In 1996, Australia introduced firearms legislation that is considered among the strictest in the developed world. The effects of the sweeping reforms remain contentious. An increasing number of publications have specifically set out to evaluate the impacts of the NFA, arriving at seemingly contradictory conclusions as to its success. To date there has been no overview of the existing literature. Consequently, it has been difficult to gain an indicator of whether published research, despite drawing different conclusions, has in fact produced consistent statistical results. This review examined four relevant publications, and found that extant literature is extremely consistent in its statistical findings despite using differing statistical methodology. It appears that disagreement over the impacts of the NFA does not arise from different outcomes of statistical analysis. Reasons for the differing conclusions are discussed. Identification of interpretive confusion surrounding research on the Australian experience, and clarification of the consistency of statistical outcomes, will allow policymakers greater confidence when approaching firearms policy both domestically and internationally.