Influence of The Interwebz

[guyfromohio]

By nature of the forum beast, we're all users of the internet. But.... do we buy into the hype/lore/opinions? The web has convinced me that I don't want a Kimber (oh, but I do!), and that my perfectly working first run Gen 4 G19 was going to fail to eject my very next round (so I sold it). Have you been sucked in? Can you step back and laugh at your idiocy as I have done?

Don't get me wrong ... unless you've shot every gun, it's all we have to research.

 

[hso]

do we buy into the hype/lore/opinions?

We can see that here and elsewhere.

unless you've shot every gun, it's all we have to research

Which is why everything, even here, should be looked at with respectful skepticism.

BUT

Since we have friends, well some of you do, and there are ranges with rental cases we can shoot more firearms than we do.

 

[M-Cameron]

the main problem with the internet is that it is largely anonymous, and everyone's opinion carries the same 'weight'....you dont know whether youre getting opinions from Tom Knapp or 'Bubba'...


for all you know, they guy claiming that his Pardini couldnt hit the broad side of a barn from the inside could have zero training and toes for fingers......

 

[splattergun]

I bought my Ruger P89 before I bought my 1st computer ~ '94. I shot the gun and loved it's performance, though the blocky grip took a litle getting used to. Then I came across a bulletin board on AOHell in which nearly everyone spelled out just what a lousy POS any and all Rugers are. hmmmph
Thus began the kernal of my current core philosophy and THR signature...

I still love to shoot my P89 and I've since bought a couple more Rugers.

 

[Reloadron]

Long before Al Gore invented the Internet there were magazines. There was a time when no less that 5 gun related magazines hit this house every month in addition to American Rifleman.

Every new gun that hit the market was hyped in some magazine, the same holds true today with gun related Internet sites. Hell, if you ask me there was as much BS in magazines as there is on the Internet today. Funny how we can read a story (article) in a magazine about how great a new gun is and how it is a must have for any shooter. That same magazine will have countless paid advertising by the same company making the gun we just read an article about. Nothing like unbiased journalism is there?

Nice thing about the Internet is the wealth of data out there like loading or ballistic data, the sort of data where numbers don't lie. Additionally the Internet is home to forums like THR where a wealth of great information and opinions can be shared. An information highway for shooting enthusiast that never existed 20 years ago like it does today.

Just like the magazines the Internet should be taken with a grain of salt sifting through the BS for the truth and good factual information.

Just My Take
Ron

 

[HDCamel]

The info on the internet isn't any worse than what you might get at a range or a gun show. And I shouldn't have to tell anyone here how bad it can get at gun shows.

 

[medalguy]

The advantage of the internet over gun mags is that when you see a story today hyping a new gun, it's easy to google the subject and find 12,685,277 topics on that particular gun, including where to buy it for the best price. Couldn't do that with Field & Stream.

Oh and Bud's never advertised in F & S.

 

[Sam1911]

One very nice factor the internet (at least in forums) gives is the ability for a person making any claim to take the time and bandwidth to establish their own bona fides, lay out their criteria for their evaluations, explain their testing procedures, and face the give-and-take of challenge and defense of methods and conclusions.

There isn't the compressed time frame of a random conversation which stifles important supporting details and cross-examination.

There isn't the finality of the one-way street that print media provides, where the publication gives the (quite likely false) cover of veracity and authority to the writer's words, and allows virtually no counter-claim and/or defense of assertions. Nor the stilted environment of only reporting news that is good, positive, and entertaining.

In the end, there are no guarantees and few absolute facts that will be universal to everyone. No gun will be perfect for every shooter. No gun will be reliable, or will fail, in every situation for every user. We're looking to establish trends and probabilities based on the experiences of others.

For every person who "fell for the hype" there are dozens of others who did their research and made wise decisions based on the observations presented by other enthusiasts.

 

[Reloadron]

Great post there Sam. So what it really all boils down to is be it today's Internet or a magazine what we read should be taken with a grain of salt. That everything from guns to everything gun related requires some due diligence or more simply put doing one's homework.

Ron

 

[Justin]

I start from the assumption that every person posting on a gun forum is, at best, the kind of person who goes to the range maybe four times a year and shoots from a bench, because, frankly, that description easily encompasses the vast majority of gun owners.

With my initial expectations set low, it makes it easy to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Whether or not I deem a particular post or user to be trustworthy can hinge on a number of things. For instance, do they post pictures of actual range sessions, rather than just gun pr0n?

Do they talk about having attended training classes or shooting competitively? If they're a competitive shooter, are they ranked?

Do they post actual data vs. just regurgitating something they picked up elsewhere? If they do post information that isn't original research, is it sourced properly?

Are they more interested in things like aesthetics or "soul" than whether or not a particular gun works effectively?

Are they unreasonably brand-loyal?

How often do other members who have actual knowledge vouch for the posts of this person?

If their posts are on a subject I have first hand experience with, how well does what they say match up with my experience, and if it doesn't, do they give reasonable information regarding the deviation?

Do they answer questions directed to them, especially if those questions may not jive with what they've posted?

Granted, this is kind of an unscientific way of going about things, but it does a reasonable job of allowing me to figure out who's for real, and who's not.