Biased Gun Reviewer

[Longitude Zero]

Well the Remington R51 debacle is becoming an issue of conversation. I have yet to read any positive reviews. Oh but wait, the lick boot of the firearms industry, Gunblast.com was incapable of writing anything negative about it. Could it be they had negative experiences but chose to not publish those facts??? The review should be absolute proof of why I would not trust that sites reviews as far as I could throw a house. This is not the first review of theirs that I believe is malarkey.

[jeepster09]

My local gun shop said Remington may be folding up due to issues. They are returning 40 shotguns due to recalls on them. He thought between pistol issues and now shotgun issues it may put them out of business.

[muggsy]

There is also a trigger reacall on some of Remington's rifles. (See others guns post) Remington seems to be having more that their fair share of troubles lately. Jeff has never reviewed a gun that he didn't like.

[CJB]

Remington has deep pockets. I would not be too concerned.

[Bawanna]

And they've been around a very long time. I'm not concerned.

[jeepster09]

I guess they are feeling the pain from lawsuits also...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/04/robert-farago/remington-recalls-model-700-and-model-seven-rifles-for-trigger-trouble/

[Longitude Zero]

Jeff has never reviewed a gun that he didn't like.


This is precisely why I consider him a shill for the industry and dishonest to boot.

[pbagley]

Aren't all reviews biased in some way? Same as the newspaper, the TV news, radio, etc. I'm not sure you can get away from the author's personal opinions. The trick is knowing your author's bias so you can read in the right amount of corrective text.

[Longitude Zero]

Aren't all reviews biased in some way? Same as the newspaper, the TV news, radio, etc. I'm not sure you can get away from the author's personal opinions. The trick is knowing your author's bias so you can read in the right amount of corrective text.


Generally yes but Jeff takes the cake. Hickok 45 tells the good the bad and the ugly without hesitation. So does the Military Arms Channel even NutnFancy, whom I despise occasionally tells the truth. Jeff is IMHO an out an out dishonest reviewer. Jeff never met a gun he did not think was the cats meow.

[knkali]

guess who will be the next reviewer for our forum to rate? LZ don't hold back baby

[100percent]

Pretty harsh.

I am one of those that likes all guns.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU

[pineappleshooter]

Generally yes but Jeff takes the cake. Hickok 45 tells the good the bad and the ugly without hesitation. So does the Military Arms Channel even NutnFancy, whom I despise occasionally tells the truth. Jeff is IMHO an out an out dishonest reviewer. Jeff never met a gun he did not think was the cats meow.

I know Hickok 45 does not get his guns directly from the manufacture, Jeff does - that would explain alot.

[b4uqzme]

This is about as unbiased an R51 review as I could find:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcIaar4x4yw

I'll hold my "Jeff" comments for the other thread.

[pineappleshooter]

I posted this in the other thread about gun reviews:

Here is how it is done:
HOW GUN MAGAZINES WRITE ARTICLES

Instruction From The Editor To The Journalist:

Frangible Arms just bought a four page color ad in our next issue. They sent us their latest offering, the CQB MK-V Tactical Destroyer. I told Fred to take it out to the range to test. He'll have the data for you tomorrow.


Feedback From Technician Fred:

The pistol is a crude copy of the World War II Japanese Nambu type 14 pistol, except it's made from unfinished zinc castings. The grips are pressed cardboard. The barrel is unrifled pipe. There are file marks all over the gun, inside and out.

Only 10 rounds of 8mm ammunition were supplied. Based on previous experience with a genuine Nambu, I set up a target two feet down range. I managed to cram four rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. I taped the magazine in place, bolted the pistol into a machine rest, got behind a barricade, and pulled the trigger with 20 feet of 550 cord. I was unable to measure the trigger pull because my fish scale tops out at 32 pounds. On the third try, the pistol fired. From outline of the holes, I think the barrel, frame, magazine, trigger and recoil spring blew through the target. The remaining parts scattered over the landscape.

I sent the machine rest back to the factory to see if they can fix it, and we need to replace the shooting bench for the nice people who own the range. I'll be off for the rest of the day. My ears are still ringing. I need a drink.


Article Produced By The Journalist:

The CQB MK-V Tactical Destroyer is arguably the deadliest pistol in the world. Based on a combat proven military design, but constructed almost entirely of space age alloy, it features a remarkable barrel design engineered to produce a cone of fire, a feature much valued by Special Forces world wide. The Destroyer shows clear evidence of extensive hand fitting. The weapon disassembles rapidly without tools. At a reasonable combat distance, I put five holes in the target faster than I would have thought possible. This is the pistol to have if you want to end a gunfight at all costs. The gun is a keeper, and I find myself unable to send it back.

[gun papa]

Remington sold out gun owners, and can reap what they have sewn. Their inaction after Sandy Hook is why I bought a Savage. Besides, their ammo sucks. The last Remington I liked was my 511 scoremaster .22 bolt

[Longitude Zero]

Remington sold out gun owners, and can reap what they have sewn. Their inaction after Sandy Hook is why I bought a Savage. Besides, their ammo sucks. The last Remington I liked was my 511 scoremaster .22 bolt

Frankly the gun companiesies that genuflected after Sandy Hook are the traitors.

[garyb]

I am not concerned about Rem. Every company will have its problems. It is how they deal with them.

[getsome]

LOL Pineappleshooter, (Cone of Fire) now that there is funny and unfortunately pretty close to reality about how it works in the gun magazine world....I have never read an article in any gun rag that said, this thing is a total piece of crap and dangerous on both ends and is only slightly better than a rock....They always suger coat it and make whatever they are testing look like the best thing since brown suger and even the notoriously awful DB9 gets rave reviews ....I also love how they can do a range test on an $89.00 Jennings .25 and make it sound like the most accurate pistol on the planet with sub 2 inch groups at 25yards and 100% reliable with any ammo tried.....

[JohnR]

All magazines are like that. Car magazines, camera mags, they're all nothing but paid ads for whatever product it's about. Their job is to make you want a .25 Jennings, or a Chevy Volt.

[Armybrat]

With car magazines I began to suspect something was fishy when the '71 Chevy Vega was named Motor Trend's "Car of the Year".

When that rag dubbed the 1980 Chevy Citation with the same award, my suspicions were confirmed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Trend_Car_of_the_Year

:p

[Bawanna]

Wow there's a couple models I ain't heard nothing about in a long long spell. Can't remember the last time I saw one on the road, maybe there aren't any left.

Rich kid in school had a brand new Vega, he kept that baby pristine and all shined up too. Weren't a horrible bad car as I recall but not sure it was car of the year material either.

[b4uqzme]

With car magazines I began to suspect something was fishy when the '71 Chevy Vega was named Motor Trend's "Car of the Year".

When that rag dubbed the 1980 Chevy Citation with the same award, my suspicions were confirmed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Trend_Car_of_the_Year

:p

Check out 1983. :D

[SlowBurn]

With car magazines I began to suspect something was fishy when the '71 Chevy Vega was named Motor Trend's "Car of the Year".



When that rag dubbed the 1980 Chevy Citation with the same award, my suspicions were confirmed:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Trend_Car_of_the_Year



:p


Late 70s-early 80s was a bad time for cars. The competition was probably the Ford Grenada and the AMC Pacer

[Armybrat]

I think the last decent year for Chevy was 1972.

[h2ohhh]

Its how the Japanese took over the car market here. Don't forget the Maverick and Pinto.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[Barth]

Wow there's a couple models I ain't heard nothing about in a long long spell. Can't remember the last time I saw one on the road, maybe there aren't any left.

Rich kid in school had a brand new Vega, he kept that baby pristine and all shined up too. Weren't a horrible bad car as I recall but not sure it was car of the year material either.

"But even worse than the Pinto, many readers insisted, was the Chevrolet Vega.
This compact, meant to take on imports like the Volkswagen Beetle,
actually won honors as Motor Trend's Car of the Year for 1971.
It sold well.
Then the body started to rust.
The aluminum engine started to warp.
There were engine fires and mounting recalls.
Horrified buyers fled, and General Motors killed the car by the late 1970s."
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/02-74-Vega-Fire-s.jpg