Gun testing organizations?
- Thread starter Darkhorse
- Start date
- Status
RON in PA
Member
Gun Test magazine claims to be, but in reality the answer to your question is NO.
Unfortunately the public is not able to access the test results of the military and law enforcement agencies who test multiple examples of firearms over thousands of rounds.
Unfortunately the public is not able to access the test results of the military and law enforcement agencies who test multiple examples of firearms over thousands of rounds.
??? http://archive.gao.gov/d4t4/130439.pdf
FOIA and state open records acts are real things. If there's a test you're interested in, submit a request.
Gun Tests is really good in my opinion.
No advertising. No tests done on "sample" or "review" guns. All guns bought at retail. A write-up, pictures, rating, and detailed specs on each gun is provided.
I don't always agree with their opinions and they can't test 100 samples of a given firearms with 20,000 rounds each but Consumer Reports doesn't do large sample long use quality testing either.
$2 an issue for a 12 month subscription is reasonable.
I like reading through gun magazines. I throw away most when finished but I keep my old Gun Tests in a folder.
No advertising. No tests done on "sample" or "review" guns. All guns bought at retail. A write-up, pictures, rating, and detailed specs on each gun is provided.
I don't always agree with their opinions and they can't test 100 samples of a given firearms with 20,000 rounds each but Consumer Reports doesn't do large sample long use quality testing either.
$2 an issue for a 12 month subscription is reasonable.
I like reading through gun magazines. I throw away most when finished but I keep my old Gun Tests in a folder.
Walt Sherrill
Member
Little things like FINISH seems to concern them as much as FUNCTION. I gave up on them years ago. It may be that there's been enough turnover in staff to give them a try again.
The only reason I hesitate is that there's still a lingering bit of indigestion left over from my earlier attempts. Those earlier attempts lasted from when I was new to handguns, until a couple of years and many handguns later. That said, I don't think any gun company influences their reviews, but I also don't think their criteria always make sense.
I'd like to see more reviews and tests done like the recent Guns & Ammo evaluation of small single-stack 9mm semi-autos [July 2015], which included thousands of rounds fired through each weapon by a number of different shooters, all of whom shot all of the same guns using the same ammo. Reliability, ease of use, and accuracy were all addressed. Good test/review!
Last edited:
I subscribed twice over the years, gave up. 
Things along the lines of "The imported $150 snub came out tops in our review against a domestic $400 snub, even though the less-expensive gun had several misfires, because the $400 gun's plating started to peel in one spot. No $400 gun should have such a defect."
Denis
Things along the lines of "The imported $150 snub came out tops in our review against a domestic $400 snub, even though the less-expensive gun had several misfires, because the $400 gun's plating started to peel in one spot. No $400 gun should have such a defect."
Denis
Last edited:
I kind of like The Truth About Guns, The NRA firing protocols, The Box O' Truth and Hickock45. None of them are actual testing labs of course, but they do make for interesting reading and watching and comparisons to what I believe to be relevant in my shooting life.
Before you can have actual lab testing it'd be a pretty good idea to develop standards. Maybe patterned after the FDA's standards of allowed non food items in say hot dogs or how labels are structured. I think developing those standards would be a monumental task. We can't even agree on which is the best caliber or cartridge.
I like these guys too: http://www.firearmstactical.com/ They're down right now.
Before you can have actual lab testing it'd be a pretty good idea to develop standards. Maybe patterned after the FDA's standards of allowed non food items in say hot dogs or how labels are structured. I think developing those standards would be a monumental task. We can't even agree on which is the best caliber or cartridge.
I like these guys too: http://www.firearmstactical.com/ They're down right now.
You have good taste
UpperAtmosphere
Member
My faith in Gun Tests was shaken (but not destroyed) by the glowing review they gave to the Remington R51 a while back.
It was a very bizarre event for me. Like one of those westerns where everyone is having a good time in the saloon and the new guy walks in and everything just stops.
It was a very bizarre event for me. Like one of those westerns where everyone is having a good time in the saloon and the new guy walks in and everything just stops.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
I subscribed to "Gun Tests" for 3 or 4 years about in the late 90s as a way of catching up on what was going on with handgun development since I hadn't really paid much attention for a lot of years. I found it interesting for awhile. The best thing about them is they don't try to sell you things that you don't need.
Some of the fellas there knew what they were doing but others not. The criteria was not consistent and at times odd.
More than once a writer would go on for 2-3 paragraphs on how hard it was to field strip and reassemble a given pistol and disqualify the piece for that reason. Only to admit at the end of the piece that they had not read the manual and promise to review it again after the read. The unprofessionalism wore on me.
But you can get a 6 month sub to it and see what they have to say for yourself. You don't lose anything and might pick up some knowledge.
tipoc
Some of the fellas there knew what they were doing but others not. The criteria was not consistent and at times odd.
More than once a writer would go on for 2-3 paragraphs on how hard it was to field strip and reassemble a given pistol and disqualify the piece for that reason. Only to admit at the end of the piece that they had not read the manual and promise to review it again after the read. The unprofessionalism wore on me.
But you can get a 6 month sub to it and see what they have to say for yourself. You don't lose anything and might pick up some knowledge.
tipoc
JohnBT
Member
My father subscribed to Gun Tests for a number of years and I enjoyed reading the free copies.
Otoh, read the rebuttal letter to GT written by the owner of Rohrbaugh. Rohrbaugh supplied the pistol reviewed as a loaner - the serial number in the pics prove it.
http://www.rohrbaughforum.com/index.php?topic=4746.0
Heck, here's part of it. If you have questions, Mr. Rohrbaugh posts on the forum since selling the company to big green.
"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.
Now I could go into various descriptions, “in my estimation” of you and your report, but I shall stick to the obvious mistakes."
Otoh, read the rebuttal letter to GT written by the owner of Rohrbaugh. Rohrbaugh supplied the pistol reviewed as a loaner - the serial number in the pics prove it.
http://www.rohrbaughforum.com/index.php?topic=4746.0
Heck, here's part of it. If you have questions, Mr. Rohrbaugh posts on the forum since selling the company to big green.
"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.
Now I could go into various descriptions, “in my estimation” of you and your report, but I shall stick to the obvious mistakes."
GT, as this shows, got their T&E sample from the exact same source I got my T&E sample from- the company that made it.
That incident illustrates quite clearly two things: Their much-touted puffery about getting all of their test samples off the rack is not necessarily true, and their approach to evaluations is not always either useful or accurate.
Denis
That incident illustrates quite clearly two things: Their much-touted puffery about getting all of their test samples off the rack is not necessarily true, and their approach to evaluations is not always either useful or accurate.
Denis
Bama Drifter
Member
Short answer to OP:
UL and Consumer Reports refuse to rate firearms primarily out of anti-gun bias, secondarily from lack of firearm knowledgable staff, and lastly due to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act that Bush, Jr signed into law. If a gun mfg could get a UL rating, that would give credence to the fact that guns are as useful as household fire extinguishers. Heaven forbid a huge scientific agency ever make that conclusion!!!
There are surely some nits to pick in my explanation... but that is the basic gist of it IIRC. Just my $0.02 Thanks
The problem with all of the gun magazines is that they can really test only one gun of its type. Even though Gun Tests does not have the makers send them guns (and possible cherry pick), they still test only one gun. The Remington R51 is a case in point. They tested the pistol and had no problems. Other buyers also had no problems, but far too many did.
In reality, no organization could buy a thousand or ten thousand guns and spend the time and ammunition to test every one to get good statistics.
So the prospective buyer needs to take both positive and negative test results with a grain of salt, wait until enough guns are out there to have some real world results, and buy accordingly.
Jim
In reality, no organization could buy a thousand or ten thousand guns and spend the time and ammunition to test every one to get good statistics.
So the prospective buyer needs to take both positive and negative test results with a grain of salt, wait until enough guns are out there to have some real world results, and buy accordingly.
Jim
Monac
Member
BamaDrifter, what does the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act have to do with gun testing? I don't know much about it - just what's on Wikipedia.
Bama Drifter
Member
Oops, I should clarify there. Just the aspect that gun mfg can't get SUED for making a product that works (pull the trigger, bullet comes out, person dies or is seriously injured). Basically since the mfg.'s don't have to worry about lawsuits of that nature anymore, there is really no impetus for something like a UL listing.
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act = Gun Mfg Q manufactures a functional, safe if used per label, good firearm. Plaintiff's Atty X brings suit on behalf of Mrs. YZ, because her deceased son Mr. YZ was shot by somebody using a Q-gun. Now in olden times, Mfg Q would have shelled out millions on court costs every year defending it's business of making excellent guns that when used per label, WILL KILL you. Now in the peaceful afterglow of PLCAA, the Gun Mfg Q can tell Lawyer X to go pound sand.
That is it in a nutshell. Not a lawyer, but degree in Political Science & History and related to too many lawyers
Hope that makes sense... it did in my head
Last edited:
Monac
Member
Thanks, BamaDrifter! I should have gathered that, but I'm slow today.
- Status