I like Gun Tests-they buy a gun, shoot and based on the one they bought they state whether they think it's any good and whether it's a good deal for the price. The problems is when they buy a gun &heirs turns out to be junk, yet other people have good working guns of the same kind (recently makarovs and Colt Sistemas come to mind) people who like the gun they say stinks get their nose out of joint (we are emotional about our guns).

I give 'em a recommendation for two reasons

1.  If a gun they got is junk they say so. They are the only mag that I know that says so. The mainstream gun rags are firmly in the manufacturers'pockets (hmm do we say the new Ruger Deathinator 4000X sucks because the sights fell off and have Ruger get pissed at us-or do we tell 'em ahead of time we loved it and sell $ 10,000 worth of ads for that issue-no one will be suspicious of the full page ad for the gun in the middle of the article, of course). I'd rather they said one of my beloved guns was junk than try and convince me a junky gun is worth buying

2.  I think they are pretty good about testing inexpensive guns. Sure they test some high end stuff, but I have seen 1911s of every price range-expensives stuff down to Llamas and Sistemas; makarovs; former police .357 revolvers and this month the Swedish Mausers and those neat Swedish bolt action guns that have the straight pull bolt [can't remember the name and the magazine is at work]. I have a few expensives guns (maybe not by the standards here) but most aren't and my interest is piqued a lot more by a good deal on a used $ 250 .357 then a test of the new HK .45 carbine that costs over a grand and only comes with 10 rd mags.