Gun Reviews in publications

[SigShooter]

Something I've been thinking about for the past few days. I've noticed that whenever you read a gun review in a big magazine, the sum of the article generally ends up as a positive review of any firearm, regardless of the maker and model. Some will offer honest criticism of a particular gun, but the author will immediately mitigate his own complaint by saying it's just his personal preference and others will disagree. And then there's the cliches about glass triggers and puns in the title that editors just love.

I know there's little margin for error in the highly competitive firearms industry, but how is it that almost every gun that ever comes onto the market and is written about in a publication is somehow the greatest of it's type? Or for it's price-range or purpose or color?

Have you ever brought a gun based on a magazine review and found it to be less than advertised?

And finally, how is it that the reviews are unbiased when the publications depend on advertisers? They don't review only the guns that are made by their sponsers, but why would they write a bad review about a gun if the maker may someday become an advertiser?

I know that's a bunch of questions, but I think they're important.

[Pathfinder]

And finally, how is it that the reviews are unbiased when the publications depend on advertisers? They don't review only the guns that are made by their sponsers, but why would they write a bad review about a gun if the maker may someday become an advertiser?

Classic conundrum for any commercial magazine that makes most of its profit - in spite of the huge cover prices most are charging these days - from advertising and it's actually worse than you portray. If a magazine does a bad review of a firearm, or any product, that manufacturer can cut them off - no more free samples to evaluate, and no more access to early information about what's in the pipeline. Just ask any movie reviewer - especially true there with the tons of freebies that are thrown at them - free travel, meals, access to "stars" etc. One bad review and  - poof - all gone.

Being fair and being in business make life a delicate balancing act for these magazines, and to answer one of your earlier questions, I personally would not buy anything based solely on a commercial magazine review for that very reason.

[philw]

Pathfinder  correct,   

especially when there is a lot of advertising $$$  with the mags



I know over here one of the guys that dose the revirws in one of the large Aust Mags

I asked him this and he said to see what is not in the report...   

as there has been some stuff he has seen that is just crap  just in the reports they can not put it that way they just don't go in to all the detail on it  they just don't give it a glowing report

[jaybet]

Let's face it, money talks. Many of the reviewers get piles and piles of stuff to play with...guns and ammo to test out the guns, they get catered to by the industry. So you don't bite the hand that feeds you. I'm not saying that it is ALL that way, but there's a lot of pay-to-play going on.

I know this from trying to get my cds reviewed. They have stacks of submitted material and many times it's the size of the ad you buy in the magazine that determines how soon or how large your product gets reviewed. If they call you a hack you won't go back.

There are also a lot of reviewers that request a fee for reviewing things. When they get paid for their review the worst they'll do is say, "It's not my cup of tea" or "That's only MY opinion".

I think you are better off trying things yourself or at least getting them in your hands and asking around. The opinions are just as, if not MORE reliable. Gun magazines play along with their advertisers because they have to. Case in point: The Ruger recalls that are now "Upgrades". How many times to you see the word "recall" in a magazine?

[alfsauve]

Especially on the TV shows, if it's a product I know about, FastForward.

To help settle my mind every time I see "product review" in a magazine or on TV I mentally transpose it to "product highlight".  That way:  A)  I don't get upset.  B)  It puts the onus on me to read between the lines and look for the negatives.

There are certain "buzz words" that have cropped up lately, that should signal a more critical look.  One of my favorites is
"Minute of squirrel".     Another is anytime the reviewer says,  "As good as......".   (Toyota is making hay on commercials with that one right now.)

The best shows don't spend a lot of time on this......SG for example.   If MB's finds a really good product he shows it off.  Otherwise he leaves the "product reviews" to AR & G&A.

[Sponsor]

[ericire12]

Let's face it, money talks. Many of the reviewers get piles and piles of stuff to play with...guns and ammo to test out the guns, they get catered to by the industry. So you don't bite the hand that feeds you. I'm not saying that it is ALL that way, but there's a lot of pay-to-play going on.

I know this from trying to get my cds reviewed. They have stacks of submitted material and many times it's the size of the ad you buy in the magazine that determines how soon or how large your product gets reviewed. If they call you a hack you won't go back.

There are also a lot of reviewers that request a fee for reviewing things. When they get paid for their review the worst they'll do is say, "It's not my cup of tea" or "That's only MY opinion".

I think you are better off trying things yourself or at least getting them in your hands and asking around. The opinions are just as, if not MORE reliable. Gun magazines play along with their advertisers because they have to. Case in point: The Ruger recalls that are now "Upgrades". How many times to you see the word "recall" in a magazine?

And there it is in a nutshell.

Upgrade? Well, The newest Shooting Times magazine did an article on the LCP and had a brief aside entitled "Ruger issues free LCP upgrade".   They did however use the word "recall" once in the third paragraph.

BTW - the best way to get discovered in the music business now days is to post your stuff on YouTube.... You might want to give that a try.

[warhawke]

Also, most of the reviews involve shooting a few hundred rounds on a range. How much is that going to tell you? Just about any weapon form a halfway decent company is going to run when you play nice.

[jaybet]

BTW - the best way to get discovered in the music business now days is to post your stuff on YouTube.... You might want to give that a try.

BTW-thanks for the advice, but we gave up on being discovered a long time ago. We are fortunate enough to get paid to perform and to make cds... so "discovered" is a relative term. I know guys who go out on tour with giant name acts and then struggle to get bar gigs for a couple of years, or produce music for giant acts and then play lounge music because it pays the bills. The music business has little to do with the artists- they're a commodity.

I frankly don't have the energy for YouTube....all those "friends" and stuff- I'm just too old for that. In fact, sometimes we don't include photos in our PR packets because we don't want them to know how old (or ugly) we are. Then there's FaceBook and a dozen other "services" that you can spend your life feeding. Obscurity isn't so bad because it leaves time for shooting your favorite guns, whether they are "upgraded" or not. We do pretty well with the people who know about us and actually sell cds in about 12 countrys.

Funny though....when we put out a new cd...we sell ONE in China and ONE in Russia.
We're probably superstars in those countries and don't know it because we've got platinum sales of BUMPED copies.

 

[Big Frank]

GUN TESTS magazine has NO advertisers, so there's nothing but unbiased truth. I don't believe any other reviews.

[2HOW]

I second that JB ,I have issues that go wayyyyyy back , I mean issues not ISSUES , ok well them too dammit. Great little magazine.