ChanceMcCall
Member
really? if I listened to forums I likely wouldn't own a single gun...
This is sort of like reading the reviews on Amazon. I can't keep track of the things I haven't bought because of the negative reviews.
What Makes a Great Gun Review - Assessment?
- Thread starter ChanceMcCall
- Start date
- Status
This is sort of like reading the reviews on Amazon. I can't keep track of the things I haven't bought because of the negative reviews.
nettlle
Contributing Member
Buy and try the best of all. For those wealthy enough to do so.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
Haha, this!
I'm certainly not wealthy, but He alone knows how many guns Ive bought, shot once, and sold again!
Its kinda a running joke with the guys at my LGS.
Of course, if a gun does make it past the first range session, I'll usually have it Por Vida.
I know I have a problem....isn't that supposed to be the first step to recovery......
Having to apply for a $100 (+ expenses + a few weeks' processing time + proving that you have room for one in a certified safe +...) permit for each individual gun favors a rather different approach than just buying a gun to try it out. Not to mention having to find a buyer who is willing to go through the same process to take it off your hands if you don't like it.
Which happens to some reviewer every year, and it doesn't mean SHOT is the only place this happens. I once read a review of a particular watch which was quite negative, only to discover the reviewer has somehow gotten credentials into a Swiss show for purchasers and when he couldn't get a copy of the makers expensive brochure he went on a multiple forum rant about their quality. Much ado about nothing as their reputation was immune to his childishness.
When reading reviews you simply have to set aside any credibility of the reviewer and literally review his review. It's a matter of parsing his skill in explaining why something is or isn't any good, with a healthy dose of skepticism that the review was likely bought and paid for up front.
The purchasing of positive reviews is legend in most industries, the worst case scenario was in the video game arena just a few years back. Too many positive reviews came out about one video game and in the resulting online debacle it was discovered that the maker doth protested too much. The entire hoax was unraveled and the purchasing public who were offended retaliated in ways unforseen - they were computer geeks of skills equal to the game programmers. That didn't turn out well - their alienation has expanded to encompass politics, and has even led to their forums being a channel of communication by the current Administration.
Be careful what and where you review something.
All this has led to an atmosphere where reviews of guns are now suspect on their face if they reveal details which are outside the scope of how the gun was designed and operates. Example? Drop safety and the SIG P320. The issue there was exposed by an insubstantial tester who lacked credibility, using tests outside the scope of the SAMMI procedures, and directly after Glock had lost the contract for the M17. Timing being what it is, the reason for the test at that moment was tainted by it being so close on the heels of the contract award. Whether intended or not - it looked like a revenge hit piece.
Playing on the public stage as an accomplished reviewer requires credentials, restraint, and a lot of moderation. You can do a review that results in a no buy recommendation - Caracal or R51 comes to mind - but it doesn't mean you have to rake the company over the coals. Just report the facts and leave us to make our own decisions. Egotistic reviewers with an axe to grind are the dark side of the industry and they aren't going away.
As a result - many do NOT buy "new guns" as so many of the recent introductions require at least six months to iron out the early difficulties. It's called "beta testing" for the company, most of us don't want or need to be the guinea pigs for their rapid product cycle. So, wait it out - I bought a P938 but only after it was reported that SN#84,000 and after were equipped with a 9mm extractor, as the .380 was insufficient. I bought a Kahr CW380 two years after introduction, it bypassed that typical stage of early Kahr guns which sometimes need some CS to get running.
In either case both were not considered reliable until I had over 150 rounds thru them, at which point both consistently have minor issues with low powered junk ammo not loaded to industry standards for self defense. Which is NORMAL and has been ongoing since auto pistols were first introduced. Guns are designed for a certain power load and if you don't believe it, and stubbornly insist it should "eat anything I stuff in the magazine", then that goes to your credibility as a reviewer. You just lost any respect I had for your opinion, and I'm not alone.
rodspade
Member
For a handgun, I want details on the grip dimensions - circumference, trigger reach, etc.
bassjam
Member
Since a lot (pretty much all) youtube reviews are purely subjective, I like to see comparisons. If I’m looking for reviews on SP101’s, it’s nice to see comparisons to S&W 60’s or 640’s because the chances are higher that I’ve had experiences with the gun being compared to, and then can kind of get a baseline on where the reviewer is coming from.
I need to know where the reviewer is coming from, and, I hope, commonality with my goals/interests/preferences/priorities. If I'm considering a gun for, say, competition, then a review by a dude who buys and shoots lots of guns in his backyard and then stashes them in his safe really doesn't tell me anything of use. I can also give less than a grain of rice's worth of care about whether a gun will function when dropped into a mudhole and left for 2 hours.
I tend to find the most useful reviews come in the form of comparisons between the reviewed gun and a gun I am already familiar with.
I tend to find the most useful reviews come in the form of comparisons between the reviewed gun and a gun I am already familiar with.
ChanceMcCall
Member
Agreed 100%. One of the things that is difficult to convey is how the gun fits the hand in part because what fits one does not fit another. It would help if the reviewer would talk or write about what fits their hand in some detail and then comment on how this particular gun being reviewed fits. For example:
The only Sig that ever fit my hands correctly was the P 230 (no experience with P232) so that should be an indicator of what I am going to like and what I am not. The Ruger Mark series is my favorite small game handgun especially not they have come out with a much easier to clean version. I have taken hundreds of rabbits and squirrels with one version or another of this gun with first an early Aimpoint and now several other red dots. I also loved the Whitney Wolverine before the Ruger but it is now a safe queen. I'm crazy about the Bond Bullpup's grip frame if not the caliber. By stating that, I believe I have given people an idea of what I would consider a well fitting grip on a semi auto. So if I stated the Beretta Neos fit me very well in a review, someone would have some basis for comparison with their own preferences. (BTW: This is a gun I bought, but might not have if I had seen a review on how often and how carefully this gun needs to be cleaned to keep it from a serious lock up that makes it difficult to even get it apart. I don't mind cleaning guns, but every 200-300 rounds is ridiculous when I normally shoot 500-1000 rounds at a time.)
fjblair
Member
I didn't mean to imply that you were wrong, just that it wasn't my experience that Ruger's need gunsmithing out of the gate. I'm not a competition shooter either, so my expectations and needs probably aren't the same.
ChanceMcCall
Member
The biggest problem with Ruger Revolvers is their trigger pull. This is true for both single and double action guns and when hammer cocking the action is normally hard and gritty. The longer you use them, the smoother they get, but, some of us would never use them enough without having that fixed first.
I have also exchanged the trigger group in my 10/22 ( Volquartsen Custom TG 2000) and in my Ruger Mark IV (also Volquartsen). My single action Rugers have had a total makeover by one of the best Ruger single action gunsmiths in the country but I used then for competition.
I wish Ruger could stop fearing lawsuits enough to just do their triggers right in the first place.
Charliefrank
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2017
- Messages
- 578
Having been on this site for a couple of months now, this is my new gun magazine. An interactive magazine so to speak. A magazine you can ask questions and get honest answers from people that actually own, shoot, do what they're talking about. Opposing views on the same subject. No endorsements molding the conversation. I love it.
Part of the issue of Rugers is that they use a lot of castings in their products which reduces the need for machining but that can leave the insides quite rough. The amount of handfitting of parts on Rugers is designed to be minimal.
Guntest magazine does not accept ads nor free firearms. Subscriptions only and it does name names and mentions flaws in tested models of every manufacturer. Even models by S&W, Ruger, and Glock, etc. come in for a bit of bashing at times and the lowly High Point was fairly rated--makes a difference.
ontarget
Member
In light of the recent thread about a well known gun reviewer I watched one of his reviews for the first time today. I chose a review of a gun I already own. He not only covered the function, features, pros and cons but also brought along a Glock to lay side by side to contrast and compare the width, length, and grip size. Those items seem to be very important to many posters on this thread. I thought it was a thorough and well done review.
Mr. Hill
Member
The most important part of a review is concise and no excuses.
Does that pistol shoot to POA? Does it have a heavy, lawyer-approved trigger with a 12 pound pull that’s gritty and stacks? Does it feed rounds reliably every time, and eject them?
If not, tell us. Don’t bury those details in the middle of the review and try to minimize them. Don’t make excuses (“break in”, etc.). Don’t try and pretend that a major problem is only minor. Apply the same standards to the pistol manufacturer as your boss applies to your work product. If an excuse won’t fly with your boss or wife, it shouldn’t fly for a gun failure in a gun review, either. JMHO.
Does that pistol shoot to POA? Does it have a heavy, lawyer-approved trigger with a 12 pound pull that’s gritty and stacks? Does it feed rounds reliably every time, and eject them?
If not, tell us. Don’t bury those details in the middle of the review and try to minimize them. Don’t make excuses (“break in”, etc.). Don’t try and pretend that a major problem is only minor. Apply the same standards to the pistol manufacturer as your boss applies to your work product. If an excuse won’t fly with your boss or wife, it shouldn’t fly for a gun failure in a gun review, either. JMHO.
Just my two cents, but it is my experience with friends, gun stores, gun shows, you name it, that gun people tend to be so opinionated about guns that while I'll certainly listen to what they have to say, I rarely rely on any of it. It seems that so much about guns is based on personal like or dislike, and thus may not apply to me and my needs at all.
ChanceMcCall
Member
There is no question you are correct about people having strong opinions that are often not factually based. I'm not sure that statement only applies to "gun people". If one went to automotive forums, much of the same blather is frequently encountered.
But, here is the thing, and the point of my starting this thread. There are objective facts from which one can make decisions, but much of what appears in magazines, You Tube, blogs, etc. are mostly opinions not based on facts. Consider this:
Someone objectively reviews a gun. They discover by scientific standards it has a creepy 12 pound trigger pull and objectively report that. The once a year shooter may conclude that really isn't important to them because they are going to go out and plink 50 rounds and call it a day and the gun is only $400.00. The competitive shooter may conclude this gun isn't going to work for them because the cost of "fixing" that trigger pull to the 2.5 smooth level they want is too high or impossible. A third shooter that only wants the gun for a bedside table may decide they can get by with it because of the lower price. A fourth shooter who is trained and experienced in serious social situations may decide against the gun because they understand how such a trigger pull can horribly affect even short distance accuracy if they are instinctual shooters.
Everybody gets the same information and comes to a different conclusion, but that is OK because they received relevant information from which they made their own decision.
In these forums, if people play fair and play nice, certain informed opinions can be offered up that might be of real value to the reader. The problems only arise when people do not play fair or nice, or when some keyboard commando wants to feel important and offers up things as fact they they read on some forum or saw on You Tube that may or may not be true.
One of the other problems is that someone may know a great deal about one topic and uses that authority to make pronouncements about things they are not expert about. Here are some things I know something about, but not enough to consider myself an expert:
- 1000+ plus yard rifle shooting (Sure I know rifle basics and with the right gun and optics I can hit large game at less than 500 yards 90% of the time, but there is so much I don't know I certainly am far from any kind of authority so I need to read and listen while real experts discuss.)
- Trap Shooting is something I know something about because I can break 80 out of 100 almost all of the time and 95 out of a hundred some of the time, but I am far from an expert. (I do know enough however to ask reasonable questions, and to sort out most of the BS that some people spout.) So I constantly ask questions to try to improve myself.
- Skeet Shooting and Sporting Clay shooting is something I know very little about and am alway lurking and reading and evaluating.
- While I have skinned thousands of trapped animals and lots of eating game from squirrels to elk and do it well, I am terrible about getting pheasants and turkeys ready to cook despite having shot a lot of them. I can get them to the cookable stage, but I am a terrible butcher when it comes to birds, and it shows. I continue to let other people get my birds ready to cook.
- When it comes to gun modification or repairs, I'm mostly thumbs and prefer to pay someone else to do it for me. (I am pretty good at cleaning most guns and am a bug about doing it at the end of every shooting session. Lugers and Ruger Mark 1, 2, and 3s are my principal exceptions.)
Here are some pet peeve statements that these You Tubers and scribes often make that irritate me:
- Everyone knows that you can shoot a longer barrel more accurately because of the longer sight picture and that you give up too much power in a snobby revolver or in a short barrel semi auto.
- Everybody knows that this new super duper 9MM ammo is better than .45ACP and anyone that disputes that is so old school as to be a fossil.
- Everybody knows that a gun with a 1. striker or 2. hammer is a better gun for self defense. (Take your pick.)
- real life close range combat shooting (Although I may be a little out of date on certain rifles and carbines.)
- close quarters offensive and defensive guns, ammo and tactics
- combat and close quarters use of shotguns
- cowboy mounted shooting and to a lesser extent ground matches and hunting from horseback
- shooting from moving vehicles at targets in moving vehicles and actually hitting the desired target
Apparently, many people posting here also agree, at least in part, that much of the You Tube stuff, the blogs, and even paid magazines are falling down in doing what should be done. In some ways, I think you are saying the same.
I am another that probably pays more attention to what is written on these boards than what an online reviewer says. There are times when I might go online & do a search if I see a video or posts online that states there is a problem with a given design. I used to get excited about the latest, greatest. Now I tend to sit back & watch what is posted here. If after 6 months to a year something is still getting high marks I might be interested. There is only one reviewer I really enjoy. His videos are really entertaining & usually informative though I am a touch more cynical since he is sponsored now. One always needs to think critically & separate the wheat from the chaff.
Edited to add: There are some of the video reviewers I can not bear to watch. I can not force myself to watch a "tabletop" review of a firearm while they drone on & on in a montone voice for 30 minutes. I know some folks really like this type of thing but it loses my interest quickly.
Edited to add: There are some of the video reviewers I can not bear to watch. I can not force myself to watch a "tabletop" review of a firearm while they drone on & on in a montone voice for 30 minutes. I know some folks really like this type of thing but it loses my interest quickly.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
Most, if not all, new Rugers use MIM triggers, hammers, and internals. While I hate this form of material just on principal, it does produce a very smooth surface finish. Not sure if it improves the quality of the trigger pull as all my Rugers are pre-MIM. Guess I'll find out with my new Redhawk when it arrives.....
Kookla
Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,115
I think I mentioned this in another thread, but I like when a writer uses a variety of ammunition to test in the firearm, in addition to accuracy at varying ranges. Not a fan of pistols only being shot at 7 yards or 10 yards- prefer to see 25 and 50 yard groups. Not a big fan of writers trying to spread their comedic wings while doing a write up.
ChanceMcCall
Member
I, obviously, agree with much of what you wrote but have some concerns about part of it.
While you are certainly entitled of not being a fan of pistols only being shot at 7-10 yards, please remember for those who carry guns for self defense need to see and read about guns and ammo at those distances because the "best" firearms for those kinds of confrontations are often not the same guns that perform well at 50 yards. While I can shot my Bond Arms Bullpup and get acceptable groups at 25 yards, I have very little faith I will get acceptable groups at 50 yards unless it is very deliberate and slow fire. On the other hand, I can shoot my Springfield Armory Range Officer Elite Target rapid fire at 50 yard targets and get acceptable groups almost every time. Unfortunately, I can get two rounds off and into target at 7 yards with my SA XDs, and three with my Bond Arms Bullpup before I can get one off with my SAROET. People who carry for typical urban self defense need to know that some of the best handguns for 25-50 yard gunfights are actually a detriment at the more normal close range the average civilian would every be justified to engage in.
I mostly agree, but I also have to admit some gunwriters are very good at it. David E. Petzal of Field and Stream magazine comes to mind, I generally enjoy his dry, cynical writing style.
As far as putting a gun through its paces is concerned, you're absolutely right. Seeing what it can really do is informative unlike the usual YouTube "This is the new XYZ, I unboxed it and now I'll shoot it... BANG BANG BANG BANG... oh yeah, it works!" -kind of "journalism".
- Status
