Am I loco?

[reynolds357]

I used to shoot a lot with a gun writer. Still do on occasion. He has written for most the big magazines at one time or other. A U.S. gun maker sent him their newest Safari rifle to review. It catastrophically failed and injured him.They compensated him and sent him another of the same rifle to review. This time, they didn't want it reviewed on a range. They wanted it reviewed on a Nyati hunt in Africa. After his expense paid month in Africa, he forgot all about the catastrophic failure and wrote a stellar review of what is IMO a mediocre rifle.
My point. I think there is often financial incentive to write positive reviews.

 

[Scorch]

Just remember that most gun magazines nowadays are reliant on marketing money from the manufacturers/distributors, so they will never say anything negative about a firearm they review. For you that was terrible, but for people who don't know any better, "if the expert from the gun magazine says that's good, well then yeehaw! Gotta git me one o' them Rossis!" IME, "Rossi" and "high quality" don't even belong in the same sentence.

I hardly ever read the gun rags anymore because of them selling people on the great qualities of cheap firearms, or the reliability of whatever piece of junk comes out of any one of the manufacturers, and how great the latest POS is. Sorry, I am tired of being treated like a mushroom.

 

[TX Nimrod]

One of the reasons I quit writing for the Wolfe publications and others was the demand to overlook flaws in products. I had several manuscripts very heavily edited because I was mildly critical of a product, and that was over 20 years ago. The above-referenced article is a typical junk puff piece which praises mediocrity. The “wood to metal fit” is “excellent”? The forend doesn’t even taper down to meet the receiver size! Others commented on the accuracy, but note the codewords - “a receiver sight…would make a great gun better”. To the discerning reader that means that in spite of the author’s praise, the buckhorn rear sight sucks. The use of uncommon words his readers probably don’t know - like “conspectus” - is there to make the author (or the editor) look smart. There are a few decent honest gun writers left, but most are just salesmen paid to fellate the advertizers.



.

 

[Paul B.]

I'd like to play with that rifle a bit. I have a Browning BLR in .358 Win. that went through at least three owners before it go to me. Previous owners said it was inaccurate and yes it was. Did a but of tinkering and now one inch groups are fairly common from the bench. The work left the forearm prone to rattle a little but it will shoot. I may slip a little piece rubber between the forearm and the barrel to see if it stops the rattle without affecting the accuracy.
Paul B.

 

[JohnMoses]

A guy brought a Rossi 30-30 to my range last weekend. I think he tried to put too many rounds in the magazine and it tied up the gun. After that, he put 4 rounds in the tube and it ran fine. It had a 3x9 scope on it, and once we got it zeroed, he hit the 6" gong 4 times in a row at 200 yards. Thats pretty good for any 30-30. I have several Rossi 92 clones and have no serious issues. The 38/357 is my favorite, and I can call head shots on the 1/4 IPCC silhouette all day with 38s

 

[Wag]

I was at the range one day many years ago and a guy showed up very late in the afternoon, just before dusk. I don't remember the details but I do recall that he said he was a writer for a magazine and that he was supposed to submit a review of "this rifle" first thing in the morning.

He fired off about 10 rounds at a 50 yard target, took a few photos and then left. He didn't even check his targets, just used a spotting scope to peer at them.

In my never-to-be-humble opinion, that isn't nearly enough shooting to write a decent review that has any real meaning.

I don't really believe many reviews of any product these days.

--Wag--

 

[Savvy_Jack]

3 inches at 30 yards is 10 inches at 100 yards,

Not necessarily. Maybe in a perfect world.

I challenge everyone, every single person, to load 200 rounds...go to the range and start at 25 yards. Shoot 10 rounds each at 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200 and 250 yards.

I promise "3 inches at 30 yards is 10 inches at 100 yards" is BS with these old black powder cartridges, especially non rifle cartridges used in rifles like the 45 Colt.

Saw this on another forum, would love to see how this load would group at 25 yards!!!!

"Henry Big Boy 45 Colt cowboy loads 200yds and iron sights. 2nd shot was in the bullseye...not hard if you know how to shoot"]Henry Big Boy 45 Colt cowboy loads 200yds and iron sights. 2nd shot was in the bullseye...not hard if you know how to shoot

If 3" at 25 yards is 10" at 100 yards, what would it be at 250?

 

[Savvy_Jack]

I was at the range one day many years ago and a guy showed up very late in the afternoon, just before dusk. I don't remember the details but I do recall that he said he was a writer for a magazine and that he was supposed to submit a review of "this rifle" first thing in the morning.

He fired off about 10 rounds at a 50 yard target, took a few photos and then left. He didn't even check his targets, just used a spotting scope to peer at them.

In my never-to-be-humble opinion, that isn't nearly enough shooting to write a decent review that has any real meaning.

I don't really believe many reviews of any product these days.

--Wag--

Yeap, most articles are just to fill a slot because all those weekend warriors that read them believe everything they read.

I get so sick of seeing photographs of rifle targets that have no range data or that are only shot at 25 yards.

 

[stagpanther]

Yes, you are loco--but for other reasons.

Some of the handloads in the article were under an inch at that 30 yds; now if it were me--though I'm not as good as all the one-hole-all-day-long-at-a-1000 yds gang that proliferate all gun forums these days--a 5 shot group through the irons at 30 yds under an inch would be something I'd be quite happy with.

The article is, otherwise, pretty lacking in realistic information. Specifically, the older rossis were pretty slip-shod in their construction and if you needed one little screw--you literally had to send the whole rifle to Brazil; I don't think Braztec is much more than a guy sipping Caipirinhas on South Beach, but I could be wrong.

What would be really meaningful--which means we'll likely never see it--is an article that compares the earlier rossi 92's to this new incarnation.

 

[Bart B.]

Extensive tests have shown that groups open up about 10% for each 100 yards past the first one.

Gets worse as muzzle velocity spread gets bigger.

 

[tangolima]

Even 1" at 30 yd is barely "our rifles don't $uck". A brand new rifle shouldn't $uck. It is better than before. That may be what they are trying to say.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk