GunTest Magazine and Ruger

[denfoote]

My friend got his new issue of Gun test. In it, it had a review of the KP97. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. The "K" designation in the model number refers to having a stainless steel slide. Now, unless Ruger has changed some thing, the "K" does not refer to whether or not the gun in question has a manual safety. Well, that is what this goof over at this ever irritating rag (I, for one am still P.O.'ed over the Makarov review) thinks!!! He also gave it only a "conditional buy" rating. This, after giving the KP95DC a "best buy"!!!! I don't know where this goofball gets his info, but it seems to be from a cracker jack box or maybe he got it from HCI!!!!! Moreover, he likes the "new and improved" HS2000 better!!!!!

 

[rblack]

I like my HS2000 better than the P95 or P97. I really like Ruger revolvers, but not their semi-autos. To each his own I guess.

 

[blades67]

I, for one am still P.O.'ed over the Makarov review

Why, because the review didn't blow sunshine up your skirt about it? I've encountered two makarovs that were complete crap. I have also had idiots on this board say that I lied about them being crap. (because they like them ) Gun Review buys a gun, takes it to the range and then writes a report about that one gun while making statements that include all the guns of that model. Not exactly something to get your panties in a bunch over. Get over it and move on.

 

[J. Parker]

I was a gun rag fanatic until I discovered TFL. If I want hands-on, ownership experience with a handgun I look to TFL. I very rarely buy a gun mag anymore.
My first hand experience with a Makarov (of any country)? A great buy from any country and a superb handgun. A Ruger P-95? Absolutely one of the best buys of the twentieth century. The only handgun that approaches the P-95 is the fine line of CZ pistols.
Yeah, I'm as pissed as you are. These gun rag testers are totally paid off and lame as can be. Trust TFL and GlockTalk and you can't go wrong. Best, John

 

[Sundance]

Well actually Gun Test magazine, the one in question, is unique in that it accepts no paid advertisements so in theory the reviews should be objective. However, personal biases still rule the roost. I respect their reviews much more so than the average gun magazine, but as a general rule, I'll hold out until I can handle and shoot the gun myself to make my conclusion. The point here is, just like in the newspapers, don't believe everything you read.

 

[Redlg155]

I'd also rather rely on the folks here a TFL rather than a gun rag review.

A gun rag review is usually the opinion of one author. Occasionally they enlist other folks to help them test a weapon.

Here we have numerous users who have real life experieces of carrying and shooting a particular weapon and not some author on a time table because he needs to mee a publishing deadline or return the weapon.

That isn't to say that you don't have to wade through the poop here, but its much easier to form a general opinion when you have the input of many folks.

Good Shooting
RED

 

[Tamara]

Here at TFL, with a bunch of users reporting in, I consider a gun that gets 80% favorable reviews to be quite good, and any pistol that is praised by 9 out of 10 owners to be a "must buy".

 

[Selfdfenz]

TFL is a great place for PsOV ...and free

Tamara,
Ditto ......and very well put.
S-

 

[denfoote]

Hey Blades,
How is it that I have at least one Makarov from every country that made them, including Red China, both military issue and commercial, and they all work just fine!!! Most people who shoot the PM will agree with me. This goof ignored the thousands of Maks that are in the hands of satisfied owners, that rely on them every day, including me!!!!

 

[J. Parker]

According to Guns & Ammo magazine the ParaOrdnance 14-45 LDA was the best thing since sliced bread when they came out in 1999.
Based on this I got all excited when a gentleman had one for sale locally for $675 with two factory hi-caps. Pistol was LNIB.
After I did some research on TFL and GlockTalk I decided against it. There were just enough posts that changed my mind.
Now I'm not saying it's a bad pistol but I got, I feel, good opinions from "real" owners. If I would have taken G&A's word for it I would have bought the pistol.
Frankly, the Makarov article I just don't understand. I've owned a number of them and they all have been good, solid pistols and great value. You get to a point where you just don't trust the gun mags. Best, John

 

[VVG]

In fairness to Gun Tests (and I actually read the review), they noted that another Makarov owned by an editor functioned just fine. In the next issue they also published almost two pages of letters from Makarov owners about their experience.

Maybe they should do what most gun magazines do. First, they tell the company they are dealing with that they are writing a review. Then, if the hand-picked weapon has any problems, they send it back and get a replacement - and don't tell anyone about it.

You'd think Gun Tests cost a fortune - instead of $25 per year!

 

[DCV]

I read the Ruger article also. I disliked the wrong "K" info. Ideally they should review at least 3 guns, I think they should be able to get a demo model and buy one, they must know someone that had one also.

It comes down to uncorrupted journalism.

I like the idea of the magazine, but they need a larger sample size

 

[444]

I have my share of disagreements with Gun Tests magazine, along with any other gun rag that I have read. One thing that I will say about Gun Tests is that they make no bones about the fact that what they write is their own opinion. Often, they try out a gun and base their decisions strictly on what they personally think about it. Just like we do here.
If I found a magazine that only contained information that told me what I already know with test results that exactly mimic my own experiments, I would see no reason to read it.

 

[mini14jac]

Are you all insane?
Quit talking about using TFL instead of buying magazines!

If we're not careful, the moderators will want to make this a
(spelling so they won't know what I'm saying) p-a-i-d s-u-b-s-c-r-i-p-t-i-o-n b-o-a-r-d.

 

[Bummer]

VVG: I'm off the subject, but I sure agree with your tag about Smith & Wesson. The OLD owners screwed up with the Clinton agreement. But they no longer exist. They sold out at a tremendous loss (hopefully because of what they did to us small time customers). Anyway, the new owners just want to make good, reliable guns in the S&W tradition. They are trying, through legal ways, to abandon the agreement made by the old owners. Let's give them a chance, as you say, and put Americans back to work on the East Coast. I don't even own an S&W, but my son and son-in-law do and they love them. My wife may own one soon, she's looking at a clean used 3913 that fits her hand real well...Anyway, people need to quit bitchin', moanin' and complainin' and get on with buyin', loadin' and shootin'!

 

[Mikul]

Usually Gun Tests buys one gun and bases its review on that single weapon. In the case of the Makarov, I believe they actually DID get a second gun to shoot, but it also failed.

They deliberately avoid factory demo guns because they question how stock these guns really are.

The KP95 got a conditional buy because it wouldn't group Federal EFMJs at under three inches and didn't like the 147gr Blackhills ammunition much either. So they said it was okay, but understand that it may have ammunition issues. By comparison to the other guns, the Ruger has the largest velocity standard deviation and the lowest velocity for all three types of ammunition used.

I've fired both of the comparison guns and they are both excellent guns. It comes as no surprise that the USP was the best performer, but at a substantially higher cost. The XD shoots comparably to the Glocks I've fired, but with a better trigger.

I'm impressed that they were able to review the Ruger without talking about how ugly it is. You don't need to fire that gun in self-defense; just hold it up like the head of Medusa.

 

[VVG]

I'm impressed that they were able to review the Ruger without talking about how ugly it is. You don't need to fire that

Very good!

 

[denfoote]

Yeah, the P95 is ugly, but my KP95DC prints 1.5 in groups at 15 yards with 115gr S&B!! I used this gun to qualify for my CCW with a 98% (one flyer!!! )

 

[Futo Inu]

Friends don't let friends by Rugers.

 

[bountyh]

Gun Tests mag is at least slightly less biased than other mags that fall over backwards to praise the guns and run massive feature spreads and award titles like "Gun of the Year". It gets downright embarrassing like when they test a Kimber whatever .45 with some fancy detialing that sells for $1400 and shoots 2" groups and then they rave about it..... not mentioning in that price range you could get an STI or Wilson that would smoke it for accuracy and quality.

GT just has an unfortunate tendency to assume the one gun they tested tells a world of information, when in fact, it's just one data point. I once wrote them and asked why they didn't poll their readers on guns to get a general feel for user feedback and see if their opinions were in line with the majority view... they have no trouble finding us when they send out lists of guns for sale or renewal notices. That's one letter that didn't get printed.