Why are magazine reviews so full of rubbish?

[njc110381]

As most of you will be aware, I'm now looking at getting an entry level .243 as a rough foxing gun. I should have known better, but today I've been off sick from work and bored, so I had a good read of the various online magazine reviews.

 

The first thing that springs to mind is that I'm better off spending a few minutes on here than a whole day reading Shooting Times/Sporting Rifle/We Kiss The **** Of Our Sponsors, articles! How can they be allowed to do it? God knows how they sell this junk!

 

One in particular article compared a Ruger, Savage and Howa. The Ruger write up was impressive. Apparently it has "4lb tough trigger", the stock is "quite hollow" and it "has a bendy fore end" which "may cause problems if used with a heavy moderator and bipod".... Ok, so that's that covered then. It was a similar story for the Savage.

 

But then we get to the end where they sum up. Lets go again with the Ruger. Apparently he "particularly liked the safety catch" and "it's a great brand". "It performed very, very well"... So there we have it - the stock is ****, the trigger is ****, and the fore end is as bendy as a month old cucumber but it's a great gun. The shooting test was conducted with the Howa and they hit their targets - full size steel foxes at 100ish yards. Again, thanks for the heads up on accuracy guys - I could do that with my .177 HW80!

 

Looks like I'd better keep asking questions on here for honest feedback. The shooting press obviously aims to please the makers and UK importers rather than give a good honest opinion that may actually make the shabby manufacturers pull their socks up! Luckily I already had my sights on a Howa, which wasn't made to sound a great deal better than it's competition.

[Scully]

It may not be what you had in mind,especially if you're buying new,but the older Sako models shouldn't be overlooked if you're looking for a budget rifle.There are some very nice examples out there,including one I spotted in Carlisle recently,their only faults being that they have been superceded by newer models.

[njc110381]

I've got nothing against used guns. In fact I buy quite a lot of them. I've been a bit reserved with the .243 though just because of it's reputation of eating barrels. I figured starting off with a new one would fend off the need for a new barrel for longer! And I'm after synthetic which seems to be a fairly recent development.

 

I suppose I could stumble across a hobby stalker's gun that's fired 100 rounds in the last twenty years. All it would take is a good bloke with a bore scope to check it out.

[Gordon R]

There are few bad reviews in the Gun press - I don't honestly recall reading one. They are mostly a pat on the back for another mediocre model.

[njc110381]

It has to be because of sponsorship? I can't think of any other reason?

[bostonmick]

I don't bother reading the reviews as I have yet to read one be it the cheapest piece of rubbish in the world to a top of the range purdey that says it is not the best gun they have ever shot and handled.go to a decent shop if you know one talk to fellow shooters who use the range of guns you would and make your choice from that.any gun that fits you will hit the target if you do your part correctly/

[njc110381]

But cheap doesn't always mean value for money? Why can't they say it's rubbish but you get what you pay for?

[kent]

Your 100% correct in your assumption. Reason is no magazine can wash its face on production and distribution costs WITHOUT ADVERTISING their all finished, write a bad review and get no more to review from that supply line without this many of the so called talent of today is sunk as they can only manage formula work (fill in the blank spots stuff). Writers of real talent still abound, issue is some have integrity. I know someone who wrote a review on a really bad gun stating it couldn't hit a beach ball at thirty feet, joking but still serious once the editor had finished it was shooting sub 1" he hasn't written much in years now.

What used to be done is a phone call to say "sorry I cannot review this item" No more was said. but that don't seem good enough now. Did we see the great writers of the past talk more than in passing about gear anyway? Nope.

[r1steele]

As most of you will be aware, I'm now looking at getting an entry level .243 as a rough foxing gun. I should have known better, but today I've been off sick from work and bored, so I had a good read of the various online magazine reviews.

 

The first thing that springs to mind is that I'm better off spending a few minutes on here than a whole day reading Shooting Times/Sporting Rifle/We Kiss The **** Of Our Sponsors, articles! How can they be allowed to do it? God knows how they sell this junk!

 

One in particular article compared a Ruger, Savage and Howa. The Ruger write up was impressive. Apparently it has "4lb tough trigger", the stock is "quite hollow" and it "has a bendy fore end" which "may cause problems if used with a heavy moderator and bipod".... Ok, so that's that covered then. It was a similar story for the Savage.

 

But then we get to the end where they sum up. Lets go again with the Ruger. Apparently he "particularly liked the safety catch" and "it's a great brand". "It performed very, very well"... So there we have it - the stock is ****, the trigger is ****, and the fore end is as bendy as a month old cucumber but it's a great gun. The shooting test was conducted with the Howa and they hit their targets - full size steel foxes at 100ish yards. Again, thanks for the heads up on accuracy guys - I could do that with my .177 HW80!

 

Looks like I'd better keep asking questions on here for honest feedback. The shooting press obviously aims to please the makers and UK importers rather than give a good honest opinion that may actually make the shabby manufacturers pull their socks up! Luckily I already had my sights on a Howa, which wasn't made to sound a great deal better than it's competition.

I bought a Howa (204) earlier this year having had a Sako, Brno and BSA's in the past and I'm more than pleased with it. They are all good as they wouldn't sell so it all comes down to budget and personal preference. For the money you pay for a new Howa you can't go wrong and it gives you a bit of extra cash for decent optics.

[al4x]

He'll we'll be hearing how good riflecraft are next and their courses

 

Nj on a serious note the reviews you have to read and look at features of the gun mentioned and go from there, most shoot pretty much the same in real life so it comes down to aesthetics.

 

Now the sensible suggestion I reckon you need a blaser, simply as one who changes caliber more often than underwear then you could just buy new barrels

 

As for advice on here people just recommend what they have, few actually use many rifles. I don't buy the older are better when it comes to rifles, my sako 85 should be awful if you listen to people trotting out the 75's are so much better all the time. All I can say is its been faultless over the few hundred foxes I've shot with it.

[Gimlet]

I wouldn't fancy a S/H .243 either, especially a varminter which has probably been used for foxing, given the current trend for barrel eating 55 grn screamers. Unless I could find one that really was mint. For an entry level new rifle it would be hard to beat a Howa for the money and you can have the spec that you want.

[Bleeh]

It has to be because of sponsorship? I can't think of any other reason?

Pretty much.

 

The first issue you have doing any review is you have to get old of the item you want to review. For something cheap this isn't an issue but for a 4x4/£5k rifle (etc) this could equate to a serious amount of money to spend filling a single page. Good companies will either loan, or give, you an item to review but only if they think you are going to do them a good review back. If you start giving low scores other companies might be weary to let you review there items.

 

The second issue is the main source of income is advertising, if a company has a massive issue with one of your review it'll pull it's adds, if this was with a big company or supplier this can equate to a lot of lost revenue.

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2013 by Bleeh

[Rexcernui]

That is the exact reason I don't read any air gun mags anymore, even reviews of blatantly carp guns get reviews that make them into super guns. Even bag of **** 8 ft/lb Chinese guns that couldn't hit a barn door and rattle like a bag of spanners get good reviews.

I understand the need for advertisers revenue but an honest opinion seems beyond them.

That's where forums like this come into their own.

[saddler]

OK

 

You as a shooter own "X" no. of guns

 

THIS SITUATION IS TERRIBLE - from the viewpoint of the importers/manufacturers

THEY want you to buy a new gun every year, or two a year...three or four would be even better

 

To make their "New Improved*" bang-stick look like it would be an essential & irreplacable addition to the rusty junk you currently own, THEY will spend THOUSANDS in glossy adverts in the press AND also in forum headers/banners in an attempt to make you spend money on said "New Improved*" bang-stick...

Glossy full colour photos and rave reviews all add to the smoke & mirrors tactics...SOME of the independant reviews read more like the importers press release.

The shooting press is very well served by regular adverts from the bigger firms - they are so deep in each others pockets that the ONLY way to find out WHAT is good or not among the new products is to search online to read ACTUAL user reviews on the internet.

 

Anyway - IF you want something that WILL work and get the job done, look at the makers own figures.

Quite a few guns were/are in production with very little change to them for many many decades - in the case of the Browning Auto 5 - a year short of a century....99 years; what else changed in the world in that time, yet the A5 remained essentially the same gun as it had been when first made. Name something else with a similar claim...

By contrast, the "New Improved*" Auto 5? I'd be surprised if it is still on the books in 5 years time - its JUNK.

It had rave reviews in the US press - ACTUAL user reports and feedback = it's a p.o.s. - marketing photos should show it covered in a hundred weight of bluebottles

 

Oh, in case you had been in a cave for a century or so - in "New Improved*"...the " * " part should read as "...we found a way to cut manufacturing costs, use cheaper less durable materials, apply a poorer finish, move the factory to a cheaper wages zone/farm out 90% of the parts to the former Soviet Union/Turkey AND we redesigned a perfectly durable product that would have served you for decades, into one that will require extensive tweaking to work...before the internal parts require replacing: meaning that the 4 or 5 years down the line at which point the internals let go will be too bad for you as by then "New Improved" bang-stick will have itself been replaced & you'll have zero chance of getting parts so you HAVE TO now stump up the readies for the "Newer more Improved" bang-stick..."

 

CYNICAL?

Nope - just educated on what has gone on and what still happens...e.g. chances are that you shoot a cartridge fed gun. Yes.?

Asked yourself WHY?

Ever heard about the problems faced by the ammo firms in the USA, unable to sell enough cartridges & cartridge fed guns at the turn of the 20th century?
The frims looked into this, to find that the majority of shooters were sticking with their old family owned black powder arms. Cheaper to use, accurate enough for their needs, etc.

The solution? The US firms stopped making black powder & percussion caps....

No supplies for "granpa's damascus squirrel gun" = better get down to the store & order a new turn bolt doohicky from the Sears catalog

Edited August 10, 2013 by saddler

[magman]

It's amazing that so many people purchased .17 HMR's, they being probably the newest 'broom to arrive in the cupboard'?

 

The Riflecraft course was actually very good Alex. Considering the moaning and complaining that goes on and some of the terrifying questions some shooters ask AFTER owning a gun, perhaps we should congratulate a course designed to teach people about guns and shooting? Not much point being 'advised' to do a DSC for night time foxing or getting a Mentor for you rabbit control variations is there. I learned one or two nuggets over the two days funnily enough and the other shooters on the course very much enjoyed the experience.

 

Oh yes, and its technically legal too, unlike many of the advised ways of gaining first hand experience with a rifle! But, should we discuss that on an open forum or continue to gloss over it?

 

Serious reviewers have an RFD for this purpose and full liability insurance.

 

I'm one of them hate the caliber to death yet it fill's a gap and will not get rid :wacko: work that one out

[DaveK]

 

:wacko: work that one out

Like the constipated mathematician, I worked it out with a pencil, got rid of the HMR and bought a 22 'ornit and never looked back.

 

See, sitting in the back of the bivvymobile getting my head caved in by the roof round Tong 4x4 centre did the job.

[kent]

That is the exact reason I don't read any air gun mags anymore, even reviews of blatantly carp guns get reviews that make them into super guns. Even bag of **** 8 ft/lb Chinese guns that couldn't hit a barn door and rattle like a bag of spanners get good reviews.

I understand the need for advertisers revenue but an honest opinion seems beyond them.

That's where forums like this come into their own.

As much as the guilty might defend themselves this is so true forums give warts and all and not all agree on another guys verdict which is a bit more credible than the same kit getting practically the same review in every mag (like it was written by the importer on a fill in the blanks basis)- were are the bad reviews? don't kid on there are plenty bad guns being made. I personally stood and witnessed a Semi auto mis feed on test "continually jambing" is an understatement! This was in the hands of a guy for review and not a blasted word bad was said about these issues not even a "very cartridge fussy but ok when you find what it likes",. Now is that because they felt unable to insult any who owned the gun? Heck no! Its pretty bad form against all those who trust your opinion though.

What we need is a Clarkson. That said the only car I ever bought following good reviews from all and "which car" was the biggest pile of trash I ever had the misfortune to own. Perhaps it aint limited to guns

[kent]

Good gun had one a number of years. It occasionally gets a 3 1/2" Remmington shell stuck in the ejection port as they are a slight too long when fold crimped, about 1-100 light clay loads will fail to cycle the next. Both issues can be sorted either by using a gamebore 3 1/2" shell or roll crimping hand loads and picking a slightly more aggressive clay load, it makes no odds to me though as a rarely shoot clays or over light loads as I have other guns for that.

Clean the barrel, gas ports, action body, bolt, gas piston and magazine internals periodically like all autos. Mine has seen hell over the 4-5yrs I have owned it and yes I should buy another if I was replacing it tomorrow.

 

The above is a forum review of the Winchester SX3 given the other day, which I happen to like but it is "warts and all"

Edited August 10, 2013 by kent

[30-6]

I don't buy as many mags now as i used to, in fact very little. Some of the photos in there are from the archives and repeated regulary. Some they talk in the write up about how a certain gun performed, but the picture shows them standing over their bag with a totally different gun.

 

It is so obvious that they are "plugging" products, instead of saying for example - the rangefinder worked well, it is put over as the so and so rangefinder supplied by so and so was outstanding.

[al4x]

I might add fister I was only pulling your chain it was a good piece and its definitely needed judging by this place. I have to say I hope your spot in that magazine continues.

[Gimlet]

I've given up reading shooting magazines, except in the news agents before I buy the thing I really came in for. For one thing its the same old people writing in every magazine, pretty much. There's a small shooting press clique and very little objective criticism. Everything's great. The guns are great, the scopes are great, the knives are great, the boots are great, the clothing is great, and often it isn't. Shooting is no different to any other walk of life: you get what you pay for, or sometimes less. You almost never get more.

And for another thing there are rarely any decent articles actually about shooting. The honourable exceptions being foxing articles by Robert Bucknell and Mike Powell (whose kit, it must be said, is usually great..) And I enjoy Rolf's Recollections. Otherwise, regardless of which publication, its pictures of **** ******* in pink corduroys and a Homberg hat pointing a shotgun unconvincingly skyward with one eye on the camera, and wishy-washy written efforts along the lines of: "It was a lovely evening. We parked the trusty Landrover, crept along the side of the wood, around a bush and found our first rabbit. A crack form the ----- (fill in with rifle make of your choice) delivered the shot unerringly and the first one was in the bag." (If its deer stalking the rifle will bark. I don't know why. I've owned several .308s and none of them barked.) They'll shoot two or three more and possibly a corvid for the bag photo, the rifle will perform perfectly, the ammo will great and the scope will be great. On the way back someone will conveniently fall over in the mud and test the "well designed" cammo suit, which will be great. The end. Home to bed.

Where's the detail, the strategy, the field lore, the personal observations? That's what's interesting.

 

Edit: Well I never. **** ******* is a swear word.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Gimlet

[kent]

I've given up reading shooting magazines, except in the news agents before I buy the thing I really came in for. For one thing its the same old people writing in every magazine, pretty much. There's small shooting press clique and very little objective criticism. Everything's great. The guns are great, the scopes are great, the knives are great, the boots are great, the clothing is great, and often it isn't. Shooting is no different to any other walk of life: you get what you pay for, or sometimes less. You almost never get more.

And for another thing there are rarely any decent articles actually about shooting. The honourable exceptions being foxing articles by Robert Bucknell and Mike Powell (whose kit, it must be said, is usually great..) And I enjoy Rolf's Recollections. Otherwise, regardless of which publication, its pictures of **** ******* in pink corduroys and a Homberg hat pointing a shotgun unconvincingly skyward with one eye on the camera, and wishy-washy written efforts along the lines of: "It was a lovely evening. We parked the trusty Landrover, crept along the side of the wood, around a bush and found our first rabbit. A crack form the ----- (fill in with rifle make of your choice) delivered the shot unerringly and the first one was in the bag." (If its deer stalking the rifle will bark. I don't know why. I've owned several .308s and none of them barked.) They'll shoot two or three more and possibly a corvid for the bag photo, the rifle will perform perfectly, the ammo will great and the scope will be great. On the way back someone will conveniently fall over in the mud and test the "well designed" cammo suit, which will be great. The end. Home to bed.

Where's the detail, the strategy, the field lore, the personal observations? That's what's interesting.

 

Edit: Well I never. **** ******* is a swear word.

 

I sometimes wonder if we will ever see another "BB", Richard walker, Brian Plumber etc. I don't know about others that even the loudest bang goes un-noticed when I drop a nice buck etc. and the only barking I ever hear is when I stupidly bump one during the stalk in

[JonathanL]

.

What you forget njc is that if you insult a gun, you insult readers who may already own it, it's the same reason you cant expect a gun owner to be truly objective about their own guns, if they indicate faults, they effectively criticise themselves.

 

 

This is to miss the point somewhat. It's not about 'insulting' the product, it's about writing a critical opinion of it. If it has some points the reviewer doesn't like then they should be included.

 

I'm not so sure that unduly favourable reviews are all down to wanting to protect advertising revenues. There are only a few shooting publications and the manufacturers and importers have to advertise somewhere. Also, it's all very well to consider your advertisers but the magazines have to consider their readers as well. What's the point of buying a shooting rag for the reviews if you know that said reviews are all going to be biased rubbish?

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Pretty much.

 

The first issue you have doing any review is you have to get old of the item you want to review. For something cheap this isn't an issue but for a 4x4/£5k rifle (etc) this could equate to a serious amount of money to spend filling a single page. Good companies will either loan, or give, you an item to review but only if they think you are going to do them a good review back. If you start giving low scores other companies might be weary to let you review there items.

 

The second issue is the main source of income is advertising, if a company has a massive issue with one of your review it'll pull it's adds, if this was with a big company or supplier this can equate to a lot of lost revenue.

 

 

 

 

I see your points here but it goes both ways, surely? There aren't that many shooting rags and the suppliers have to advertise somewhere. They won't cut their own noses off to spite their face. What about companies who really are making a superior product? If a rag is busy giving glowing reports to everything it reviews then where is the incentive to let them review your product when it is essentially going to be given the same score as something far less good?

 

J.

[Gordon R]

fister - I thought it was a fair point, which didn't miss the point at all.

 

Warts and all reviews are a rarity. If a tester started pointing out all the faults, I'm sure they wouldn't get much repeat business.

 

I also agree that many shooters aren't always objective and see their own guns through rose tinted specs.

 

I have owned a fair number of guns and many had faults which should have been picked up on a review / test.

 

Remington 1100 - superb auto, but forend never felt totally secure.

 

Blaser F3 - funny trigger pulls.

 

Winchester 23 - hardest trigger pulls I have ever felt. Shot with two - both the same - I thought the guns were defective at first.

 

Winchester 101 series - many were actually loose when still in the box.

 

Beretta - about 20 years ago - had wood to metal fit so bad you could stick a feeler gauge into the gap.

 

Laurona - brilliant guns, but I bought a brand new Trap model in the 80s from Bond and Bywater - the chrome inside the barrel was flawed.

 

Smith and Wesson auto - worst shape pistol grip I have ever encountered. Another with a loose forend design. Bought one because they were very, very cheap at the time.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Gordon R