gunfighter48

The Internet is the great equalizer. If you want to know how good or bad a gun is, just do a search on the Internet. I do read the bad accounts with some caution. I have read bad reviews from posters that fired 50 rds or less, had mag problems and didn't know enough about the firearm to diagnosis the problem. Sometimes you have to "read between the lines" to get the correct story. I particularly look for the ratio of good to bad reviews (realize that one poster may hit dozens of gun forums with the same bad review). By taking that into account you can usually get a fair idea of the gun in question. Is this more accurate than the gun mags, I think it is. I'll put more stock into a user review than a gun mag review any day of the week.

I also subscribe to Concealed Carry Magazine, and the editor does an exceptional job of being fair in his reviews. If he doesn't like the product he is testing, he says so in no uncertain terms. Great magazine.

__________________
gunfighter 48
A 45 may not expand but it will never be smaller than .45!!!
NRA Member

peacefuljeffrey

Some months ago, I had a gun magazine (was it "American Handgunner"?) in which one of the columnists/testers/reviewers wrote about that very subject. He said that the reader will subjectively sense the very thing you mention, because they decline to review crap. The result is, that all the guns whose reviews end up in the magazine are pretty decent to above average or excellent.

There are arguments that could be made in favor of reviewing even crappy guns -- to let people know what junk is out there and to stay away from it. But if most people are like me, they'd rather not see an entire article about a sucky gun. Why bother? I'd rather learn about guns I might end up wanting to get. Perhaps the magazines should just run a small info box on recent guns that are junky and should be avoided.

peacefuljeffrey

Am I correct in believing that you don't mean "Gun Tests"? (I think that one's still around, unfortunately.)

When "Gun Tests" reviewed the GLOCK 27 back around 1996, I was a subscriber who already had my GLOCK 27. They claimed that the capacity was 8+1, when it actually is 9+1. When a letter to the editor called them on it, not only did they publish the letter (a surprise), they defended what they'd said by claiming that it was so difficult to get the 9th round into the mags that for all intents and purposes the gun was 8+1!

That was disgraceful. They should have admitted the mistake. And clearly, if their explanation was true, why did they not report, "Our test gun's magazines are supposed to hold 9 rounds, but we couldn't get the 9th one in so we're going to say that this gun is 8+1 rounds of .40 S&W"? Their cover story stunk. I dropped the subscription.

peacefuljeffrey

American Handgunner's 2007 Annual covered a "torture test" done by these t.v. guys. They received the first 5 guns off the line made by Sig for the SOCOM competition. These are Sig P220 combat models, with a "dark earth" frame. They also got 5 LaserMax units in them.

The story made a point of saying that the LaserMax units were selected by the testers at random so that they could not have been tweaked or enhanced prior to the tests. Then after the rigorous tests, all of them worked fine, and so did all five of the guns. The testers were frankly amazed.

Now, I know that's not the same as the manufacturer mailing out a gun or other product for testing. But LaserMax and Sig were apparently willing to send out stock merchandise for abusive testing.


That makes sense to me, but we don't know just how they handle it. Maybe they're more honest than we're giving them credit for being?

normal

I personally love Gun Tests for their honesty. They are not given guns, thay go out and buy them like us. They get them from gun shops or the internet, so that they are not provided with "special" guns from the manufacturer. If a gun does not perform, they tell you what is wrong.

__________________
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace" George Washington

Cupcake

Never recieved a free gun, but driving around in an ambulance in the summer we'd often weasel our way into barbeques. I've never had a free meal that I didn't like. Whether I liked it or not.

__________________
30lbs gone.

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
www.zerotoathlete.blogspot.com
My journey to fitness.

peacefuljeffrey

The issue of competence enters the picture, as in the example I cited.
Granted it was a decade+ ago, but it forever colored my perception of that publication. I also refuse to watch "Dateline" after their fraud involving the incendiary devices in the pickup trucks they "tested."

When a publication defrauds its readership/viewership, it loses the only thing that truly matters to such an entity: its credibility.

If Gun Tests had simply said, "Oh, our mistake; we had trouble getting the 9th round in and assumed 8 was all it took," even though there would still be the issue of competence (didn't they see the hole labeled "9" on the back of the magazine?) I would at least respect their honesty. But that's not what they did, so I don't.

Andy W.

A good example of this is Remington's new 105CTi shotgun. All of the magazine writers praised the gun. It has turned out to be a jam-o-matic with certain shells, and it appears that Remington doesn't know how to fix it. I suppose the reason Consumer Reports is popular is because they don't have paying advertisers.

limatunes

I read gun magazines strictly for information, not necessarily for a performance review.

If I want a performance review I ask around. Almost every major gun has a forum these days. Heck, there's a 1911 forum, there's a Glock forum, there is probably a number of more places that I don't know about. Of course, going to a Glock forum and asking about problems would be just as bad as reading the magazine because most of your gung-ho glock owners are going to rave about the perfection of their Glocks. You'll get the same with the 1911 forum and their bias.

A good, balanced review is a consideration between those who hate the particular platform and those who love it. Ask the people who HATE Glocks what they hate about it. Ask the Glock lovers what they love about it. Then read about it. Learn about it. Get intimate with the way it works and what benefits it has and what fall backs it has and from there make YOUR OWN, educated decision.

Don't take anyone's particular word for it. Do your own research, find out what you like and dislike personally, investigate and make your own decision. Especially if the gun you are considering is going to be a carry gun.

I read somewhere that gun carriers should be ready to defend every decision they have made in a court of law.. everything from the ammo they carry to the gun they chose and even to their trigger pull, the presence or lack of an external safety. You should have a reason and defense for all of those things, and those need to be personal decisions, not reasons that were read out of a magazine.

Of course magazines are a bit biased as are people, forums, websites, and even the guys you talk to in gun stores. Everyone has their bias. Some try to get over themselves and share equal reviews but eventually their bias will show through in one way or another. That's why making up your own mind about a product is so very important.

__________________
Garrett is OVER DUE!!!

Limatunes' Range Diaries

On a shooting hiatus until our son is born...

Cusmar

Were these the guys who had stories like " Hogs Versus Bullets"? If I remember right they published in the late 70s and early 80s. Those mags were a hoot to read.

__________________
"Use enough gun." - Robert Ruark