GunBlast.com

[XLMiguel]

I didn't know what a Beowulf .50 was, so I Googled it and up popped GunBlast.com http://www.gunblast.com. It is an on-line gun 'zine that I had never see before. It has a lot of interesting articles and firearm/equipment reviews (including the Beowulf ), so I thought I'd pass it along.

 

[Warren]

Yeah, it is a great site. Have had it Bookmarked for awhile now.

The Quinns are frequent posters at sixgun forums if you ever want to ask them a question.

 

[Matthew748]

GunBlast.com is a good place; I really enjoy the articles at that site. I got a kick out of pictures that accompany the article on the Ruger Alaskan.

 

[WarMachine]

Pretty good site, but I have yet to read a review where he "didn't" like a product. Just once, I would like to read a review in a gun rag that was as blatantly honest like the reviewers on BBC's show Top Gear

 

[Gunblast]

WarMachine,
I see your point. However, stating that my reviews are not "blatantly honest" implies that I am dishonest.

The reason that you do not and will not see a "bad review" on Gunblast.com is that I do not test junk. If you have read many of my articles, you would see that if there is a problem with a weapon, I mention it in the article. We receive stuff from time to time for review that is just not a good product. I would rather spend my limited time reviewing good products. Mostly, I review stuff that I like, and am interested in. I hate typing, and use the one-finger method. Therefore, it takes a considerable amount of time and effort to review a gun, including the photography, target shooting, chronographing, weighing, measuring, and then all of that dreaded typing. I will not do all of this to review a lousy product. It just ain't worth the effort.

If you ever catch me being dishonest, please let me know. I call it as I see it. I love guns, and cannot help liking most of them, and it shows in my reviews. Why is that a bad thing? Please feel free to email to me at any time with questions or comments about anything that I write.

Jeff Quinn
[email protected] or [email protected]

 

[MM]

I have been fortunate to meet Mr. Quinn at gunshows on more than one occasion, each meeting and conversation left me with the same impression: "This man is straight-up and credible."
He calls 'em as he see's 'em, is my belief.
SatCong

 

[Rob1035]

I like the site and their reviews are interesting and informative. I have bought at least one pistol solely on one of their reviews

 

[Mr_Moore]

Great site.

Gunblast has a high Google ranking so it comes up frequently.

Their reviews are great.

 

[WarMachine]

I guess my feelings for the site came from some underlying bias that I had developed over the years from reading gun rags. I am sure that you have seen a trend of their love for most anything they test. I find it amusing when they have an advertisement for a gun they are reviewing in the same issue.

At simple face value, the Gublast site (one that I say I frequent quite often) seems like many of the other gun rags out there; and I was inclined to believe the same about yours as the others.

I guess the blame should be placed on the major magazines out there, since they have diluted the validity of gun reviews in general. Their tests seem more like advertisements, rather than a critical analysis.

My comments were based on an incorrect assumptions, and for that I offer my apologies...

 

[Gunblast]

WarMachine,
As you stated:
"I guess my feelings for the site came from some underlying bias that I had developed over the years from reading gun rags. I am sure that you have seen a trend of their love for most anything they test. I find it amusing when they have an advertisement for a gun they are reviewing in the same issue."

You Sir, are precisely right. This is the very reason that I started Gunblast 5 years ago. Most of the gun magazines have whored out to advertisers. I have learned a lot since starting Gunblast. Most manufacturers are shocked at first when I offer to review a product with no strings attached. I have had several, especially those young start-up companies trying to get exposure for a new product, tell me that they cannot get a review in a major magazine without taking out a large ad, but then they would be guaranteed a good review. This is just plain wrong. It is a disservice to both the manufacturer and the reader. We now receive in excess of 242,000 readers per day. Not "hits", but actual readers. Like you, they are tired of reading reviews that are written from advertising. They are just good, hardworking shooters who want the straight scoop. We also do not test prototype weapons, but insist upon an actual production gun. That is how every gun rag in the industry beat us by at least two years on a review of the new Ruger Gold Label side-by-side shotgun. I shot the weapon two years ago also, just like they did, but will not write a review without a production gun. Testing a gun at a writer's seminar, luncheon, and butt-kissing party is not the same as a gun off the line. Same with the New Vaquero. Shooting Times had a prototype for a review, but we were the first with an actual production gun review, beating the paper magazines by about two months. If sometimes I write an article that is particularly glowing, with me drooling over the gun, that is because I can't help it. Some guns are just that good.
And Sir, no apology is necessary. I understand how one can become very cynical from reading gun magazines. They ain't what they used to be.

Jeff Quinn
gunblast.com

 

[Jim Watson]

How about putting up a short note:

"Brand X not worth my time."

Unfailingly favorable reviews were suspicious to me, too.

 

[Dave Dembinski]

Man, I love Gunblast.com. Afraid to count up all the hours I spent scouring the archives of reviews there. I was especially tickled to see a review of Paco Kelly's .22 "accur'zer" tool, since I read about it on rimfirecentral and would like to get my hands on one. Very cool site.

Good to see you on The High Road, Jeff!

 

[SShooterZ]

Jeff - I didn't see too much in line of the shotgun in your reviews. Are you going to change that at all or continue to focus on rifles and handguns?

Oh and keep up the good work!

 

[Gunblast]

SShooterZ,
That is not intentional, it just worked out that way. While I am no expert on rifles and handguns, they are my passion. I like shotguns, but use them less than other types of arms. I do enjoy a good double gun, and I use shotguns from time to time, but you are corrct on the bias towards rifles and handguns. There are probably only three shotgun reviews on Gunblast.com. I suppose that I should accept more scatterguns for review. I will try to correct that shortcoming.

Mr. Watson,
I have thought of doing that, but it seems to be rather rude for me to do so. I would hate to condemn a gun because I was prejudiced against it. For instance, the Hi Point firearms. They are clunky, and are rather cheap. However, many shooters like them, and it might be all that some can afford. I would hate for my snobbishness towards the gun to keep another from enjoying them, and to hurt the sales of the manufacturer. In fact, in a correspondence with the builder, I told him that I would be willing to test one, but that if it did not function properly, I would say so. He is supposed to be sending one soon. I will give it a try, and try to get past the aesthetics of the weapon. Hopefully, I will be pleasantly surprised.

Jeff Quinn
gunblasst.com

 

[Harry Tuttle]

dang,
Were yer ears burning Jeff?


You have a fine web site with lots of lovely large pictures.
Sites like yours have replaced my consumption of print gun magazines.
You do excellent work and i wish you well in the new year.

-HT

 

[XLMiguel]

So, lemme be the first to say, "Welcome" properly, glad to see youse 'industry analyst' types coming 'round here

 

[Raph84]

I love gunblast.com. I've been reading it for a couple years. My favorite thing about their reviews is that they are clear about the the limitations of a product. You will hear the good and the bad, and you can actually make a good judgement as to whether the product is right for you.

I read it as the consumer reports of the firearm world.

jeff, you have an awesome website.

 

[sturmruger]

I have always apreciated Jeff's reviews. I like his honesty and candor. It seems like he reviews a lot of Rugers which suits me just fine since I am a big Ruger fan.

 

[crashresidue]

Cheers people,

Thank you for informing me about www.gunblast.com. I've never been there, but intend to as soon as I finish this post.

For a non-BS review, I've read "Gun Tests" for years. They don't mince words about any weapon they review. They buy the weapon, test it, rate it and then tell you all about it - good and bad along with a recomendation as to whether you should buy it.

Like I said, I'm headed to GunBlast now.

Thanks for the info!

Gentle winds,
Russ

 

[SShooterZ]

SShooterZ,
That is not intentional, it just worked out that way. While I am no expert on rifles and handguns, they are my passion. I like shotguns, but use them less than other types of arms. I do enjoy a good double gun, and I use shotguns from time to time, but you are corrct on the bias towards rifles and handguns. There are probably only three shotgun reviews on Gunblast.com. I suppose that I should accept more scatterguns for review. I will try to correct that shortcoming.

Not really a shortcoming as your reviews are very good, just maybe an oversight.