Honesty on Forums

[SGW Gunsmith]

I venture around on just a couple of internet forums involving Ruger Mark pistols and .22 rimfire ammunition. What I look for is honest evaluations involving both subjects. I have done over 150 articles for "American Gunsmith" , several articles for "Performance Shooter" and even a couple that I was asked to do for "Gun Tests". I caught quite a bit of flak from some of the "slick" page writers involved with monthlies like " Guns and Ammo" as to why I was not more "friendly" to the firearms that I've evaluated. Tell you what. When I did evaluations for "Gun Tests", those guns were purchased over the counter just like you and your shooting companions do. They were not the pristine, golden attended sample guns sent to the "slick page magazine" article sycophants who only get payed for writing good stuff. Nope, we had several "serious" , but folks honest enough to write about how they felt, maybe YOU as a consumer would like to read about what an honest test involved. As for me..............I just appreciate a n honest test much more than a "paid for test".

Read More

 

[Alexx1401]

I venture around on just a couple of internet forums involving Ruger Mark pistols and .22 rimfire ammunition. What I look for is honest evaluations involving both subjects. I have done over 150 articles for "American Gunsmith" , several articles for "Performance Shooter" and even a couple that I was asked to do for "Gun Tests". I caught quite a bit of flak from some of the "slick" page writers involved with monthlies like " Guns and Ammo" as to why I was not more "friendly" to the firearms that I've evaluated. Tell you what. When I did evaluations for "Gun Tests", those guns were purchased over the counter just like you and your shooting companions do. They were not the pristine, golden attended sample guns sent to the "slick page magazine" article sycophants who only get payed for writing good stuff. Nope, we had several "serious" , but folks honest enough to write about how they felt, maybe YOU as a consumer would like to read about what an honest test involved. As for me..............I just appreciate a n honest test much more than a "paid for test".

I subbed to Gun Tests at least a couple times LONG ago. The big problem I had with them was they would buy and test one gun. If it worked they proclaimed the entire line as a buy. If it did not they proclaimed the entire line a do not buy. This to me was all but worthless. Any mass made anything is going to let out a bad item from time to time. Now if they had tried to get the problem gun fixed? That info I would have been VERY interested in reading. As in how the manufacturer treated the customer who got a problem. The last time I read GT was a test on home defense shotguns. They used a Moss 500 and a couple other kinds. The 500 had feed problems so they pronounced the entire line a do not buy. I am sure a hell of a lot of people who owned a 500 were shocked to hear the gun did not work.
Now this was decades back, so don't know if they have been able to do a more realistic testing platform now days? Like Consumer Reports type thing? I know when I used to read them they bought multiple examples of the product they wanted to test. They would even mention if they had a bad example and what happened when they went to get it repaired or replaced under warranty.

 

[Stomper]

This is why I like watching Tim on the Military Arms Channel....outside of getting free ammo from a few vendors, he only accepts funding from viewer donations. He doesn't pull any punches, and even conducts follow-up reviews after "revisions" have been done.

I stopped watching/reading Gunblastdotcom because he's NEVER (that I've ever seen) reviewed a gun that he didn't like... they've all been a "dandy", even when I could see that the thing sucked.

 

[daved20319]

This is one of two reasons I stopped subscribing to the majority of gun mags. Most reviewers never met a gun that wasn't wonderful, the other reason, more than half the mag is advertising. Why should I pay to read a bunch of ads for stuff I don't want anyway?

As to the internet and youTube, IF I'm actually looking for a video of a particular gun in action, I'll usually see if Hickok 45 has done a review. He likes everything, so I'm not expecting criticism, but he's shot almost everything, too, so I can at least see it being run. But I don't even do that until I've decided it's something I'm seriously interested in, and by that time, I've done a lot of research, or as much as I can. I live in the boonies, so more often than not, the one thing I can't do is actually handle a "new" gun, never mind actually being able to shoot one. Later.

Dave

 

[HA556]

stopped watching/reading Gunblastdotcom because he's NEVER (that I've ever seen) reviewed a gun that he doesn't like... they've all been a "dandy", even when I could see the thing sucked.

I always felt that guy was full of crap also! Like you, I've never seen him review a gun that wasn't a positive!

 

[DirectDrive]

You're doing the right thing.
Any fellow writer/reviewer that approaches you with such nonsense has just exposed himself as a fraud.

 

[bbbass]

I haven't read any of your "stuff". But I will say that "honesty" is a baseline for me. If a writer is lacking in scruples, I just will not support them. The next thing is analytical talent, then writing skillz. If their analysis is off, it's just not worth my time. If their writing is not interesting... well, I'm easily bored by long winded bloviation!!!

Mi dos centavos.

 

[Unicykle]

This is what makes foum's like this so valuable.

 

[No_Regerts]

I'm in the minority where I prefer to read written reviews....but it has to be from someone I know or have conversed with. There are three gunwriters that I follow after being acquainted through forums or at events. Their writing is all but rosy when you learn their subtle ways of voicing their disapproval.

i really enjoy good writing. Many reviews or videos may have great info, but if Im put off by the reviewer, it's no dice.

 

[MannyGlocks]

I've bought exactly one handgun due to an enthusiastic review I read in a gun magazine.

It turned out to be a garbage pos of a handgun.

I now see 'all' gun reviews with a jaundiced eye....

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

The thing about "Gun Tests" , just like MOST of us, they really do buy just one gun of a specific sort, from a dealer or a store. And, they take no advertising from those who would want reviews tainted in their favor.
The slick page writers get a "golden", hand tuned, hand assembled, specimen that gets passed around among other writers to evaluate. At Gun Tests there are several, normal local shooters, who evaluate the test guns who don't have a 'dog in the fight'. They shoot a specific sample and then they write about their likes or dislikes. They have no investment involved, therefore no pride will get bruised.
From what I see on these interweb forums, there are some who will purchase a firearm over the counter, and rather than admit they got a POS, they will not write about the issues they have. Back in 1993, a Smith & Wesson Model 41 pistol bought brand spankin' NEW, had to be returned 3 times to Smith & Wesson until that premium pistol worked as it should. Sure, I could've fiddled with it and probably got it to work properly, but at that time some of the parts involved were not for sale from S&W, and then again, after paying as much as I did, why the hell should I fix their problems.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

This is what makes foum's like this so valuable.

I agree, they definitely can be very valuable, but only if posters are allowed to be true to the program and not prejudice one way or the other. If some product has fulfilled all expectations, it should be made known. But if the thing is a POS, that should also be made known and not stifled by some moderator for being too "unkind".

 

[MannyGlocks]

SGW,

Well said!

 

[bbbass]

only if posters are allowed to be true to the program

WTF???

I don't know what boards you frequent, but this is the only one I am on and I've never seen a situation where an NWFA mod censored or reprimanded somebody for comments on a firearm. We don't even have any written rules about that that I am aware of... we do have rules about how to treat each other... so if someone gives an ad poster a bunch of grief about the firearm they are trying to sell, that's a different gripe. Getting nasty with someone during a discussion of a firearm... diff gripe!!!

But for writing up derogative comments on a firearm mentioned within a normal thread, I don't think so!!!

 

[EHJ]

I venture around on just a couple of internet forums involving Ruger Mark pistols and .22 rimfire ammunition. What I look for is honest evaluations involving both subjects. I have done over 150 articles for "American Gunsmith" , several articles for "Performance Shooter" and even a couple that I was asked to do for "Gun Tests". I caught quite a bit of flak from some of the "slick" page writers involved with monthlies like " Guns and Ammo" as to why I was not more "friendly" to the firearms that I've evaluated. Tell you what. When I did evaluations for "Gun Tests", those guns were purchased over the counter just like you and your shooting companions do. They were not the pristine, golden attended sample guns sent to the "slick page magazine" article sycophants who only get payed for writing good stuff. Nope, we had several "serious" , but folks honest enough to write about how they felt, maybe YOU as a consumer would like to read about what an honest test involved. As for me..............I just appreciate a n honest test much more than a "paid for test".

So... Here's my rub.
When you first arrived your first few posts were all about how lousy all the 22 forums were to you. Nothing but criticism. You shared some stuff that I appreciated - but - your continued tone seemed... blunt, immodest and quite frankly - bully-ish. So I went to your site, page and blogs. Read everything you wrote and all of your lambasting of others. I credit and applaud you and your business and products and gumption - but... sometimes people are - wrong. Everyone gets something wrong at some time. Everyone. And that's how we grow as individuals.

You basically called me a liar a few days ago, Remember that? 22 auto's won't work with sub-sonic ammo? I contributed to that conversation with my experiences with a target ammo I was using and had no faults with. You practically doubled down telling me I was wrong - all while admitting you never shot that particular ammo. May seem like a little thing to you. But it erked tf out of me.

I believe you have much that many here can learn from - and as much as you can learn from others here, as well.

But... ditch that chip.
You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. IMO

"Honesty on Forums"

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

The situation you presented was quite confusing when you wrote that you were using .22 rimfire ammunition between 700 and 800 FPS. Is that NOT correct? I ordered some of the very same brand that you wrote about and it should be here this week. The box label says it's around 835 feet per second. So, what's to believe? I wrote that when it gets here I will chronograph it to see what it flies at, and then record what I find, and I will be honest and show printouts. I do try .22 rimfire in the 700 to 800 velocity range, just like this in a Browning Buckmark:

I also have some CCI ammunition in the 700 to 800 velocity range on the way, that I will test for myself. I'm NOT in the business of catching flies, getting knowledge for myself matters more to me:

So, if I had known that you would be so sensitive about your post being something I have NOT experienced, I'll put you on "ignore" and it's my BLOG, and if you don't like what you read there, stay the hell off it. Hope your "rub" gets fixed and you can then stay happy.
BTW, CCI does make the CCI Quiet in at least three velocity ratings, just so there's no confusion.

 

[EHJ]

Sorry you missed my point here. It could have been a learning moment for us both.

Good luck - I suggest you look at becoming a Vendor-in-standing here - or at least a supporting member. Maybe advertise through the proper channels?

A lot of your posts come very close to the line in regards to self-promotion of a business. Maybe not 'technically' - but the spirit seems to be there no matter how cleverly worded. There are guidelines for that.


So with that, I'll say adieu.
Peace.

 

[cigars]

The good news: The internet is here to help us all! The bad news: The internet is here to help us all!
Perspectives are important and cool heads always prevail when dealing with matters on the internet.

 

[Goosebrown]

Everything I post in the forums is a lie.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

The good news: The internet is here to help us all! The bad news: The internet is here to help us all!
Perspectives are important and cool heads always prevail when dealing with matters on the internet.

Well put. I give some thought about those who just visit, or as some write, "lurk", here or there, to hopefully get some helpful information concerning an issue they may be encountering and look for help with. Providing confusion in an answer will just shoo them off to find a better venue.