What Would You Like to See in a Gun Review?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ChanceMcCall

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
350
Location
Midwest
Of course, honesty, is primary.

A couple of us (maybe four of us) are going to tackle a print review of micro 9mm suitable for concealed carry. I am curious as to what others would like to see in a comprehensive review. Here are some basics of what we intend to cover:

Guns:

  1. Bond Arms Bullpup
  2. Detonics Pocket 9
  3. Sig 365
  4. Springfield Armory Hellcat
The Detonics because it was the first small production 9mm, the Bond Bullpup because it is a fabulous small 9mm. The other two because they are the new darlings of the micro 9mm world.
We own these guns so we owe no allegiance to anyone. We did not include any Glocks because they still don't get the issue of width for concealed carry. (I do own Glocks.)

We will include comprehensive measurements on all guns, including loaded weight.

What guns do you think should be on this list of micro 9mms and why?

Ammo:

Federal 147 grain Hydra-Shok
Federal 124 grain Hydra-Shok
Federal 135 grain Hydra-Shok Deep
Hornady 9mm Luger 115 gr FTX Critical Defense

We are not testing ammo per se. We are testing how well these rounds will function and how accurate they are in each gun. We will also chronograph them to obtain velocities through each gun as the shorter barrel lengths will get different results than most published information. We are not testing them for penetration as there are already superlative tests out there. Since we are also going to be running speed tests, the ammo will also be measured in this manner as well.

What ammo should be included and why?

What is being tested:

Concealability using OWB holsters under a T-shirt
Comfort of carry for various body types
Trigger pull weights and reset issues
Accuracy at 10 feet using "instinct" method
Speed of draw and target acquisition at 10 feet using "instinct" method
Accuracy at 10 feet using "instinct" method under stress conditions
Accuracy at 7, 10, and 20 yards using factory sights under daylight and low light conditions. (The low light conditions should give an advantage to the guns with night sights - but we will see.)
Speed of draw and target acquisition at at 7, 10, and 20 yards using factory sights.

What are we missing?
 
Already sounds too biased for me.

I’d guess the Shield and G43 are the most popular in use currently with the P365 gaining ground.

The Bond Bullpup is an MSRP of $1099 - out of reach for many.

I had to google the Detonics. A review of a 30-years discontinued pistol seems moot.

If it’s not a comparative review of $500(ish) pistols one can easily find in stock locally, I’m not sure who the review is targeting for an audience.
 
Last edited:
1. You need some light for caliber 115 gr. ammo for the recoil sensitive
2. Sig p365 SAS (available Dec 1st ... made specifically for concealed carry)
 
Actual performance where performance includes both time and accuracy elements. Run a multi-target drill with a shot timer and calculate the hit factors. You'd need to run the drill several times, and with a couple of different shooters, with each gun to get a decent little sample.
 
A comparison of the P365 and Hellcat is nice, if only because the Hellcat is the new kid on the block and is going directly after the P365. A comparison of those two against the Shield would also be nice, because it's probably the most common micro 9 being carried right now. Otherwise, the other 2 probably aren't even on most peoples radar. If you're looking for other small 9's to use I can think of a few better options: (P938, Kahr PM9, Beretta Nano, XDs 9, and a Glock is worth putting in if only because people seem to like them regardless of their unnecessary size.
 
There are YouTube videos on all these guns. I am not sure many will take the time to read a print write up on these guns.

I always look up Youtube videos on any gun I am thinking about buying. That way you can actually see it in action.
 
Glock 43, 43x and 48. All as slim as the 4 that you said get the thinness aspect of CCW; as well as others below.

Walther PPS M2
Shield 2.0
Kahr PM9
Taurus G2S
Sig P365xl

@Wisco nailed it, two of those choices aren't really choices that would be considered by 95%+ of the CCW population (Bond Arms and the Detonics).
 
Last edited:
Purpose. What is the story line for the piece? A review is an opinion piece by nature. We know that everyone has a bias. It is disingenuous to claim no bias. So what is yours beforehand? Did it change throughout the process of the testing and review? After the review and testing, what are your thoughts now?

Even before the review has happened, it is easy to see:
Detonics is a trailblazer but clunky, old, and looks like a eastern european com-block import. No one cares about the price because very few would buy or actually carry one of these.
Bullpup is extremely well made but the $1000 price tag is out of sight and what is the world is this backwards loading no mag follower thing. Pros and cons of no lockback/reloading. If you could get it to naturally choke on a lightly crimped case, that could be a good talking point about reliability.
365 and Hellcat are very similar - polymer/striker/nightsights with the Hellcat having a MOS plate. In the $5XX range. Comparing like designs in polymer is so overdone that I just cringe at "grip texture - bad vs good," low bore axis, comparing triggers, etc.

Like others have said, you have to at least acknowledge the proverbial elephants in the room of the G43 and M&P Shield. To act like the two best selling pistols in this segment don't exist just cause more questions than answers in a review. Explain why you didn't compare them in the testing. It may be beneficial to compare them in the physical measurements and capacities just as a point of reference.

The ammo doesn't matter as much in a gun review..... however it would be nice to also test a basic, weak, plain 115 FMJ to see if they all cycle correctly.
Additionally, it is my opinion that you're attempting too many defensive ammo weights. You could have a whole piece on just one gun with all those.

As for testing:
I get concealability and carry methods for different body types
I get draw to first shot.
I get a low light test.
I get rested accuracy test to have some sort of baseline.
I don't get the instinct accuracy tests. What data do these tests reveal other than the shooter's comfort with the handgun?

The last thought is that you might be biting off too much for one review and may need to make a series of pieces.
 
JONWILL said:
There are YouTube videos on all these guns. I am not sure many will take the time to read a print write up on these guns.

I always look up Youtube videos on any gun I am thinking about buying. That way you can actually see it in action.
Click to expand...

This article is intended for a pro 2A organization's monthly print publication. It is a subscription publication so the chances are higher it will be read. Like you, I also watch You Tube videos, but I am pretty selective about which ones to watch. I hate the poorly produced and poorly scripted ones, the unboxing ones, and the ones produced by the internet commandos. I enjoy Hickok 45 as entertainment, but rarely is there any real meat to them. I wouldn't watch Yankee Marshal or many others even if bored. I really do like Paul Harrell.

We all have different expectations.
 
cougar1717 said:
Purpose. What is the story line for the piece? A review is an opinion piece by nature. We know that everyone has a bias. It is disingenuous to claim no bias. So what is yours beforehand? Did it change throughout the process of the testing and review? After the review and testing, what are your thoughts now?

Even before the review has happened, it is easy to see:
Detonics is a trailblazer but clunky, old, and looks like a eastern european com-block import. No one cares about the price because very few would buy or actually carry one of these.
Bullpup is extremely well made but the $1000 price tag is out of sight and what is the world is this backwards loading no mag follower thing. Pros and cons of no lockback/reloading. If you could get it to naturally choke on a lightly crimped case, that could be a good talking point about reliability.
365 and Hellcat are very similar - polymer/striker/nightsights with the Hellcat having a MOS plate. In the $5XX range. Comparing like designs in polymer is so overdone that I just cringe at "grip texture - bad vs good," low bore axis, comparing triggers, etc.

Like others have said, you have to at least acknowledge the proverbial elephants in the room of the G43 and M&P Shield. To act like the two best selling pistols in this segment don't exist just cause more questions than answers in a review. Explain why you didn't compare them in the testing. It may be beneficial to compare them in the physical measurements and capacities just as a point of reference.

The ammo doesn't matter as much in a gun review..... however it would be nice to also test a basic, weak, plain 115 FMJ to see if they all cycle correctly.
Additionally, it is my opinion that you're attempting too many defensive ammo weights. You could have a whole piece on just one gun with all those.

As for testing:
I get concealability and carry methods for different body types
I get draw to first shot.
I get a low light test.
I get rested accuracy test to have some sort of baseline.
I don't get the instinct accuracy tests. What data do these tests reveal other than the shooter's comfort with the handgun?

The last thought is that you might be biting off too much for one review and may need to make a series of pieces.
Click to expand...

The bias is why we hope to have four shooters involved. I don't think this is more than we can handle with enough people involved.

Do I have bias? Sure. It may be worth noting that none of the guns are my carry guns, although at least one of the people involved is carrying the Sig. Will my pre-test bias change? I don't know yet, but we will see. We are certainly going to disclose any going into the test biases along with any changes of opinions.

BTW. One of the testers is currently carrying a M&P Shield. We could test it, but we thought it too large. The Detonics is being tested because of its place in history and to measure the progress gun makers have made since it came out. It is coming out of storage just for that purpose. Who knows? As I recall from many years ago, it was pretty accurate so maybe it will compete better than either you or I think in some areas. The Bond Arms Bullpup will be a very serious competitor except for capacity. This is not intended as a price comparison piece. (My wife carries a Boberg which she will not give up willingly.)

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions. That is exactly what I was hoping would happen.
 
Wisco said:
Already sounds too biased for me.

I’d guess the Shield and G43 are the most popular in use currently with the P365 gaining ground.

The Bond Bullpup is an MSRP of $1099 - out of reach for many.

I had to google the Detonics. A review of a 30-years discontinued pistol seems moot.

If it’s not a comparative review of $500(ish) pistols one can easily find in stock locally, I’m not sure who the review is targeting for an audience.
Click to expand...

People who want information that goes beyond this is the one to buy. The Detonics is a comparison between the first small 9mm and the newest small 9mm. There are lessons to be learned by a comparison like this. Also, while the few that are out there for sale are not new, most are still in great shape, and being sold at bargain prices. The Pocket Nine may be a compromise for those who can't afford the $500+ new ones. Regarding the Bullpup, other than capacity, it is a fair contest. Some people are willing and able to spend more to get more. This article, if we do it correctly, will allow those people to judge if it is worth the difference.
 
Almost all published gun reviews are shilling for the manufacturers. Unbiased reviews are almost an impossibility, given the economics of the gun industry. I'm highly skeptical of anything I read.
 
Wisco said:
Already sounds too biased for me.

I’d guess the Shield and G43 are the most popular in use currently with the P365 gaining ground.

The Bond Bullpup is an MSRP of $1099 - out of reach for many.

I had to google the Detonics. A review of a 30-years discontinued pistol seems moot.

If it’s not a comparative review of $500(ish) pistols one can easily find in stock locally, I’m not sure who the review is targeting for an audience.
Click to expand...

Well GEEZ, just make me feel real old!...........................:neener:
 
AlexanderA said:
Almost all published gun reviews are shilling for the manufacturers. Unbiased reviews are almost an impossibility, given the economics of the gun industry. I'm highly skeptical of anything I read.
Click to expand...
Which is why I made my statement
 
  • Like
Reactions: v35
Many folks are going to have their own opinions on and even get their feelings hurt about not including their favorite gun such as an S&W Shield or Glock 43. Personally I don’t like either but still believe it is disingenuous to not include them especially if you have ready access to them like you do.

You can probably get by with less ammo choices and much fewer defensive ammo options since it’s not an ammo test and make the end user data easier to collect by you and easier to evaluate by the reader. All the article will be about are the gun characteristics anyway. I would include a cheap plinker grade 115 gr.

Also I personally would like to see inclusion of the Kel-Tec PF-9. This represents a midpoint development of these types of pistols. Because of my own disdain for companies that reinvent the wheel and with superior marketing dupe the less educated public into thinking it is a new concept, (I know it’s not that nefarious, just a little peeve of mine) I would like to see how this older player fares with the newer mousetraps. Plus, it is still in production and is VERY competitively priced so people will still consider it an option even today.
 
Last edited:
A gun tested with at least 2,500 rds. The OP never asked "Which type gun".
With very few exceptions --other than the shooters' actions-- they always run perfectly when out of the factory box. Why do the normal functions of brand-new guns impress people?

Don't many people care about evaluations for durability, to check for (possible) premature deformation in higher-quality steel and assembly? Apparently they just want to see something purdy, which goes Bang, directly from the box.

Rob Ski's extremely widely-viewed videos on various domestic and imported Sport Utility Rifles (this correct phraseology might help some FUDDs to accept the Second Amendment) was an actual factor in the stopped production of a gun by Inter Ordnance (IO), in Florida.
Rob Ski has performed very valuable services to people who typically assume that very appealing external looks must equal "mil-grade" steel and correct assembly. He received and published complaint letter from IO's CEO "Uli", about Rob's tests.
 
Last edited:
Ease of disassembly and reassembly for maintenance.

Comfort level while shooting based on multiple shooters with different sized hands.

Detailed trigger pull description including weight, length of travel, length of over travel, presence of stacking, and reset.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

5
  • Locked
Federal 9mm 124gr Hydra-Shok in Vyse Ballistic Gel.
Replies
15
Views
1K
Trey Veston
Trey Veston
M
  • Locked
What would you like to see in a firearms website?
Replies
17
Views
610
Big Calhoun
B
N
  • Locked
What ammo would you like to see made?
2 3 4 5
Replies
109
Views
3K
redneckdan
R
D
  • Locked
Cor-Bon DPX disappointment
2
Replies
40
Views
9K
Elmer
E
C
  • Locked
Anyone Carrying a Boberg or Bond Arms Bullpup?
Replies
24
Views
3K
zaitcev
zaitcev
Back
Top