun and then give it a high rating.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Don't remember the details, but I think once they tested a makarov, safety fell off (which is a pretty damn impossible thing to do), and they just said makarov sucks too dangerous for us to test.

So exactly what were they supposed to when the safety fell off? Should they go buy another and if that works, claim that a 50% failure rate is acceptable? Would reporting a 50% failure rate really make you feel better? If they bought four more guns, and reported a 20% failure rate, would that make you feel better? Should they lie, and not report a failure at all?

If they buy a gun, and it falls apart when they shoot, and they buy another that doesn't fall apart, can they say for sure, "Well the first must have just been a lemon!" How could they know that? Wouldn't they be lying if they said that and didn't know it to be true?

I understand what they should do is buy 10,000 samples of every weapon they test, and the can develop some meaningful stats. I am sure that they would be very happy to do that.

They can't afford to do that. So given a limited budget, what can they do? They buy a gun, test with other "sort of similar" guns and report the results of those tests.

So it seems to me that they are taking a fairly reasonable course of action - they buy a gun, test it, and report the results (good or bad) of that test. If you understand their sample size is often "1", then you can evaluate accordingly.

They also give me enough information to form my opinion - which may or may not be the same as theirs.

I do wish that they would make the distances at which they shoot a little clearer. I don't necessarily object the different ranges - I think they shoot carry weapons at 15 yards, and target/sport weapons at 25 yards. That makes sense. Maybe it would make sense to test a weapon at 25 feet. But sometimes I have to read a lot of text to figure out the distance at which they shot.

Do I get mad when they down rate a gun I like? Yes.
Are they a source of absolute truth? No.
Are they better than any other gun rag out there? Yes.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

They do a servicable job of keeping opinion distinct from observation and it's easy to give greater weight to whatever is important to the reader.

That - to me - is the key. As long as I have enough info to form an independent opinion, I couldn't care less about their opinion.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

I also have the perception that they did not test multiple guns of the same model. If they got a bad one that meant that all were bad.

I have never seen them say, "all are bad." I have seen them review a gun based on their experience with that gun. What else are they supposed to do?

Mike