Do you trust gun reviews in magazines?

Question

Maybe I'm just being suspicious and skeptical, but you get the latest issue of "Gun and Gear" (yes, I made that up.) and read the reviews of the latest and greatest hunting rifle from xscout's arms. Of course you read a glaring, positive review about this must have gun that will pretty much make every other gun obsolete, and it can be yours complete with sling, scope, and cleaning kit for the bargain price of $1499.99.

So, when you turn the page and see a two page glossy ad paid for by xscout's arms company, do you trust the magazine to give you an honest, unbiased appraisal of that company's products? In other words, what do you think the magazine's publisher is more interested in, providing you the most accurate information, or securing a significant chunk of the advertising expenditure of a major corporation?

Answer 1

I used to subscribe to several gun magazines. I cancelled all of them. Why should I pay for a magazine when I can research what people experienced, that do not have interests in the manufacture?

Take Cabela’s for example, you can read the reviews and see if the product really performed as claimed. I have read over 180 reviews on a product before I developed an opinion of it.



These days marketing is full of false advertising. I don’t trust any of those gun experts anymore. I used to go by what the boys at Gunblast.com said. That is until I read some reviews they had that I had to laugh at. Oh they are nice folks but I’m seeing them praising some guns that I have tested and found preformed dismally. And a few times they mentioned the gun sent to them had to be replaced before they could test it and then gave a glowing review on the replacement that worked great. Failure!



It’s all about $$$. When you read hundreds of reviews by customers who were madder than hell about the performance of a gun; that’s the real dope.



So my answer is no I do not trust them.

Answer 2

The answer is "yes and no". You're absolutely right, it doesn't hurt the maker of a gun being reviewed to take out a large add...or perhaps in the absence of taking out the add, the gun just doesn't get reviewed. But if you have some knowledge and familiarity with guns you can do your own evaluation. Most guns will be more accurate than the shooter. So what you are looking for is size, barrel length, relative accuracy and looks. If you like the looks of the gun, if the statistics on velocity and accuracy measure up to whatever it is you are looking for, then you can decide whether you might be further interested in the gun. For example, when the .264 Win. Mag came out I fell in love with the performance figures. I was also a handloader so knew I could modify the factory loads. I bought one, did a lot of loading, shot many jackrabbits, a couple antelope and two deer.Then the 7MM Rem Mag came out and I sold the .264 and bought the 7mm. today nobody seems to remember the 264 but the 7mm is still going strong. And the 7mm had more versatility. But to read the reports on the .264 almost anybody would have run out and bought two. See how discreet I was?

Answer 3

I'm in the same boat as Cane Toad. I only read three shooting magazines Gun Test, American Handgunner and Front Sight (the USPSA magazine). All of them review firearms, and I trust Gun Tests first, then Front Sight (mostly because the top guys are reviewing the gear they shoot and win with) and then American Handgunner.



In particular, Gun Tests runs several tests I can replicate at the range. So in particular when they are trying out something I can rent, I can see if I get the same results. I've done that enough times to be pretty comfortable with what they do. I hear where Cane Toad is coming from, that they can be unforgiving - but to be honest, as a consumer of individual firearms I would be too if I had a lemon.



In fact, I was at the range today with my Dad and ran into a couple, who were both shooting Springfield XD subcompacts in 9mm. Now, I know other people that have had no problems with them, but in their cases both of them had their frames break. (One of them had evidently broken a couple of weeks ago and been replaced by Springfield, the second one just broke today.) Probably a freak incident, but they are done with Springfields all together.



Personally, I have a Springfield 1911 had have no complaints about it and I run it in Single Stack USPSA. I've never had a problem with an XD and know lots of people who are happy with them. So, my point isn't to malign the gun - any gun can have something happen. My point is that I actually like that the magazine really reflects the shooter as an individual buyer who expects the gun they buy to work.



Other gun magazines? Well, mostly it is just for the pictures.



Thinkingblade

Answer 4

I'll be honest old Scout, i don't put much confidence in most gun reviews. There are a few writers, like John Taffin that won't try to make every gun they review sound like the best thing to come along since self-contained metallic cartridges. But even Taffin won't come right out and tell us "That dog won't hunt, and if it did you might be able to hit the broad side of a barn from the inside, but I'd not give odds." At best he will damn the gun with very faint praise.



i can understand why gunwriters write such reviews. even if I don't approve. Their editors won't let them tell the gospel truth about junk guns because they don't want to jeopardize advertising revenue.



The only gun magazine who's reviews I sort of trust is Gun Report. They will not accept advertising from gunmakers. So they don't have to curry favors with their advertisers. They can call a Piece of Crap rifle a piece of crap. Trouble is, those old boys do tend to say things just to stir a stink, so again reliability of the review comes into question.



Doc Hudson

Answer 5

I trust gun magazines to write articles about guns that are intended to keep the gun magazines in publication.



There are several phrases that writers use to, for lack of a better word, sell the gun or ammunition or other product being written about.



Personally, I'm tired of articles about the latest & greatest wildcat cartridges or nostalgic cartridges of the past. And, I'm tired of writers who create handloads for whatever gun their testing.

Using handloads voids most manufacturer warranties and I'd like to know if the gun can't shoot well with factory ammunition (or if anyone still produces factory ammunition for the chambering in question).



People will select a gun based upon their personal criteria.

There are guns and cartridges that are popular because they work well for many people.

And there are other guns that, for whatever reason, have become less popular.



As for seeing a positive article about a gun and then finding an advertisement for that gun on another page of the same magazine? Well, I think people are able to put 1 and 1 together and understand what's going on.

Answer 6

I trust them to a point. That includes Gun Test. Just because they don't accept advertising money does not mean a thing. Consumer Report (from Ralph Nader) does not accept ads, but I have found plenty of their "best rated" or glowing reviewed products to fall very much short.



I use the magazines to stay current on guns from various manufacturers.. I also read between the lines for what was written and what was omitted. If I am interested, I would go to a gun store to hold and see one for myself. If it pass my inspection, I would dig further for reviews from other sources such as web forums.



What I don't do is make my decision to purchase a gun based solely on an article in a magazine.

Answer 7

Magazines that shill products that are junk don't last long. Not to mention the reputation of the writers, most of whom guard that carefully. If a product is real junk, a lot of the time the review won't be published. Rather, the product will be returned to the manufacturer with suggestions for improvement.

Answer 8

The only reviews I trust are from "Gun Test Magazine" they do not advertise guns so there is no payed endorsement. They only get paid by the subscriptions they sell. They test and compare guns of similar make and model, function, fit, appearance, and price. then leave it to the Consumer to decide what is best for them.

Answer 9

I don't trust gun comics at all. I don't much trust gun writers either, especially the ones who get to keep their test guns. About the only publication that I trust is Gun-Test magazine. They do not accept advertisements at all. They give plenty of negative reviews too, not everything they test gets glowing remarks and 12 thumbs up. I find them fair, but they can be a bit unforgiving of certain brands they may have had a bad sample of.

Answer 10

I subscribe to Shotgun News. I buy it for the ads. The articles are also better & more in depth than most other gun magazines, though objectivity is sometimes lacking.



The rest are mostly sales brochures that try to claim they aren't. At least everyone knows & admits the Shotgun News is all about advertising.

Answer 11

I trust gun reviews that disclose their test ammo. Usually it's match grade that gets great performance. Usually the reviews have nothing but good things to say about a gun but they'll hint on things like this gun functions great with high velocity ammo. If I want a gun that shoots cheap ammo then the review was really helpful.

Answer 12

I place some credence in negative information, in those rare instances in which it appears. The positives generally need to be looked at for what they really mean.

Except for the young and the inexperienced, we generally know that when they wax eloquent about a synthetic stock, we have to check to see if it's the usual (and horrible) injection-molded mess, or if it's a hand-lapped and worth considering. I could go on with the list, but you know what I'm talking about.

Answer 13

All of the mags that everyone above said plus SHOOTING TIMES. I like this magazine because it has alot of old timers that go out and actually fire the guns they write about.There are some really good stories in it also.

Answer 14

The only gun magazine I put any faith in is the one I insert into a rifle.



As with any magazine that writes reviews you have to wonder what kick back the author is receiving.

Answer 15

Makes me wonder about many glowing positive articles I read; like when you read about how good white bread is for you and the next page is a full colored ad for a loaf of bread. And, how good whamo hemroid cream is followed by a two page ad for whamo? Are we getting cynical or what?

Answer 16

someone used the comment, gun comics. that describes the usual gun magazines available today. (with the exception of Gun Tests,) they are pimps and prostitutes for the firearms industry. learned this a few years ago when mas ahoob did a fine article on beretta model 87 .22 target pistols. raved about how fantastic it shot, how great his whole group improved their bulls-eye scores.on and on and on. commented that it had excessive trigger take up and over travel, but he sent the gun to "Actions by T" and got a fantastic trigger job. we all know mas wouldn't lie to us, so i bought one for my bulls-eye shooting. trigger was crap, looked on the net, found "T" called him and asked him about the article. he said he did that gun five years earlier, and he had not given permission to use his name. and that the beretta 87 was a piece of junk. my golden idol has clay feet.

Answer 17

NO.....make that HE!! NO.......gun-test is about only one that is half-honest....and i'm not 100% sure about them either honestly......





this is true with almost anything these days tho.....if u bad-mouth a sponsor u lose the sponsor pretty quick.....



** honestly i would trust the "gun reviews" on u-tube before i'd trust most of these magazines........



not saying they are printing inaccurate info....they just ALWAYS leave out the negatives they find...

Answer 18

i would say 50/50 since they are paid for by *blah blah* however the other consumers that rate and review, i do trust since they would be pretty upset if they get a piece of useless junk, and happy for a quality item

Answer 19

1

Answer 20

* NO " because its all about Marketing a Product to Stimulate, or Create Interest and resulting Sales.* Truth be told the only real difference in them all is the Cost of buying one.* $$$$*

Answer 21

No they are paid to promote the company not to run them down

Answer 22

thats the beauty of the english language. you can be incredibly flattering without making an actual demonstrative statement.

its the same with politicians, they work for who pays them, and it sure as hell isnt you.

Answer 23

Only Guntests becasue they take no advertising and they get their guns "off the rack".

Answer 24

I guess, but you don't see reviews on really low quality guns like a Rossi single shot.

Answer 25

I will, as soon as I read one that says "this gun is a piece of junk".

Answer 26

No, I do NOT trust that they are telling the whole truth.