| I have been reading gun magazines off and on for 20 | | | | gun rests. Some will test with Ransom Rests and |
| years and have come to the conclusion that gun | | | | some do not. The best laughs I get are from the |
| articles are just thinly veiled advertisements for the | | | | writers who refer to themselves as old geezers with |
| industry. At one point, I subscribed to seven monthly | | | | bad eye sight. After acknowledging their bad |
| gun magazines at the same time for 6 years. It was | | | | eyesight, they then proceed to shoot the gun for |
| during this six year period, I began to notice some | | | | accuracy and give an opinion on how well the gun |
| interesting problems in the gun articles I read and I | | | | shot! |
| would like to get on my soap box and get them off | | | | Now, I do not know about you, but if I was a gun |
| my chest. | | | | manufacturer, I would not want my new gun to be |
| I subscribed to and read gun magazines because I | | | | evaluated by some self described person with bad |
| am very interested in handguns and rifles and have | | | | eye sight. Moreover the magazines themselves |
| owned and traded many over a twenty year period. | | | | should try to establish some testing protocols and |
| I subscribed to and read the gun magazines to gain | | | | younger shooters to do the testing. |
| knowledge, and look to experts with more | | | | Now after the shooting at the range, the writer says |
| experience then me for advice or recommendations. | | | | the gun shoots well and then describes his six shots |
| Now the writers' in the gun magazines and the gun | | | | into a 4 inch circle at 24 yards or some similar |
| magazines themselves try to give the impression that | | | | grouping. Ok, I am thinking, what does this 4 inch |
| they do product evaluations of guns and other | | | | group represent, given the inconsistency in testing |
| related accessories. Some even say they are writing | | | | procedures? Is this 4 inch group a result of the good |
| the article specifically to test the gun or ammunition | | | | or bad ammunition, the guns inherent accuracy |
| for the readers benefit. | | | | inaccuracy or the shooters bad eyesight or all three? |
| Now back in college, when you said you were going | | | | If all three factors are involved, what does the 4 inch |
| to do a test and evaluation, that required certain | | | | group really represent? |
| protocols to ensure that the results were not | | | | Lastly, after reading hundreds of articles, I can't ever |
| spurious, but were valid and repeatable. Now, the | | | | recall reading an article where the writer said the gun |
| only way to give results with any validity is proper | | | | was a bad design, the finish was bad, and that they |
| "research design". Unless the testing process provides | | | | would not recommend it. Even on guns that are on |
| barriers against any unknown variables, tester bias | | | | the low end of a product line or are from |
| and maintains consistent methods, the entire | | | | manufactures that make junk guns, no negative |
| procedure and results are useless. Good research | | | | reviews, if deserved, are ever given. Especially if the |
| design is not that hard and can be done with just a | | | | accuracy resembles more of a shot gun pattern, the |
| little planning. Unfortunately the gun writers often | | | | writer often says "the gun displayed good combat |
| stumble on the first step. | | | | accuracy". Since most shootings occur at about 3 to |
| For example, gun writers often begin a test and | | | | 8 feet, this means the gun will hit your 30 inch wide |
| evaluation article by saying that a particular gun was | | | | attacker at 5 feet away. (I hope so!) They will not |
| mailed to them for testing by the manufacturer so | | | | say the gun is a piece of junk that could not hit an 8 |
| they grabbed what ever ammunition was available or | | | | inch target at 15 yards if your life depended on it. |
| called an ammunition manufacturer for some more | | | | Why? Because gun writers and the magazines do not |
| free ammunition. If you think about this for a minute | | | | buy the guns they test, they get free test models. |
| you will realize immediately that there is already | | | | Only "Gun Tests" magazine buys their own guns. So |
| inconsistency in the ammunition tested, and a | | | | the writers have to say only good things about the |
| potential conflict of interest in the results. Ammunition | | | | gun and down play negatives, or the manufacturer |
| is a key factor in how in how a gun performs. | | | | "Black Balls" them from future guns. The disservice is |
| A 230 grain .45 caliber cartridge from Winchester is | | | | you, the consumer. You get faulty reviews. |
| not the same as a 230 grain .45 caliber cartridge from | | | | How do you trust what ever the writer is saying? |
| Golden Saber. A given cartridge consists of several | | | | For me, I do not. In fact, I pretty much let all my |
| parts such as the bullet, powder, brass case and | | | | subscriptions run out years ago, except for American |
| primer. A change in any one component can | | | | Rifleman. |
| drastically affect the accuracy and performance of | | | | Now, I read mostly read articles on historic guns. Not |
| the bullet. Additionally, if the gun writer calls up an | | | | articles trying to SELL me on a gun, sight, laser, or |
| ammunition company and requests free ammunition, | | | | certain bullet. |
| there is a conflict of interest here. Can I trust the | | | | Repetition to Death is also another gripe of mine. |
| gun writer to give me an honest evaluation of the | | | | Over the years, not that many truly new gun models |
| cartridges performance? If he gives a bad review, | | | | have come out. Mostly manufacturs' will issue an |
| does the company stop sending him free | | | | existing gun with a new color, night sights, finish or |
| ammunition? Would you give free stuff to some one | | | | some other minor feature. The trouble is the gun |
| who gave you a bad review a year ago? | | | | magazines and writers treat the new gun color as if |
| Moreover, if you test Gun A with a 5 different | | | | it's the best thing since sliced bread and write a four |
| brands of bullets of various weights and types and | | | | page article. These articles are usually the articles that |
| then compare it to a test of Gun B with different | | | | contain information that is 95% rehash of information |
| brands of ammunition of different weights and types, | | | | already said for years about the particular gun. Usually |
| is the comparison valid? I often find it amusing that | | | | in these four page articles only two paragraphs is |
| they give an impression of trying to be serious and | | | | actually new information or interesting. |
| precise when the basis research design testing | | | | The gun magazines also tend to repeat articles about |
| procedure is so flawed, the results are not valid. | | | | the same gun in the same year and year after year. |
| The gun articles also tend to just be predominately | | | | The 1911 is a great example. Start keeping track of |
| puff pieces instead of concise and complete reviews | | | | the number of times the 1911 model is the subject of |
| of the product. I frequently try and guess in what | | | | articles in gun magazines each and every month. Now |
| paragraph the writer will actually begin to directly talk | | | | the 1911 came out in 1911, and has been written |
| about the product or what the thesis of the article is. | | | | about ever since. Is there really anything out there |
| In a small minority of writers, I may find the actual | | | | not known about the 1911? If a new feature on the |
| beginning of the article in the second or third | | | | 1911 is created, does it WARRANT a four page |
| paragraph, but for the majority of gun writers I find | | | | article on a "feature" that could easily be adequately |
| the actual article starts in the 10th or more | | | | described in a few paragraphs? |
| paragraph. The first ten paragraphs were personal | | | | If you want to read gun magazines go ahead, just |
| opinion on life, the shooting publics' perceptions of | | | | read them with a critical eye. When I read. I read for |
| hand guns or some Walter Mitty dream of being in a | | | | content. I try and get the following from an article: |
| dangerous spot where you can count on the product | | | | 1. What is the writers' reason for writing? |
| that is the subject of the article. | | | | 2. What is the writer actually saying? |
| Next time you read a gun article read it from the | | | | 3. What new information was conveyed? |
| point of view of a good editor. Does the writer tell | | | | 4. Are the results of any testing process described |
| me what the object of the article is in the first | | | | valid? |
| paragraph, and formulate a position or opinion? How | | | | 5. Did the writer provide any background qualifications |
| much actual relevant information directly related to | | | | or experience? |
| the product is in the article versus fluff and filler | | | | 6. What do I take away from the article? |
| about other topics. If you hi-light in yellow the facts | | | | Handguns are expensive, and unfortunately the |
| and key points of the article you will be surprised | | | | magazines are not much help in providing an honest |
| how much filler there is and how much text you | | | | comparison for the beginner. They only say positive |
| could delete and make the article shorter and better. | | | | things about all guns, the industry and never criticize a |
| I have even read some articles where the author | | | | brand and or model. "They are all good guns, some |
| even states that they just received the gun and | | | | are just better then others"? Yeah right. |
| were excited to test the gun immediately. So they | | | | My recommendation to the beginner. Talk to |
| grabbed what ever ammunition was available and | | | | someone who has been shooting for awhile and has |
| went to the range. Some even say they didn't have | | | | owned and shot a variety of different guns, and has |
| a certain brand or the type they preferred at home | | | | no vested interest recommending one model or |
| so they could not test the gun with that ammunition. | | | | brand. |
| At this point you have to laugh. When I read | | | | These are only my opinions, but after years of |
| statements like this I find myself saying to the article | | | | reading the gun articles, I have come to the |
| " Then go buy some!" or "Delay the test until the | | | | conclusion that the writers really do not know how |
| desired ammunition can be obtained". Duh! | | | | to do consistent testing, and the editors have very |
| Then when the writers gets to the range they all | | | | low standards for accepting articles. I am not perfect |
| test fire the guns differently. Even writers for the | | | | either and love shooting, but I would not say every |
| same magazine do not have similar testing protocols. | | | | gun is a quality gun or deserves to be bought. |
| They test at different temperatures, benches, and | | | | |