Integrity in Gun Reviews

[alamo5000]

I have a subject/rant that I have been on lately. That is having integrity when doing gun reviews or helping people find products. This was (at first) part of the reason why I joined WEVO.
I don't do a lot of reviews per se (mainly because of the lack of opportunity and lots of other committments, plus I am not a subject matter expert). But for those that DO participate in that I think they should have a pretty high bar of fiduciary duty. That to me marks which ones are professionals and which ones aren't.

It wasn't that long ago that I was brand new to the AR and NFA game. I was fortunate to find WEVO were I got a no punches pulled solid advice that I feel at least put me on the right track.
Reviewers do not have to like every product they see. That's not my point. Reviewers (in some cases) I am sure are highly pressured (or even paid) to give a fantastic impression. That's not reviewing, that's paid advertising. That to me is one level of dishonesty in reviews.

Also I am coming from the angle of recommending something to a guy who has to work his butt off and save for 6 months to buy a good pistol, or if someone is new to NFA and don't realize that it's a lot of money, a year wait, and you're married to it forever. Not to mention that NFA is still a pretty opaque world to most people. I personally think the fiduciary duty of people who put out reviews need to walk a thin line on things.

Lately a couple of instances of this are out on social media that show my point. MAC for example had a problem with a new Sig pistol. He called it for what it is. The guy from NFA Review Channel recently had a gun where he had a problem. He contacted the manufacturer (not telling them who he was) just to get an honest opinion of how their service really is. Wasn't that great from the sounds of it.

On the flip side it's not cool at all to throw a gun (or company) under the bus, spread false information, or whatever the case may be. IV8888 recently did videos on HiPoint for crying out loud. I by far don't think he's in love in HiPoint but he made an effort to let people know realistically what they will get for their money.
Again all that goes back to being honest and loyal to the people who work for a living and could be heavily invested in or influenced by something. To me when gun channels or whoever go off on something there needs to be facts and fairness at play.

If a firearms manufacturer puts out a POS it should be called out for what it is. It's not to me so much about defending (or not defending) a firearms company as it is making sure the people who do these things are keeping their integrity intact.

Everybody has their biases and stuff they like or don't like. I love my Sigs, but after handling some of the other offerings from Sig I don't give them a pass on everything they do. I owned a Taurus pistol before. I've shot some POS Taurus guns, but the make and model that I owned at the time was my gateway drug that ran great. I probably shot easily more than 5,000 rounds through it and it was very reliable and never had a problem.

Considering that many people do rely on written or video reviews to make decisions what standard do you guys think the community as a whole should hold people to?
Over time I've seen a lot of BS put out there. Some of it was about how silencers have always been banned in the US, false information about what silencers do, how the process to own NFA items can get your home raided, to blanket advice like 'buy a Sig/Glock' even though that might not be right for that person.

I am not trying to defend companies nor am I trying to take away people's opinions about a product. I've had stuff that sucked that I wouldn't recommend to anyone, which is fine, but sometimes I think the people who put out material publicly sometimes aren't honest nor truthful. I also think when people ARE honest and truthful often times they get thrown under the bus for telling the truth. In the end though I think 'we' as a group (IE the 2A community) need to do our part to keep all parties honest.

[voodoo_man]

I typed out a whole long post calling people out but it won't change anything.

Short of it is, do not trust industry celebs with large followings. Do not trust people who constantly get stuff for free and only post quick "positive" reviews of items. Do not trust industry shills, especially many who have their name on a product.

Don't follow the internet mob in groupthink. Think for yourself and experience things for yourself.

[UWone77]

This is a common complaint in the firearms industry. Stick to people who you trust to review gear. Just because people test things to purposely destroy them aren't any better than people who shill IMHO. You have to decide what you think are reasonable expectations, wear, and tear that you'd similarly put gear through.

Honestly, there are only a handful of items that I've ever purchased that I would consider pure crap. So lots of favorable reviews don't automatically make me hit the BS button for me.

Most other items fall into the I'm not sure what the point of this is, or why would you pay XXX $ for an incremental improvement which maybe debatable.

My AR's for the most part the "same" same pins, safeties, charging handles, bolt carriers, optics, BUIS, lights, ect. I pretty much stick to what works.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

The few forums I frequent I'm generally in the company of guys with more experience and knowledge than me so I don't have a lot to gripe about regarding reviews and advice. Plus the price is right.

I try to match gear with the intended use. Not all my red dot optics are Aimpoint and Trijicon, nor is all my mounting hardware Badger Ordnance and LaRue. Yet, other lesser products I've chosen well serve the intended purpose for what they were chosen. What is it that guy says who likes to hear himself talk... POU, right?

[Eric]

I don't do reviews like I did in years past, but it's interesting that some vendors/manufacturers absolutely lose their minds when a negative review is posted. I had one in particular get a hold of my phone number somehow and call me at night, yelling about me about screwing him over. The review was just factual, and pointed out a specific problem. The product should have never made it to market in the configuration that I received it.

[voodoo_man]

I don't do reviews like I did in years past, but it's interesting that some vendors/manufacturers absolutely lose their minds when a negative review is posted. I had one in particular get a hold of my phone number somehow and call me at night, yelling about me about screwing him over. The review was just factual, and pointed out a specific problem. The product should have never made it to market in the configuration that I received it.

I have gone out of my way to contact companies of products which I would be publishing negative reviews for due to issues with their products. Most accept the issues and fix them, I sign NDAs so they can get my development help on it. Some companies tell me to pound sand. Those are the reviews I post which are negative.

Funny enough there are some products I don't even begin to review over how horribly designed they are. Most are China type products, I don't even get them when offered. Some are US based by big names. I'd wager a negative review on a few of the smaller companies main products would be pretty horrible for them. Though making a crap product should be its own punishment.

[alamo5000]

In my book giving something a bad review is not a problem. Naturally the people who make those things will bitch about it. That said if a negative review is given explain on the merits why it is so. Throw down some facts. If they can't handle it that's their problem.

If it's quality built but just 'not for you' is one thing... if the scope has a reticle that you hate but it's an otherwise decent optic maybe go 'this isn't for me, or it doesn't do it for LE use, but that area there is maybe where this will fit in' or 'if you are a recreational shooter this could work'...

On the flip side of that recently Silencer Shop shared a video review from some dude I never heard of. Naturally as I have one of the cans being reviewed in jail right now I got some messages on Facebook (from friends) about my can that I am waiting on.

I watched in disbelief as the guy blatantly said 'this suppressor is ONLY rated for hunting use' and had like 3 or 4 other things that were factually wrong or just downright misleading.

It kind of pissed me off just sheerly on the basis that it was a lie. The suppressor in question is and always has been full auto rated but there he was telling wrong information based on what he later said what 'he felt was a better recommended use, not what it was actually rated for'.

I read the responses on YouTube and GA directly questioned him.

Then on top of that the guy was going on and on 'this 5.56 can IS NOT hearing safe on an AR15! Beware people!'... Well duh. There is no hearing safe 5.56 cans that I know of. Not on an AR at least. Almost all cans that I have ever seen from anybody are over 140 DB at the ear.

He then went on to shoot the Optimus Micro in the full length configuration and told the audience "This can meters 146 DB so I guess it's better than nothing" (The suppressor actually meters 134 DB in that configuration)

At the end of the day that dude (whoever he was) had his full semi automatic moment. He proved that they let any assclown that wants to to be on YouTube. It's not a matter of him liking or not liking the suppressor. It's him blatantly misrepresenting factual information.

[Joelski]

Shills are gonna shill. See it for what it is and drive accordingly. When I see shit like that, I immediately run away from whatever they're praising.

[UWone77]

Shills are gonna shill. See it for what it is and drive accordingly. When I see shit like that, I immediately run away from whatever they're praising.

But you don't get no free stuff if you don't shill!

[alamo5000]

I'm of the opinion that if you are doing a public review it should be like you are under oath. Just as a whole a lot of people watch videos and stuff like that to help form opinions. In a perfect world I would try everything before I bought it but since that's not possible I work on faith, research and marketing. LOL!

[Joelski]

But you don't get no free stuff if you don't shill!

Tough world.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

On the flip side of that recently Silencer Shop shared a video review from some dude I never heard of. Naturally as I have one of the cans being reviewed in jail right now I got some messages on Facebook (from friends) about my can that I am waiting on.

I watched in disbelief as the guy blatantly said 'this suppressor is ONLY rated for hunting use' and had like 3 or 4 other things that were factually wrong or just downright misleading.

It kind of pissed me off just sheerly on the basis that it was a lie. The suppressor in question is and always has been full auto rated but there he was telling wrong information based on what he later said what 'he felt was a better recommended use, not what it was actually rated for'.

I read the responses on YouTube and GA directly questioned him.

Then on top of that the guy was going on and on 'this 5.56 can IS NOT hearing safe on an AR15! Beware people!'... Well duh. There is no hearing safe 5.56 cans that I know of. Not on an AR at least. Almost all cans that I have ever seen from anybody are over 140 DB at the ear.

He then went on to shoot the Optimus Micro in the full length configuration and told the audience "This can meters 146 DB so I guess it's better than nothing" (The suppressor actually meters 134 DB in that configuration)

At the end of the day that dude (whoever he was) had his full semi automatic moment. He proved that they let any assclown that wants to to be on YouTube. It's not a matter of him liking or not liking the suppressor. It's him blatantly misrepresenting factual information.

Your description sounds identical to the YouTube review by Nick at Practically Tactical. Griffin posted links to Nick's YouTube review. (below)

I wouldn't get too worked up over it... The Micro appears to be an excellent (albeit heavy) rimfire can that can survive limited 5.56 use. Nice.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/P...=bottom#bottom

[UWone77]

I think the industry has shifted to more overviews than actual reviews. How many people are actually testing these things for months? I used to read Military Moron's reviews on M4c all the time. They were usually well written. I also like Chris Tran.

In this day and age, people just want to finger bang something for 5 minutes before claiming how great it is. I can't blame them. We are a now now society. Most can't sit through a video for more than a few minutes, so a long review is a waste of time. Content creators know what appeals to the customer, so they take nice pictures, short videos, and provide quick overviews. If you think about it, there aren't a ton of other industries that demand solid reviews before you purchase something. Most of the time we buy things, if they suck, we chalk it up to, well... that sucked, never buying that again.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I think the industry has shifted to more overviews than actual reviews. How many people are actually testing these things for months?

In this day and age, people just want to finger bang something for 5 minutes before claiming how great it is. I can't blame them. We are a now now society. Most can't sit through a video for more than a few minutes, so a long review is a waste of time. Content creators know what appeals to the customer, so they take nice pictures, short videos, and provide quick overviews. If you think about it, there aren't a ton of other industries that demand solid reviews before you purchase something. Most of the time we buy things, if they suck, we chalk it up to, well... that sucked, never buying that again.

In this day and age... well that's just it.

Speaking of rimfire cans... back in the day there weren't many players. The purchase decision wasn't complicated, buy a Gemtech. Today, there are so many manufactures offering such a wide array of products it's dizzying to average Joe consumer. Long term reviews? That's great, but by the time it's done there's already 'new and improved' products coming to market which is pretty much the theme of this forum, right?

[alamo5000]

Your description sounds identical to the YouTube review by Nick at Practically Tactical. Griffin posted links to Nick's YouTube review. (below)

I wouldn't get too worked up over it... The Micro appears to be an excellent (albeit heavy) rimfire can that can survive limited 5.56 use. Nice.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/P...=bottom#bottom

That's exactly who it is. I'm not worked up over it in that way. I already bought and paid for the can. I did my homework so I'm confident that I made the right choice for me.

Griffin is not the only game in town. There were 3 or 4 cans that could have fit my requirements.

My point of being pissed off is because he came across as blatantly dishonest. I don't know if it was an honest f'up or what.

That said we don't live in a try it and buy it 'test drive' world. My point is that it does not matter WHAT he was reviewing nor from who or what company.

If you are going to do a review go according to facts and be trustworthy. It's a real shit head thing to do to deliberately mislead people.

I would be similarly mad at any other reviewer who shirks his or her duty to be honest.

That's nothing special to the can itself. If you are a paid shill or a f'ed up retard doing highly produced reviews they are both equally worthless in my book.

Neither group deserves credibility or respect in my book.