View Full Version : Is anyone else peeved by gun 'reviews' that lack any useful data?
Eurodriver
02-03-15, 09:33
Your first problem is watching youtube videos. The only one I ever, ever watch (And even then it is seldom) is TwangNBang - just cuz he seems like a good dude that I would hang out with. I don't really watch it for the firearms info, although I did buy a Savage MkII FVSR and APV Scope because his shit looked legit.
All of the others are constantly finger ****ing the rifle on a table top (looking at you every youtube video ever) or produce 48 minute long videos (looking at you NutnFancy) or try to show off what suppressors sound like on video (impossible to do NFAReviewChannel)
In other words, I completely agree with you. What I'd like to see out of reviews (both articles, videos, posts, etc)
What you get in the box when you open it.
Pics of the item from all angles (Can't tell you how many times I've had to drive to a gun store to see something up close despite countless youtube videos)
Competitor products that directly compete with that specific item at least mentioned, but preferably shown.
Features and specifications of that particular item and how they benefit the end user
Flaws in that particular item that you wish you could remedy (TwangNBang is good with this)
I don't give a **** if you can shoot soda bottles. I don't care about what it looks like while you twirl it around on a tabletop, and I don't care to watch endless videos of you shooting it.
I agree. It seems like You Tubers do their thing because they like seeing themselves and listening to their own voices. And, they have become instant experts. Of course, somebody probably produces a useful presentation. However, I've seen very few and have quit looking.
Well, I think it's safe to say that, for the most part you should look at gun reviews both in print, and online as nothing more than entertainment. There isn't going to much useful info in either version. Gun rags have been guilty of this for decades, nothing new here, with the advent of youtube, now, anybody can take a stab at being their own reviewer, and have nothing to go on but what they've seen in gun rags this is what you get. I liked to read Todd Greens long term tests of various pistols. He would literally run them into the ground, and document every malfunction, broken part, accuracy at different points some actual good info. It was amazing to see the amount of abuse some of the pistols he tested took. The P-30 with over 90,000rnds was stuff of legend. But with Mr. Green recently getting a replacement elbow(s), I doubt we'll be seeing any tests like that again. Anymore, when considering a purchase of a pistol, I try to do some research online, ask some people who's opinion I trust, But basically, you're just gonna have to roll the dice and take your chances..
The fun thing about that is, make enough of those stupid ass videos that don't do anything and you can get your "media" creds for things like SHOT and product release shows. Which makes it difficult for manufacturers and serious business folk to network. Just a herd of overweight...like REALLY overweight...gun enthusiasts waddling around with full packs of "swag", giggling like teenage girls while waiting for their selfie with Costa-esque personalities, and giving reviews of what they find at SHOT that are nothing but redundant pictures and claims of "FitNFinish!!!!!?!??!!!!". Because why post anything like technical data when you can collect morale patches and suggest that you're elite insider information makes you an SME.
The most insulting thing is when you have guys like Fox33 here (for example) and a myriad of actual end users who can no shit attest to a product's performance in combat and theater for extended periods of time, experience that somehow carries less value than a carbine class with the flavor of the week instructor. Because YouTube Commando guy going to a two day course is a better qualified speaker on a product being able to sustain combat operations reliably than say...a guy who has been using that product in sustained combat operations in an SOF unit. Makes sense.
I don't buy into trends or the new line of whatever comes out that is suddenly the ONLY thing worth having because a guy who gets paid five figures to pimp his DD-214 says so. Especially when that same guy was just working for someone else the week before saying THEIR product was the only one worth taking into combat, something he hasn't seen for 15 years. So I for damn sure won't be lining up to buy something based on the out of focus, card table top displayed, soda bottle shooting review posted by a guy who wouldn't be able to run a mile in a plate carrier if his life depended on it.
Everything has its posers. You can go to a ski lodge and find someone who can tell you every good piece of gear and what to look for when you're buying your own gear. But that doesn't mean he's been on the slopes, in fact the more he wants to talk about his fancy gear the less likely he is to have ever used it. He's not the guy I'm going to for an assessment of the slopes.
Not just this industry, but yes, most 'reviews' are at best catalog copy regurgitation, especially on YooTerb where I see crap videos on more views than some of the best segments from actually useful shows. To a degree all that can be done that fits in the format of a YouTube video is the equivalent of a test drive - a really insightful presenter with some mechanical savvy having done proper research can actually provide some limited insight into a product, but anything short of that is going to be formulaic garbage with a couple up-close shots and be able to tell you nothing more than spending 3 minutes of your own time with that object would be (often quite a bit less than that)...
I have yet to see any magazine, EVER, print, anything negative about the advertisers, I mean manufacturers, that paytheir salary indirectly.
Averageman
02-03-15, 12:32
I have yet to see any magazine, EVER, print, anything negative about the advertisers, I mean manufacturers, that paytheir salary indirectly.
Actually a couple a months ago Recoil reviewed a pistol and at the end of the article they suggested just throwing the damned thing at the target was more accurate than actually trying to get it to show any type of grouping on paper.
They can be a little over the top, but that was entertaining.
Eurodriver
02-03-15, 12:39
Actually a couple a months ago Recoil reviewed a pistol and at the end of the article they suggested just throwing the damned thing at the target was more accurate than actually trying to get it to show any type of grouping on paper.
They can be a little over the top, but that was entertaining.
Did they recommend that only LEOs and Military be allowed to throw it at the target, too?
Averageman
02-03-15, 12:44
Did they recommend that only LEOs and Military be allowed to throw it at the target, too?
No, they got a new editor and fired that guy the next month, they have since apologized and hired someone new. I'm not sure how they thought that would be ok or go unnoticed but they have a new editor and attitude.
Your first problem is watching youtube videos. The only one I ever, ever watch (And even then it is seldom) is TwangNBang - just cuz he seems like a good dude that I would hang out with. I don't really watch it for the firearms info, although I did buy a Savage MkII FVSR and APV Scope because his shit looked legit.
All of the others are constantly finger ****ing the rifle on a table top (looking at you every youtube video ever) or produce 48 minute long videos (looking at you NutnFancy) or try to show off what suppressors sound like on video (impossible to do NFAReviewChannel)
In other words, I completely agree with you. What I'd like to see out of reviews (both articles, videos, posts, etc)
What you get in the box when you open it.
Pics of the item from all angles (Can't tell you how many times I've had to drive to a gun store to see something up close despite countless youtube videos)
Competitor products that directly compete with that specific item at least mentioned, but preferably shown.
Features and specifications of that particular item and how they benefit the end user
Flaws in that particular item that you wish you could remedy (TwangNBang is good with this)
I don't give a **** if you can shoot soda bottles. I don't care about what it looks like while you twirl it around on a tabletop, and I don't care to watch endless videos of you shooting it.
All I know is the XD shoots like a dream after countless rounds and always seems to find it's mark.
Eurodriver
02-03-15, 14:42
No, they got a new editor and fired that guy the next month, they have since apologized and hired someone new. I'm not sure how they thought that would be ok or go unnoticed but they have a new editor and attitude.
Good. RECOIL always had potential, but I remember sitting on the can reading that article and just being like "Wtf?"
All I know is the XD shoots like a dream after countless rounds and always seems to find it's mark.
Exactly!
The fun thing about that is....He's not the guy I'm going to for an assessment of the slopes.
I always enjoy your posts, SOW.
Rmplstlskn
02-03-15, 15:11
produce 48 minute long videos (looking at you NutnFancy)
Not a Nutn fan boy, but at least he usually has put it through a good shooting course of fire... But his 45 minute videos could be said in 10 -15 max.
But good videos are far and few between.
Rmpl
wildcard600
02-03-15, 15:23
Meet the new boss.... same as the old boss.
WickedWillis
02-03-15, 16:09
I do watch and enjoy Military arms channel, MrGunsandgear (PlouffeDaddy), and Twang and bang very regularly. If I stumble onto others it's because I am bored. There are so many massive operator as **** ego's out there on youtube (VSO, Polenar, etc.) That it gets quite laughable.
Most gun rags out there can't review shit worth a shit. I am being honest and have like 6 different mags I am subscribed to. If I could just find the emails for the editors I would be screaming out them once a month every month for just the stupid shit, like miss spelling, piss poor grammar, and shit that anyone with a 6 grade level of education could pick out during a proof reading, and these are the big name mainstream magazines. I write, yes I know how to proof read, and if you don't HIRE someone to do it. Forget the actual issues with the review, from misrepresentations, to falsehoods, to blatant lying or just complete bullshit. As far as their actual reviews, yeah, that that with a grain of salt at least, and some of them take it with the entire salt lick because they will make the gun look good like one magazine who did there accuracy testing with one rifle, a 5.56 AK, at something like 25 yards, or was it feet? and called it good with 2 inch groups :suicide: And this isn't even getting into the blatant the gun can do no wrong reviews. Why do I subscribe to the mags? Pretty pictures, and sometimes I get a little bit of info out of the reviews to decide if, along with everything else I have read, and from sources who I actually trust, if the item or gun is worth me going to even look at, forget buying.
As far as youtube. Yeah, with the exceptions of a very few there are a lot of complete ****ing morons who barely know which end the bullet comes out of and who I get pissed because I just gave them a view and an ego boost when I watch their shit. Some aren't too bad, but again, they don't always break down the details I want to know, or focus on stupid shit that is pointless to me and only the mall ninjas want. But then again, the youtube channels I subscribe to I watchbecause they are entertaining and make nice background noise while I reload or clean my guns, or because they sometimes delve into areas of the history of firearms. MAC for example, which I truly enjoy seeing.
Having had a discussion with friends on how to do a proper review of a firearm or even gear it comes down, for us, to do it right you do it as scientifically as possible. I've threatened if I ever hit the lottery that we'd review shit with a hardline by the book arrangement, multiple examples(minimum of 5, prefer 10 with 5k of rounds, if not 10k through them through various environments), machine resting for all guns, even the rifles, full on FBI testing for ammo plus testing of rounds at extended ranges, and testing gear to failure. While to many here I think that would be interested in something like this, the sad fact is the pure scientific break down would likely bore most of those out there. I mean when you are discussing actual facts of the design, pros, cons, and the very last offer opinion with a big caveat that the opinion is just that an unscientific opinion most are going to go back to the guys who shot lots of shooting and tell them what they want to hear.
Most gun rags out there can't review shit worth a shit. I am being honest and have like 6 different mags I am subscribed to. If I could just find the emails for the editors I would be screaming out them once a month every month for just the stupid shit, like miss spelling, piss poor grammar, and shit that anyone with a 6 grade level of education could pick out during a proof reading, and these are the big name mainstream magazines. I write, yes I know how to proof read, and if you don't HIRE someone to do it. Forget the actual issues with the review, from misrepresentations, to falsehoods, to blatant lying or just complete bullshit. As far as their actual reviews, yeah, that that with a grain of salt at least, and some of them take it with the entire salt lick because they will make the gun look good like one magazine who did there accuracy testing with one rifle, a 5.56 AK, at something like 25 yards, or was it feet? and called it good with 2 inch groups :suicide: And this isn't even getting into the blatant the gun can do no wrong reviews. Why do I subscribe to the mags? Pretty pictures, and sometimes I get a little bit of info out of the reviews to decide if, along with everything else I have read, and from sources who I actually trust, if the item or gun is worth me going to even look at, forget buying.
Yup - I used to flock to the magazine rack and keep up to speed on a lot of that stuff... then I realized I was just sifting through ads, then reading the token decent article by guys like LAV, Ken Hackathorn, Pat Rogers, Mike Pannone, and the odd Massad Ayoob article and completely ignoring the rest. I realized that I was already on forums where I could ask direct questions and if it was an inquiry worth half a shit they'd answer me personally in better detail than the editors of those rags would let leak onto a glossy condensed format. Once I started comparing the scientific rigor I brought to my middle school science fair projects to even the best of the high-detail tests I saw in any gun magazine, I realized that I could learn more actually relevant information spending subscription cash on a chrony setup or spotting scope and video camera.
I have yet to see any magazine, EVER, print, anything negative about the advertisers, I mean manufacturers, that paytheir salary indirectly.
You should read the article on the Tracking Point in the last issue of Recoil...
Do it. Do it now.
x eleventy billions
You should read the article on the Tracking Point in the last issue of Recoil...
Good lord, those things need disclaimers longer than the articles themselves to claim anything even close to impartiality.
OP, people have no idea how to go about (or maybe they don't care to put in the effort of) conducting the type of testing and/or experimentation process to establish objective data. Anyone remember science classes? That's where students should have learned that process, procedures, data collection, analyze and summary/conclusion, etc?. Then came college and/or professional work where process & programs are done as a matter of routine. "Reviewers of stuff" on the internet don't subscribe to in-depth, credible, repeatable processes that focus on appropriate data because they have no clue (or don't care) what is appropriate data. Their reviews are subjective in nature with no regard for objective data, because that takes work. And they have to use their brains. Ain't nobody got time fo' dat.
Voodoo_Man
02-04-15, 12:15
Wow, a thread of what I've been preaching for a while.
This is not how to review items:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeQkIHL2i48
Unboxing? No, please.
Reviewing an item after not actually using it or barely using it? Stop, please.
I can go on and on....hence why my reviews take a while to do and are long winded.
Do all these posts mean I shouldn't believe what Youtube star Tex Grebner has to advise about guns?
The man's a gawd.
Surely you jest?
Heck, he even shoots himself and still lives to tell a stirring tale about it.
Undoubtedly he shot himself to illustrate gun safety.
What's not to like?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.