Yeah, you're dealing with real people here....
You have no idea who you're dealing with on the Internet & have to apply the same standards here as you do with the gunmags- you critically review info, and judiciously use it. You can't just assume some anonymous poster has good info without establishing a good pattern for reliability over the long run & noting whether he really seems to know what he's talking about, and you should approach the gunmags the same way.
At least the gunwriters put up their real names & faces and stand behind what they write publicly.
What you see here can be posted by a 17-year-old kid regurgitating what he's heard from some 17-year-old buddy who got it from his mis-informed Unca Joe after 9 beers around the campfire.
It can also be posted by some very knowledgeable & competent people who know exactly what they're talking about.
The assumption that the gun forum is automatically either more cast-iron reliable than a gunwriter, or that you get anywhere near as complete a picture of a given gun, is delusional.
There are competent & reliable gunwriters, there are competent & reliable forum posters.
You can find erroneous info in both, and I've seen infinitely more of the latter on the various forums than I have in print.
Also, it's quite possible for a writer to get a sample from a startup company for review that doesn't actually make it to the market. It doesn't mean there was a scam by the writer going on.
That was one problem I had with the old American Western Arms people.
Also quite possible for a writer to get an early version of a gun that has one or two different features from the production version that finally ships to your gunshop. Doesn't mean an inability on the part of the writer to "tell plastic from real wood".
Denis