If I recall the situation correctly, which years later may not be absolutely correct, the dust-up where Finn left the NRA publication was at least partly due to him running some tests on a new big game bullet made by a major ammunition manufacturer. He reported it failed his test, and so badly he would never use one on big game. (He may not have used those exact words, but that was the gist.)
And he was absolutely correct about the bullet--but when I talked to one of the major representatives of the company at a major sporting goods show shortly after the article appeared, he claimed "they" (some unspecified "they" from the company) had taken the ammo to Africa and it worked fine. "They" may have done that, but the guy couldn't provide any specifics about bullet performance, such as size of animals, placement of shots, etc.
Even more interesting was the fact that the company dropped that POS of a bullet (yes, I tested some too) shortly afterward, and introduced another very good big game bullet. I also wouldn't be surprised if Finn resigned, instead of being fired--but don't know, and never asked him.
In my own experience, the policy of various publications about real testing of advertisers' products varies considerably. A few magazines won't run any slight hint of a negative review, not many. Generally if a product is really substandard, then the publication won't even run a review. Why not, you ask?
Well, for one thing some have done that, and then gotten a bunch of letters and/or e-mails from readers, wondering why the publication wasted space (and the reader's time) on such junk. Still, once in a while really bad product gets a really bad review--and the last time I remember writing one that got published appeared in one of the NRA publications--though on their Internet site, not in a paper magazine. The product was an absolute POS rifle scope, and apparently I wrote a funny enough review for them appreciate the humor.
But the policy of MOST magazines I've written for is IF the product really sucks, to contact the manufacturer again, describe what happened, and ask if it was simply one defective product, which can happen even with really good manufacturers. Then, if the manufacturer is willing to send another sample, it gets tested to see what happens.
If it does work as claimed, then the review gets published. If not, then the review does not appear. One example was a big game rifle made by a major company. The first one they sent me shot so poorly that I then did something I should have done before going to the range--check it out thoroughly. It turned out one of the two locking lugs on the bolt wasn't even contacting its seat inside the action. The company apologized, and along with sending a shipping label for the first rifle to be returned, also sent a second rifle. But the second rifle turned out to have exactly the same problem. The magazine never published ANY review of the rifle.
On the other hand, some new products were defective, but the company soon fixed 'em. I know this due to getting another new scope from major company that fell apart within about 20 rounds when mounted on a very accurate .375 H&H. The company wanted it back to see what failed, and after finding out pulled that entire production run, and changed part of the internal design. The second scope worked perfectly on the same rifle.
But the spectrum of possible responses, both from manufacturers and magazines, partly depends on the policy of their personnel at the time. I have worked for magazines where the policy changed depending on who was in charge, and have tested products from manufacturers who refused to admit some of their products weren't perfect--and those who were always open to hearing how they might be improved.
