[malleable]

Does anyone here subscribe to a "gun tests" magazine, and would you recommend it?

 

[Dave.1]

I usually go to gunblast. http://gunblast.com/

I think there's quite a bit of info there.

Dave

 

[vafish]

Someone at our club subscribes. I've picked up a few and read them when sitting in the john. I wouldn't pay for it.

 

[dober-man]

I have subsribed to it for about twenty years.I like it more than any of the other mags, there are no ads just information.Since there are no ads they tell you what they truly think.I bought a few guns based on there recommendations, one was the Valtro 1911.Just that gun alone was worth the cost of the subscription price.

 

[Smashy]

I used to. Those guys are idiots. Search online for reviews of guns.

 

[40 0'Glock]

Gunblast and Hickok45.

 

[Golddog]

I've subscribed to Gun Tests for 15 or more years. Excellent comparative reviews, not just stroking potential advertisers.

It's the best of the gun magazines.

 

[malleable]

I used to. Those guys are idiots. Search online for reviews of guns.

I appreciate your candor but when you say "idiots", is that because they test improperly or lack knowledge, etc.
Please clarify.

 

[LoadToadBoss]

Got a subscription advertisement in the mail today. Just tossed it unopened in the trash.

 

[AA#5]

I appreciate your candor but when you say "idiots", is that because they test improperly or lack knowledge, etc.
Please clarify.

I also think their testers are idiots. They lack knowledge while trying to show that they are knowledgeable. They say things that aren't true, such as: "+P ammo can damage a Glock & should not be used in Glocks because they have an unsupported chamber."

Their testing methods are also rather silly; they'll test a gun & give it a high grade, then test it again a few months later & give it a low grade because (according to them) the other guns they tested it with during the second test were better.

 

[NIB]

Back in the 1996, they sent me a couple of complimentary issues totally unsolicited. After the 3rd issue they sent me a bill. I promptly tested it's aerodynamic capabilities into the trashcan. They then sent me two more bills and told me they would be sending my name into collections if I didn't pay up.

:animlol:

 

[sourdough44]

Just buy the gun & test it yourself. Any 'gun guy' should know the good from the bad by now anyway.

 

[glock2740]

I took it one time and cancelled after my second or third issue. Pure crap IMO.

 

[Smashy]

I appreciate your candor but when you say "idiots", is that because they test improperly or lack knowledge, etc.
Please clarify.

Someone else already gave you some examples, but I'll give you another one. They once tested a handgun (I don't remember which one, it was years ago when I subscribed). They took it apart to examine it (along with others they were testing), put it back together and then did the test firing. The gun wouldn't function at all. No matter what they tried, they couldn't get it to work. They gave it the worst rating and recommended not to buy it.

A few months later, they printed a letter from the CEO of the manufacturer. He explained that when they reassembled it, they put one part in backwards as the owner's manual explained not to do. They corrected that and tried it again and lo and behold, the gun functioned flawlessly.

The retraction they printed was nothing more than a small "Correction" in the letters section. How many people made their gun buying decisions based on that article before the retraction was printed? How many people never saw the retraction and still advise friends not to buy that gun because of the bad review it got in that awesome magazine Gun Tests that everyone worships as the ultimate source of gun reviews?

I let my subscription expire when I realized I was paying for advice from 'experts' who can't even reassemble a gun correctly and then tell thousands of readers not to buy it because it won't work.

There are other examples of their incompetence, this is just one that stands out in my mind.

 

[malleable]

Someone else already gave you some examples, but I'll give you another one. They once tested a handgun (I don't remember which one, it was years ago when I subscribed). They took it apart to examine it (along with others they were testing), put it back together and then did the test firing. The gun wouldn't function at all. No matter what they tried, they couldn't get it to work. They gave it the worst rating and recommended not to buy it.

A few months later, they printed a letter from the CEO of the manufacturer. He explained that when they reassembled it, they put one part in backwards as the owner's manual explained not to do. They corrected that and tried it again and lo and behold, the gun functioned flawlessly.

The retraction they printed was nothing more than a small "Correction" in the letters section. How many people made their gun buying decisions based on that article before the retraction was printed? How many people never saw the retraction and still advise friends not to buy that gun because of the bad review it got in that awesome magazine Gun Tests that everyone worships as the ultimate source of gun reviews?

I let my subscription expire when I realized I was paying for advice from 'experts' who can't even reassemble a gun correctly and then tell thousands of readers not to buy it because it won't work.

There are other examples of their incompetence, this is just one that stands out in my mind.

Thanks, I'll put them in the rear view mirror!

 

[bustedknee]

I read several of their "reports" in which they were extremely biased.

Apparently they prefer certain guns and, for reasons unknown to me, gave them higher ratings even though the other gun was clearly superior.

I have no use for them.

 

[Cambo]

Gun Tests can be useful when it comes to specifics that other magazines won't cover, such as trigger travel distance and trigger pull weight. However, the inconsistent ratings, high ratings of malfunctioning firearms because they "look cool" and personal biases like Glocks are unsafe because they don't have a manual safety(I am talking to you Robert Campbell). They cover disassembly of firearms sometimes, but when a firearm is known for tough disassembly, they sometimes ignore the topic all together.

 

[AZ Jeff]

I remember reading a review they did on a Makarov. The pistol they actually tested was used/surplus, and purchased as such. This particular pistol had a defective safety lever that would not stay in one position or the other (apparently the detent spring was missing or defective).

In any case, due to this safety lever issue, the pistol would not function reliably. The "Gun Tests" crew rated the Makarov as "unacceptable/do not buy".

The fact they rated a particular model of firearm based on a USED sample with a defective part said VOLUMES about their skills in evaluating a mechanical device.

 

[carbuncle]

I'm a current subscriber, but I'm letting it go unrenewed this year. The mag just isn't what it was when it started out.

 

[Batesmotel]

I finally dropped my subscription when I couldn't log on to the on line data base. The tech I talked with was incredibly rude and told us "We needed to learn a bit more about computers". Turned out to be a problem on their end with the subscription dept. They had me blocked.

What bugged me about the mag itself was when they did apples to oranges comparisons between two guns.