? About Gun Tests Magazine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aside from the fact that the complaint was extremely longwinded, half his complaints were opinions or "....with more experience it becomes easy" type stuff that is very subjective. I guess they were supposed to send them the article to fact check it. It seemed that he had about 1 real complaint and 2 or 3 fact corrections. Okay. If he cuts down the verbage, Gun Tests will likely print it. They have printed manufacturer letters before. They should just give a positive review of every gun they get to avoid this.

--------
Personally, I didn't even read that article. Yes, if they did get a free pistol for evaluation, they should have said so. Makes me curious how often they do that and does depart from what they claim.
 
The Rohrbaugh people called them on what they've devolved into: Unscientific testing of guns, then rendering opinions based on personal likes/dislikes.

On one memorable occasion they rated one model of Glock as a "buy" when the pistol had a defective trigger that made it prone to accidental discharge! They justified their positive review by saying the offending burr could easily be trimmed off with a sharp knife or small file. Don't know many pistols I couldn't make better with a little judicious filing, parts replacement, etc. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
 
I don't know whose website that link went to, but I do know that my friend had a Kahr P-something 9mm and the magazine kept falling out. Literally 1-2 times per full magazine....that continued for a whole 100 rounds before packing it up and taking it back to the shop.
 
I had a subscription with Gun Tests for two years. I will not renew. They lost my money when they tried to pass water jug ballistic tests instead of gelatin. Water jug testing is ok for an inexpensive way to compare expansion and penetration. Gelatin with at least 2 layers of denim are the standard and most widely accepted method of testing bullet peformance. I also do not always agree with their findings about some guns.
 
All I can say is OWN3D!

I hate hypocrisy most, I wouldn't trust Gun Tests with much after this heh.

Part of Letter from Rohbaugh to Gun Tests
Fact 1: I have been a subscriber for approximately one year, and I do read your magazine from cover to cover. Of interest, is your statement in which you categorically claim that you purchase all firearms so “as not to be beholden to anyone”. I am assuming that this is your magazine’s claim to fame and subsequently has been repeated in the industry. Yet, the R9S you reviewed was sent to you from the factory as a testing and evaluation piece. I should know, since I am the one who sent it to you. Subsequently, you returned the piece after your evaluation. Nowhere, at any time did you purchase the firearm. I would think, since your reputation is such that you purchase firearms, you would have had a disclaimer in the article that you did not purchase the piece and clarify your position.

Since you did not purchase this piece, you were sent one magazine. All Rohrbaugh pistols are sent with two magazines, one lock, an instruction manual and a lockable carrying case. You seemed distraught by the fact that only one magazine was provided and that thought was evident by the amount of verbiage that was used throughout the article.

I feel that at this point in the letter, I should point out a very salient fact (while we are at the beginning) - the pistol that was tested, by GUN TESTS, was the exact same one, Serial #R170 (see photos in the American Handgunner and the photo in GT,) that was tested approximately a month prior, by AH, and then sent to you. Ironically they seemed to have a different opinion of the function, accuracy and reliability. I might also point out that Serial #R170 was also tested by Massad Ayoob approximately one week ago at a workshop in Long Island, after you returned it to our factory. His opinion regarding the accuracy and reliability did not seem to match yours.
 
Well, Mr. Rohrbaugh obviously sent the gun to GT because he wanted a favorable opinion, now he is unhappy because he didn't get it. So he is beating on them because HE sent THEM the gun and they made an exception to their rule of purchasing guns. They probably should never have tested his gun at all, given their policy, but I suspect there are not enough on the market for anyone to buy.

I can't talk about how the gun performed, but it sounds to me like Mr. Rohrbaugh is a typical hobby gun maker, who has managed to have his "baby" made up and it is, of course, perfection.

Does GT do "scientific testing." Nope, nor do any of the other gunzines. At best, they report informed opinion, backed up by whatever testing looks good in a photo spread. Nor does Mr. Rohrbaugh expect real testing, as evidenced by the fact that he sends the same gun out to all the magazines. If I were asked to wring out his gun, I guarantee there would not be enough left of it to send anywhere.

Mr. Rohrbaugh seems to have some good points, but he sounds more like a sorehead loser than the responsible head of a company.

Jim

P.S. One of my pet peeves is a gun company that says their guns won't work with anything except one or two kinds of ammunition, which have limited availability. Why should anyone buy a gun that will fail if the user has to borrow ammo or buy some less high class brand in an emergency. He says that "you don't feed a Ferrari 87 octane fuel." But a Ferrari will run on 87 octane - not well, but it will run. His pistol apparently will not function at all with anything less than the best.

JK
 
Well, Mr. Rohrbaugh obviously sent the gun to GT because he wanted a favorable opinion, now he is unhappy because he didn't get it. So he is beating on them because HE sent THEM the gun and they made an exception to their rule of purchasing guns

Mr. Rohrbaugh seems to have some good points, but he sounds more like a sorehead loser than the responsible head of a company.
I concur.
 
I think the point has nothing to do with how they rated the Rohrbaugh pistol. The point is that they always say they buy a random sample to test. If what Mr Rohrbaugh states is true then Gun Test has been caught lying. If they lie about how they procure their guns for testing what else do they lie about? If they couldn't find a Rohrbaugh to purchase then they shouldn't have done the test. Gun Test Magazine is a joke.
 
Somebody already pointed it out above, but what gun magazine does "scientific" testing?

At least with Gun Tests, you aren't hamstrung by the magazine relying on advertising dollars.

I used to write for a newspaper.

Here's a fact, boys and girls.

Newspapers and most magazines DO NOT make any money off selling the newspaper or the magazine.

Newspapers and most magazines make money by selling ADVERTISEMENTS.

If a gun magazine gives a bad review to a product from a big-name manufacturer, guess what?

Big time manufacturer, and buyer of mucho advertising won't buy any more ads.

That's why you'll never, ever, ever see a negative review of a major product in any other gun magazine.

That's why you'll never, ever, ever see a negative review of a Chevy product in a car magazine.

Gun Tests does have its problems.

But I'd wager it is, by far, the most honest gun magazine out there, since they don't make money from selling ads in their magazine.

That's the reality of the newspaper and magazine world. The money is in in the ads.

You know how a newspaper is laid out? First, all the ads are put down.

Then all that left-over, useless white space is filled up with that useless stuff known as "news" or "sports" or "editorial."

hillbilly
 
But I'd wager it is, by far, the most honest gun magazine out there, since they don't make money from selling ads in their magazine.
Honest, yes, in terms of not being beholdin' to advertisers.

Scientific, no. Didn't renew my subscription because I didn't find any consistency in their evaluations. Too much subjective opinion.
 
Looks like this all happened a couple of years ago (all the post on the rohrbaugh forum are marked '04). So did gun tests make corrections to their article (regarding the 1 or 2 mag issue and the "I hope it's not aluminium" pin issue)? I think that would speak volumes about their journalistic integrity.

Anyone with a subscription please update us.
 
Well, Mr. Rohrbaugh obviously sent the gun to GT because...

How do you know GT didn't call Rohrbaugh and ask for a gun to test on? It doesn't matter whether Rohbaugh is pissed off for getting a bad review, I would think a subscriber cares more that he was lied to.

They say they only buy guns anonymously, which is obviously a deliberate lie. And you expect the public to believe their writing when this is the only distinction between other mags with adverts and this mag?

I rather read a mag that is upfront about getting paid for adverts and receiving testing pieces, instead of one that lies about it. For all I know they may be receiving money under the table for reviews.

Anyway if one does a search on the forums about GT, you will see some posts mentioning how GT writes mistakes about the guns they are reviewing and it's obvious ignorance.
 
GT, G&A, and other rags

Interesting. Reminds me of an article in G&A called "The people's pump", in which some cheap copy of the Rem 870 was evaluated. They called it good, even with problems, but never once mentioned that it was a knock-off of the more popular 870. It was so brown nosed, it made me sick. I have lost all respect for most gun mags, being that they are mostly extensions of manufacture's marketing departments. One of the worst is American H, which wastes numerous pages on various ultra top-dollar, hard to obtain pistols laid out like young ladies in a men's magazine. It's all filler, no matter what gun, or knife, is in the centerfold. And while I'm at it, stop this nonsense overuse of the word "tactical"; it is one of the most worn out terms going.
 
I don't remember GT ever claiming to use "scientific testing. They do claim to use guns bought in the normal fashion and that is their mistake. I'll have to look up the article later. All my magazines are boxed up in preparation to move in a couple weeks.

I assume some of you don't read or like any gun related magazines considering your comments.
 
I subscribed to the magazine once over 10 years ago. At the time I was looking to get one of those (at that time) new fangled 40 S&W autos.
One of the issues gave a somewhat derogatory review of the then new
SIG P229. The magazine lost its luster with me when I was able to shoot
a P229 and found it to be the best of the current crop of forties. At the very least it was far better than the magazine's report.

I would up eventually buying not one but two P229s and think back to the
supposedly unbiased reviews it got from that magazines. I soon after found a trend that I can only catagorize as rather biased reporting based upon the reviews of other guns as well. This I except from magazines accepting advertisement revenues but I (at the time) thought Gun Tests was better than that.
I was sure wrong!
 
I didn't notice how old the post is, but my point still holds. He sent them the gun expecting that in return for his generous "gift" they would respond with the usual gunzine crud about its merits. I don't recall the test, nor do I really care how it was conducted, but they panned the gun, and Mr. R didn't receive the favorable review he thought his bribe should get him.

So he criticizes the magazine for violating ITS OWN policy (which is not his problem or mine either), calling them liars, etc. Had GT praised his gun to the skies, he wouldn't care. No, his concern is not about a supposed violation of policy or that they didn't send him a check so they would be buying the gun. He is mad because they panned his new toy. Period.

After reading that rant, I wouldn't buy anything from him. If he jumps on testers that way because they date to criticize HIS product, I can just imagine his nasty response to customer complaints.

Jim
 
Kevin Quinlan said:
They got one subscription of mine. They won't get another. They are either gitting kickbacks, or they are morons.
My vote goes to the latter.

I do not subscribe -- for the simple reason that they have sent me sample issues, and in each issue (and generally in each review) I have found egregious errors, errors that no professional gun writer should ever allow in print.

I test guns for manufacturers. Not for a big-name magazine but for an Internet forum. By and large, the companies send us the guns and tell us to write 'em up honestly. I don't think they "expect" a glowing review of a turkey ... but they ARE entitled to expect factual accuracy. Whether or not a pistol is DAO is not an opinion, that's a fact. They couldn't get that right. The grips are carbon fibre, and the reviewer wrote they are "some kind of polymer."

Gun Tests has zero credibility with me. The gun rags may never print a truly negative review, but at least most of the writers can write and get most of the facts correct. When I see the full page Kimber ad on the right hand page opposite the start of the review of the Kimber "XYZ" wunderkind, I can pretty well figure out they're not going to trash the gun.
 
Jim Keenan said:
I didn't notice how old the post is, but my point still holds. He sent them the gun expecting that in return for his generous "gift" they would respond..........

Did you reasd the letter? It wasn't a gift it was an evaluation gun that had already been sent to a bunch of gun rags, and was sent to others afterwards.

Does the letter sound like a rant? Yeah it does, but if someone were to talk trash about something important to me without getting the facts straight and lied in the process, I would rant too.

I'll never buy an Rohrbaugh because I don't have any desire to spend a grand on a pocket gun. I do however, think the fella had every reason to be angry and I think he was pretty classy to just slap them down on the internet rather than getting lawyers involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top