I've been reading them for about a dozen years (or more). However, the past few years their final conculsion does not line up with their review. Rate a model highly in all areas and say that the shooters gave it a lot of praise and then give it a so-so rating doesn't make sense when another review is nothing outstanding but it gets a better rating than the first one.
Gun Tests Magazine
- Thread starter johnny blaze
- Start date
- Status
My wife got me a subscription for Christmas in 2006, so I haven't really had a lot of eyeball time with it yet. It irked me that they want money for downloaded back issues. I expected that they'd at least give you something (like a year) to catch up with.
The no-advertising is a smart thing and IMHO keeps things more on the "up and up". People will claim that since they only buy one of each gun, their results might not represent much (even though most of us buy our guns one at a time too). I'd like to counter this theory by saying that a magazine that gets items directly from the manufacturer *better* be getting cherry-picked, perhaps slightly reworked samples. They also have a PR contact at the manufacturer and access to people "on the inside". You and I don't get that. Mainstream magazines always seem to have a full page color ad for the manufacturer on the page before the review. That's just fishy.
Let's talk politics next. Not Washington politics -- business politics. Say you are the Editor in Chief of a gun magazine. You get free samples to write reviews. There are only a handful of manufacturers out there... How badly would you tear into a gun made by XYZ that falls apart on the range (see the latest Gun Tests)? Gun magazines need a steady stream of samples to write about... do you think you'll ever get another sample from XYZ again? Worse, do you think XYZ will want to cut your publisher another fat check for advertising? See where this is headed?
If you do this with a couple of manufacturers, you won't be reviewing anything from anyone. Maybe you can talk Ayoob into regurgitating one of his stories from time to time as fluff between the ads of the advertisers you haven't alienated.
Gun-Tests buys their guns the way we buy our guns -- at gun stores, one at a time. I can't afford to buy 15 of the same handgun at once, pick the best one and sell the other 14 off as used. I bet you can't either.
Steve
The no-advertising is a smart thing and IMHO keeps things more on the "up and up". People will claim that since they only buy one of each gun, their results might not represent much (even though most of us buy our guns one at a time too). I'd like to counter this theory by saying that a magazine that gets items directly from the manufacturer *better* be getting cherry-picked, perhaps slightly reworked samples. They also have a PR contact at the manufacturer and access to people "on the inside". You and I don't get that. Mainstream magazines always seem to have a full page color ad for the manufacturer on the page before the review. That's just fishy.
Let's talk politics next. Not Washington politics -- business politics. Say you are the Editor in Chief of a gun magazine. You get free samples to write reviews. There are only a handful of manufacturers out there... How badly would you tear into a gun made by XYZ that falls apart on the range (see the latest Gun Tests)? Gun magazines need a steady stream of samples to write about... do you think you'll ever get another sample from XYZ again? Worse, do you think XYZ will want to cut your publisher another fat check for advertising? See where this is headed?
If you do this with a couple of manufacturers, you won't be reviewing anything from anyone. Maybe you can talk Ayoob into regurgitating one of his stories from time to time as fluff between the ads of the advertisers you haven't alienated.
Gun-Tests buys their guns the way we buy our guns -- at gun stores, one at a time. I can't afford to buy 15 of the same handgun at once, pick the best one and sell the other 14 off as used. I bet you can't either.
Steve
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Well Steve, why would they give you back issues, even online, if you didn't pay for them?
As for GT buying their guns, they resell them based on list price. Funny thing on how many guns don't sell for list price, even when new. A year after the Beretta Storm came out, they were claiming the cost was list price, only Storms were going for $200 than list price.
I wonder if they truly pay list for the gun or just show list in the articles. This is salient as they base many of their reviews on the list price.
As for GT buying their guns, they resell them based on list price. Funny thing on how many guns don't sell for list price, even when new. A year after the Beretta Storm came out, they were claiming the cost was list price, only Storms were going for $200 than list price.
I wonder if they truly pay list for the gun or just show list in the articles. This is salient as they base many of their reviews on the list price.
MartinBrody
Member
I subscribe and like the magazine. I don't put a lot of stock in their ratings, but their reviews tell you what you need to know so you can come to your own conclusion. It is good to read about guns when the 'article' is not just an advertisement like in most magazines.
- Status
