Anybody else read the magazine "Gun Tests" ?

[todbiker]

It's a nice resource, but their grading in my opinion is a little skewed toward afford-ability. If I see a comparison of weapons considered in the same class or for the same purpose, I want to know how they compare and which one is the best period. Whether I can afford the gun or not is my problem.

Was just wondering if it was just me?

 

[Kilroy]

I think they're right to consider it. Overpriced guns should be called out for lack of performance commensurate with the sticker price.

Great unbiased magazine btw, wish it was a bit thicker though.

 

[hvymax]

I look for value first.

 

[hodgepodge]

Read it and like it. Price is important; a $500 gun may be close enough to a $1000 gun that it is a better buy.

 

[todbiker]

I can certainly appreciate value and have a budget in mind for any purchase.

But if I see two guns rated 'A', one priced for $1000 and one priced for $500, then they both were considered excellent guns in a head to head competition. They were both reliable with different ammo, shot accurately, felt comfortable in the hand, etc.
I don't need someone to tell me the $500 dollar gun is a better value and more importantly I don't want it skewing the grade given.

 

[BUFF7MM]

I used to read it awhile ago, I had forgotten about it till I saw your thread, I might have to look into it again now.

 

[Tankfixr]

I have been subscribing for some time. They seem to give a pretty good evaluation of the firearms. Due to the fact that they do not accept advertising, they are not indebted to gun manufacturers ad money.

 

[Freedom]

It's a pretty good magazine, plus you don't wonder whether the review you're reading just maybe, perhaps, might have been influenced by the gun manufacturer whose ad appears in the middle of the "review".

Their searchable online archives are a real plus.

 

[Baccusboy]

Wow, I googled that magazine name and found several discussions on gun forums about it. Interesting. After reading, I'm not sure I'd buy it, but I'd love to see someone else's copy. haha

 

[lkenefic]

I used to read this a long time ago too. Good mag with lots of useful information. I liked that they didn't accept advertising so they can be unbiased in their presentation... just the facts ma'am approach.

 

[erwos]

I don't need someone to tell me the $500 dollar gun is a better value and more importantly I don't want it skewing the grade given.

Judging from the amount of price bias I've seen on the Internet (it's expensive, it must be good; it's cheap, it must be crap), I absolutely disagree with you. There are plenty of low grade, high quality items that deserve good scores because they're good values.

 

[Silverlode]

Todbiker - I agree with you 100%.

I have been a subscriber to GunTests for many years. Probably more than a decade. I have noticed an irritating decline in the magazines quality, in my opinon, over the last couple of years.

A) I want a grade on a gun's quality. I can figure out how much $ to spend based on my budget. Giving a product a lower grade based on expense is stupid. Tell me how it performs.

B) Grade a gun on it's quality. Don't grade it based on whatever strange scenario you are testing it to. If you must grade to an application, give two grades. OK, so the gun isn't good for ankle holster carry. So they give the gun a C+ when it is an A- quality gun. Stupid. Or another example. They give a bolt rifle a B+ instead of an A because they feel it is too heavy to carry hunting, but one of the othe rifles in the test gets an A and it is only a half pound lighter.

To top it off, the featured page for a particular gun recently had about 25% of it's photo and text space taken up with a picture and write up on the pants they were wearing. Hey, I like Tru-Spec pants too, but who friggen cares. It doesn't belong here.

Rant over.

Edit: Rant not quite over.

Recently I remember seeing a rating that was simply crazy and supports my argument in their decline, and the argument against grading on price. I would have to verify, but I'm pretty sure I recollect them giving a higher grade to a Hi-Point carbine than some variety of HK carbine. I don't own either brand so I am unbiased and don't have a horse in that race, but any fool can tell you HK takes a dump and it is better quality than a Hi-Point.

 

[todbiker]

I have been a subscriber to GunTests for many years. Probably more than a decade. I have noticed an irritating decline in the magazines quality, in my opinon, over the last couple of years.
QUOTE]

I've only been reading it for the last few years,so I can't comment on the quality declining. They don't blatantly advertise for manufacturers but as you pointed out, they do plug other products in their gun review articles?

B) Grade a gun on it's quality. Don't grade it based on whatever strange scenario you are testing it to. If you must grade to an application, give two grades. OK, so the gun isn't good for ankle holster carry. So they give the gun a C+ when it is an A- quality gun. Stupid. Or another example. They give a bolt rifle a B+ instead of an A because they feel it is too heavy to carry hunting, but one of the othe rifles in the test gets an A and it is only a half pound lighter.
QUOTE]

We're on the same page here.

Recently I remember seeing a rating that was simply crazy and supports my argument in their decline, and the argument against grading on price. I would have to verify, but I'm pretty sure I recollect them giving a higher grade to a Hi-Point carbine than some variety of HK carbine. I don't own either brand so I am unbiased and don't have a horse in that race, but any fool can tell you HK takes a dump and it is better quality than a Hi-Point.

I'll have to dig thru my back issues and check that out. Another thing to consider is where they get the firearms they test, from the manufacturer or off the shelf? And even if one firearm excels on test day, you still need to take that with a grain of salt. What's the manufacturers track records with Customer Service if down the line the weapon you purchased influenced by their test is a lemon or has some minor issues.

I like the mag, just don't agree with their grading system. You also made another good point, if two weapons make the same grade and have differents price points, slap a "bestbuy" award on it, just don't skew the performance grade based on economics. Or best "ankle carry" because it's 2 oz. lighter than JoJo's ultramagnum.

Edit, sorry I havn't quite mastered the "multiquote" feature yet

 

[browning guy]

I have been reading gun tests for several years and over all I thinks it a good read. I like the grading and brake down of flaws or good point of the guns.

Really like when the photos show shotty workman ship or factory defects on guns or when they are used to highlight good features.

I don't pay much attention to the pricing info as I know what I can and can not afford.

 

[Kilroy]

Here's a good example:
In the last issue they did a chart of best small 9mm carry guns. The Kel-tec ($333) is given the highest score. The Ruger LC9 ($443), which is pretty much a knock-off Kel-tec, is given a C rating because it weighs more and costs more than the gun it's trying to copy. I agree with that rating. If someone is making a comparable gun for much less, that gun is better.
The PPQ that some people here love was given a B rating because it has stronger than average recoil and a very light trigger with no external safety features. It's controversial, but I agree with that assessment. I like thumb or grip safeties.
If you don't make someone mad, you're not doing it right.

 

[lkenefic]

It sounds as though Gun Tests has changed their format in recent years. I think the last issue I looked through was about 12 years or so ago....

 

[Johnthetoolguy]

Gun Tests has a facebook page you guys can air your complaints on, if you like.

 

[todbiker]

Here's a good example:
In the last issue they did a chart of best small 9mm carry guns. The Kel-tec ($333) is given the highest score. The Ruger LC9 ($443), which is pretty much a knock-off Kel-tec, is given a C rating because it weighs more and costs more than the gun it's trying to copy. I agree with that rating. If someone is making a comparable gun for much less, that gun is better.
The PPQ that some people here love was given a B rating because it has stronger than average recoil and a very light trigger with no external safety features. It's controversial, but I agree with that assessment. I like thumb or grip safeties.
If you don't make someone mad, you're not doing it right.

I understand their logic with regards to weight, stronger than average recoil affecting your follow up shot and a light trigger with no external safeties, but I don't need them to skew the rating with price. If I see two guns with similiar grades that are of interest to me and one is much more expensive than the other, I'm going to take that into consideration if I'm interested in purchasing one of them. If one is more than I want to pay, I won't buy it.

 

[Kilroy]

Well that's you, I have a different opinion. If two guns are nearly identical and one costs hundreds more, the cheaper gun is the superior gun.

 

[Jimbob2.0]

My father in law gets it though they rarely review things I am interested in. But there classic reviews are pretty neat.