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.:D

[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.:D
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." :eek:

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. ;)

[Aguila Blanca]

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.
So his readers won't waste their money possibly buying said POS, of course.

The purpose of reviews (of any product, not just guns) is to inform the buying public. If a reviewer publishes reviews only of guns (products) he likes, and/or only guns (products) that don't have any serious issues that should be called out ... said reviewer essentially becomes a cheerleader. A reviewer should review any gun (product) submitted for review, and tell his/her readers honestly how each product measures up. To sweep the bad ones under the carpet by not publishing a review is to conceal information.

The downside to a reviewer being honest, I suppose, is that gun makers may stop sending guns for review if they know he/she might actually call a spade a spade, or a turkey a turkey.

[BlueTrain]

You know, I'd rather read things that are upbeat and about new things and are optimistic about things to come rather than end of the world senarios, how awful things are now compared with the way they were back then, whenever that was and so on.

[whippoorwill]

I generally like his reviews, partially because he doesn't come across as a know-it-all. There are already way too many of those. He simply gives what appears to be a thorough run down of the firearm's major features.

I haven't gone back and checked all of the firearms he has reviewed, but based on my memory, I can't think of any where I would say that he should have given a particular firearm a thumbs down when he gave it a glowing report.

[aphdmansoc]

I'm what's up with what ABlanca said! A review should be an assessment of the qualities - good/bad - of the product being reviewed. With that said, life is too short to be spending too much time with a POS.

If a product is a big seller but has serious problems then a reviewer has a responsibility to review that product.

[CarbineCaleb]

Well, I suspect that most of Quinn's reviews depend on the good graces of the companies sending him firearms for review. And likely he is afraid that if he really pans one, he won't be getting anymore samples from them. Just imagine that he ticks off Ruger and they stop sending him free review samples - then no more Ruger tests, which would be a big gap. Then if he does that with one or two other big makers, he's pretty much out of business.

Just how it works, he can't be 100% objective because he's not 100% independent. That's the same broad problem for the magazines reviewing guns from makers they rely on for advertising revenue.

I think the only place that is independent is gun-tests.com.

[mje]

I reviewed a lot of guns for American Airgunner in the late 90s, and when they sent me a complete turkey, my attitude (and the publisher's) was not to waste valuable page space on something our readers wouldn't be interested in. And more than once I read a review of the same gun in another publication that didn't mention all the problems I found ;-)

There's something else: Slamming a product can be a risky thing if you don't have the resources of an organization with a big legal budget behind you. I host a web site devoted to folding kayaks (http://folding kayaks.org) and a manufacturer of a new boat once sent me something that could be charitably termed a death trap. I had to give that a lot of thought before I decided to be brutally honest about it.

[CarbineCaleb]

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

+1 for hickok45 and tnoutdoors9. Hickok45 is a charming old gentleman and an outstanding shot with a handgun. He also doesn't salt his discussion with political rants, which keeps things upbeat. The guy is so obviously having lots of fun, and he has a positive outlook, both are infectious. Great representative for the firearms community.

TnOutdoors9 does some very nice gelatin testing - smart guy and really making an effort to get meaningful results. Also a great rep for the firearms community.

[shafter]

I like Gunblast and comparing what he says to guns that I own he appears accurate and truthful. If I was buying a gun I didn't know much about I'd ask about it here. Some of the people here are overthetop smart and very helpful.

[Sarge]

Jeff, Boge & Greg are alright guys. Gunblast also has an excellent bunch of guest writers. As noted, if Jeff finds a lot wrong with a specimen you won't see a review on it. It's his time and money and I can understand this.

I took a little different approach (http://www.thesixgunjournal.net/home/sarges-1911-articles/) with entry-level 1911s because I was tired of seeing crap marketed and I thought it might be helpful to prospective buyers.

[PT-92]

I like a wide diverse opinion on stuff so I like them all. Honestly, I'm not 'jealous' of their respective 'arsenals' as much as I am their land ;)! I live in the 'concrete jungle' and have the choice of either traveling a long-ways out in order to do any outdoor shooting or going to the nearby indoor ranges. Living in the City is a *****!

-Cheers

[DPris]

Jeff's not in the business to tell you what guns not to buy.
Neither are the rest of us.

I can also guarantee you that if he did say one was a total POS, given the nature of the industry & the nature of gun forums in general you'd see 20 people immediately jumping on to say "He's full of ****, I've got one of those & LOVE it!" :)

Can't win no matter which way you go.
Denis

[donato]

"thetruthaboutguns" and ... the more objective sources that I have seen.

Are you serious? This guy is all torqued up about the SR9c because it won't eject snap caps. He's also bothered about how short the grip is on the SR9c. Of course, as he opines and wiggles his pinky finger below the grip, it is quite obvious that there is no magazine inserted.

[pmeisel]

I enjoy his style, and I think you can tell a lot about the product by what he compliments, and what he doesn't.....

[RBid]

donato,

The call outs about ejecting snap caps, and grip length don't bother me, at all. He sees things that he thinks may be issues, and calls them out. I want that. Here's why: He's the only guy that I've seen highlight those two 'issues'. Since I check out multiple reviews, and handled the SR9c, I learned that the pistol has a reputation for ejecting aggressively, not weakly. I also knew that the grip wasn't an issue, because I have big palms, and have no trouble getting a great, 3 finger grip on the pistol.

The reason I appreciate call-outs like those, whether anyone else agrees or not, is because it gives viewers the chance to see patterns emerge. Let's say that Hikock45 made comments about the pistol not ejecting well... then Sturm said it... then it showed up in reviews from lesser known reviewers...

That would tell me that there was a high likelihood that ejection was a problem, and I would know to cut the pistol out of consideration.


Instead, I saw no other instances of anyone highlighting those areas. Ultimately, I bought an SR9c, and I carry it every day. I even wrote a very detailed review on it in the semiauto section.


I don't expect to agree with everything a reviewer says about a pistol. I want them to share their honest opinions. Sturm said he didn't like the PPQ mag release, for example. I prefer the PPQ mag release. Still, that guy is honest, and that is why he is one of my favorite sources for reviews.

If a guy will point out negatives, or voice opinions that aren't positive, then I know to trust him when he raves about something.

[donato]

Maybe the snap caps were the problem, not the gun. I have never read/heard any other reviewer obsess on a gun's shortcomings because it failed to eject his snap caps. My point about the grip length is that his review is skewed, maybe even dishonest, because he is making the point about short grip and doesn't even have a mag inserted. Actually, I think Mr. Farago should let others do the gun reviews. I don't mind telling it like it is; I just would like to have some confidence that the reviewer knows what he's talking about.

[RBid]

That's a fair explanation, donato. I can see where you're coming from. It sounds like we don't disagree about the approach, so much as in we differ in terms of how much value we find in that particular reviewer's contribution to the pool.

For what it's worth, I don't view thetruthaboutguns reviews as gospel, or weigh their value above any other reviewer's comments. I prefer to find as many "warts and all" reviewers as I can, and check for common themes. thetruthaboutguns is just one of many sources that I check out.

[Amsdorf]

I enjoy his channel.

Obviously, he is not going to keep getting T&E weapons if he trashes them.

Just like the gun magazines.

Hickok45 is better when it comes to shooting it straight, so to speak.

For instance, he had a really bad experience with the S&W M&P handgun, cracked frame, etc. and he reported it as it happened.

Oh, yes, by the way, if any gun maker wants to start sending me guns for testing for my YouTube channel, I promise to only say wonderful things about them, you know, like every gun magazine out there.

When is the last time you've EVER read a negative review in a gun magazine??

NEVER..yes, that's the right answer.

[Super Sneaky Steve]

Gunblast is my favorite gun related channel, but he did steer me wrong on the PK380. He didn't mention that the slide is made of zinc, that the recoil spring is the hardest thing in the world to get back in or that it's made by an airsoft company and the quality is junk.

[donato]

Interesting. Walther's/S&W web site says that the PK380 frame/barrel/slide are steel.

[ScottRiqui]

It's the P22 that uses the "pot metal" slide, but that often gets attributed to the PK380 as well, possibly because the PK380 and P22 look so much alike.

[johnbt]

Okay, he only publishes reviews of the guns he likes or halfway likes. That's fine with me. His review - or non-review - is only one of many out there.

I think some people need to learn to read between the lines.

John

[Chuckusaret]

I am quite sure that he would not waste his time and his readers time reviewing a known POS. I would also assume that if a well known company that advertises on the show sent a product to him for review it would have gone thru some serious QC and testing before being sent to him.

[oldgranpa]

I too, like Jeff's reviews, always helpful with great pictures and data. Good site to check before buying a new handgun.
og

[DPris]

Chuck,
You would assume wrong.
Denis

[Redhawk5.5+P+]

I take a lot of his reports with a grain of salt, but not in a bad way.

I do like his un bias (seemingly) report's on a specific gun.

Sometimes his reports bore me, but maybe I have A.D. D., I think a lot of gun or gun related companies send him there examples on there dime for testing.

I think if he went on and started calling guns a piece of crap, he just might be stigmatizing himself out of business.

I think if a gun he reports on has a problem, he talks in a round about way about it. Honest or not, I don't think he lies (wink wink).

Jeff Quinn, keep up the good work.

[Mike Irwin]

"I would also assume that if a well known company that advertises on the show sent a product to him for review it would have gone thru some serious QC and testing before being sent to him."

You'd think so, but in my experience from my time with American Rifleman, that's never a given.

We got several firearms, both new products and established, from major manufacturers that had SERIOUS problems.

One, the Colt AA2000, the gun designed to "save" Colt, was perhaps the single most flawed test piece ever created.

The first one we received was so inaccurate that we literally couldn't measure the groups. Our target holder/backstop/bullet trap had a roughly 4x4 foot opening, and some of the shots at 25 yards were missing that and impacting the back and side walls and floor.

Subsequent iterations sent to us weren't much better.

My personal theory is that AMT had NO quality control processes. They sent us a 10mm Magnum Automag that would disassemble itself on every shot.

And one manufacturer, can't remember which one, sent us a shotgun where every time the trigger was pulled the action jammed because the locking bolt was badly out of spec.

[KyJim]

So, Mike, did the magazine report all this?

[jhenry]

Jeff and Boge are both good honest stand up guys who do not 'get special guns', or 'gloss over' anything. They do reports on the guns they like, or think others will like, that work and perform at least adequately. Crap guns get no air time. It is that simple.

[plom]

I trust Jeff Quinn 200%, I like his review and he is a good guy, it's so easy to bash others work...

[hogdoc357]

Na...He's got the sickness and it is incurable. ;)

[CajunBass]

So what? I've never shot one I didn't like either. That doesn't mean I want to keep every one I've shot, or that I didn't like something else better, but I've liked them all.

[DPris]

Ky,
We've gone all over why junkers & clunkers are not written up in numerous past threads.
Space is too valuable & editors/publishers won't waste it on something not worth writing about.
Denis

[John Cockburn]

I don't trust any off 'em anymore. Jeff Quinn wrote on the Kimber Crimson Carry ( which I bought and love). But he stated "real wood" laser grips. Mine came with plastic...I called Crimson Trace. At that time they were not marketing "real wood" (now they are, at a premium). Either Kimber played a "switcher-roo" with Jeff's gun or he can't tell plastic from real wood.
Then, Richard Mann writes a 4 page spread about Lightning Strike Technology's "Gaboon". I ordered one and waited a year, with nothing but BS procrastination. After I got firm with them, they offered a refund/cancellation. Now I'm waiting for my money. I have not seen ONE REPORT other than Richard Mann's testimony on actually shooting the "Gaboon". I would love to hear from the "hundreds of Gaboon owners out there" if the damn thing actually works...if it even exists. I'm thinking it might be a scam and Richard Mann, gunwriter, either is party to it (since the owner of LST - Gaboon is his "god son) or he was duped as well as those of us that invested in this thing. I'm out $1000 and my complaint is registered with the Attorney General.
In any event, I think these forums are the BEST source. You're dealing with REAL PEOPLE here with no bias. There is strength in numbers. If 90 out of 100 owners like something, chances are it's a good product. I cancelled my subscription to HandGunner mag and will relie solely on forums, Thank you very much.

[DPris]

Yeah, you're dealing with real people here.... :rolleyes:
You have no idea who you're dealing with on the Internet & have to apply the same standards here as you do with the gunmags- you critically review info, and judiciously use it. You can't just assume some anonymous poster has good info without establishing a good pattern for reliability over the long run & noting whether he really seems to know what he's talking about, and you should approach the gunmags the same way.
At least the gunwriters put up their real names & faces and stand behind what they write publicly.

What you see here can be posted by a 17-year-old kid regurgitating what he's heard from some 17-year-old buddy who got it from his mis-informed Unca Joe after 9 beers around the campfire.
It can also be posted by some very knowledgeable & competent people who know exactly what they're talking about.
The assumption that the gun forum is automatically either more cast-iron reliable than a gunwriter, or that you get anywhere near as complete a picture of a given gun, is delusional.
There are competent & reliable gunwriters, there are competent & reliable forum posters.
You can find erroneous info in both, and I've seen infinitely more of the latter on the various forums than I have in print.

Also, it's quite possible for a writer to get a sample from a startup company for review that doesn't actually make it to the market. It doesn't mean there was a scam by the writer going on.
That was one problem I had with the old American Western Arms people.

Also quite possible for a writer to get an early version of a gun that has one or two different features from the production version that finally ships to your gunshop. Doesn't mean an inability on the part of the writer to "tell plastic from real wood".

Denis

[jhenry]

No one on any gun forums has any bias either Dennis. Don't forget that part.

[DPris]

I was being polite. :)
Denis

[Sarge]

The assumption that the gun forum is automatically either more cast-iron reliable than a gunwriter, or that you get anywhere near as complete a picture of a given gun, is delusional.
There are competent & reliable gunwriters, there are competent & reliable forum posters.
You can find erroneous info in both, and I've seen infinitely more of the latter on the various forums than I have in print.



The problem (or perception of same) is not so much that the writers are doing poor evaluations, as it is what the publications are willing print.

Yes, there is always the chance that a poster is a poser, regurgitator or person with a grudge against a certain company. If you have a decent BS filter, the forums can be a good source of unadulterated end-user reports. If you believe everything you see in print, you will be hopelessly adrift regardless of the material you're reading.

[DPris]

Precisely, on the last sentence.
Denis

[Mr. Whimsy]

but I've read just about all his reviews.

I take what he says with a grain of salt, and frankly prefer to read actual buyers' experiences on here.

I find negative evaluations more informative as I like to hear about common problems people experience with a gun model and situations in which that gun does not perform well.

I find it curious that so many people on here seem prone to pat Jeff Quinn on the back with an "attaboy" as if they know him or something. He and his reviews strike me as ok, sometimes inadequate.

It would be great if he could actually accuracy-test ALL the handguns and not throw out the old canard, "this is not meant to be a target gun" while proceeding to shoot groups at 15 feet. That's just nonsense. Also, he likes Buffalo Bore ammunition often to the exclusion of other more readily-available standard fare that people will actually shoot. It's almost like they gave him a lifetime supply of their ammo or something. I just don't find that helpful as I don't ever plan on using it.

[DPris]

Some of us may be prone to pat Jeff on the back as if we "know him or something" because we...do know him. :)
Others do the back-patting because they find he provides useful info on the guns he covers.

Otherwise, can't please everybody.
If he stopped including BB, somebody'd start griping about "Why don't you show the outside-the-box stuff anymore?"

It's an imperfect system, and it can never be a perfect one.
If you can't get anything useful out of Jeff's site, or the gunmags, I cordially invite you to avoid looking at both. :)

Round up your own guns, start up your own site or mag, do your own write-ups, and let us all know where to find 'em.
Denis

[Rspeters]

I just read into this thread a couple of pages and then I realized I'm reading about reading about guns…how lame is that.

[DPris]

Very.
Move along.
Nothing to see here. :)
Denis

[Mr. Whimsy]

Denis,

Over-react much?

You seem like you can't stand to hear an opposing view. Maybe forum usage isn't for you if you take things personally.

I'm not going anywhere.

[donato]

I take what he says with a grain of salt, and frankly prefer to read actual buyers' experiences on here.


Now that's scary!

[DPris]

Mr,
Nope, don't overreact at all.

Just get tired of the same ill-informed gripes over & over & over again.
Honestly, if you don't like the mags, don't read 'em. :)
I encourage you to never pick up one again.


And if you believe all you get from Internet forums is solid gold, by all means run with it.

In the meantime, I acquire information from a number of sources, including gunmags and the Internet.
I filter from both sources, and use what applies to my own situation from both.

I'll tell you quite frankly if I restricted myself to forums only I'd be missing out on a hell of a lot of good info.
I can get clear photos of features in mags that I won't get here, along with in-depth commentary about a particular gun that goes well beyond "Gee, I surely do like mine!" Or "I bought a new Model X & it blew up with my reloads! Obviously a junker gun!"
And so on.

On the other hand, I'd be missing out on good feedback from those who actually do post something more useful if I didn't sift through the threads on the forums.

There are deficiencies in both, you just have to use your head & not expect too much of either.

Denis

[RBid]

100 reviewers get Kel Tec PF-9s. All 100 of them opt to publish only what they enjoy testing. 50 of them experience multiple failures to extract. None of that group publish reviews. The other 50 don't experience the issue. All 50 of those guys publish glowing reviews.

The result is 100% positive review, despite the frequency with which the product line runs into QC issues.

If all 100 reviewers publish their reviews, with each relating only their own experiences, the consumer becomes better equipped to make an informed decision.


This is why I do not, and can not, support the practice of only publishing positive reviews.

[DPris]

Then don't.
I said it was an imperfect system & if you can get nothing useful from it, ignore it.
Nobody in the biz has the time or the space to cover every gun out there, much less in equal coverage, good & POS, just so you can make up your mind what to buy.

Denis

[RBid]

I do ignore reviewers who I realize only publish positive reviews.

Call it what you want. That practice is two pom-poms and a skirt away from cheerleading.


I have also never said that I expect any reviewer to test every product on the market. What I want is for a real report on each product that went through testing. There is a painfully obvious difference.

Car & Driver vs American Cheerleader.

[DPris]

Again, if you get nothing you can use from the gunmags, don't waste your time with 'em.
Live long & prosper on the Internet. :)
Denis

[RBid]

I'll live long and prosper, with visits to the Internet. I wish the same for you.