Has there ever been a negative firearm review?

[priv8ter]

Hi-Point

I read that Hi-Point review too. My take on the article was the guy spent 3 pages talking about materials used, the design of the gun and rounds tested, and only 2 paragraphs on actually shooting it. I read between the lines.

It also made me laugh that they took a picture of the gun with a Sure-Fire light in the picture. Skip on buying the light and get a Bersa instead of a Hi-Point.

sheesh

greg

 

[Oracle]

I read an article in one of the rags where the guy admitted that the Vector he was testing completely locked up when it got dirty, and had to be sent back to the factory to be fixed, and still recommended the gun in the end. I now usually only read gun magazines to find out what new things are coming out, and look at the pretty pictures . There are some notable exceptions, though, like SWAT and the various Handloader magazines.

I like to read Gun Tests because they are pretty honest in their assessments, but their criteria for comparison seems to be based on opinions that I simply don't agree with. Oh well, it's good to get a contrasting viewpoint occasionally.

 

[Sean Smith]

Mainstream gun rags can occasionally put on a show of knowing what they are talking about, but most are total advertising dollar sluts, and are somewhere between disingenuous and outright dishonest. It is better to look at them like Playboy, but with worse writing and better photography.

Gun Tests is stunningly ignorant about almost everything, but are honest about it.

 

[Quantrill]

The only 2 gun mags that I have personally read that give the straight dope on guns are," American Rifleman" and "Gun Tests". I don't know if the latter is even still published. At a shooting school conducted at Camp Perry, Ohio many years ago, an instructor (Lt. Frank Mcgee - NYPD Firearms Unit) made the comment that the "American Rifleman" magazine was the only gun mag worth getting. I don't think "Gun Tests" had begun to publish at that time yet. Quantrill

 

[gvass]

Negative reviews

hi,
I think you should read European gun magazines.
www.dwj.de
www.visier.de
(And our national one of course: www.kaliber.hu
))

Here, as you can buy the real guns only on hard-to-get license basis, there is absolute no direct effect on sales if there is a bad (true) review published.

And the other difference is, that I suppose, the US-gunwriters get the test gun, _dedicated_ to them (factory troubleshooted ones).

Not that the case is here.

Here you get the normal stock from a gun shop as any normal buyer.

 

[4v50 Gary]

First negative gun review I ever read was in SoF about 2 decades ago. They examined the Steyr GB (or whatever that big ungainly 9mm was) and said it was a piece of, ahem, work. Final photo showed the reviewer about to throw it downrange.

 

[gvass]

"Steyr GB ("

The should be its american-made copy, the Rogak.
That was a piece of sh...

But the original Austrian-made GB was an ecellent piece of engineering.
(I tried one.)

 

[HankB]

JD Jones in American Handgunner magazine has ripped on some things during his tenure at that magazine - in particular, I remember he had problems with an S&W M625 and wasn't shy about letting people know it. (BTW, JD has goofed himself on occasion . . . but that's another topic.)

Massad Ayoob once tested a very, VERY pricey custom 1911, and sort of tapdanced around the issue of reliability. He used words to the effect that (paraphrasing here) "Some people believe guns this expensive may need some tweaking, others believe they should be 100% out of the box. I'm one of the latter." IOW, the pistol was an overpriced jammamatic.

If a review in The American Rifleman doesn't say "There were no failures of any kind" or "Only one particular brand of ammo gave a misfeed" again, think jammamatic.

Often the reviews in The American Rifleman don't verbally pan a gun - but the data does. I've seen reports where some rather pricey rifles turned in groups with the best match fodder that were no better than I'd expect from a .30/30 levergun. Can you say "Overpriced Eurotrash?"

I remember Pistolero magazine. When they tested the LES Rogak - an unauthorized copy of an early Steyr GB prototype - they said the gun "needed some stoning." The picture showed a guy holding a boulder over the pistol. I guess they didn't like it.

 

[CJ]

Just got a copy of Gun Tests, and they had a review of the Hi-Point .45, as well as another one I (maybe a Cobra Patriot?). They gave both a hearty 'Don't Buy', but mostly because it took them most of their alloted testing time to get the Hi-Point actually working (something about racking the slide hard and pulling the trigger). After it started working, it sounded like it went bang every time with somewhat decent accuracy, and they promised to do a followup next issue with more complete info now that it's working.

They seemed to find the 20 pound trigger pull on the Cobra to be detrimental, as well as its tendancy not to go bang every time.

 

[berto]

My all time favorite was the G@A test of the Kahr owned Auto Ordinance 1911.This gun received favorable reviews despite the front sight flying off,terrible accuracy @25yrds,the gun locking solid in a competition and the rounding of the bbl lugs and slide recesses,facilitating the need of a new top end....otherwise, the guy thought it was a 'best buy' and would happily purchase one himself.

 

[buzz_knox]

SWAT had an article on the SW1911 that basically said "why bother making this one?"

When Kel-Tecs first came out, Massad Ayoob said it would be great if they got it working but until then, don't buy one. He also said that the American mag release 210 was a great weapon, but not worth anything near the money.

 

[Correia]

Best gun review EVER:

www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=102389&highlight=blastmaster

 

[Hawk]

but I hope that one of THRoaders who was a membership may help us with the review....

Ask and ye shall recieve:

F&L 102 revolver and Hi-Point model C 9mm - not recommended. Apparently, mostly due to better alternatives for roughly the same price (police trade-ins, etc.). "...two dogs that we wouldn't recommend to serious gun owners as trotline weights."

Jennings model 48 .380 - generally positive - "disproves the notion that a cheap gun is by definition a "bad" gun."

I'll concur with others that I don't always share their opinions but at least they HAVE opinions. I find this much preferable to the "tune in next month to see what firearms we'll say glowing things about" pablum being handed out by the "mainstream" rags.

 

[George Hill]

SWAT magazine. Let's see... I remember SWAT shown the new Benelli autoshotgun to be less than the sum of it's parts... That was written by Awerbuck... and then our own Denny Hansen (Editor and Chief of SWAT) pretty much tore up a Para Ord pistol... I think it was the Para Companion.
If there is something wrong with a gun - SWAT seems to point them out.
I remember one rifle review that compaired the wood of the stock to "Finest Orange Crate".

SWAT rocks. They will say things that you wont read in any other magazine.

 

[fix]

I wouldn't label SWAT as a "gun rag" per se.

 

[Smoke]

I've seen quite a few here....

Smoke

It is better to look at them like Playboy, but with worse writing and better photography.

Precisely what I do...but I'd argue that photography point.

 

[telewinz]

I can remember reading 25 years ago a well known gun magazine reviewing a RG .44 magnum against the S&W29. The RG was a solid POS yet the worse the author could say was "since it went for $200 less than the Model 29, it wasn't quite as well finished"! The RG did have a vent rib which the 29 didn't, it was made of an alloy screwed onto the barrel that repeatedly came off during the tests. Made the RG sound like a 2nd rate gun when in fact it was a 4th rate firearm at best. But at that time 29's were going for $450 and it was still a sellers market, you had to wait in line and kiss the vendor's butt. Thats how I got mine

 

[Penman]

The article on the Rogak in SOF was written by Chuck Taylor, and was very blunt in its description of the shortcomings of the gun. I recall a photo of the gun's magazine, with the comment that while the gun did not feed reliably, the feed lips on the magazine were sharp enough to be used for defense.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Hey Guys-
I've not been around much. Busy spending all that money I make from prostituting myself in the "GunRag" industry.


Rich


--SWAT Magazine.....from the whores who brought you TheFiringLine.com

 

[Nightcrawler]

I remember one rifle review that compaired the wood of the stock to "Finest Orange Crate".

I remember that. It was a review of a Chinese pellet gun.

Keep up the good work, Rich!

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Thanks NC.

pps:

....and then our own Denny Hansen (Editor and Chief of SWAT) pretty much tore up a Para Ord pistol

Right as often, Kodiak. Interesting, though. That was about six months ago. Starting with the next issue, Para took the back cover for a year.....most expensive page in any magazine. Perhaps they're not aware of the rules of the game?

Cha-Ching. Cha-Ching. Cha-Ching.

Rich

 

[JPM70535]

The most honest and straightforeward gun reviews had to be those of "Pistolero" a gun rag of years past. IIRC Phil Engledrum was the Editor and the policy was, no advertising by gun manufacturers. They called a spade a spade, and were the only ones to trash the original S&W model 59. Called it a Jammomatic I believe. At the time this was unheard of. Guess thats why they no longer exist.

 

[SunBear]

Several years ago Mas Ayoob slammed S&W over the stainless 625 in 45 ACP that wouldn't consistently fire all six rounds . (chamber cut for headspace was apparently too shallow)

 

[Jayman]

Rich:

Right as often, Kodiak. Interesting, though. That was about six months ago. Starting with the next issue, Para took the back cover for a year.....most expensive page in any magazine. Perhaps they're not aware of the rules of the game?

That aside, didn't Benelli come after you guys after your less than favorable review of their shotgun? I had heard rumors to that effect...

 

[gvass]

hi,
I found one negative.
1997 nov/dec G&A, by G. Sitton.

None of the 3 tested Springfield double-stack M1911s worked. There were failure to feed, failure to gi into battery and tragic inaccuracy.

Of course "it is easy to solve with a competent gunsmith, and these are just pre-prod samples" but the overall view was quite negative.

Not the rule by G&A.