The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Writing for the same rag as The Gun Pimp, if the item was poor, we'd not write it up and say so for the reasons given. Instead, the review was never written and the item returned saying it wasn't good enough to justify a feature. As it was, some importers got very hot and bothered not only about that, but because they didn't feel the praise on things that made it into print was fulsome enough.

Richard Atkins, who edited and also wrote many of the features and reviews in 'Target Gun' which became 'Target Sports' for over 25 years was (and is) a man with very high ethical standards. He'd be very upset to be accused of sugaring poor stuff. Not everybody played the game that way. As an example, an early smokeless conversion of a cap and ball revolver sent for review simply didn't work. - I mean literally, didn't work as it wouldn't go bang consistently, suffered dangerous hangfires etc, etc, thanks to the standard percussion caps it was designed to use being too weak, so the distributor was so advised and he in turn instructed Richard to send it to a rival publication. A few issues later, the rival produced a glowing review and quoted x-inches groups. This from a man who is still in the business, no names, no pack drill! When the old Peterson Publishing went bust and its titles were bought by Wes Stanton's Blaze Publishing, neither Target Sports nor Richard lasted very long as pulling in advertisers was all that mattered.

Far from getting stuff free, Blaze wouldn't give me a freebie subscription to the magazine to read the handloading articles I wrote ..... so I didn't as there was no way I was going to pay money for 'The Sporting Rifle'!

The occasional tin of powder or box of bullets aside provided for review ... and when I say 'occasional' it is exactly that, maybe once or twice a year ..... I pay for everything I use. With many of the handloading series I've written involving 500 plus rounds, (sometimes very 'plus') the costs - components, tools, barrel wear and tear, and 120 mile round trips from York to Diggle Ranges have all come out of my own pocket.

The problem with most reviews that I’ve read or watched is they are never usually compared against other items of similar stature. What would be nice if they tested items against certain criteria and then kept it the same for each review.

Everyone is allowed an opinion good or bad, just be up front if its a “sponsored” review.

I'm pleased to say that Laurie now writes for Target Shooter. We try to be honest with reviews but the gun trade is not a prosperous one and rather than rubbish a product, I just won't review it.

However, the products we do review are reviewed honestly.

We now getting are getting a significant readership and our last product review (a small reloading press from EVO Engineering) a couple of weeks ago got 20,000 hits - which compares very well with the circulation of most UK shooting magazines - and we're free!

Incidentally - if anyone wants to try reviewing a shooting item, we'd be glad to consider it for publication. But just don't expect a fee!

Gh0st wrote:The problem with most reviews that I’ve read or watched is they are never usually compared against other items of similar stature. What would be nice if they tested items against certain criteria and then kept it the same for each review.

That made me smile. Which criteria would you use to choose things to review them against? ..... for that matter whose criteria and standards?

Take production rifles, and the big news here right now is the rush into 'PRS capable' rifles, or 'tactical' as we call them here. Or to use another moniker ... 'Blactikool'. If the numbers aren't now in double figures, it must be damn close - Ruger, Tikka, Sabatti, Savage, Bergara, even (belatedly) Remington and more. Who is going to collect them all and do a detailed comparative review? What standards / price is the base going to be - eg is it the original mass market Ruger Precision Rifle, or is it the well established Accuracy Internationals (at three or four times the price)?

Reviewers normally have a rifle for a few weeks only, and probably get to a range or onto the hill twice, maybe three times at most, unless they happen to live in a caravan at Bisley. Most reviewers also use factory ammo - one make, one bullet model - more often than not provided by the same source as the rifle. In the days when I did an occasional firearm review, I'd always try and work up a couple of handloads, but whether factory or limited handloads, there is a great deal of luck as to whether the ammo is optimal for the rifle and its barrel, or whether it's the reverse. If it's a rimfire, it has to be factory ammo, but there are 50?, 60, 100? different .22LR models out there and you can only try so many in a few hours shooting.

If you take the half dozen 'PRS type' rifles, or any single model, and give them / it to half a dozen experienced and impartial shooters, you'd likely get six opinions. Out of the box rifles fit some people or their rifle holds better than others. Some people will tell you that 'x' is too light, others that it's too heavy, another doesn't mention it for whatever reason. One person will like the trigger, another will hate it .......... and so on and so forth!

What a review does at the end of the day is to try to describe the product and its features and relate that to the context of the likely use (and at times deciding 'likely use' is no simple matter), its price bracket and so on. The reviewer has to use some subjective judgment in the light of his/her personal experience in addition to whatever objective tests can be devised.

There are of course objective features that can be measured, if appropriate range/field-tested and reported on - how consistent and accurate a scope's click values are for instance doing a 'round the box' test. Now, mentioning that, that's a point that's worth describing. I never bothered doing scope reviews, but the Gun Pimp must have tested 20, 30, maybe even more over a 20-year timespan, and I've been privileged to watch him do it. Scopes have long since become so optically good, even most budget models, that standard resolution charts have become valueless - they can all resolve the smallest items at 100 yards. So Vince would compare the resolution of items such as the ceramic insulators on a National Grid 50KV transmission pylon and an associated sub-station about a half mile from the Diggle range-house sitting on top of a hill on the other side of the valley. How clearly smaller items could be picked out was compared subjectively to a Nightforce BR scope used alongside, for many years the optical standard setter, also looking for distortions, chromatic aberrations, funny colours etc at the edge of the field of view and suchlike.

Then down to the 100 yard benchrest range with the scope mounted on a full-spec 6PPC BR rifle and a round the box test shot in full BR rested mode. ie with the rifle sighted-in, move the windage 20-MOA left; 20-MOA up; 20-MOA right; and 20-MOA down firing a single shot at each point. In an ideal world, you get (1) a square that is 20-MOA on each side (1.046 x 20 = 20.92 inches) and (2) shot 5 which has the scope turrets returned the original setting will see that hole touch the first that was fired. A series of shots would also be fired at various zoom settings to see if changing the magnification changed POI. The point about the BR range, concrete bench firing position and full BR rifle set-up is that if the rifle and shooter can't shoot into 0.1-0.2-MOA accuracy, you might as well not do these tests.

Then on top of that are the basics - weight, length, tube diameter, type of reticle / turret etc, observations on how easily turret settings can be read / how easily it can be returned to a pre-set zero; how smooth and precise the magnification ring and focus control are, how easy it is to get a really sharp picture manipulating the focus control and suchlike. How positive are the turret clicks; is there any backlash?

The Gun Pimp and you or anybody else can go through this rigmarole, and in discussions on an online forum there will still be a large range of opinions in 20 posts - some people tell you that the brand X / model Y has rubbish optics for the money, the next takes a 180-deg different view in that this model gives the clearest sight picture he's ever seen and so on.

How many people can do this with the range facilities and test kit? How many were willing to do it spending a day measuring, testing, and shooting plus the photography and time writing it up. (At least now we have digital photography - for years it was 35mm 200ASA film and two consecutive daily runs into town to Jessops to have it developed and prints done.

In the days when Vince and I did features for commercial magazines, the ahem 'modest' remuneration wouldn't have equated to the minimum statutory wage on a hours spent basis. In fact if it had been anywhere near that level, we'd have felt incredibly well rewarded. (Now we do it for no payment at all!)

Ah ... but Vince was overwhelmed by distributors saying, do us a good write-up mate and this £2,000 Schmidt is yours! Anyway ... that's how it apparently is according to some of the views on this thread. PLEASE! In fact, he often borrowed scopes off other shooters who'd paid for them out of their own pockets. I had one of the first Sightron Series III 8-32X56 target scopes in the UK bought direct from a major US optics retailer as the then UK importer for the marque had no interest in target scopes and would only supply 'hunting' models. That was the scope that appeared in Target Sports' review - and yes, I wanted it back thank you very much.

I had a couple of articles published in Target Sports years ago and can confirm what Laurie says about the remuneration being minimal for the effort involved, I got paid the standard rate for the article which at the time was £80 and by no means related to the number of hours I spent on each project. There again I didn't write the articles with the expectation of making money or getting any sort of reward. Speaking to Richard Atkins the editor of the magazine on the phone I remember him commenting on the huge amount of effort that Laurie put into each article and how much it must have cost Laurie personally.

I too supplied the equipment that I wrote about in my articles however I am aware that this is not always so and that in the case of some shooting and fishing publications the suppliers occasionally allow the tester to keep the items tested, this being especially so in the case of clothing which is seldom returned.

Personally I wouldn't be swayed by any reviews in magazines unless I trusted the reviewer and that will only come with time after discovering for myself if what they say rings true. Over time you get to know the good guys who give a honest opinion and seperate them from the ones who are "paid off" of influenced by the editorial staff or personal gain.

I can think of a couple: one is Mike Venturino - primarily because I know him and I know he is not prone to BS. The other is Craig Boddington. Doubtless there are others. There used to be many more, but sadly one by one they have dropped off the perch over the years (Cooper, Nonte, and that generation of veterans).

George Nonte Jnr was my entrance key into handloading - a slim 'Outdoor Life' paperback on basic reloading, but with much, much more. (Lead bullets, simple case re-forming, ultra-light loads.) He lit a fire that hasn't gone out 35 years later.

Although I cannot now find the tattered remnants of the book, some things still stick into my mind - reloading 303 for a Number 4 rifle to rid a relative's farm of feral pigeons. No dies! What tools were used were a steel plate, a piece of sub 303 diameter wood dowel with a small nail driven into one end (decapper) and a second wooden dowel; a cut-down .22 Short case with a wire handle soldered on, and a wooden mallet. As the pressures were very low, no resizing was needed as the case-neck didn't expand. The dowel + nail decapped the case; the primer was put on the steel plate open end facing up, case placed onto it and tapped down with the dowel and mallet; the cut down 22 case was a dipper that dispensed a 2 or 3gn charge of bullseye, something in that weight bracket, can't remember the exact amount, and a size 'O' (?) buckshot ball which happens to be the right calibre for 303 was tapped into the case-mouth flush deliberately shaving lead off to make a short bearing surface. Smear Vaseline liberally onto the top of the ball/case-mouth and you had an FAC air rifle power centrefire round that in a good surplus No.4 eliminated a whole population of pigeons over a summer. Accurate enough to hit the birds 20-50 yards away; powerful enough to kill humanely, but not enough to break roof tiles or chimney pots.

I always wondered what my local FLO would make of a variation request for a 303 rifle quoting this role - no doubt, not much! I love Boddington's writings too, but you can tell he was a USMC Lt-colonel before becoming a full time travel and gun writer. Cartridges start to have meaningful ballistics to the colonel with the 338 Winchester Magnum, his favourite all-game north American number. You can almost hear the dismissal in his mind when he says the 243 Winchester might be OK for small European deer species.

Actually Craig Boddington made it to Brigadier General USMCR.

If I want an at least half honest review of any shooting kit I tend towards Youtube these days. Type in the kit name and 'review' into the search box and you will get several overviews.