RioShooter
Member
I don't read em; I just look at the purty pitchers.
Have you ever seen a bad review in a gun magazine?
- Thread starter MikePGS
- Start date
- Status
another okie
Member
I like the pictures. If you read the articles carefully, there is often some useful information. As pointed above, if they say it was "mostly" reliable or something like that, that means it jammed pretty often.
If they shoot a full-size 1911 at targets that are only 10 yards away, that's kind of a clue, too. Even more so if they don't even give any numbers and just say "it was combat accurate."
I do read articles fairly often in which the writer discusses the modifications he had to make so the gun would work, or that he had to send it back once or twice. I remember David Fortier ripping some semi-auto rifle one time that just would not function with the factory mags.
But as mentioned, you have to read carefully. They are not going to sound like Rush Limbaugh on Hillary Clinton, no matter how bad the gun was. I think our culture has gotten some extreme on attacks that sometimes we don't "get it" when people are a little more subtle.
If they shoot a full-size 1911 at targets that are only 10 yards away, that's kind of a clue, too. Even more so if they don't even give any numbers and just say "it was combat accurate."
I do read articles fairly often in which the writer discusses the modifications he had to make so the gun would work, or that he had to send it back once or twice. I remember David Fortier ripping some semi-auto rifle one time that just would not function with the factory mags.
But as mentioned, you have to read carefully. They are not going to sound like Rush Limbaugh on Hillary Clinton, no matter how bad the gun was. I think our culture has gotten some extreme on attacks that sometimes we don't "get it" when people are a little more subtle.
I was just thinking about this today!
I have a stack of about 10 rags on the toilet tank and not one of them has a negative comment in any gun review! The magazine titles vary, but they all have glowing reviews about every gun in them!
A couple other gripes: Every one has a cover blurb with either "sub-moa", "sureshot" or "triple play" in it, no joke! The worst part is, some of the articles are just a guy looking at his old guns through rose-colored glasses and talking about them for four pages! So I could look in my gun closet and write an article entitled ".357 Ruger Double Play! Single Action and a Snub!" Then I would take pics of my SP101 and stainless Blackhawk and say the snub shot about 2.48" groups from a rest at 25 yards (sure, why not, its my story!) and the Blackhawk pulled 1.65" groups, and then say I chronoed some out-of-production Western hollowpoints at 1095fps because I had 'em in a drawer somewhere, say my GoldDots pulled 1155fps in the snub and 1280fps in the Blackhawk, talk a little about how I like each gun for different types of carry, name-drop a couple holster makers, throw in a couple awkward pics of me posing with each gun, maybe add a pic of the guns with the holsters, a kubotan, two tasers, a lasso, and a bronzed pair of bull testes, then wrap it all up with a hearty recommendation that one could do no better than to buy each gun right now and voila! I am now a contributor to Combat Handgun Weapons For Law Enforcement of Fortune Tests Rifle Hunting Annual magazine!
My apologies to the gun writers that actually try to present real data covering a variety of loads or guns, but man, the fluff pieces just disgust me anymore. Hence all those mags in the crapper are pretty old. I got back into gun magazines for about 9 months and now I'm done again, I just can't stand 'em...
Incidentally, for those connected to the industry who are interested, I'll test your ammo/gun/holster and send back a review right quick! I'll even include the awkward photos and targets of unknown scale with a circle and "1.08 in. 357 158gr JHP"! Holster guys get extra awkward pics of me standing looking uncomfortable with captions saying how comfortable I am. For kicks I'll go against the grain and throw in pics of me shooting old computers, printers, et cetera, as I have several that still need destroyed...
Whew! I feel better...
gp911
I have a stack of about 10 rags on the toilet tank and not one of them has a negative comment in any gun review! The magazine titles vary, but they all have glowing reviews about every gun in them!
A couple other gripes: Every one has a cover blurb with either "sub-moa", "sureshot" or "triple play" in it, no joke! The worst part is, some of the articles are just a guy looking at his old guns through rose-colored glasses and talking about them for four pages! So I could look in my gun closet and write an article entitled ".357 Ruger Double Play! Single Action and a Snub!" Then I would take pics of my SP101 and stainless Blackhawk and say the snub shot about 2.48" groups from a rest at 25 yards (sure, why not, its my story!) and the Blackhawk pulled 1.65" groups, and then say I chronoed some out-of-production Western hollowpoints at 1095fps because I had 'em in a drawer somewhere, say my GoldDots pulled 1155fps in the snub and 1280fps in the Blackhawk, talk a little about how I like each gun for different types of carry, name-drop a couple holster makers, throw in a couple awkward pics of me posing with each gun, maybe add a pic of the guns with the holsters, a kubotan, two tasers, a lasso, and a bronzed pair of bull testes, then wrap it all up with a hearty recommendation that one could do no better than to buy each gun right now and voila! I am now a contributor to Combat Handgun Weapons For Law Enforcement of Fortune Tests Rifle Hunting Annual magazine!
My apologies to the gun writers that actually try to present real data covering a variety of loads or guns, but man, the fluff pieces just disgust me anymore. Hence all those mags in the crapper are pretty old. I got back into gun magazines for about 9 months and now I'm done again, I just can't stand 'em...
Incidentally, for those connected to the industry who are interested, I'll test your ammo/gun/holster and send back a review right quick! I'll even include the awkward photos and targets of unknown scale with a circle and "1.08 in. 357 158gr JHP"! Holster guys get extra awkward pics of me standing looking uncomfortable with captions saying how comfortable I am. For kicks I'll go against the grain and throw in pics of me shooting old computers, printers, et cetera, as I have several that still need destroyed...
Whew! I feel better...
gp911
rkh
member
It's got to be challenging to be an effective gun writer. Firearms technology moves at a snail's pace--there are only a handful of significant developments in any given year.
How do you maintain a subscriber base when most of your articles are rehashes of materials that have been discussed ad nauseum?
How do you maintain a subscriber base when most of your articles are rehashes of materials that have been discussed ad nauseum?
Last edited:
Personally I think that most magazines today aren't only concerned with the almighty buck, they're concerned that a manufacturer may sue.
Think about it. If a bad review affects sales, they may have grounds unless the gun is just *totally* unsafe or fails to function. In which case, as others have said, another gun is sent and tested,or the article is scraped.
Think about it. If a bad review affects sales, they may have grounds unless the gun is just *totally* unsafe or fails to function. In which case, as others have said, another gun is sent and tested,or the article is scraped.
Glockman17366
Member
I've also seen a few in Gun Test.
I also agree that they do reviews on very small samples (but how many guns (of a particular model) does any reviewer test?).
All in all though, I think Gun Test does a pretty good job considering how low their budget must be...
I also agree that they do reviews on very small samples (but how many guns (of a particular model) does any reviewer test?).
All in all though, I think Gun Test does a pretty good job considering how low their budget must be...
Templar223
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 309
Gun Tests fills a niche
Gun Tests magazine is about the only one that will pan a problematic firearm in clear and precise terms and that's why I subscribe to it.
I grew tired of the "9mm vs. 38 special" articles in Guns & Ammo, etc. And I'm dating myself here, but when I was a kid, there used to be a morbidly obese cop or former cop who used to write a lot of unimpressive articles. Some of the pics of him drawing from concealment were a hoot. He may still be around if he hasn't had a coronary in the last 25 years.
Sure, some folks don't like it when Gun Tests pans their favorite gun. But I'll tell ya, they've saved me from some poor choices and their reviews of guns I already have are usually pretty close to spot on as far as the major points go.
John
Gun Tests magazine is about the only one that will pan a problematic firearm in clear and precise terms and that's why I subscribe to it.
I grew tired of the "9mm vs. 38 special" articles in Guns & Ammo, etc. And I'm dating myself here, but when I was a kid, there used to be a morbidly obese cop or former cop who used to write a lot of unimpressive articles. Some of the pics of him drawing from concealment were a hoot. He may still be around if he hasn't had a coronary in the last 25 years.
Sure, some folks don't like it when Gun Tests pans their favorite gun. But I'll tell ya, they've saved me from some poor choices and their reviews of guns I already have are usually pretty close to spot on as far as the major points go.
John
Dave Workman
Member
I write gun reviews in various publications, and will mention what I don't personally care for in any firearm. One piece I did a while back in one magazine noted that the initial test gun was a lemon and I had to send it back to the factory, which supplied a different gun that worked like gangbusters.
Gun companies do not pay writers to write reviews. That's about as lame as the Brady camp claiming that the firearms industry finances the NRA. Magazine editors pay the writers.
I shoot targets and then photograph myself with the targets to show for the record how tight or loose they shoot on paper. I occasionally purchase, (with real money that comes out of my pocket) a test firearm, but it is a rare event. The overwhelming majority go right back to the factory.
Gun companies do not pay writers to write reviews. That's about as lame as the Brady camp claiming that the firearms industry finances the NRA. Magazine editors pay the writers.
I shoot targets and then photograph myself with the targets to show for the record how tight or loose they shoot on paper. I occasionally purchase, (with real money that comes out of my pocket) a test firearm, but it is a rare event. The overwhelming majority go right back to the factory.
This is so true. I see very, very few "new" things about firearms published, and I have only really been a gun nut for about four years now. Yet I have seen and read just about everything there is to know about guns and no new developments occur. Everything is a repeat, re-run. That's why so much attention is given to tacticool firearm accesories; it's the only gun-related topic that is seeing some updates now-a-day.
Of course some gun rags have taken it to far, as they now include reviews and advertisement for SUVs and truck winches... oh Lordy.
I write for a gun magazine once in awhile. I'm commissioned to write four articles right now, and did a couple last year. So I don't do this professionally, but I've done it more than your average gun nut.
First off, there are a lot of misconceptions in this thread.
The writer is paid by the editor. Each magazine and its policies are different.
Some magazines let their writers keep the samples. Other magazines require you to give the samples back, or pay for them if you decide to keep them. Some manufacturers require you to pay for the review item. Others send them out for free.
I've written for SWAT, and have sent back every item I've reviewed, except for the ones that I had already purchased myself. The ones that I purchased myself were off the shelf at a regular gun store, and not massaged by a manufacturer. Part of your agreement with SWAT is that you don't keep free product, because that will bias you.
As for never writing anything negative, you guys apparently haven't read anything I've written. I've been negative. I've pointed out every problem, and malfunction I've had. If something broke I wrote about it.
I've written about companies where I really like the people who run them, and they were great folks, and even then I've had to say negative things about their guns. I had one product that flat out broke during use, and I wrote that up. I also wrote up how they fixed it, like they would fix it for any regular customer.
If a gun doesn't work from the factory, of course we send it back. If that happens, I also note that I had to send it back. A 2,000 word article about a gun that doesn't shoot is kind of hard to write.
There are some magazines that are known for being a little more "enthusiastic" than others. (polite way of saying that they're whores). I know a couple writers who love every gun they've ever got for free.
Keep in mind that the writer is going from a sample size of one. So if you read a glowing review, it is possible that he is telling the truth, and his gun did run perfect. We see the same thing on threads here all of the time.
First off, there are a lot of misconceptions in this thread.
The writer is paid by the editor. Each magazine and its policies are different.
Some magazines let their writers keep the samples. Other magazines require you to give the samples back, or pay for them if you decide to keep them. Some manufacturers require you to pay for the review item. Others send them out for free.
I've written for SWAT, and have sent back every item I've reviewed, except for the ones that I had already purchased myself. The ones that I purchased myself were off the shelf at a regular gun store, and not massaged by a manufacturer. Part of your agreement with SWAT is that you don't keep free product, because that will bias you.
As for never writing anything negative, you guys apparently haven't read anything I've written. I've been negative. I've pointed out every problem, and malfunction I've had. If something broke I wrote about it.
I've written about companies where I really like the people who run them, and they were great folks, and even then I've had to say negative things about their guns. I had one product that flat out broke during use, and I wrote that up. I also wrote up how they fixed it, like they would fix it for any regular customer.
If a gun doesn't work from the factory, of course we send it back. If that happens, I also note that I had to send it back. A 2,000 word article about a gun that doesn't shoot is kind of hard to write.
There are some magazines that are known for being a little more "enthusiastic" than others. (polite way of saying that they're whores). I know a couple writers who love every gun they've ever got for free.
Keep in mind that the writer is going from a sample size of one. So if you read a glowing review, it is possible that he is telling the truth, and his gun did run perfect. We see the same thing on threads here all of the time.
crebralfix
member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,356
USCCA/ Concealed Carry Magazine panned the CZ 100. It was a brutal article.
- Status
