Do the gun writers get "blueprinted" revolvers to test?

Just like the test cars that were sometimes in the press fleet for the magazine testers...
I read the reviews over Ruger revolvers and note how the writer reports the BC gap was right on at .004 and there was little if any play in the cylinder and lock up and the chamber throats were at .452 on the .45 Colt versions.

Never had a new Ruger like that out the box the first time.

All mfg cherry pick the best for testing. Ford & GM here on the west coast both have specific facilities that handle and prep press cars. I remember when Motor Trend crashed a prototype Taurus at Riverside Raceway (whole right side) it was repaired overnight - new parts flown in installed & painted. Somebody made a lot of overtime on that job.

I don't believe there's a whole lot of "cherry picking" going on. The fact of the matter is, for every "this gun is a disgrace" post you see here there are 1000 other new owners out there that are perfectly delighted with the gun they've bought, and so lack the motivation to post about it -- if they even know such a thing as Ruger Forum exists, which many do not.

Do mass-produced items have flaws? Sure. But if every single unit were screwed up, as the impression might be from reading posts here, the company wouldn't stay afloat for long.

We have had several cars picked up by the press over the years, they usually ask for specific packages but take them from our lot. We do nothing special upon delivery than we would do for any customer. As far as the revolvers I'm sure Denis(Dpris) can shed some light on that.

I am sorry to say but gun companies do hand pick the guns sent to gun writers. Decades ago when I was in high school I worked part time for an engineering company that did product destruction testing including that of guns. Even with the gun companies paying the firm to test their products the company purchased guns from distributors and dealers to get a "real" sample. One gun company which I had intimate knowledge of their procedures would go as far as treating each gun going to a writer as a custom build. They would custom build 20 at a time and then issue them to writers. Over the years I have been able to purchase several guns from writers that were far better than production model.

One of Gun Test magazines big selling points was that they went to retail outlets & purchased the guns they tested, instead of receiving hand picked ones like the other magazines. I don't know if that's true or not, but I never heard of them getting sued for saying it. :shock:

gunzo said:

One of Gun Test magazines big selling points was that they went to retail outlets & purchased the guns they tested, instead of receiving hand picked ones like the other magazines. I don't know if that's true or not, but I never heard of them getting sued for saying it. :shock:

Click to expand...

Consumer Reports Magazine also says it buys their test cars from local dealers and does not get them from the manufacturer's press fleets.

Gun Test magazine is a joke, at least it used to be. I subscribed very early on. They tested some Colt double action revolver warning that it needed to be carried with an empty chamber under the hammer! :roll: I still get offers to renew, and they still compare the Ruger Single Six to the Colt New Frontier .22 that was discontinued in the mid 80's!

On their behalf, I do believe they buy the guns they test.

PS: Those fools are still at it and I didn't have to look far. They say the Redhawk was Rugers 1st double action revolver. They don't even try to get their facts right: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6spAuHdayeg

Definitely not in my experience. Even the pre-production models I've tested have all of the laws and blemishes of the production pieces and I've sent test guns back from a number of manufacturers to fix obvious problems. They have so far all been plucked from the assembly line, warts and all.

I was using or attempting to use Gun Test magazine as an example of some peoples perception of how gun test may or may not be conducted.
I've gotten several pounds of their offers over the years, but all their jabbering reminded me of a carnival barker. I have never subscribed.
Surprised to hear they are still at it.

I receive American Rifleman. I take their product testing with a grain of salt. Hard to believe a test from a magazine that is receiving a lot of revenue from advertisements of the very gun they are "testing". I'm a life member of the NRA and a Bonified Ruger nut, some may say just a nut, but I take the readers of this forums reviews over what I read in a magazine. Since Ruger advertises heavy in the NRA Mags, I find an impartial test would be hard to believe.

winchester348 said:

I receive American Rifleman.

Click to expand...

And therein lies the rub. If you would get American Hunter, you would receive my unbiased revolver reviews. :mrgreen: But I only review hunting handguns. Seriously though, is this based on a hunch or something more concrete? I know Rifleman's entire editorial staff and they are quite serious about what they do, and they have integrity. Just curious.

MaxP said:

winchester348 said:

I receive American Rifleman.

Click to expand...

And therein lies the rub. If you would get American Hunter, you would receive my unbiased revolver reviews. :mrgreen: But I only review hunting handguns. Seriously though, is this based on a hunch or something more concrete? I know Rifleman's entire editorial staff and they are quite serious about what they do, and they have integrity. Just curious.

Click to expand...

Have they ever written a bad review on any gun?

I'm sure they have.

jbntx said:

MaxP said:

Have they ever written a bad review on any gun?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Some magazines covering any equipment/technical field will just not write anything about a badly flawed product they get to test. That way they don't have to bad mouth an advertiser's product but don't have to praise it either.

I wonder if Remington sent a random sample of the first R51 to the gun writers. It got good reviews in the press, but then got 100% recalled shortly after.

planetcat said:

I wonder if Remington sent a random sample of the first R51 to the gun writers. It got good reviews in the press, but then got 100% recalled shortly after.

Click to expand...

From what I recall of that fiasco, the Remington tool-room models of that gun worked well and that's what the magazines saw. It was in the routine production guns that turned up the fatal flaws.

I remember when American Handgunner first came out. They called it like it was regardless of the manufacturers response. They lost some advertisers. But, I guess the bean counters finally won out and their reviews became as toady as the rest of the gun rags.

Hi...

I have been in the gun buying and shooting "business" for 40-some years.
I have subscribed to and/or bought off the shelf almost every gun-related magazine at one time or another and long ago narrowed the number I needed to have down to one...Handloader.

I can not remember ever seeing a review in a magazine that called a firearm as "bad" or even had anything derogatory to say about a reviewed gun. There may have been a "qualifier" buried deep in the article but I can not recall a single instance of that happening, either.

I wait until I can handle any firearm at a LGS before I pass judgement. i don't write reviews, though. I pass judgement by whether or not I open my wallet. If a firearm is poorly finished, I simply won't buy it. If I do buy a firearm that doesn't function properly, it goes back to the LGS I bought it from or gets traded off. In 40+ years of firearms experience, I have bought exactly one handgun that was substandard in my opinion. That was a Taurus DA .357mag revolver (don't recall the model number, at the moment) but it simply was terribly inaccurate and spit lead out of the cylinder gap. I had bought that handgun from a co-worker without shooting it first and the LGS I did the transfer at said that it could take months to send it Taurus and they might not even make it right in his experience. I traded it and a couple of hundred dollar bills for a Dan Wesson .375SuperMag that just happened to be sitting in that gun shop's used gun case at that point in time.

That experience didn't completely sour me on Taurus handguns but I have been "very" careful about examining their products since. I have since bought exactly one taurus handgun...a used DA .44spl stainless adjustable -sighted model...it is a perfectly serviceable firearm that is dependable and accurate. A much better example of a Taurus handgun than the previous revolver I owned for a very short time. How dependable you might ask...well, it is one of about 4 handguns that I carry concealed for self-defense, so I am willing to bet my life and more importantly, my family's life on it.

http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=235666

You might want to look at this thread from about a year ago....
I was pointing out at least one difference between a "writers gun"
and my production gun. It got off track ( imagine that on the internet )
but my point was if the cylinder was different what else that was unseen
had been cleaned up?
I also can't recall a gun review where a writer called out a
company for sending out a POS.
Dave