Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,854
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by UWone77 View Post
    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.
    Nail. Hammer. You hit it. EXACTLY. I've watched some reviews online that actually taught me stuff about shooting in general.

    Most of those it's really apparent who knows their stuff and who doesn't.

    I really don't care if the company gets a bad review on a product. A lot of time that's a chance to make their stuff better. But misleading the public because of golfing trips, free stuff, nice dinners, or any other reason is not acceptable.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,825
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by UWone77 View Post
    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.

    Overview's, that's exactly what it is, that is what they should call it. But, they call them reviews, that's simply a lack of integrity on their part.

    I general do a minimum of 6 weeks on a product before I even begin to consider doing a review of it, that's 6 weeks of using it everyday. Even then I may not even review an item because it may just be at a point which needs a little bit more use to develop an better understanding of its function, quality, etc.

    The real issue in the 2A industry is that we allow "cool guys" to say a few sentences about something and that becomes scripture or something of that nature, that is the pinnacle of celebrity worship. Many of these items are used daily and may mean the difference between living or dying, watching a 5 min "review" or reading two paragraphs of generalized terms about a product and then purchasing it is tantamount to asking the gun shop employee about a pistol they've never fired or trained with.

    As an industry, the sooner we start looking towards legit reviews and expecting companies to provide them through unbiased 3rd parties the better off we will be.

    An easy example of this in reality is the dude who shot himself in the junk with his 43, which did not have an SCD and he was using a junk incog holster.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,854
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by voodoo_man View Post
    Overview's, that's exactly what it is, that is what they should call it. But, they call them reviews, that's simply a lack of integrity on their part.

    I general do a minimum of 6 weeks on a product before I even begin to consider doing a review of it, that's 6 weeks of using it everyday. Even then I may not even review an item because it may just be at a point which needs a little bit more use to develop an better understanding of its function, quality, etc.

    The real issue in the 2A industry is that we allow "cool guys" to say a few sentences about something and that becomes scripture or something of that nature, that is the pinnacle of celebrity worship. Many of these items are used daily and may mean the difference between living or dying, watching a 5 min "review" or reading two paragraphs of generalized terms about a product and then purchasing it is tantamount to asking the gun shop employee about a pistol they've never fired or trained with.

    As an industry, the sooner we start looking towards legit reviews and expecting companies to provide them through unbiased 3rd parties the better off we will be.

    An easy example of this in reality is the dude who shot himself in the junk with his 43, which did not have an SCD and he was using a junk incog holster.
    We are on the same page.

    They are giving things a 5 minute spotlight for attention not really a good review.

    Reviews to me are something else.

    Any dumb ass can do an unboxing video.

    It's not the same thing.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    300
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by alamo5000 View Post
    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.
    Well... depends on how a person takes it. When the reviewer said the Micro wasn't hearing safe for 5.56 he wan't being dishonest but you took a defensive position. Thing is, lots of folks are new to suppressors. The particular attraction to rimfire cans is wearing no headgear. So here's a guy reviewing an industry-unique rimfire can usable with 5.56. To bring special attention that it isn't hearing safe is prudent. Yes, he could have couched it by saying 'yeah but 5.56 isn't hearing safe with any can... blah blah blah'. Eh...

    The downside of the Net is that it invites endless misinformation on the sending side and endless misinterpretation on the receiving side. The upside is that the misinformation generally doesn't stand long without challenge/correction. As always... caveat emptor.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,854
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil View Post
    Well... depends on how a person takes it. When the reviewer said the Micro wasn't hearing safe for 5.56 he wan't being dishonest but you took a defensive position. Thing is, lots of folks are new to suppressors. The particular attraction to rimfire cans is wearing no headgear. So here's a guy reviewing an industry-unique rimfire can usable with 5.56. To bring special attention that it isn't hearing safe is prudent. Yes, he could have couched it by saying 'yeah but 5.56 isn't hearing safe with any can... blah blah blah'. Eh...

    The downside of the Net is that it invites endless misinformation on the sending side and endless misinterpretation on the receiving side. The upside is that the misinformation generally doesn't stand long without challenge/correction. As always... caveat emptor.
    All that is true.

    With him though it was multiple times that he said stupid shit. "This can is only hunting rated" for one.

    All that stuff about hearing safe yes that's all good too, but maybe because I am still relatively new to the NFA world (2 to 3 years or so) I'm personally erring on the side of helping the FNG and seeing things from that perspective.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •