Does any firearms review source do standard testing?

I suspect the reason is that firearms reviews are mostly sponsor driven and there doesn't seem to be any Consumer Reports type organisation that doesn't mind annoying a manufacturer by truly putting down a product.
Seems to me even what should be serious firearms sites and reviews test precision pistols by having a few guys shoot the guns then, if they bother giving group sizes, there's all kinds of disclaimers about how the shooting "was as good as they could manage", or something about the different conditions during the test, or a dozen other excuses. If one gun under performs others, there seems to always be an attempt to downplay the bad performance and explain that the reviewer was having trouble with the bags on the bench or something.
Balance, recoil, flip, trigger pull, reset, and a host of other parameters could all be measured by a standard rig.
So why not?

Gun Tests have been the consumer reports of guns for several decades. They tell it like it is, like it or not, to the best of their ability. they have tested bullseye pistols even though they are not bullseye shooters.

It is immediately apparent the difference between a gun magazine and their publication.

https://www.gun-tests.com/

My complaints of course could be my lack of knowledge as far as resources go.
Thanks for the reference.

I also just found a site that seems quite informative. http://whichgun.com/

But without objective testing.

Yep Gun Test can be pretty darn brutal

There was a magazine called Gunfacts way back in the lamprey 1960s that took a similar vein to Gun Tests. It didn’t las very long.

The quality of gun journalism has declined to appeal to the millennials, IMHO. I was just reading an article in "American Handgunner" where the author said that he was testing a revolver for accuracy at 7 yds. because that was the typical self-defense distance. He then went on to test his "hunting loads" at 7 yards. More often than not, the distances to test for accuracy by gun writers is now 10 yds. or less, where before it was 25 yds. and beyond. The bar is set pretty low these days.

BE Mike wrote:More often than not, the distances to test for accuracy by gun writers is now 10 yds. or less, where before it was 25 yds. and beyond. The bar is set pretty low these days.

Yeah, not only seven yards but shot by a shooter of unknown or questionable ability. Impossible to know the real performance of the firearm.

Image a setup where a firearm could be mounted in a rest, fired at electronic targets at several distances.

Shoot an entire box of each of several commercial cartridges.

Tabulate all shots at 25 yd, 25m, 50 yd, 50m.

Although I suspect that it would all be a huge amount of money to arrive at the conclusion most guns, if they're reliable and the trigger is decent, will outshoot most users. 

Slartybartfast wrote:


Although I suspect that it would all be a huge amount of money to arrive at the conclusion most guns, if they're reliable and the trigger is decent, will outshoot most users. 

Might be one of the big reasons they don't do it.

gregbenner wrote:


Might be one of the big reasons they don't do it.

Of course at the 7-10yds you're not going to see much difference between a stock 1911 and a bullseye gun either.

But in all seriousness, the right rig could start to put hard numbers for forces and vectors to confirm or discredit claims about "felt recoil", muzzle flip, etc.

For those developing loads for competition it would be interesting to be able to shoot from a rest through electronic targets at all competition distances and see how the same cartridge behaves at the different distances. Twice the testing, half the ammunition.

And thinking cheaper and lower tech, why not test loads and guns by shooting through paper at 25 and 50 yds simultaneously? A simple laser level (HomeDepot) could very easily align two targets at different distances. Only looking for grouping, so just need a target with an aim point at 25yds and a sheet of target paper @ 50.

If I understand you right you are going to have the bullet pass through the 25yd target and then print a group on the 50yd target.  Would the impack of the 25yd effect the 50s group size?  Anyone?  Don

Magload wrote:Would the impact of the 25yd effect the 50s group size?  Anyone?  Don

Of course it would. But only as much as passing though a single layer of target paper can affect a bullet.
After initial testing, if you're really concerned about what effect might have been imparted on the 50yd result, you shoot again without a target at 25yds.

Considering how imperceptible the effect on a free hanging target seems to be, I wouldn't be worried about how much the bullet would be thrown off.

BE Mike wrote:The quality of gun journalism has declined to appeal to the millennials, IMHO. I was just reading an article in "American Handgunner" where the author said that he was testing a revolver for accuracy at 7 yds. because that was the typical self-defense distance. He then went on to test his "hunting loads" at 7 yards. More often than not, the distances to test for accuracy by gun writers is now 10 yds. or less, where before it was 25 yds. and beyond. The bar is set pretty low these days.

I read one issue of one magazine in which each author tested a hand gun at 3 different ranges and used
a different number of groups to average.  Everything was apples and oranges, no way to compare.

My theory is that the gun writer tests the handgun at the farthest distance they can get under a 2" average group from a rest.
And apparently now they change the number of groups, and I'm even starting to occasionally see 3-shot groups for rifles.

The excuses I was given is that the vast majority of shooters can't shoot accurately at 25 yds. and when the
gun writers shoot a pistol at 25 yds. and get a 3"-4" group, they get a lot of feedback from readers that say it can't be done or it was a fluke. Looks like the popularity of guns for self-defense has brought along with it, incompetence and ignorance and the gun rags are cow towing to the majority. It is hard to understand when some handgun manufacturers guarantee 2" groups at 50 yds. and those claims go unchallenged. Fewer and fewer articles seem to have much value these days. There may be some merit in the theory that the gun manufacturers want their guns put in the best possible light and the gun writers don't want to rock the boat.

BE Mike wrote:The excuses I was given is that the vast majority of shooters can't shoot accurately at 25 yds. 

What is desperately required IMO is for people to champion marksmanship programs at clubs.

Testing one particular firearm tells only of one particular example. One would have to test a number of a single model of firearm over identical courses and with a single lot of ammunition to determine a statistical standard for accuracy, function, quality, and reliability. 

The results would be interesting only for a percentage of shooters, due to the use of statistics and quantitative methodologies. The cost would also be considerable.

Here's an interesting ammo test of 9mm match ammo.  http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/how-accurate-is-9mm-luger-match-ammo/

The gun was in a Ransom Rest and tested at 25 yards.  Some of the non-match ammo shot better than the match ammo.

Some magazine have standard testing protocols for their gun tests, for example five 5-shot groups at 25 yards with handguns, and various requirements for how many different loads should be tested.

What shoots great at 25yds may not even group at 50yds.  It all depends on what you plan on doing with the ammo.  Just about any load will shoot good at a IDPA target at 7 yards but most posters here want something that shoots well at 50yds.  Same with guns.  I read a lot of gun magazines and chuckle when they say how great the gun they are reviewing is.  it will hold a 2 1/2" group at 25yds off a rest.  i am impressed.  Don