DO YOU TRUST GUN MAGAZINE REVIEWS ?

[boatboy]

I think if paid enough Dick M would say my "elbow" in his hand felt great
Have never seen him with a factory rep the the gun didn't feel great in his hand

Its all marketing and I pay more for most things inc guns and ammo because someone has to pay for all the freebees
Hank

I think gun tests is very good but they don't always tell me what I want to hear

 

[Haldir]

I just read a review of 6 or 7 models of a particular caliber yesterday. All of them got good reports. So when you read that article, you know you are basically dealing with an advertising release. I remember another article where the guy reported on particular gun had a bad extractor and maybe even the sights fell off. He breathlessly reported what an outstanding model that gun was and even in spite of those problems, it was a good buy.

 

[OldCat]

Not at all. Somehow they praise everything they test and the more advertising dollars spent the higher the praise.

Gun magazines are only good for feature stories and introducing the latest and greatest got to have products.

 

[skip4309]

Go to YouTube and search the R51....only one or two had anything good to say about it...most are negative reviews...don't tell me that (MAC) at the Military Arms Channel was paid to say anything good about this pistol...he received (3) different T&E guns that failed big time...and said so in his videos...gun mag reviews are a different story...unfortunately...the writers are paid to (promote) whatever they are testing...that's why we have YouTube...keeps them honest...to a point...

 

[Pathfinder3]

I watch, listen, and trust Hickok45 reviews.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[shawn mccarver]

Just a thought...how would you (we) feel if S&W, GLOCK, Sig, H&K, Springfield to name a few, produced a firearm and did a 100% recall/replacement (thats basically what they are doing). My confidence in ANY of their products would be ZERO...and thats where I'm at now....just saying...

Well that is, I suppose, one way to look at it. Another way would be that the manufacturer earns your trust by taking the difficult and expensive test of admitting a big problem, re-engineering, and replacing at NO COST all existing pistols.

Caracal did the same thing last year, but instead of replacing, they issued full refunds to all purchasers.

S&W admitted a problem with the S&W manufactured Walther PPK and PPK/S and recalled all of them for repair.

Glock did something similar when they had a batch of rails molded in out-of-spec causing a small number of rails to shear off. All of those affected got a brand new frame.

Springfield did the same with their XDS and repaired all that had been sold.

Ruger did the same with their SR9 and LCP, repairing all that were sold, while introducing a re-engineering change in the process for the new ones.

S&W did the same with its then-new L frame, and replaced the firing pin and bushing on every single one, then stamping an "M" in the yoke, and changed the design going forward.

Personally, I like a company that is willing to stand up, admit a problem, treat the customer right and fix it.

Just so you know, I do not own one of the Remington pistols in question, and I am unlikely to buy one (a decision made prior to knowing there was a problem), so I have no interest in defending Remington apart from pointing out that they have been up front about this issue.

 

[Stephanie B]

Mostly, no. Sometimes, a bit of honesty leaks through. There was a mention towards the end of an otherwise-glowing write-up of something Kimber in the American Rifleman that they had to go through five different samples to find one that functioned properly. Given how much Kimber advertises with them, that was the equivalent of a F from Gun Tests.

If you want to see what happens when an industry rag tells the truth about a product, look into what happened Flying did an honest writeup of the Eclipse 500.

 

[robkarrob]

I have been watching Hickok45's YouTube video tests and reviews, for the last three years. But I have found he also glosses over small issues with guns, guns I own and have owned. He will not come out and say anything bad about a gun, but with his videos, he does show when he has a particular problem with a gun, like FTF or FTL, etc. You also know when he really likes a gun, as he indicates that he may just keep this gun.

He reviews are great for side by side comparisons to similar guns, regarding sizes, weights, and ergonomics. I also enjoy his full auto pumpkin hunts and similar shooting videos, like the lawnmower kill.

Bob

 

[PurpleMountainOutdoors]

You should check out purple mountain outdoors sometime. I hear that guy does some nice, concise, to the point reviews


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Redcoat3340]

Gun Tests has the only reviews I have any faith in. I do get an occasional gun mag to look at the pretty pictures and to sometimes read about old guns or accessories.

About that hamburger in the tv commercial. I worked for a bunch of years in the ad biz and handled a couple of fast food clients. The rule is that any picture or burger you see in a tv spot must have only the ingredients you'd find in the store. Can't use special lettuce, more tomatoes, etc. However, we did hire "food stylists" who's job it was, was to arrange the stock burger so it looked great. They may push all the tomatoes to the front, cook the pattie by hand, plump up the roll, etc. but they couldn't use anything was wouldn't be found on a stock in-store product. Sort of like taking a cute model and using clever lighting to make her cuter. (That said, I don't eat in fast food restaurants, except for the roast beef sandwiches at Arby's....they weren't a client.)

 

[MrTrolleyguy]

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

Mr.Fastbolt, Please tell us one single gun magazine that be trusted to not be gun maker biased.

Name one. ____________________

 

[boatboy]

I seldom buy the new/right out of the manufact products
Than watch the talk on the forums and talk to trusted local gun dealers
a very good example is Steve the manager of Williams gun sight
Guys like him will know soon and will shoot you straight
Usually within 6 months there will be some upgrades etc

Hank

 

[Bozz10mm]

I have never seen a bad review in the gun magazines. I trust what I see and read on the gun forums much more than what I read in magazines. You can get a pretty good picture of the overall value and quality of a firearm by reading the experiences of hundreds of actual users who have put the guns through their paces.

 

[hkcavalier]

I have never seen a bad review in the gun magazines. I trust what I see and read on the gun forums much more than what I read in magazines. You can get a pretty good picture of the overall value and quality of a firearm by reading the experiences of hundreds of actual users who have put the guns through their paces.

I think you have to balance it out. Not too many people jump online to post about their boringly reliable gun.

 

[Muss Muggins]

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

I don't trust gun magazine reviews.

 

[gunny4053]

Do I read magazine gun reviews, sure. Do I trust their opinion, no I take it with a grain of salt. Reviews are what they get paid to do, and unfortunately, being a little to honest tends to get you fewer reviews and as such fewer pay checks.

That said, when I buy, I generally don't buy the newest, latest, greatest product to hit the street as soon as it's released. If it's been in the hands of the public for a year or two, the problems have shown themselves and either been corrected or ignored. Go to the forums and you'll see the problems continue, or the complaints taper off because the manufacture has addressed them. If I see a happy group of customers, then I'll decide if it's really something I want or would use. If I can answer that with a yes, I'll seek one out and fondle it a bit. If I like the way it feels, the trigger, the way the sights line up, the way everything fits together, I may get one. At that point, the only review that matters is mine. I must admit, this process has cost me a few dollars over the years, but these days my purchases don't stray very far from those guns I became the most comfortable with.

My Shield was the biggest foray into something new in a long time. So far, I haven't been disappointed. Beyond that, the guns that fill the gun cabinet are my S&W 28-2, my M&P 15 Sport, and my latest Glock (30 SF, to which I'm also adding a 10mm conversion). None of these were purchased based on magazine reviews, but on those factors that filled my comfort zone with confidence.

So, short answer, no.

Just my 2 cents and greatly over thought opinions.

 

[Fastbolt]

Mr.Fastbolt, Please tell us one single gun magazine that be trusted to not be gun maker biased.

Name one. ____________________

I didn't see this response until today. Weird.

I think you're missing my point.

I don't see this as a black or white subject.

Obviously, I have no way of knowing everything there may be to know regarding the intentions and practices of the magazine owner(s), whether corporate or otherwise, the editor(s) in charge of deciding upon the articles selected or the actual author(s) of any particular article.

Nor do I have any way to know how the author may have decided to handle, inspect, manipulate and shoot whatever guns are being discussed, or any particular experiences (past or current) or biases that may be present.

I have no way of knowing anything about the particular gun being discussed. I know, I know, someone always points how some author or magazine company might make it their practice to go out and buy some random gun, and other folks like to speculate that test guns sent to authors receive special handling. Well, I've heard from folks I know and trust within some gun companies how guns have often either been quickly pulled from some early production run, or from some sales rep's promo gun shipments, and even how a sales rep kept some randomly received demo guns set aside to loan out to magazine writers (I bought one of those one time, myself).

I'm simply saying that perhaps it might be prudent not to make some sweeping, overly broad statement leaning too far in one or the other direction. Wanna be pessimistic? Fine. Wanna be suspicious of everything? Fine.

Am I influenced by gun writer experiences? Not really. Not aside from some observations regarding visual production issues (fit, burrs, production changes, etc). Maybe if the author has some inside and/or previous experience against which to compare something in an objective manner. Maybe.

Functioning and operation? Not so much. Too much opportunity for shooter, ammo and the conditions in which the guns is being tested and evaluated to introduce influences of which I'm unaware.

I consider magazine reviews to be anything from paid advertising brochures, to opportunities to voice some personal opinions (and perhaps biases), to an outlet for an enthusiast to promote some gun, ammo, gear or other ... or even just an announcement that some product is soon to be forthcoming or was just released. More of a press release, combined maybe with a short test-drive.

Now, if Consumer Reports ever decides to get into the gun review business? Then I'd probably be interested to occasionally read about some long term owner reviews and experiences ... maybe ... all the while keeping it in the back of my mind that the reasoning behind some ratings may not be something I'd find relevant, or that the people being polled may not all have some rational perspective upon which to base them, or some of them may simply be looking for a way to vent some cherished grievance (real or perceived).

 

[Bkreutz]

I trust gun magazines as much as I trust car salesmen.

 

[dullh]

DO YOU TRUST GUN MAGAZINE REVIEWS ?

No.

The only gun magazines I buy are the ones you fill with bullets and slap into the handle...

 

[Smith357]

You can't trust one review, and I don't read new gun rags. I use a consensus of the more honest and critical reviews from long term owners.