Mr. Whimsy
member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 89
Is it just me, or is anyone else kind of disappointed in how these articles have changed in the last 20 years or so? Here are some requests if any writers are present.
1. I want to know how EVERY handgun performs off a bench at 25 yards. Period. No more "this isn't a target gun/this is only for close-up defense use" bravo sierra. The intrinsic accuracy tells me a lot, so stop being lazy and/or covering for a lousy manufacturer. Some of us want more than the ability to lob projectiles in the direction of a target, hoping for the best.
2. Stop showing nice tight clusters on a bullseye target only to admit you benched the full-sized gun at 10 yards. This is not a useful distance unless the phrase "firing as fast as I could pull the trigger" was used. Seriously, there is something wrong with a full-sized handgun that WON'T cluster its shots into 2 inches or less at this range. It's 30 freaking feet.
3. Stop gushing with praise about every gun you review. I mean nobody likes every gun they've fired, but certain gunwriters love even jam-o-matics that couldn't hit a barn from the inside.
4. If the damned gun is broken right out of the box, then GIVE IT A BAD REVIEW. I don't want to hear about how "every manufacturer produces the occasional lemon" because frankly it is not normal for a barrel to go flying downrange or for an automatic to spontaneously explode. Same goes for binding revolvers or sights that fall off.
5. Stop using the phrase "...for serious social work". You sound like a smug, smirking, anti-social type who gets off on people getting shot. Now I've even caught myself using this phrase, and in retrospect, it is abhorrent in that it projects a death-mongering image to non-gunnies, not to mention actual social workers.
6. Please describe how the gun feels and especially how it recoils. Size comparisons are also nice. Sometimes it's almost as if the writer never even handled the gun before reviewing it.
7. Chronograph results are mandatory.
8. There is no need to recap the entire history of this style of pistol/cartridge in question before getting down to the nitty gritty. I find myself skipping everything you wrote preceding the last few paragraphs which inevitably describe the actual shooting of the gun.
9. Please include slow fire offhand targets as well as rapid-fire ones. Offhand accuracy and shootability are important.
10. Please leave politics and your feelings about those mythical criminal-coddling "Lib'ruls" out of the article. You turn off prospective gun owners, many of whom are Democrats who voted for Obama but ALSO believe in the Second Ammendment.
Please feel free to comment!
1. I want to know how EVERY handgun performs off a bench at 25 yards. Period. No more "this isn't a target gun/this is only for close-up defense use" bravo sierra. The intrinsic accuracy tells me a lot, so stop being lazy and/or covering for a lousy manufacturer. Some of us want more than the ability to lob projectiles in the direction of a target, hoping for the best.
2. Stop showing nice tight clusters on a bullseye target only to admit you benched the full-sized gun at 10 yards. This is not a useful distance unless the phrase "firing as fast as I could pull the trigger" was used. Seriously, there is something wrong with a full-sized handgun that WON'T cluster its shots into 2 inches or less at this range. It's 30 freaking feet.
3. Stop gushing with praise about every gun you review. I mean nobody likes every gun they've fired, but certain gunwriters love even jam-o-matics that couldn't hit a barn from the inside.
4. If the damned gun is broken right out of the box, then GIVE IT A BAD REVIEW. I don't want to hear about how "every manufacturer produces the occasional lemon" because frankly it is not normal for a barrel to go flying downrange or for an automatic to spontaneously explode. Same goes for binding revolvers or sights that fall off.
5. Stop using the phrase "...for serious social work". You sound like a smug, smirking, anti-social type who gets off on people getting shot. Now I've even caught myself using this phrase, and in retrospect, it is abhorrent in that it projects a death-mongering image to non-gunnies, not to mention actual social workers.
6. Please describe how the gun feels and especially how it recoils. Size comparisons are also nice. Sometimes it's almost as if the writer never even handled the gun before reviewing it.
7. Chronograph results are mandatory.
8. There is no need to recap the entire history of this style of pistol/cartridge in question before getting down to the nitty gritty. I find myself skipping everything you wrote preceding the last few paragraphs which inevitably describe the actual shooting of the gun.
9. Please include slow fire offhand targets as well as rapid-fire ones. Offhand accuracy and shootability are important.
10. Please leave politics and your feelings about those mythical criminal-coddling "Lib'ruls" out of the article. You turn off prospective gun owners, many of whom are Democrats who voted for Obama but ALSO believe in the Second Ammendment.
Please feel free to comment!
Last edited: