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

I

idek

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

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.
 
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.
 
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, 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 ;)).
 
Writing a bad review for a major manufacturer's firearm is just biting the hand that feeds you.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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:
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.
 
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 :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top