"Gun Tests" magazine
- Thread starter raindog
- Start date
- Status
I like it a lot. I've never subscribed to it but I bought a few years worth of issues on ebay a while back. I still use them for research on different models.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
Last edited:
I get Gun Tests and have been since 1992.
If they don’t like a gun, they won’t recommend it.
Sometimes you disagree with their recommendations.
When this magazine has been discussed before, I am surprised by how many people don’t like it.
When I thought about it, I believe that folks want to read positive reviews, not negative reviews. Especially not a negative review of a gun they own. There may be something screwy in the human mind that does not want to hear negative things. God knows, the magazines that print the infomercials financed by the gun industry, the reviews are all positive, and everybody loves those magazines.
It is a shame, but today's Gun magazines and gunwriters are just shills for the gun industry. Looking at my 50’s and 60’s American Rifleman magazines, the writers back then pointed out features they liked, and disliked. Now days, it is all wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.
If they don’t like a gun, they won’t recommend it.
Sometimes you disagree with their recommendations.
When this magazine has been discussed before, I am surprised by how many people don’t like it.
When I thought about it, I believe that folks want to read positive reviews, not negative reviews. Especially not a negative review of a gun they own. There may be something screwy in the human mind that does not want to hear negative things. God knows, the magazines that print the infomercials financed by the gun industry, the reviews are all positive, and everybody loves those magazines.
It is a shame, but today's Gun magazines and gunwriters are just shills for the gun industry. Looking at my 50’s and 60’s American Rifleman magazines, the writers back then pointed out features they liked, and disliked. Now days, it is all wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.
From what I've seen of the magazine, mainly their promotional "samples" and flipping through a few back issues, I'm not much of a fan...
They take a very hyper-critical approach to reviewing firearms, which is a good thing. I just disagreed with certain criteria they placed on firearms. I can't recall the exact details, but in one instance they reviewed a gun based on criteria that was completely different from that gun's intended use. I wouldn't use the same criteria to evaluate a fine hunting rifle as I would a battle rifle.
I also remember them railing against the 12 ga Mossberg 500 in an older back issue, but in July 2008, they said they liked the 20 ga Mossberg 500.
They take a very hyper-critical approach to reviewing firearms, which is a good thing. I just disagreed with certain criteria they placed on firearms. I can't recall the exact details, but in one instance they reviewed a gun based on criteria that was completely different from that gun's intended use. I wouldn't use the same criteria to evaluate a fine hunting rifle as I would a battle rifle.
I also remember them railing against the 12 ga Mossberg 500 in an older back issue, but in July 2008, they said they liked the 20 ga Mossberg 500.
carbuncle
Member
I like it, I subscribed for a few years in the late 90s/early '00s and just renewed. They are brutally honest, low on pictures and heavy on performance data.
The most reliable stuff out there.
Most gun mags are worse than useless.
Gun Tests isn't perfect but it will help you make better decisions.
The online search function is very useful.
Most gun mags are worse than useless.
Gun Tests isn't perfect but it will help you make better decisions.
The online search function is very useful.
I agree with both of these statements. They accept no advertisements, and if there is any bias it is based on the writer's perceptions not ad revenue. I don't hate on other gun rags, but I also don't see any balanced reviews. The best of the other magazines generally just refuse to print reviews of bad guns instead of whitewashing it.
They're upfront about the criteria they're offering opinions on - if it's criteria that don't matter to you, it's easy to filter. There was at least one firearm I went out and bought after a negative review because what they disliked was of no concern to me.
I tend to believe it's the best resource available.
It's no doubt a poor choice for anyone who has gotten his self-esteem intertwined with his firearms purchases. Some folks, for reasons I have yet to fully fathom, tend to take it personally when they read something negative about a firearm they like.
I actually trust the magazine more than I do the new age wisdom that states: "I can get better information from online forums". It seems anything derived from online fora is colored, in varying degrees, by the merging of ego and product afflicting some portion of the respondents.
Not that GunTests is free of subjectively - it's full of it, but it's clearly identifiable and easily accounted for. It is refreshingly free of emotion though it's been known to incite no small amount of it.
I tend to believe it's the best resource available.
It's no doubt a poor choice for anyone who has gotten his self-esteem intertwined with his firearms purchases. Some folks, for reasons I have yet to fully fathom, tend to take it personally when they read something negative about a firearm they like.
I actually trust the magazine more than I do the new age wisdom that states: "I can get better information from online forums". It seems anything derived from online fora is colored, in varying degrees, by the merging of ego and product afflicting some portion of the respondents.
Not that GunTests is free of subjectively - it's full of it, but it's clearly identifiable and easily accounted for. It is refreshingly free of emotion though it's been known to incite no small amount of it.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Personally, I think there is better information on gun forums such as THR and on some informal review sites such as Box O Truth than in GT. After 5 years, I dropped GT due to inconsistencies in testing of similar platforms, inconsistencies of evaluation criteria (once again, for similar platforms), ignoring their own stated evaluation criteria and ranking guns based on subjective criteria not part of the testing, plus they sold my information such that I started receiving gun junk mail. I know the latter to be true because GT was the only mail we received at our cabin.
While I am not complaining about GT's sample size per se, it is quite limited, almost always a sample of just 1 model from a given manufacturer. As such, it may run well or run poorly and not represent the brand appropriately. So on gunboards like THR, you get a bigger sample, but also fraught with inconsistencies and biases, but a bigger sample.
Now if it comes down to taking GT or another gun rag, then GT would be the obvious choice because they don't accept advertising.
I also disliked the notion of paying for Todd Woodard's political commentary with each issue.
While I am not complaining about GT's sample size per se, it is quite limited, almost always a sample of just 1 model from a given manufacturer. As such, it may run well or run poorly and not represent the brand appropriately. So on gunboards like THR, you get a bigger sample, but also fraught with inconsistencies and biases, but a bigger sample.
Now if it comes down to taking GT or another gun rag, then GT would be the obvious choice because they don't accept advertising.
I also disliked the notion of paying for Todd Woodard's political commentary with each issue.
I get it, and have 15 years of back issues in the shd. I find them usefull for research when I or a friend start looking at a used gun.
They are quite a contrast to the reviews in regular magazines where the authors JUST LOVE everything they see.
They are quite a contrast to the reviews in regular magazines where the authors JUST LOVE everything they see.
Like it.
Not a lot of BS....If you don't like their assessment there is enough information to make your own call.
Not a lot of BS....If you don't like their assessment there is enough information to make your own call.
Mike OTDP
Member
It's OK. Not great, though. They tend to do comparisons of whatever they have handy, rather than true apples-to-apples comparisons.
But you do get enough raw information to judge for yourself.
But you do get enough raw information to judge for yourself.
They are the only gun testing magazine that receives $0.00 annually from gun makers in advertisements. That's why they are not beholding to anyone for giving a favorable review of the guns they test.
They aren't bought off as other magazines are.
I've subscribed for 2 years because of that.
They aren't bought off as other magazines are.
I've subscribed for 2 years because of that.
I've subscribed on-and-off for about 20 years. Back in the pre-internet days Gun Tests was the only source for honest gun reviews. Today's world is different.
Excellent mag. It's a lot like a low-budget Consumer's Union..... absolutely no advertising so no kick-back favors in the form of glossing over serious problems of guns that they test.
post 15 :
All mags do this. I just finished an Optics comparison test where the spotting scopes ranged from $200 -$2500! The $2500 Ziess was the best!! Go figure.....
All mags do this. I just finished an Optics comparison test where the spotting scopes ranged from $200 -$2500! The $2500 Ziess was the best!! Go figure.....
I've subscribed for years and don't always agree with them, but they are extremely informative. A little pricey, but they don't have to bend over for advertisers as do most gun rags.
I don't always agree on teverything they say, but at least I know they aren't swayed buy their advertizers....there aren't any. I quit them because I think the price of the subscription is too much.
essayons21 said:
Exactly. I was very unimpressed with them and cancelled after a year's subscription. Yes, they are clear about what they are ranking, but often it's nonsensical stuff. After analying it, it appears to me the same few folks or one person do/does all the reviews instead of farming them out to people who really understand the platform in question.
The problem with "filtering" to find what you want is that if they are so ignorant of the value of issues/criteria that you are familiar with and catch them on, how can you trust them on items you don't know personally? They were just far too uneven and inconsistent, unfamiliar with certain features or the value of many aspects of the guns in question.
You can get more knowledgeable comparison by asking in a good forum and "filtering" the answers there.
HoosierQ
Member
One thing that disturbed me in terms of relying on this publication is that they re-do guns from time to time and their review can be remarkably different.
They are like Consumer reports. The Jeep gets a terrible rating not because it is a bad vehicle, but because they place a very high premium on ride, and handling on the highway, and wind noise and all of that kind of thing.
So a $1,200 Rorbaugh might get overall a pretty bad rating because of how it performs out beyond a few yards, how easy it is to change mags, and that kind of thing. Well it was not designed to be accurate at 25 yards and it was not designed to reload over and over again in a firefight.
Bad or biased information is not new with the Internet. You read the thing, process the facts, and figure it out for yourself. That is how you use any publication. Even the gun magazines will occasionaly give you subtle clues that you need to pay attention to. For example, there is a pretty popular AR out there that does not have a forward assist. A recent article on the gun went to rather extensive length explaining why this was not a big problem. One needs to process that kind of "clue" correctly.
They are like Consumer reports. The Jeep gets a terrible rating not because it is a bad vehicle, but because they place a very high premium on ride, and handling on the highway, and wind noise and all of that kind of thing.
So a $1,200 Rorbaugh might get overall a pretty bad rating because of how it performs out beyond a few yards, how easy it is to change mags, and that kind of thing. Well it was not designed to be accurate at 25 yards and it was not designed to reload over and over again in a firefight.
Bad or biased information is not new with the Internet. You read the thing, process the facts, and figure it out for yourself. That is how you use any publication. Even the gun magazines will occasionaly give you subtle clues that you need to pay attention to. For example, there is a pretty popular AR out there that does not have a forward assist. A recent article on the gun went to rather extensive length explaining why this was not a big problem. One needs to process that kind of "clue" correctly.
- Status
Similar threads
