Chuck Hawks: The Verdict?

S

Single Six

New member
As I've mentioned before, I'm relatively new to the internet and computers in general. TFL is still the only forum I belong to, but lately I've been perusing ChuckHawks.com. No intentions on joining; one site is enough for me. Still, what I saw looked interesting enough. What do you more internet-savvy shooters think about this site as far as it's accuracy of information? As ever, thanks for any and all opinions.
 
R

Rampant_Colt

New member
Hawks' still hasn't updated his ammo choices which is based on the flawed and ficticious "Stopping Power" books; rants and raves about the 'wimpy' 147gr 9mm JHP, and suggests the use of birdshot for home defense.

I'd take any of his information with a grain of salt and second opinion or three
 
G

gaseousclay

New member
I'm still new to the world of guns and can tell you that after perusing chuckhawks's site a lot of what the site says is bull pucky. the article, why do liberals hate guns, is not only erroneous and completely devoid of facts but downright misleading. I try not to get into political debates but when one takes the stance of 'us versus them' and perpetuates myths and lies about others it tends to get tiresome. firearms, whether used recreationally or for home defense, are not owned by any one group or individual and to paint all democrats/liberals/progressives as passive, anti-gun sissies is ignorant. I'm a fiscally convervative, socially liberal democrat - with that said, I have nothing against guns, gun owners or anyone's right to bear arms. And there are plenty of us 'commie liberals' out there who enjoy hunting, trap or the feel of cold, hard steel in their hands. sorry to derail your thread but I just wanted to point out that if chuckhawks.com is posting misleading editorials on a group of individuals without any facts to back up their claims then perhaps you shouldn't be taking anything they say to heart. just my two cents
 
W

Water-Man

New member
Hawks isn't perfect but then again, who is? Everything read should be taken with a grain of salt when you get right down to it. Hawks puts out alot of good stuff as far as I'm concerned.
 
T

Technosavant

New member
He's like most self appointed experts who post gun reviews online- opinionated, sometimes illogical, but not without a grain of reality.

As has been said, take it with a large grain of salt. Don't ever assume that any single review is authoritative, and even the general weight of multiple reviews has been known to inaccurate.
 
T

TheNatureBoy

New member
Chuck Hawks is no different than other self annointed "experts" and God knows we have a slew of them that wax poetically on this site and others. You take what they all say with a grain of salt. Use what info you can and discard/ignore the rest.
 
O

oneounceload

Moderator
He is also one of the "experts" who advocates using youth size stocks on shotguns instead of ones that properly fit. I find his blathering to be of no serious consequence or value
 
R

roy reali

New member
re:the nature boy

Chuck Hawks is no different than other self annointed "experts" and God knows we have a slew of them that wax poetically on this site and others.
Click to expand...

I nominate this response for the best response of the month award.:)
 
R

Rifleman1776

New member
Most of the posts here appears, to me, to violate our forum rules on several levels.
I had a posting zapped for something far more mild than what is in this thread.
Suggest it be locked or the rules be equally UNenforced for all.
 
M

MLeake

New member
What violations?

Seems to me the criticisms offered have generally been supported with specific details.

"Self-anointed expert" might be considered name-calling, but if so it's pretty mild. (Besides, does Chuck Hawks actually offer any credentials? I don't know either way. If he lacks credentials, then the description may be valid.)

So what violations are you referring to?
 
T

Technosavant

New member
"Self-anointed expert" might be considered name-calling
Click to expand...

I saw that because there are very, very, VERY few actual firearm experts. There's just too many guns out there to be expert on everything- it's like claiming to be expert on all features on all cars. Can't happen. The only way to be deemed an expert is to assume the title yourself. There's just no academic credential to use- even military experience doesn't give you expertise in more than a handful of firearms.

Ultimately, it always comes down to personal preference- I've read some of his pieces that made good sense, I've read others that I thought were off base and not grounded in reality.

As I said, he's like any other gun writer- feel free to read, but if you disagree with him it doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong or that he is wrong. It just means you have other preferences.
 
M

Mike Irwin

Staff
""Self-anointed expert" might be considered name-calling"

No, not really, although I'm not really sure it's an accurate description.
 
T

tet4

New member
There are a bunch of free articles on the site you can read.

My opinion is that he writes some good things about hunting and hunting optics (probably where I agree with him most) but some his self defense, pistol and CCW stuff is very old and/or imho incorrect. That's to be expected as it seems like hunting is his passion and the other stuff just generally isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top