Have you ever seen a bad review in a gun magazine?

[MikePGS]

I was thinking about this the other day. I buy quite a few gun magazines each and every month, but ever since i've been doing so I am yet to see a terrible review of any gun in a magazine. Ever. Is this to say that bad guns don't exist? I understand that magazines have to make money... but really this just goes to show me that online reviews by individuals are worth a great deal more than any review i've seen in a magazine. Is this just a strange coincidence? Has anyone ever seen a bad review in a gun magazine?

 

[220_Swift]

I've seen a few that were a lot less than spectacular. But, gunmakers pay to have these articles written, so they are going to be biased somewhat. Also, the makers themselves generally don't just pull one off of the line. They make sure it is going to function as best as possible before it gets to the writer. Just like not all production guns are going to function like the one the writer has, the guns that private individuals get are not all the same. If I get a lemon, that doesn't meen all the rest are as well.

 

[Cosmoline]

In OLD gun mags? Yes. Skeeter, Elmer and the like weren't afraid to chide Ruger, S&W and the others over problems with their firearms--and even give directives about how it should be fixed. One that springs to mind is Skeeter reviewing the new Security Six and going over the huge problem he and others had with the first generation frame shape. He told them to fix it in print, and they did! Nowadays in the glossy rags any serious problems with the firearm get buried in the article or left out completely. There appears to be no division whatsoever between the advertising sellers, the company reps and the guys writing the articles. They all see themselves working for the same team. They all go to the same conventions. They all know each other. I'm sure they have fun, but it doesn't inspire me to put down $5 for one of their extended advertisements.

Not only can't they be trusted, they almost never say anything useful. When they do go afield, it's typically WITH a company rep and they end up writing platitudes and talking about how great the trip was. Useless! OTOH, I turn to Elmer's Gun Notes constantly. His pieces are overflowing with useful information, including his home brew loads and his advice on everything from what iron sights go best with leverguns to what game can be taken with what bullet. Sadly the old man died a while back and a lot of his stuff is consequently dated. But there's nobody in the glossy rags to replace him or the other giants.

But don't give up hope. There's a new generation of quality gun writers emerging from on line. Paco Kelly and Jim Taylor over on leverguns, Tuco over on the Mosin sites, Jeff Quinn over on Gunblast and many others have continued the tradition of critical, insightful gun writing with useful information. I also don't include Mas Ayoob with the glossy hacks. I don't always agree with him, but I don't get the sense he's for sale either.

 

[RNB65]

They only publish the good reviews. If they test a gun and it sucks, they toss the review in the trash can.

 

[MikeG]

And if you look, the magazine will often have an ad for the same firearm featured in the article, in or near the article.

Think infomercial on slick paper.

 

[Geronimo45]

Is this just a strange coincidence?

Most online reviews are by folks who had to shell out money for the gun. Gunwriters generally get the guns sent to them free/free to try out for a while, IIRC. When you're sent a nice gun (for free) that works reasonably well, you have a bit of loyalty towards the sender.

 

[stevemis]

When you're sent a nice gun (for free) that works reasonably well, you have a bit of loyalty towards the sender.

Especially when there's a full page color ad for the manufacturer, perhaps for the particular gun... in the same issue.

Editors put a lot of pressure on their staff to make sure advertiser toes don't get stepped on. Even worse, potential advertiser toes.

There's usually at least one "D" or "F" score in Gun Tests each month. While I might not agree 100% with their testing methodology or grading system, it's still refreshing to see someone give what appears to be an unbiased opinion and objectively point out perceived flaws.

Steve

 

[glockman19]

Not bad but I've seen negatives in comparison articles.

 

[jojosdad]

You can find objective reviews in Gun Test Magazine. Sometimes I think they're not the most knowledgeable about what they review, but on the whole I think they do a very unbiased job.

 

[Fn-P9]

I try to read between the lines. If they "slightly" poo poo on something I take it as a big problem, since they rarely say anything bad. It was in guns and ammo who said about the new FN 5.7 (quote) "in my estimation there is no other autoloader even approximating the capabilities of this pistol. With some refinements, the 5.7 USG could set a new standard for range and firepower in defensive pistols."

I don't really know what that means. Kinda sounds like a new revolutionary laser 007 killer machine that requires a "few refinements" to achieve this.

 

[Lucky]

I read an absolutely devastating review for the Mossberg ATR:
http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/gear/fieldtested/article/0,20280,rifles-0066,00.html

But here's the irony - it was quite wrong, by my experience!



This is funny:

Instruction From The Editor To The Journalist:

Frangible Arms just bought a four page color ad in our next issue. They sent us their latest offering, the CQB MK-V Tactical Destroyer. I told Fred to take it out to the range to test. He'll have the data for you tomorrow.


Feedback From Technician Fred:

The pistol is a crude copy of the World War II Japanese Nambu type 14 pistol, except it's made from unfinished zinc castings. The grips are pressed cardboard. The barrel is unrifled pipe. There are file marks all over the gun, inside and out.

Only 10 rounds of 8mm ammunition were supplied. Based on previous experience with a genuine Nambu, I set up a target two feet down range. I managed to cram four rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. I taped the magazine in place, bolted the pistol into a machine rest, got behind a barricade, and pulled the trigger with 20 feet of 550 cord. I was unable to measure the trigger pull because my fish scale tops out at 32 pounds. On the third try, the pistol fired. From outline of the holes, I think the barrel, frame, magazine, trigger and recoil spring blew through the target. The remaining parts scattered over the landscape.

I sent the machine rest back to the factory to see if they can fix it, and we need to replace the shooting bench for the nice people who own the range. I'll be off for the rest of the day. My ears are still ringing. I need a drink.


Article Produced By The Journalist:

The CQB MK-V Tactical Destroyer is arguably the deadliest pistol in the world. Based on a combat proven military design, but constructed almost entirely of space age alloy, it features a remarkable barrel design engineered to produce a cone of fire, a feature much valued by Special Forces world wide. The Destroyer shows clear evidence of extensive hand fitting. The weapon disassembles rapidly without tools. At a reasonable combat distance, I put five holes in the target faster than I would have thought possible. This is the pistol to have if you want to end a gunfight at all costs. The gun is a keeper, and I find myself unable to send it back.

 

[saspic]

One of the gunwriters wrote a teeny article on the subject just a couple of months back. I can't recall everything he said, but the biggest revelation for me was that if a gun is so bad it's basically not functioning correctly, they just don't review it. Partially to not be rude, partially not to embarass the manufacturer, and because the actual review would be uneventful: "It doesn't work. It doesn't work. Well, it looks pretty."
He said if you don't see a review of a cool new model and wonder why they wouldn't cover it, that could very well be the reason.
Personally, I often notice criticisms in the magazines, they just seem to downplay them. For example, "There was a break in period" means, "the thing won't feed ammo". "The thumb safety didn't have positive engagement" means "the machining of the safety was sloppy." "The checkering could benefit from a few more lines per inch" means "the durn thing ripped my skin like a cheese grater."
With my 'de-euphemizer' filter turned on on find the gun reviews fairly enlightening.

 

[denfoote]

I read an absolutely ridiculous review on the Makarov PM in Gun Test once!!

Now being an owner of at least one Mak from every country that made them, including China, I was in a position to figure out that it was total BS!!!

They took a lot of heat from Mak owners for that on let me tell you!!

The arrogant SOB that ran the mag refused to back down. He even got very testy with some of the readers!!

I canceled my subscription.

 

[Deanimator]

Soldier of Fortune used to be famous for it.

They once did a review of the Rogak gas operated pistol, the predecessor to the Steyr GB. The review was brutal. I think they called it the jamamatic. The article was accompanied by a series of photos of the reviewer attempting to get more than a couple of consecutive shots from the gun. The last picture was of him throwing the gun downrange like a boomerang.

 

[ilbob]

There appears to be no division whatsoever between the advertising sellers, the company reps and the guys writing the articles. They all see themselves working for the same team. They all go to the same conventions. They all know each other. I'm sure they have fun, but it doesn't inspire me to put down $5 for one of their extended advertisements.

This is a trend in journalism in general. It is not unusual for a substantial part of the editorial content of the business pages of many newspapers to be barely disguised press releases from the companies involved.

Think about the news reports on the front page of your local news paper. Chances are, 90% of the crime reports come right from the PR flack at the police department.

There used to be a whole series of magazines that covered industrial products and the editorial content was usually pretty much dead on. The big companies stopped buying ads and bought ads in tame publications, or in some cases just started their own publications. I don't think there are any credible ones left.

 

[DMK]

I never read the articles for the author's opinion or to determine if a gun is made well and will be reliable. I come here for that and ask folks who've lived with the gun a while.

I read the articles to see good pics of the gun, to get an idea of it's design, controls and features.

Keep in mind, these mags are just little pieces of the SHOT show delivered to your door.

 

[Happyshooter]

Two. Sigma (the first version) back when the felt problem became too widespread to cover up, and the Double Eagle Mark I when the trigger, chamber, and grip panel issues all came out at once.

 

[CajunBass]

You think "Gun Rags" are bad, you should try to find something bad about ANY bass boat in the fishing press. They all run 70 mph, ride dry, and will take rough water that would turn back a Coast Guard cutter.

They also never miss a chance to include the sponsors name in non-boat articles... Well known pro-angler, Joe Catchabigun, fishing out of his Rangtoon boat, with a 3,000 hp Mercrude engine............

 

[joe4702]

Same with most motorcycle rags

 

[oweno]

Years ago, maybe late 1970s, there was a magazine called 'Gun Tests' ...no relation to the current version.

This mag was a major hoot, poor photography, lots of typos, but they were honest. A few things I remember..

When reviewing a small auto called 'The Best', the title of the article was something like 'Should Be Called The Worst'.

In another, a review of, I think, the Arminius revolver (which they flat-out despised) the auther said that the action should benefit from some stoning. The picture next to that line showed him dropping a large rock onto the revolver.

I wish they were still around.

 

[Outlaws]

There are two main reasons. The first is that there is almost zero reason to review $100 pocket pistols. They are what they are and will probably never be anything more. Cheap, some function okay, but most are just cheap. Why waste space writing a review of something like? "Here we have a crummy pistol. It sometimes fires and sometimes hits in the general area of aim. Save your money."

The other reason is that the firearms that that get reviewed are not Saturday Night Specials. In this day of age any firearm from a known manufacturer generally works fine. There really are not many terrible designs left given that nothing has radically changed in 50-100 years so it is all refined. Everything has been tested so they don't go off by themselves, and accuracy is generally great when comparing apples to apples (you get good accuracy for what a $300 firearm should be, you get good accuracy for what a $2000 firearm should be).

Sure the gun rags won't get "review pieces" if they trash a product, but by and large there isn't too much trashing needed when it comes to guns. I have never seen a review for anything made by Special Weapons or Vulcan/Hesse, but then those companies were probably smart enough to not send Guns & Ammo a product that they know will get zero praise. I might have missed them, but those companies made/make garbage and there is really no reason to waste space being negative. I don't expect the magazine to go spend money to buy something just to review it....especially from those two companies.

It would be nice to read an article once in a while that just rips a company a new one, but brand loyalty aside, the vast majority of name brand firearms are all extremely good.

 

[Tsonda]

Firepower magazine? Is that correct? I remember my Dad having some he saved they were out of business by the time I got interested. I recall one 1911 clone that threw the brass up resulting in it hitting the guy in the cap brim. So he stapled a cup to the brim to catch it, funny pictures.

As to industry magazines. From personel experience I can tell you some have you write the article for them and they edit it. Usually screwing up your name, your companies name or something like that. Then my boss gets to call them.

Cheers,

Tsonda

 

[hrgrisso]

Gun Rags

I actually like reading the gun rags. I used to subscribe to many of them, guns and ammo, Guns, American Handgunner, and several military arms/cop guns mags.

I let all of them expire except Guns and American Handgunner. The drool worthy pictures are the best, the writers are entertaining, and I normally read it for ideas not products. Of course I read all the parts of the magazine, but really it's entertainment, not use it or die info.

I will say this, the only gun magazine I ever cancelled my subscription to was Gun Tests. IMO this is the MOST WORTHLESS gun rag around. The idea of the comparisons is great, but the final product is garbage. They often don't even compare guns in the same catagory. I.e. let's compare these 3 1911's. One is a full size government. 1 is a combat commander. 1 is a micro.

So they test them all for reliability. And then the start the disqualifications. Here goes.

"Well we shot these here pistols. I'll tell you it was just like I thought, the full size one is the greatest D@Mn Handgun ever invented. The Commander shot, an 1.5inch at 25 yards, so it's ok. And the Micro is a hunka garbage, cuz it only groups 4 inches at 25 yards. Stupid Springfield shouldn't let this thing leave the factory!"

I'm sorry but these guys lose all credibility because of their lack of focus in this regards. Comparing a CCW piece to a full size without stipulating the intended use and using that as a qualifier. Just stupid. - Rant Off.

 

[dfariswheel]

The American Rifleman regularly has bad things to say about some guns, but they say it in a gentleman way.

There was the famous review Mossad Ayoob did on the early Colt Double Eagle that caused Colt to never advertise again in The American Handgunner magazine.

If you're expecting some kind of "yellow journalism-National Star" type of yelling and screaming, you'll be disappointed.
If you read the reviews closely they usually make it clear where problems are.

Also keep in mind that all guns are individuals. The gun reviewed by a writer is not the gun you buy.
Not that he gets a hand picked model, there have been plenty of cases where reviewed guns had major defects and required them to be sent back.

I've owned guns that were trash that the review said were good.
I've owned guns that were great, the writer said had problems.

Case in point: ask on the internet forums how good Brand X gun is, and see what kind of responses you get.

 

[ECVMSparky]

This reminds me.
about 10 or so years ago, Guns And Weapons for Law Enforcement had a write up on the first generation Sigmas.
They did a literary polish job on that turd that would have made a chauchaut look like an MP5.....
Made that gun sound like the answer to everyone's prayers.
I also can't remember when or where but i remember a beaming writeup on the colt all american 2000 hicap 9mm that was along the same lines.