The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 14, 2018, 08:07 PM   #1
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,594
Is it any wonder people distrust the media?

Read this story on the new SIG MCX upper as reported by Fox News and see if you can count how many laughable, glaring, errors you can find in this article written by “a defense specialist with experience in more than 70 countries who consults at the highest levels of defense and national security, a lawyer with four postgraduate degrees.”

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/09/...re-deadly.html

The “experts” telling us what to think literally know nothing,
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 14, 2018, 09:00 PM   #2
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Potatoes and Hops
Posts: 11,139
That's so cringe-worthy that it's laughable.
Aside from the factual errors and poor writing, I feel like I got dropped into a blender full of corporate buzz words and went for a spin.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old September 14, 2018, 09:22 PM   #3
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,704
I don’t see the factual errors you guys are referring to. Sure, the article isn’t terribly well written and there is a typo or two, but I didn’t notice any glaring factual errors. Overall, it’s not all that bad as far as mainstream media gun articles go, other than the awkward phrasing and occasional hyperbole.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is online now  
Old September 14, 2018, 10:38 PM   #4
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,077
Does anyone know what is more useless than "...a lawyer with four postgraduate degrees..." ?

(Answer: a lawyer with five postgraduate degrees.)




More seriously, I read this other day and by the end I still couldn't figure out what the bejeeezus they were taking about.

...pure gibberish from start to finish.
mehavey is offline  
Old September 14, 2018, 11:29 PM   #5
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,035
It reads like half of it was cribbed directly from Wikipedia.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old September 14, 2018, 11:35 PM   #6
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 11,859
She sounds like a propaganda cheerleader, LOL. She spoke a whole lot, but revealed very little.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old September 15, 2018, 12:48 AM   #7
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theohazard
I don’t see the factual errors you guys are referring to. Sure, the article isn’t terribly well written and there is a typo or two, but I didn’t notice any glaring factual errors. Overall, it’s not all that bad as far as mainstream media gun articles go, other than the awkward phrasing and occasional hyperbole.
Did you click on the link? Let me cite a few lines:

“Sig Sauer has a distinctive looking, revolutionary approach to suppressors. They look nothing like the suppressors you see in movies and TV shows – these rifle suppressors are tubeless. They’ve eliminated the outer tube typically seen with suppressors.

In addition to reducing weight, this tubeless design increases volume, lowering pressure and temperature for greater durability and leading signature reduction.

One of the keys to this feat is the special “baffle” design.”

They then show an MCX with only a flash suppressor and describe it as a “SIG Sauer SBR with silencer.”

You could almost excuse them for being ignorant and confusing a flash suppressor with a sound suppressor; but then they try ti get into some detail discussing silencers.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 15, 2018, 07:33 AM   #8
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
Did you click on the link? Let me cite a few lines:

“Sig Sauer has a distinctive looking, revolutionary approach to suppressors. They look nothing like the suppressors you see in movies and TV shows – these rifle suppressors are tubeless. They’ve eliminated the outer tube typically seen with suppressors.

In addition to reducing weight, this tubeless design increases volume, lowering pressure and temperature for greater durability and leading signature reduction.

One of the keys to this feat is the special “baffle” design.”

They then show an MCX with only a flash suppressor and describe it as a “SIG Sauer SBR with silencer.”

You could almost excuse them for being ignorant and confusing a flash suppressor with a sound suppressor; but then they try ti get into some detail discussing silencers.
So they didn’t actually show a pic of the silencer they were discussing, so what? That’s just bad editing, it’s not a factual error.

The article talks about the SIG MCX upper and a corresponding SIG 5.56 silencer, and that part you quoted describes the SIG SRD556 silencer. It’s a rather unusual-looking silencer; it’s a fat, tubeless design with baffles welded together to form the outside of the silencer. It’s pretty quiet and it tends to have less back pressure than other 5.56 silencers.

Just because they described the SRD556 in an awkward way, that doesn’t make it a “glaring error”, it just makes it a badly written article. I’ll say it again, I didn’t notice any actual technical firearm errors in this article, just bad writing.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."

Last edited by Theohazard; September 15, 2018 at 07:40 AM.
Theohazard is online now  
Old September 15, 2018, 01:04 PM   #9
jag2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 629
I’m with Theo. I understand the article, it’s the OP I don’t follow. This wasn’t a tech article for the firearm industry, it was piece written for the general public to give them an idea of advancements that are being made for our military.
Just as I don’t need to know the details of our latest air to air missile, just need to know the next generation is better than the last.
jag2 is offline  
Old September 15, 2018, 05:38 PM   #10
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by jag2
I’m with Theo. I understand the article, it’s the OP I don’t follow. This wasn’t a tech article for the firearm industry, it was piece written for the general public to give them an idea of advancements that are being made for our military.
Just as I don’t need to know the details of our latest air to air missile, just need to know the next generation is better than the last.
To follow your example, this would be like illustrating the article on the latest air-to-air missile with a photo of a Piper Cub.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; September 16, 2018 at 07:12 PM.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old September 15, 2018, 06:44 PM   #11
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 9,140
You've really gotta be looking for something to complain about in that article. It was written in very generic terms that most common people with little understanding of the technical aspects could relate to.

When your 5 year old asks you questions about how highly technical things work you don't explain it in the same terms you would to a 25 year old electrical engineering student.

The average person on the street has about as much firearms knowledge as a 5 year old. Principles have to be put in simplistic terms for them to even begin to understand.
__________________
"If you're still doing things the same way you were doing them 10 years ago, you're doing it wrong"

Winston Churchill
jmr40 is offline  
Old September 15, 2018, 08:15 PM   #12
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmr40
The average person on the street has about as much firearms knowledge as a 5 year old. Principles have to be put in simplistic terms for them to even begin to understand.
And how much of that ignorance is because of misinformation and disinformation they see in the media? Illustrations are supposed to "illustrate" (as in, supplement and enhance) the text they accompany. Too many sources today have lost sight of that fundamental concept. They see a pass of text and they just throw in any old picture they can find, as a filler to break up the text. That's not helpful.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old September 15, 2018, 09:33 PM   #13
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
Illustrations are supposed to "illustrate" (as in, supplement and enhance) the text they accompany. Too many sources today have lost sight of that fundamental concept. They see a pass of text and they just throw in any old picture they can find, as a filler to break up the text. That's not helpful.
That’s a fair point, but so far the only factual error anyone can point to in this article is a single caption that says “Sig Sauer SBR with silencer” and yet the picture only shows the SBR by itself. OK, so someone put up the wrong picture, but that looks more like a careless editing mistake than anything else. So along with some odd phrasing and a few typos, that’s the only real problem with this article.

The OP challenged us to “see if you can count how many laughable, glaring, errors you can find in this article”. So far we only have one editing error where they posted the wrong picture, a typo, and some hyperbole. Not really a big deal and certainly not bad as far as mainstream gun articles go.

Again, I still haven’t seen a single technical error in the text of the article itself, and nobody else has managed to point one out either. I’d say this is one of the more technically accurate gun articles I’ve read from a non-gun media source.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."

Last edited by Theohazard; September 15, 2018 at 09:43 PM.
Theohazard is online now  
Old September 16, 2018, 12:10 PM   #14
olddav
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2008
Location: Lower Alabama
Posts: 682
The article does require a bit of faith as there are no pics of the suppressor. I did a search for additional info and could only find what one claims (their word) is the new suppressor. I would like to find out more if anyone has a link.
__________________
Never beat your head against the wall with out a helmet
olddav is offline  
Old September 16, 2018, 12:40 PM   #15
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by olddav View Post
The article does require a bit of faith as there are no pics of the suppressor. I did a search for additional info and could only find what one claims (their word) is the new suppressor. I would like to find out more if anyone has a link.
I’m assuming the article is referring to the SIG SRD556 QD silencer, or maybe a newer, similar design. The article describes the silencer as having a lightweight, tubeless design with more internal volume than other 5.56 silencers, and that’s an accurate description of the SRD556.

https://www.sigsauer.com/store/srd556-qd.html
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is online now  
Old September 16, 2018, 02:16 PM   #16
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Potatoes and Hops
Posts: 11,139
Quote:
I’m assuming the article is referring to the SIG SRD556 QD silencer, or maybe a newer, similar design. The article describes the silencer as having a lightweight, tubeless design with more internal volume than other 5.56 silencers, and that’s an accurate description of the SRD556.
I disagree.
Once you weld all of the baffles together, they ARE a tube.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old September 16, 2018, 02:29 PM   #17
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankenMauser View Post
I disagree.
Once you weld all of the baffles together, they ARE a tube.
Sure, but that’s not the point here. “Tubeless” is a common term in the silencer world and it refers to a silencer that doesn’t have a traditional outer tube; instead the baffles are simply welded together.

The author of this article correctly referred to the SIG silencer as “tubeless” since it doesn’t use a traditional outer tube and instead the baffles are welded together to form the tube.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is online now  
Old September 16, 2018, 02:40 PM   #18
Onward Allusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: IN
Posts: 2,576
Wasn't too far off. Sprinkled with hyperbole & buzz words... Hey, gotta keep in mind that not every, even most gun owners, are as versed or nit picky as some here.

I generally take "expert" advice with a sprinkle of salt. This goes for both firearms and IT related crap, because on paper, I'm an "expert", too.

Did I say, I absolutely hate the friggin' word?
__________________
"You haven't lived until you've died." - various
People . . . not a big fan . . .
Onward Allusion is offline  
Old September 16, 2018, 03:37 PM   #19
olddav
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2008
Location: Lower Alabama
Posts: 682
Quote:
I’m assuming the article is referring to the SIG SRD556 QD silencer, or maybe a newer, similar design. The article describes the silencer as having a lightweight, tubeless design with more internal volume than other 5.56 silencers, and that’s an accurate description of the SRD556.

https://www.sigsauer.com/store/srd556-qd.html
All said and done, I wasted time on a press release. That's on me!
__________________
Never beat your head against the wall with out a helmet
olddav is offline  
Old September 16, 2018, 08:02 PM   #20
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 11,859
But it wasn't even a good press release, LOL!
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old September 18, 2018, 08:08 AM   #21
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,534
Folks, we can talk about this story but we are not going to discuss Fox News in general.

That way leads to madness.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old September 18, 2018, 09:53 AM   #22
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 2,875
I think the bigger story is the open source admission that the 300blk is in service.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old September 19, 2018, 07:34 PM   #23
gw44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 135
Wow am I glad that's over !!!
gw44 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09020 seconds with 9 queries