To review or not

I used to frequent a digital camera site where they had reviews, (and a lot of them), for every digicam ever made. All were amateur reviews, but it was really helpful because you could read about every little problem that actual users had with any given camera. Reviews like that are useful because the thread of truth emerges from multiple contributors.
On the flip side, I read a certain magazine's reviews which are nearly all puff pieces, then, almost as a footnote you might get "by the way you'll need to put a couple hundred rounds through it before it works reliably".
 
I actually put very little credence in professional gun reviews. There probably aren't many who don't have their hands in the gun makers pocket. It's blatantly obvious that the reviews are almost always skewed by advertising dollars....hence the reason there are very few negative reviews.

Post your experiences.....that's what these forums are all about.
 
Just my .02 cents. Review's from anyone are no more than personnel preference. That's why competitors use different gun's, loads and different loading ideas!
 
Just my .02 cents. Review's from anyone are no more than personnel preference. That's why competitors use different gun's, loads and different loading ideas!
Click to expand...


MMMMmmm...well..some people can be objective when reviewing. Many can't. Some reviewers can also explain why their preference is X Y or Z, which can be important feedback for you and me especially if there's a technical reason behind it that we had not considered or is not obvious.

And then there's the reviews that are actually to promote the item in order to enhance sales.
 
I believe the primary impediment to a good review is less likely to be a lack of technical knowledge and more likely to be poor communication.

If you're just a hobbyist, that's fine. If you like something I don't, that's fine too.

If you can effectively convey why you've liked or disliked an item, especially one about which you've a passion, then your review might be interesting to me even if I don't care about what you've reviewed.

Jeremy Clarkson made a career of car reviews that are only tangentially about cars.
 
Last edited:
And then there's the reviews that are actually to promote the item in order to enhance sales.
Click to expand...

Which is what you read in gun magazines in articles written by Gunwriters. Gunwriters are shills for the industry. There are no educational or professional requirements to be gunwriter. Which gunwriters have a science, engineering, or mathematics education and worked in a profession where they used those skills? They always gloss over imperfections. The original Ruger MkI was introduced in 1949 and only now, are we being made aware of just how hard the thing is to reassemble. The Ruger MkIII was the worst of the bunch in my opinion, but now, with the introduction of the Ruger MKIV, why theses shills are just crapping over the older models that they used to praise to the high heavens.

The only gun magazine whose articles are not infomercials is Gun Test, and then, because the authors will not recommend malfunctioning firearms, many posters hate them. It seems, all we want to read or hear is positive information and no one wants to read or hear negative information on firearms, especially if they own the thing!

I prefer reading about the experiences of real people with their firearms rather than paid "professionals" who are in reality, shills.
 
If you want to write reviews, my first question would be "Why?" This is a rhetorical question which does not require an answer here, but it is something worth thinking about.

Is your goal to be a writer? Are you hoping to get positive responses from other people on forums? Do you have unique experiences that you believe will provide valuable insights to others? If you think carefully about these questions, it may help you to decide whether to write, what to write about, and it may also help you establish your writing style.

The issue of expertise and experience is also an issue to consider. When I read reviews, I am not interested in the authors credentials, but I am interested in a broad level of experience which becomes apparent through the writing. For example, in a review of a handgun, I want to know how it compares to the other handguns in its class. So I am most interested if the author has broad knowledge of the subject area and can make comparisons.

My sig has a link to my blog, and if you look at the articles section of the blog, you will see that I have put quite a bit of thought into writing. I have gotten some satisfaction from getting my thoughts out in public, but I have also learned that it takes a lot of effort to write things people are interested in.
 
slamfire said:
The original Ruger MkI was introduced in 1949 and only now, are we being made aware of just how hard the thing is to reassemble.
Click to expand...

I've only been shooting and reading gun mags since the mid-60's, but the Ruger MkI thru Mk3 reassembly foibles have been common fodder for at least the last 50 years.
 
Many of these posts relay my thoughts. Specifically shooterjake: why? Because if I was looking for a certain gun, I would want to assimilate every single piece of information I could on it. As I stated before (potentially in another thread) the more data you have, the better a conclusion you can draw. I'm an engineer and that is important to me because that's my job. If someone else is looking for something as a consumer, usually they want to also achieve the same goal, unless they have tons of money to spend and just want to get something because.

I realize that you were making it a rhetorical question, but I'm not looking for positive engagement, I'm not looking for "likes", I'm not even looking for acknowledgement. I want to put my experience with a certain weapon system out there so that when some other person is looking for data on their next purchase, they can find my experience and use it. I make videos on the interwebz and even stream a little, so I know what I need to do to be an entertainer, but I'm not looking to do that here.

Thank you all again for the input.
 
PlatinumCore16, if this forum supported likes, I would like your post. It sounds like you have thought about this subject and have a plan that is meaningful for you.

My previous post was not intended to be critical, but rather to offer some thoughts that have been helpful to me in my own writing.

Good luck.
 
I've only been shooting and reading gun mags since the mid-60's, but the Ruger MkI thru Mk3 reassembly foibles have been common fodder for at least the last 50 years.
Click to expand...
Yep, I've had my Mark II since the 80s and I read before I bought it about reassembly difficulties. I haven't shot mine in a long time. Maybe it's time to get it out. :)

As far as writing reviews, I've done that a few times on forums. I do it for a variety of reasons. First, it does provide some data to those interested. I'm no expert but the experiences of an average shooter may help other average shooters. I would not expect anyone buy a gun based strictly on my opinion. It's simply a data point for someone to consider or ignore.

Second, it helps me more dispassionately consider a gun I've shot (and most often purchased). It requires me to look more objectively at a particular gun. It also admittedly gives me an excuse to show off a toy to an audience which likes the same types of toys. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top