Is there any gun Jeff Quinn (GunBlast) DOESN'T like?

[idek]

Often times, when a new gun piques my interest, I'll do a quick search online for some reviews. Of course, I get a bunch of youtube reviews from nameless people who tend to be very biased and may or may not know what they're talking about.

...But the GunBlast website also comes up frequently. I find that some of the information provided seems objective and helpful, but after reading several reviews and watching several of the video reviews, I got to thinking, "Has this guy (Jeff Quinn) ever said a bad thing about a single gun?" It seems every gun--whether it's made by Freedom Arms, Kimber, Taurus, or Hi Point--gets glowing reviews.

I used to take his opinions somewhat seriously, but I'm starting to wonder.... Is GunBlast a reliable source for information?

[Lamar Jr]

I also have read numerous GunBlast reviews while research pistols I am considering buying or just generally interested in. I have always found Jeff Quinn's reviews interest, well written and helpful.

That said, I gotta agree, he seems to never publish a negative review. Is it possible he just doesn't publish the negative reviews? Doubtful.

[myshoulderissore]

Maybe he just gets giddy around guns! I could hand my son a 3lb carbon fiber 10 gauge with a recoil pad of nails, and he would love every second of it.

[idek]

Maybe he just gets giddy around guns! I could hand my son a 3lb carbon fiber 10 gauge with a recoil pad of nails, and he would love every second of it.

Well maybe he should do his testing, and then take a cold shower before sitting down to write his review.

[Frasier]

From what I understand, if he doesn't like a gun, he does not review it. I have watched most of his vids and would love to see him do a negative review.

[ScottRiqui]

I can kind of understand the "no bad reviews" thing. With an essentially infinite number of guns out there, I'd rather spend my time reading about one that the reviewer thinks I might like, rather than slog through multiple pages of a reviewer crapping on a gun.

Now, that's not to say that I don't want to know about the potential drawbacks of a gun that the reviewer still has an overall favorable impression of. If every review is all "puppies and rainbows", and the reviewer never has a single bad thing to say about any gun under review, then that's a little suspect.

[Georgia45cal]

http://www.gunblast.com/SW-60Pro.htm

While not necessarily negative, he found a problem with the accuracy of the Smith & Wesson 60 Pro, and reported the problem.

Accuracy with most loads would group five rounds into between three and four inches, with two of my handloads grouping into just over two and one-half inches. A couple of the factory loads would do no better than five inches. Carefully selecting ammunition would result in a handgun that is very capable as a defensive revolver at close range, but with the Model 60 Pro coming equipped with adjustable sights, I had fashioned this little .357 to be a good, handy trail gun, used for the occasional rabbit or squirrel, or even to drop a deer at close range. With the accuracy displayed by the sample gun, small game and deer would be out of reach if over just a few yards away. While the overall fit and finish on the Model 60 Pro was excellent, the barrel/cylinder gap measured eight one-thousandths of an inch (.008"), which to me is excessive.

[TennJed]

I can kind of understand the "no bad reviews" thing. With an essentially infinite number of guns out there, I'd rather spend my time reading about one that the reviewer thinks I might like, rather than slog through multiple pages of a reviewer crapping on a gun.

Good point. Maybe we should avoid the guns he doesn't review. If he does not like them maybe he just doesn't want to waste time reviewing and posting it.

[RBid]

After checking out a couple of his reviews, I walked away from them.

It seems like a LOT of reviews out there are basically no better than recitation of features that we already know about. It is rare that I've seen reviews that really touch on the dirty side of a weapon. "thetruthaboutguns" and our own Sturmgwhere (sorry if I just butchered the spelling) are two of the more objective sources that I have seen. Plouffedaddy seems like he's a bit of polish/practice away from being a guy who will have the opportunity to give high quality reviews of a huge selection of weapons, with honest opinions...

Bleh.

Honestly, I prefer review posts here or at The High Road over pretty much any others. The members between these two boards have a lot of smart guys, with a lot of experience. Reading through threads about a pistol, you're able to form a decent expectation about a weapon.

[LockedBreech]

I kinda like Jeff, even if he does read like an ad. Seems like a nice fella.

My gun review hierarchy goes as follows:

Gun forums (TFL and THR mostly) - for the truth, good, bad, and ugly.

hickok45 and tnoutdoors9 on YouTube - to see the thing shoot and pick a defensive load

gun mags - to see pretty pictures

friends and family - to get some anecdotal experiences

The only real gun reviews I'm not interested in are nutnfancy and FPSrussian. Mall ninja, former Air Force or not, and wrong image for gun owners, respectively.

YMMV

[RBid]

I do have to second tnoutdoors9. His round reviews are awesome.

[warningshot]

RBid, so where is the happy medium? Why should a 'gun review-er' spend time bad mouthing a POS that really is a POS? I am not challenging your past reponse, rather I value it, therefore I ask for clarification if you please.

[RBid]

That's a very fair question, warningshot.

Personally, I watch reviews to learn something, or at least to collect information. The more reviews I watch, the more threads I read, the better my chances are of recognizing patterns in pros and cons, and forming a reasonable expectation about the weapon.

Because this is my primary reason for checking reviews out, my preference is to see reviewers who cover a variety of firearms, and deliver "warts and all" material.

Many people buy guns, at least in part, because of internet reviews. If I had seen more honest reviews of the PF-9, I probably could have saved some time and money. I handled it before buying it, and I got to dry fire it, but more blunt reviews could have tipped me off about the large volume of people who have extraction issues with them. Instead, all I really saw were rundowns of the dimensions, and the features-- all of which I could easily see in the store.

I don't like the idea of only reviewing pistols that you like. When that happens, you don't need to read or watch reviews, because you know what to expect, simply by seeing that a review was done. That's my tired-brain thought, at least.

I need to sleep.

[warningshot]

Thanks. I do the same. I will be trying some reviews myself before too long. Should I find myself spreading too much sunshine around hopefully the reviewesr will let me know.

[FrankenMauser]

Writing a bad review for a major manufacturer's firearm is just biting the hand that feeds you.

"Don't like our products? We won't send you any more."

DPris should be able to offer some minor insight here, if he chooses to participate (and doesn't want to burn any bridges ).

[Zhillsauditor]

Writing a bad review for a major manufacturer's firearm is just biting the hand that feeds you.

Reading a review by someone that won't bite the hand the feeds him is a solid waste of time. Why spend time reading anything that you know is going to be dishonest?

[Manson]

Join Date: July 7, 2012
Posts: 3
http://www.gunblast.com/SW-60Pro.htm

While not necessarily negative, he found a problem with the accuracy of the Smith & Wesson 60 Pro, and reported the problem.



It looks like he asked Smith for another one and thought it was just fine.

[KyJim]

Keep two things in mind. First, Quinn is pre-selecting products which he thinks will be worth his time to review and possibly merit the readers' money in purchasing. See quote below.

A part of my duties as the Feature Editor of Gunblast is to sort through the many products that are brought to my attention as the possible subject of an article. Some are useful, interesting, new, nostalgic, or some combination of these attributes. Other products are flimsy, stupid, useless, or cheap, and are sometimes a combination of all of these features.

http://www.gunblast.com/Kangaroo.htm

Second, the site's reviews generally include a lot of generic information that most of us probably know but a very casual shooter may not. While certain factors in any review are subjective, the site usually reports objective information, both positive and negative. Objective information includes accuracy, chronograph data, failures to feed, and other items from time to time. Examples of negative information in addition to the accuracy report on the SW revolver others mentioned:

• ATI Fatboy 1911 -- heavy trigger and a failure to feed. http://www.gunblast.com/ATI-FX45.htm
• EAA Witlness Limited .45 -- failures to feed some ammo and suggestion to polish feed ramp. http://www.gunblast.com/RKCampbell_EAAWitness.htm
• Cobra Patriot -- had some failures to feed and the author dremeled the ramp to make it work. http://www.gunblast.com/RKCampbell_CobraPatriot.htm
• Colt WWI Army Replica -- "several malfunctions including double-feeds and one round that leapt out of the port fully loaded." Likely culprit was a poorly tensioned extractor and one bad, supplied magazine. http://www.gunblast.com/Cumpston_Colt-WWI.htm
• Detonics Combat Master -- several feed failures using Cor-Bon hollow points. http://www.gunblast.com/WBell_DetonicsCM.htm

Finally, keep in mind they are shooting a gun a few hundred rounds at most. They won't see issues related to longer term use.

Just my nature to take up for someone who is not here to take up for himself.

[excelerater]

I like Jeff's videos but I agree he likes everything
Which is OK,better to be a liker than a hater

[CarbineCaleb]

Well there can definitely be useful information in GunBlast reviews, in some cases for assessing performance - he'll often indicate group sizes obtained at 25 yards for example, and in the video you can see how well he controls the handguns in rapid fire shooting, plus he'll review construction and features.

But there is no denying that he keeps the tone positive on virtually all guns tested and isn't prone to either criticizing or comparing guns critically in his discussion.

I have to say that I like the way Quinn phrases things - always makes me smile

[DPris]

Those of us who have a choice, as Jeff does, simply don't bother to cover guns we dislike.

It's one of the advantages of being either a freelancer or the operator of an independent website.
We don't have to if we don't want to, and the result is that we generally tend to "like" most of what we write about, since we chose to write about it, with the occasional wart tossed in for informational purposes.
I've cancelled articles on guns that turned out to be not worth covering, and turned down assignments offered on others.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the denizens of Internet gun forums like this one are not the audience we write to.
You guys here already know it all.
Denis

[BlueTrain]

I've never owned a gun I didn't like but then, I don't exactly write reviews for publications. I do make a lot of posts here about guns I've known but I wouldn't call them reviews, just random comments.

Likewise, I've never sold or traded a gun that I didn't regret getting rid of, although I've bought a few that I regretted buying. But at the same time, I figure about a year or two is what it really takes to decide what I really think about a gun. Unfortunately, I am not financially able to spend every penny I have on guns or shooting, so it has been something that I've been doing over the last 45 years or so. It's been a lot of fun.

[idek]

For those people feeling the need to "stick up" for Jeff, I should clarify that I didn't mean any disrespect to him. I enjoy his review style--he seems to know what he's talking without acting like he knows everything, and he doesn't do videos in a full tactical loadout, which is refreshing.

It just struck me as a bit odd that forums are full of complaints about guns, but a guy who's tested hundreds of guns rarely finds anything negative about them, even when it's the same gun that many other people dislike.

[ScottRiqui]

I don't think you came across as disrespectful. Likewise, I don't think any of the responses you've gotten sounded particular defensive.

As for the internet opinions that differ from Jeff's, you also have to remember that internet forums are often concentrated pools of hate & discontent - anything that ever goes wrong with any gun/car/computer/etc gets reported and discussed, while you rarely hear about the person that used the product all day with no problems. People come to forums partly to ask questions and get help, so it can give a misleading impression.

Also, maybe:

1) The review unit that Jeff tested didn't have the problem that you're reading about on the internet.

2) The "problem" isn't really a problem at all, but rather a matter of personal taste or preference.

3) The internet complaint is completely baseless because the poster is a chucklehead who's just upset because his new $500 gun didn't instantly transform him into an expert marksman and all-around badass.

[idek]

ScottRiqui: I didn't think anyone sounded too defensive. I just wanted to be sure no one thought I was putting down the guy personally.

And you're right. There are reason why forums have lots of negativity and why he may not. Honestly, I just kind of wish he'd give some guns a thumbs down once in a while so I could cross a few names off my too-long wish list.