Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Gun Reviews

Gun reviews are a part of shooting/hunting magazines and after talking with several friends about them I would like to pose a question to the Campfire:

As a reader / consumer, how would you like to see them presented?

I am curious about how much technical info you might like to see included along with how much of the writer's opinion, if any, you would like shared.

Do you like close up photography of the gun, pictures of the targets or just photos of somebody handling / shooting it?

How about accuracy results? Detailed charts with velocities, mostly factory or handloads, pictures of targets or just a comment about how it shot.

Do you really care how the writer came about the gun? Does it matter if it was loaned by the manufacturer, purchased by the writer, a gift from his dad or borrowed from a buddy?

And finally, with regard to hunting GUNS (not bullets) do you give a hoot if the writer actually used it to shoot a critter?

Feel free to pick at anything of mine you may have read but I am not asking for pokes at other writers.

WT, Boy hi Dee are you asking for it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

All I can speak for is me of course so here goes nothing.

I can't abide a gun review that is a warmed over press release. I want your opinion, that is why I read what you (generic you here as opposed to personal) write. Tell me what you think about the gun. If the article has your name on it be proud enough to say what you think.

No gun is perfect. I want to know what you don't like more than what you do and more inportantly why you don't like it. My prejudices may be different from yours. A statement such as " I don't care for pink trigger shoes but the one on this rifle works well," is really helpful. I might think pink trigger shoes are the berries.

Technicals are fine in a list. Price is important and make sure it is the price of the gun you are using. Not a stripped basic model. Please don't do it like autos. Big sign says 2005 Wampuscat, $465.00 then in fine print you find, model shown $762.00. Don't do that to me.

Pictures of the target are great along with all the details of what produced said target. Pictures of the gun are great. I should care what you look like? Pictures of some defunct animal with the author grinning like a chessie cat are a turn off in a gun review, IMO.

Why should I care how you got the gun. Bought it, stole it, won it in a crap game. What difference does it make. Unless the writer is obviously, overly fulsome in his praise and I find out it was a freebie. That makes the comments suspect. As I said, no gun is perfect, I want to hear about the warts too.


BCR

Like posted above, what I like is straight talk. But straight shooting in any gun rag is a fantasy. We all know that gun writers are for the most part prostitutes. Paid to perform a service. If they don't perform that service to their John's satisfaction then they get no repeat business.

Wow Whitetail, you sort of unzipped your fly so to speak <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />. I like reviews that are honest to the T. If it's a piece of crap, then it's a piece of crap. I know that it's nice to always look for the good in everything but don't let that put blinders up over the bad things. In addition, if it's a hunting rifle then test it with hunting ammo. Some standard/non-premium hunting ammo at that. Most factory ammo shooters don't grab that $40 a box stuff to chase deer. I'm sure more Remington Core-Lokt and WInchester Power Points get shot into deer every fall than anything else.

I like close in pics of things mentioned in the article. For example, if the article discusses the safety or other device on the rifle, then how about a close up pic of it. I realize that there is limited picture space but you get the idea.

All in all, most gun reviews aren't bad. They just don't seem to be as foreward about if a particular gun is a lemon or not. Then again, I guess the world's getting better at turning out guns too?!?!

whitetail,
I like to know how you came about the gun, espically if you bought it. If the rifle was given to you and you say nothing bad about it or your dislikes it is suspect. I like to see rifles shot with factory ammo because that is what I shoot. Groups shot with reloads and factory stuff are fine if you decide to list both. If it is a new caliber you are testing I think it is fine to show pic's on animals taken with it, as well as how you felt it performed good or bad. If it is caliber that has been around awhile most people already know how a 30-06 performes. As far as price goes, I agree with BCR. Tell us the price of the gun you tested, not a list from $500-$700.
What it comes down to is be honest with the readers. I think some people can see through a free test rifle with no complaints. Good luck.

tzone

GUN: Resembles a mudded fence post; handles like a lead-filled 2x4; fittings are stamped, with a wood metal gap you could lose your car keys in; finish, overall, a step above that of a cement sidewalk.

REVIEW: The new Savchester Ti ( tin ) was a bit hefty but seem to settle in well ( settle in? ) but because of incessant rain we couldn't get to the range. Overall workmanship was utilitarian, a true field rifle with understated almost reaching classy looks ( press pic of rifle on a velvet back drop with shaded lightng ). I could definitely see a place and a use for this rifle ( as what? A tire iron, long tent peg or crow bar? .

READER: AAAAaaaaaaaagggghghhhhhh!
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

This is what I like
http://www.gun-tests.com/

To me how you came by the gun is very important, I just can't see a company pulling one off the shelf and sending to be reviewed in a gun rag without first checking it out to make sure it is all they want it to be. I would much prefer you get one out of a retail outlet that I could buy from.
How much you paid for it is not important but the MSRP and the average retail price is. The calibers available in that particular model is important. The actual one you reviewed is important to a lesser extent. Accuracy of the test subject and average velocity of factory ammo. Barrel lengths available. Bolt info, is it smooth, is it a true short action or a long action with the bolt stop moved forward, is it jeweled. Trigger info, is it smooth, does it break crisp or is there creep, what is the pull weight, can it be ajusted by the owner or does it need to go to a Smith, how many rounds does it hold, what kind of safety,where is it, is it noisy, is it easy to operate. Stock info, wood, plastic, or both available. Action and barrel fit to the stock, if wood, what kind, is it pretty, look at several and give an over all opinion, if plastic rate it, LOP, drop at heel, etc. How is the fit and finish of the final product, does it look finished, rough, or in between, weight, balance. Does it point naturally or is it a chore, when it comes to the cheek are you looking through the scope or do you have to adjust your head. Pictures, lots if it's pretty, some if it is utlitarian, of each aspect, bolt, safety, trigger group, fully assembled. Rate it by retail price against other manufactures offerings in the same price range. Well enough for now, and by the way thanks for asking.

I gotta agree with Snuffy1...I always figured the manufacturers send the most accurate gun they could find when loaning for a gun writer test. Go get one off the shelf somewhere...that would mean more to me.

Otherwise, tell it as you see it.

dvnv

As far as I can tell the gun reviews in the "slicks" consist of, "If you can't say something good, don't say anything at all" and I doubt that will change. Furthermore, most comparisons are going to end up concluding that the things being compared are all pretty good, which is all probably true. All of which means that if your gun is reviewed at all it is probably pretty good. Same for the product, caliber, scope, etc being compared. Beyond that you are on your own or subscribe to Gun Review and hope they finally get around to a firearm you might be interested in which, in my case, they rarely did.

honest assessment of off-the-rack guns/scopes. it would be really nice if the reviewer always uses a standard, brief, joe blow break-in/check-over procedure for like guns (obviously, you wouldn't use the same procedure for a revolver and bolt-action rifle), and always makes note in abbreviated form what this procedure is. handloads, i believe, interest only the purist rifle cranks. i'd be happy if the reviewer would shoot at least three factory loads but no more than six or so to illustrate functional, real world accuracy potential for the given gun, at real world ranges for the intended game or other use. if the reviewer gets to kill game with it, then fine and dandy. hunting stories should be distinct from shooting stories and reviews. the chance for an honest review goes up astronomically if the reviewer does NOT get a free trip for alberta whitetails in exchange for the use of a new gun. i guess the reviewer could assess the gun first, file his article, and THEN go on the trip and write another article - but keep them separate. always, in the interest of full disclosure, reveal how any gun reviewed came into the reviewer's hands.

Of course a .30-06 will kill a deer, so I really don't need a picture of a dead critter to tell me that. But I do want to know how well the firearm performs as a tool in the field. Does the action operate smoothly? Does the extractor extract, does the ejector eject, does the piece feed reliably, etc? Is the recoil pad, if present, just a cosmetic touch, or does it actually soften the blow to the shooter's shoulder? Can the safety be easily and silently engaged and disengaged? Tell me all about the trigger: pull weight, creep (smooth or not), overtravel, adjustments or even a recommendation to take it to a gunsmith for adjustment or replacement with a Rifle Basix or Jewell or other aftermarket unit. Balance and handling is crucial to me, so I want the firearm's moment of inertia (with and without telesight) in standard units. See articles by Harold Davidson in the 2005 Gun Digest and by Don Amos in September-October 2001 Shooting Sportsman for details. Of course I want the moment of inertia of the piece itself and as mounted at the shoulder. To make these moment of inertia figures meaningful to the reader, perhaps a small table of such figures for popular arms could be displayed, such as a standard Winchester 94, a 12 ga Remington 870 with a 26 inch VR bbl with interchangeable chokes, etc. The crying need is for information that is useful to a potential buyer and few so-called gun tests actually give much information beyond the manufacturer's press releases. Accuracy or patterns with a variety of factory loads would be useful, because many shooters don't reload ammunitioin. As a reloader myself, I want to know what to expect from decent ammo in that particular model as I try to meet or exceed the accuracy of factory loads.

A sample of one gun is too small. I'd like to see an article where a few knowledgeable owners who have actually paid for and used these rifles are put together to test a number of these rifles to compare them to see what the average accuracy and quality of that particular rifle is. What the owners do and do not like about them, the reliability of them, how they handle wear and tear etc. A review of the different owners opinion of these rifles after being used for a while would give the average guy a better feeling for the product being offered. One individuals opinion about one sample gun really dosen't really tell me anything.

Whitetail,

I am looking for information on the design and implementation, and its probable field effectiveness and suitability for hunting.

I like to see a whole-gun photo, plus detail photos of details -- especially if the design is new or unusual. I don't care about photos of shooters or dead animals, unless that is like a sidebar on "field impressions" or some such.

I am looking for your professional opinions. I like to see at least one target because I can read information from the group in addition to size. I don't care about chrono data unless the cartridge is new.

I like tables of specifications. I recall once reading to the last line of one to find that the otherwise wonderful rifle weighed 12 pounds!

I like details on breeching, gas handling and the other design details of the action. If it is built on a standard action, saying so is usualy enough. Similar for the barrel (manufacture, #lands & grooves, taper, twist, crown).

I have provided comments to manufacturers on guns, and I would like to read the author's similar conclusions.

Edit: and photo detail of fired cases.

jim

FWIW:

I prefer reviews of guns the author owns because the author usually spent a little of his own money on some aspect of the rifle (Trigger, bedding, whatever . . . ).

How the writer spends his own money tells me a lot more about the rifle than anything else. That is where I will likely spend my money.

Equip the rifle like you would use it in the field for its intended game. I also want to know what scope YOU put on YOUR OWN rifle. Again, that tells me a lot.

Example: Review of the 325 WSM = Use a SCope for Elk hunting (2.5-8x36 or less).

BTW-"I hate the "double product test." This is where "We had a Simooner XB 12-36x75 AO Scope at the office, so we mounted it on the Marlin 45-70 and shot Marmots at 275 yards!"

You think I am crazy, but I have seen 2 product reviews of the Guide Gun where the writer stuck a 3-9x40 on it--then plugged the scope in the Article!

Garbage, pure garbage. I learned less than nothing from those reviews.

If you gotta plug multiple items in a review, plug a combination that belongs together.

EX: Ghost Ring aperture sight + a guide gun + Billy-Bobs Buffalo Shooter Butt Cuff + Buffalo Bore 405 grain LBT Ammo is AOK. Take the whole set up down to Texas for close quarters Hog Hunting, you move from a good article to really good. Use the combo for a year shoot deer, hogs, a black bear and tell the truth including all pluses and minuses, you have a GREAT article.

I don't mind leaning about products, just don't lie to me in order to squeeze every advertiser into the article.

That's my 2 cents.

BMT

Here's an example of an informative-gun/guncompany review that would never see print in an industry magazine.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/408405/an/0/page/0#408405

It seems as if all the important points have been covered, but one aspect I'd stress is getting an honest opinion from the writer. Tell us what you liked and why you liked it. Give details. I can pretty much figure out the fluff after that. I've read enough articles to know when writer X is doing an advertisement or whether he really likes the item, and I've generally read enough from the writer to get an idea whether we will like the same type of rifle. Face it, if I've never heard of the writer before, his opinion isn't going to mean much. If his background is benchrest or competitive shooting, that can color his opinion of a snappy carbine, for example, and that tends to show through. I also know that some writers and I just will never seem to like the same type of rifles. I like hunting rifles and I will pay attention to a writer that comes across as a hunter, but I don't need to see the results of your latest trophy either because, chances are, we won't hunt the same areas. A writer with a long wingspan might find a particular rifle to be exceptionally comfortable, but not all of us are equipped with 36" sleeve lengths. Keep that in mind and don't be hesitant to tell us short-armed people that a rifle model might not be a good fit.

Now, when a writer tells his viewers that his sister took the rifle away from him for her use, and then used it well, there is an added confidence in both the rifle and the honesty of the writer.

While I'm sure we're going to get more pertinent comments here, I'd like to make a few myself before we go much further.

Generally I test rifles with handloads, only sometimes with factory ammo. Why? One practical reason is that there are so many different factory loads these days that if I try 3, some readers are sure to complain that I didn't try X, Y and Z as well. So I generally try a handload that has shot reasonably well in a number of other rifles of the same chambering, usually with some sort of average-type bullet, such as a Hornady Interlock. Since I also generally test rifles I own, the rifle has also been tuned up a little.

Also, it impossible even in my fairly large workshop to keep all those darn factory loads around.

Of course, the markets I mainly write for are more specialized than the big-circulation magazines that cater more to average guy. Most readers of my magazines are gun tinkerers and handloaders, and want to know that sort of potential, not out of the box/factory ammo accuracy.

While once in a while I have been informed that some company selected a rifle (or scope or handgun or shotgun) to send me, I can't believe this is the case even 10% of the time. This is because too many of the rifles I've gotten to test have been defective in some way. The others have shown no evidence of ever having a scope mounted. In fact, my experience with rifles direct from manufacturers is about like my experience with rifles I purchase myself, either new or used, from other outlets. They generally need some tweaking, and a few need real fixing. So if they're hand-picking rifles they're doing a piss-poor job of it. I believe they generally do look to see if the bolt is in the box, though, since I've never had a rifle arrive without one.

I would guess that 15% of the scopes I get fail in some way or another within 50 shots. Either they are bad out of the box or they get that way quickly. Often I do write about this, but only after the manufacturer has had a chance to send another.

In one case the first new scope of certain top line broke within 20 rounds. They replaced it with not one but two scopes. One of these was defective (wouldn't focus) out of the box, the other worked fine. I reported this in the article, but only after the company had made major changes to the new scope. They evidently fixed the problem because it turned out to be a very, very popular item 2-3 years ago.

Now, I could have just written that it was a POS and truly hurt the chances of the new scope ever selling. But everybody deserves a break on new stuff. Or at least I believe they do. You might ask owners of the Zeiss Conquest how they feel, because that was the scope in question.

You won't see too many POS reviews in the gun rags because there isn't space. Despite what many readers say, mostly they want to know what works--not what doesn't.

And most of today's stuff is indeed pretty good, especially when you consider that the average new bolt rifle or 3-9x scope costs less (in inflation-adjusted $$$ terms) than it ever has.

Some people really like to see a dead animal in the story. Usually this ends up being an unfortunate deer, pronghorn, or caribou. I don't know why this should be, because we long ago proved that just about any cartridge from the .243 up will kill such animals neatly if we point it right. But some poeple like to see proof that gun went bang and hurt something. If a dead deer makes you sad, or miffs you off somehow, don't look at the photos.

It would be really cool if we could some up with a standardized balance/momentum test for all firearms. I read the two articles mentioned when they came out, and while interesting, but not one in 100 readers gives a darn.

Even if they did, such a test would only be a vague guide, because people vary so much. I know this from all the shooting I do with my wife. She likes handguns, rifles and shotguns to be very different than I want 'em, even if they appear to balance similarly. I have found this generally true of the human race, the reason I do try to mention that some folks might feel differently about a 9-pound deer rifle or a 5-pound 28-gauge.

Most readers also don't give a hoot about details of gas-handling, camming angles, etc. etc. In fact such details put them to sleep. Sorry, but it's true.

I generally don't supply a price unless it's much more than the average $400-$700 for most of today's new rifles. Why? Because prices vary too much, from suggested retail to actual retail to discount--and from day to day.

If it's much more than $700 I generally do provide a ballpark figure, but even then things change rapidly. A custom rifle I bought 1-1/2 years ago for $1900 is now $2650 minimum. For rifles like that I do supply prices, as you would be surprised how many readers think a super-custom rifle of any kind should cost $500.

I generally supply anywhere from 20-30 photos with each article, showing everything from overall shots to details to targets, etc. Whether they end up in the magazine is at the whims of the art director. Often they prefer detail rather than overall shots of the rifle because of the cheap paper the photos are printed on. The detail photos appear sharper.

Oh, and mec, your 24hour piece might go in a magazine, if it was somewhat longer with even more detail, especially about how you came to your conclusions. Drag us along while things go wrong, don't just tell us that they have.

MD

Speaking for myself, I like the technical minutiae. That's one of the reasons I usually read gun magazines versus hunting magazines.

Killing a critter with the rifle only counts if there is a detailed description of bullet performance on the target (assuming something larger than a varmint), as I am really interested in how bullet A at velocity B penetrated/expanded on critter C at distance D. I already know that a .270 will kill a deer, but I'd really like to know if the 130 Speer Hot Core at 3050 FPS muzzle velocity maintains integrity after whacking a big muley shoulder at an unexpectedly short range.

PLEASE don't show me pix of the writer holding the rifle/shotgun at port arms or staring through the scope in the offhand position with a caption similar to "Stan Rees found the Remchester Model 777 makes a great deer rifle" AAAGGHHHHHH!

Please do show me lots of closeup pix of the gun's details.

If something wasn't good, don't make excuses for it.

Check accuracy of all arms of a similar type at the same distance. I've noticed some writers will test one iron-sighted lever gun at distance X, the next at distance Y. Be consistent.

That's my 2 pesos.

whitetail, you have a well written post with good questions. I can take someone's word he/she got 3/4" three shot groups so a pic of the target isn't needed. How the rifle looks mounted for shooting is better for me. Closeup pics of the firearm is good for me. If a hunter is worth their salt more shooting will be done at the range than in the field with a rifle or handgun so actual hunting isn't necessary. If it is used to hunt with, how the firearm performed is more important than how pretty the countryside was.