Just curious what the general opinion was of the Gun Tests magazine? I've heard of them for years, but never looked at them until someone gave me 2 of their recent issues the other day.

From reading these 2 issues, although not extensively, my initial impression was that they are like that "Mythbusters" show: well meaning but not really knowing what they are doing. The testing didn't seem to have any scientific method to it, and they didn't seem to take into account long term durability of the guns, only how they performed right out of the box. I couldn't tell that they were biased one way or another, but their testing seemed to be flawed in several cases.

Is this generally correct regarding this magazine? What's your opinion?

Thats the feeling I get as well.

You can get better info from forums such as this. I took the magazine for a year but did not renew it. At least with a forum such as this you can ask a specific question.

I've been getting this mag for about 5 years now.
While they do test alot of guns, they are most definitely Biased, and alot of times wrong in their conclusions.
When the Mag started, they used to just go into a gun store, and buy one off the shelf, run it, and report. it's gone to personal opines now, and a grading system that can be, at times, off the mark.
As of late, they seem to only test High end stuff.

My subscription may lapse this October, but it is a good way to find out what's new.
Take the info for what it's worth.

Suscribed for several years and finally got so tired of reading about M1911 clones at the exclusion of revolvers and rifles, that I let it lapse.

Can't say I've missed it too much.

I get G&A which is really all I need for the new stuff. Its cheaper, and I know its already biassed, like every other magazine.

I get G&A which is really all I need for the new stuff. Its cheaper, and I know its already biassed, like every other magazine.

I think that is true to a large extent, but Rifle and Handloader from Wolfe Publishing are still worth reading.

I will second that about Rifle and Handloader. I actually look forward to these two magazines. My wife knows when either of these periodicals arrive, she can forget about any conversation with me for a while.

I was just going by the definition of a magazine, a periodical based on opinion, versus a peer review journal which is fact checked by several (often dozens) of educated professionals. back to regular programming now.

Rifle and Handloader have nice photography, as a hobbyist I enjoy that aspect.

The only magazines I suscribe to now are Rifle, Handloader and Successful Hunter. Get the American Rifleman and North American Hunter by lifetime membership. Could do without the NA Hunter rag - usually hits the garbage before reading.

The only magazines I suscribe to now are Rifle, Handloader and Successful Hunter. Get the American Rifleman and North American Hunter by lifetime membership. Could do without the NA Hunter rag - usually hits the garbage before reading.

Looks like I take the same Mags for the same reason, with the same results. Only I also take Backwoodsman. Lots of intresting articles in there that makes for good entertaining reading.

I get Handloader and Precision Shooting. PS is one of the few published collections of "really good" shooting info still available; although it centers around benchrest shooting and some gunsmithing. There was some mag called Varmint Hunter or something like that that was pretty good too, but I haven't found it lately.

BTW, thanks for the replies. I agree this forum and others like it are much more informative than magazines; I was just curious to see others' opinion of Gun Tests.

I like Gun Test magazine.

I have had gun test off and on.some of their tests seem to be superficial.they mentioned Brolin in last flyer and that gun has gone out of business.some tests down graded the guns that I have had that worked flawless.and some the price was right but might need a tweking.;)-:confused:-:rolleyes:

I took Gun Tests for a year and never renewed. That was back when they were new, and the fact they only tested one sample of each gun put me off. They have no way of knowing whether they got one that is typical or one that is an exception, good or bad. That is true of most magazine testing, but I guess I expected a magazine named Gun Tests would have at least one person who understood the concepts of statistical significance and confidence or would put up a warning that YMMV. Nope. I concluded it was just meaningless except insofar as bad performance in a test suggests the manufacturer has QC issues. We already knew that from the number of custom smith's in business.