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

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. ;)
 
warningshot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...

+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.
 
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.
 
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 with entry-level 1911s because I was tired of seeing crap marketed and I thought it might be helpful to prospective buyers.
 
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
 
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
 
"thetruthaboutguns" and ... the more objective sources that I have seen.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I enjoy his style, and I think you can tell a lot about the product by what he compliments, and what he doesn't.....
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top