DO YOU TRUST GUN MAGAZINE REVIEWS ?

[robkarrob]

Today I read a article in my local newspaper. Yes I still get the paper every day. Every Wednesday, the local gun guru has a column. His topic today was the Remington R51, a sub-compact 9mm SD handgun, slightly smaller than the Shield. It was introduced at the 2014 Shot Show, January 2014. This was the "hot" new gun, along with the 380 Glock 42 sub-compact. The newspaper article stated the R51 arrived with glowing reports, from several gun magazine writers, who were flown out to the Remington test center, prior to the release, to review and shoot the R51. He also wrote that Remington picked up all costs, and wined and dined those writers.

The article went on to say the R51 is no longer being produced, due to numerous problems, with its design, some serious and dangerous. The writer said he searched the Remington website, and could find no mention of the R51, less than 6 months after if first went on sale to the public. He wrote that he has issues with the gun magazine writers, for their high rated reviews. Those writers know that Remington spends a lot of money on advertising, and "why bite the hand that feeds you". He said that many minor issues with new guns, don't get mentioned in many magazine reviews. The summation of the article was don't trust the magazine reviews, but wait for real world reviews through internet searches.

I agree and disagree with that opinion. I did buy a Ruger LC9, which was reviewed by several magazines as having a "long trigger pull". What was not said was it was so long as to make it difficult to shoot, and shoot accurately. I read several Shield reviews, and waited for the Shield 40, to be released, May 2012. The Shield was highly rated, and I agree it is a great gun. What I do believe is yes the writers are biased towards giving the manufacturer some slack. But I also believe the manufacturers only allow the writers to use "special" non-production guns, that have been thoroughly checked and modified, to make sure those guns perform perfectly. They seldom review an off the line production gun.

Bob

 

[RobzGuns]

I stopped reading Gun Rag reviews and taking them as Gospel a few years ago. Looking at several Gun Rag hard copies (again... This was a few YEARS ago), I got a chuckle about how they were all pretty much Cut & Paste, Fill-In-The-Blank-To-Fit-Your-Style, carbon copies of each other. I would not be surprised to find that the Manufacturer write their own In-House reviews and sends them out to the various Rags to simply slap their 'By Line' on and publish them.

So no... I would NOT trust a Gun Rag article for anything more than Stats & Features. That's about it.
I'd much rather watch a Hickock45 review for actual functionality review. Even though Hickock doesn't call any pistol a Dog, he does state what Pros and Cons he finds.

 

[Fastbolt]

I think you'd have to be careful to avoid painting this subject with too broad of a brush stroke.

 

[Well Armed]

Today I read a article in my local newspaper. Yes I still get the paper every day. Every Wednesday, the local gun guru has a column. His topic today was the Remington R51, a sub-compact 9mm SD handgun. It was introduced at the 2014 Shot Show, January 2014. This was the "hot" new gun, along with the 380 Glock 42 sub-compact. The newspaper article stated the R51 arrived with glowing reports, from several gun magazine writers, who were flown out to the Remington test center, prior to the release, to review and shoot the R51. He also wrote that Remington picked up all costs, and wined and dined those writers.

The article went on to say the R51 is no longer being produced, due to numerous problems, with its design, some serious and dangerous. The writer said he searched the Remington website, and could find no mention of the R51, less than 6 months after if first went on sale to the public. He wrote that he has issues with the gun magazine writers, for their high rated reviews. Those writers know that Remington spends a lot of money on advertising, and "why bite the hand that feeds you". He said that many minor issues with new guns, don't get mentioned in many magazine reviews. The summation of the article was don't trust the magazine reviews, but wait for real world reviews through internet searches.

I agree and disagree with that opinion. I did buy a Ruger LC9, which was reviewed by several magazines as having a "long trigger pull". What was not said was it was so long as to make it difficult to shoot, and shoot accurately. I read several Shield reviews, and waited for the Shield 40, to be released, May 2012. The Shield was highly rated, and I agree it is a great gun. What I do believe is yes the writers are biased towards giving the manufacturer some slack. But I also believe the manufacturers only allow the writers to use "special" non-production guns, that have been thoroughly checked and modified, to make sure those guns perform perfectly. They seldom review an off the line production gun.

Bob

I not only do not trust magazine reviews, but I barely trust YouTube, forum, and blog reviews as well. I normally only trust something when multiple people/sources have the same story...

 

[Grog]

I'm not really trusting the big names on youtube. They are getting stuff sent to them, so they are just as likely to give glowing reports to keep getting the goods.

 

[Rpg]

Gun rag reviews have to be read critically.

Occasionally, the truth sneaks in if you read carefully.

We have to remember that the bread and butter for these publications is to sell firearms.

You'll never read a bad review, but there is often information in the article that is deadly to the product.

Unfortunately, unsophisticated readers often don't pick up on the useful information, and it's unsophisticated consumers who are the target audience.

 

[NYlakesider]

My 50+ years or reading gun magazines has showed me that MOST (not all) writers hardily ever give negative reports about guns that they are reviewing. You give too many negatives and your supply of guns is severely curtailed. A friend of mine used to write for a couple mags and he told me a few things. Most guns are sent for a limited period of time and then returned. You get to shoot the free ammo that was arranged for by the gun manufacture. A gun that in many cases has been selected to go to the press.

Yes you have to return the gun but in some cases you can buy the gun that they sent you. Of course now it’s a used gun so the price is much lower (WINK WINK)

It’s easy to see why most reviews are so positive.

 

[Coaltminer]

Not so much anymore. Their reviews don't seem to match up with real world performance. I don't even trust American Rifleman articles. Their "Dope Bag" used to feature guns, now it's about scopes, range finders and binoculars. Plus a lot of AR add ons and rail mounted accessories for pistols. They usually cover 3 items, 1 gun and 2 othe junk that I could care less about. Maybe that's what the young crowd wants, me, no thanks.

 

[JeffShrugged]

I wait to see youtube reviews. Magazine reviews can be useful for getting an idea of a gun's features, but it isn't until a gun hits youtube that the unvarnished truth comes out. I knew it was safe to buy a Shield because I couldn't find any negative reviews of it in print or on youtube. That is high praise.

 

[Ranger17]

i view any magazine's reviews strictly for stats and comparisons, whether it's cars, guns, appliances, etc.... having some #s to look at between competing models can be helpful, but i still wanna "drive" the item i plan on purchasing.
As for printed opinions, unless it's someone i know, i consider what's been said but only use that as part of the data i put together to make a (hopefully) informed buying decision.

 

[Bkreutz]

I trust gun magazine reports as much as I do television advertizing. (and a bit more than internet rumors)

 

[raljr1]

year back I bought a gun review magazine that had no advertising in it. They called it something like the Plain Truth Gun Reviews...I thing I still have it. They praised some, gave so so reviews to others, and called many of the guns plain junk. I remember a picture of a guy sitting on the ground, 5 feet from a water jug, saying that the little 22 revolvers, those belt buckle jobs, would not put 2 shots in a water jug from 5 feet.....I guess it's too hard to make money from advertisers by telling the public that the advertisers product is ****.

 

[Culina]

I never made a purchase decision based on gun magazine reviews. Notice how even well known low end or junk guns have positive reviews.

 

[Golddog]

Gun Tests magazine is the best gun review source. It compares each gun to others in its class and often gives highly negative reviews of poorly made guns, including those from major manufacturers. It also gives letter grades to each gun: A+ through F.

Gun Tests accepts no advertising, so it's relatively expensive, but in the long run it has kept me from wasting a lot of money.

 

[rsrocket1]

One phrase:

"Motor Trend's 'Car of the Year!'"

 

[growr]

You can't put anything in the gun magazines that isn't true.....I read that in one of the issues of Gun something or other!!!

Randy

 

[GKC]

Well, I think of it sorta like this...

In the commercials, you see a burger that is thick, juicy, with fresh lettuce and tomatoes, and a plump bun. When you go to McDonald's, what you get there has no resemblance to the advertised product. So it is for me with gun magazine reviews...they bear no resemblance to real world experience. The reason for that is simple, and has already been stated: magazines depend on ad revenue as much or more than subscription/purchase revenues, and if they bad-mouth a gun (even if true) they won't sell any more ads for that company and won't get any more guns to review.

Real-world owners are the best of the available sources, and even then, it's something that you have to filter. On every forum, especially those who are devoted to a particular manufacturer, you have those who can say nothing wrong about that brand, as well as those who can say nothing right about it. The key is to winnow out the chaff and glean out the kernel of truth.

Finally, there is nothing like experience...everyone else may have nothing but great luck with a gun, but if MY gun is a lemon and the company won't take care of it for me, it's not a good gun IN MY OPINION.

 

[N4KVE]

I never trust what the mags say, as they have to accept advertising revenue from these same companies, so why would they claim a gun was a *** like the R51 turned out to be. Gun Tests buys the guns from gun stores w/o stating these guns will be tested. This is how consumer reports buys products by not stating who they are. Also you can bet the guns supplied to magazines are "ringers", heavily modified by the company's smiths to make sure they are perfect. We can't buy these "ringers". Years ago in the "muscle car" era, the big 3 supplied similar "ringers" to the car mags for testing. Those cars were actually raced on Woodward Ave in Detroit by the factory engineers. But those weren't the cars being sold by the dealers. But they were definitely faster than what we could buy. So I don't trust what the mags say. GARY

 

[Rick_A]

The only reviews I truly trust are my own.

While knowing what's out there is nice, I'm not into any of these newfangled guns anyway.

Aside from the latest and (supposedly) greatest, most publications have been regurgitating the same stuff for decades.

 

[Yorkie Man]

About 20 years ago Massad Ayoob wrote a glowing report about a stainless 357 snub nose revolver, Security Arms?, and a few years later my friend gave me one. It was a piece a **** worse than a Rohm. the grips fell apart in my hands. Ever since then I have never thought much of gun magazine reviews.