Gun reviewers I take seriously... and not.

[TruthTellers]

Paul Harrell is the best, no nonsense youtube channel out there for comparing calibers, testing ammo, testing and evaluating obscure cartridges (.22 TCM, 7.62x25), and giving honest opinions on unpopular stuff. His Hi Point video he couldn't bash the gun because it worked. The .410 video he did he had a Mossberg pump action and he basically said it was not a well made firearm, but I can't judge the entire line based on the model he received. It does make me wonder tho if as much attention is given to the .410 shotguns as the 12 gauges likely are given how many more of those Mossberg makes compared to .410.

I like InRangetv a lot, both those guys are knowledgeable, Ian especially on the historical and design engineering side, Karl more for the practical, hand on shooting part of it. They can probably come off as snobbish, but they've both around guns everyday, speaking to people in the industry, in competitions, in combat so they've heard a lot of different angles and have, IMO, been able to triangulate what's really the truth vs what's just opinions constrained by other's experiences.

Hickok doesn't review guns and is a total shill for whoever pays him to put stuff on his shooting table. The Yankee Marshall is a whiny baby who is as elitist as they come. He can be right about the NRA, right about police, but beyond that the guy has very limited or practical shooting experience.

Nutnfancy was really good 4+ years ago, but he's not as good as he use to be. I'd like to see him reduce the number of gun reviews he does and focus more on optics and accessories.

Military Arms Channel is on Paul Harrell levels and does great reviews of guns.

 

[USNRet93]

I watch Paul Harrell, Hickock45 and LuckyGunner quite often. Mostly when they review or discuss something I have or want..and sometimes when they review some weird stuff, like that rotating, 4 barrel shotgun(?).

BUT, mostly confirms or reconfirms things I already knew from first hand experience. For instance, Paul's review of small .380s and how the LCP wasn't great but the G42 was(accurate)..

I watch MAC(MilitaryArmsChannel) sometimes too but as has been said, these are mostly entertainment, IMHO.

 

[P-990]

Aguila,
I like it when the car reviewers on Jalopnik disclose that as car writers they get plane fare, hotel rooms, free food and drink and track time to do a review. Sometimes they get keys to a beat up journalist test vehicle and a note to fill the tank before they turn it over to the next journalist.

Those perques add up, even if the effects are subconscious.

That’s one reason I wrote up my review of my new Bersa Thunder and has given me ideas regarding an idea I had somewhat similar to some rimfire central posts.

“Show me your NRA Slow Fire Pistol Target” was one idea. Simply put 10 shots in to the Slow Fire pistol target at whatever distance your range has... 10m, 50’, 20, 25 or 50 yard. Tell what you paid for the gun and what ammo you are using.
Then we can talk about how accurate it is, how it feels, and does it run.

Another idea was “pizza box shootout”. Take a pizza box, pace off 25 yards and post your group of 10 with a ruler. If you think that’s too far, pace off 7 yards. Give your thoughts.

My thought is that none of us care much about guys at gun stores showing bits of metal and quoting company marketing copy. We want to know if it can shoot, if it’s reliable, if it’s likeable.

My 25 yard targets got backordered. Grrr.

But that kind of accuracy demonstration won't really prove anything. I can think of 3 people that I know personally who couldn't outshoot me at 25 yards with a handgun if I gave them my Colt Competition Model in .45 ACP and I was limited to shooting my used 4" S&W Model 15 revolver in double-action. Or if we switched and they used the S&W in single-action. And the Colt cost double what the S&W did.

Similar to how I don't really pay much attention to a user review where they include something like "100% reliable after more than 200 rounds." That's not much of a reliability test. I've been shooting handguns for about 22 years now and I can't generally decide how much I like a particular pistol until I've put 500+ rounds through it. (Excluding dedicated lightweight carry guns.)

To the original post, I don't mind Hickok45, but mostly I'm just jealous of his plinking range. If I see Jeff Quinn has written about something I'm interested in purchasing, I'll stop and read it.

As for the "take no advertising" approach, Gun Tests is good for an occasional chuckle when I find their content. It makes a lot of sense to mark down the most expensive gun in a group on the basis of the cost. Or to take points off for being blue when everything else in the test is stainless. Or whatever other silly criteria they come up with, and then ignore.

I also have some key words and phrases that make me immediately shut down, close or stop reading a review. They typically involve phrases like "grip angle", "bore axis" and similar things. Yes, sure, bore axis is somewhat important, but don't tell me you can't shoot the SIG accurately because the "bore axis" is so high...

 

[SATRP]

Gun magazines are entertainment. They are not professional journals.

Professional competition shooters are entertainers.

 

[FITASC]

Depends on the magazine. Both Clay Shooting USA and Shooting Sportsman are two very good magazines that cover more than guns. The gun reviewer for both is Bruce Buck whom I know personally. As a retired attorney, he can couch his criticism very well, but if you know how to read his reviews, you can tell when he doesn't like something. This only applies to shotguns.

 

[briandg]

My son's ex girlfriend is a full blown doctor that works for the drug companies as a drug rep. She is well paid with over one million in her personal bank account and she is around 35 years old. But don't call her drug rep. She will straighten you out damn quick and make it known she is a licensed doctor. And I can tell you that the drug companies grease the rails everywhere they go. If you think insurance companies are flush the drug companies make them look like pikers by comparison.

This is not a joke, an exaggeration, or a lie here. I'm being as serious as I ever will be. It is the truth.

There was a medication that my daughter took for a while. $1,600 for a one month fill of 2mg tablets. The active ingredient was selling for approximately 1,000 times the price of gold. After twenty years the medication at the last time I checked is still nearly $1,000 a fill.

The point here is that there is a lot at stake in these games. Whether you are selling antipsychotic drugs to children so that they can live normal lives, or you are selling $1,500 optical sights for a pistol, that's a lot of money that changes hands and every industry on the planet will maximize revenue by intensive personal indoctrination, a strong system of encouragement and rewards and flat out bribes.

 

[SIGSHR]

I recall a magazine from 1979-1980 or so entitled "Totally Honest Gun Reviews" or something like that. They did a review of an Arminius .357, said it was junk-but amazingly accurate.
What do we really expect from reviewers ? As a Life Member of SNM-Sons of Neanderthal Man-I am a Steel and Walnut man, if giver a non-steel frame handgun to review I would state that I don't care for non-steel frames.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Paul Harrell thinks an awful lot of himself, and it's obvious.
He knows very little about gun history. He simply markets himself as an "expert."
He's not. He's simply making money off of videos.

 

[CLYA]

Paul Harrell thinks an awful lot of himself, and it's obvious.
He knows very little about gun history. He simply markets himself as an "expert."
He's not. He's simply making money off of videos.

Just asking.....

Did you watch all of his videos, to make that conclusion?

Personally, I like his videos a lot. At least the majority of them, even when I sometimes disagree. I think he's quite thorough.


I find Hickok45 interesting too.

 

[JERRYS.]

Paul Harrell thinks an awful lot of himself, and it's obvious.
He knows very little about gun history. He simply markets himself as an "expert."
He's not. He's simply making money off of videos.

I don't know if he makes any money from his videos, I don't recall him beckoning the patreon schpiel at the end of his videos.... I don't really know how much of gun history is needed to be known with regards to what gun or ammunition works in a given set of circumstances. with regards to his expertise, his professional time behind the trigger is fairly well known.

 

[Carmady]

Why shouldn't Paul make money off his videos?

He puts a lot of time into them, and those meat targets don't grow on trees.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

I didn't have to watch all his videos. Just a few let me know he is ignorant of a lot of gun history. He is also very opinionated.
Shooting well makes you a good shot-a marksman. It doesn't make you a gun expert.
I'm not saying he shouldn't make money off his videos (he does.) Youtube pays you for videos. I'm saying he makes the videos solely to make money. Why else would he do them?

 

[Lohman446]

I'm saying he makes the videos solely to make money. Why else would he do them?

I don't assume to know intent or motivation. For instance ask yourself why do you, or I, bother to post on this forum? Why does anyone make any YouTube video?

 

[Carmady]

Maybe he makes the videos for the webcred. j/k

 

[totaldla]

I like hicok45 but then I skip ahead through most of his 30 minutes videos - I probably only watch 3 minutes worth. Takes him 5 minutes just to say hello. But to his credit, he almost never bad mouths a firearm.

I like Paul Harrell, but I always skip past his chronograph work - who still buys chronographs that can't remember a string and compute avg, es and sd? Ugh!

I don't like Death Metal music - instant skip ahead. I don't like watching a mediocre shot plunk away at a piece of steel 15yds away. The only shooter I like watching is JM. I don't like water jug penetration tests.

I don't really like gun comparisons because 99% of the time the comparisons are irrelevant. Nowadays there really aren't any truly bad firearms. I throwup a little bit when I see TheYankeeMarshall.

 

[GarandTd]

He is also very opinionated

Aren't we/they all? That's what those videos are, their opinions.

 

[stinkeypete]

“Nowadays there really aren’t any truly bad firearms.”

I love you, man. That would make a hilarious new thread. I can think of a few!

 

[FITASC]

But to his credit, he almost never bad mouths a firearm.

Then how is that giving an objective, fair and balanced review? If every gun is great (and we know they're not) then the credibility goes out the window and all you have left is the entertainment aspect of his shooting ability.

 

[totaldla]

Then how is that giving an objective, fair and balanced review? If every gun is great (and we know they're not) then the credibility goes out the window and all you have left is the entertainment aspect of his shooting ability.

Well actually pistols are pretty much great today. We don't have many(any) truly bad designs, nor do manufacturers ship junk anymore that requires a trip to the gunsmith to make right*.

What we have today is subtle differences that hicok45 shows are subjective. E.g. I like the rough texture of the M&P 2.0, some folks will not. I never liked finger grooves on Glocks - obviously a lot of folks did. The trigger on the PF9 doesn't pinch me but it did him.

If you have big hands then hicok45's big paws are meaningful. If you have small hands then his viewpoint doesn't mean as much.

The only way "objective" would matter in a sea of "subjective" subtle differences is IF hicok45 was reviewing a firearm for a specific role. But he doesn't do that. Or at least I haven't watched it if he has.

We are blessed today with a plethora of good working firearms. I can remember back 40 years ago when if I wanted a decent 13 round 9mm I had to put up with a gritty trigger or send it to a smith to have the magazine disconnect removed. And getting a Colt to feed hollowpoints was another visit to a smith. Times have changed.

* I did have to send a brand new S&W revolver back to S&W because of light strikes after all of 14 rounds. They replaced the firing pin and had it back to me in 9 days total.

 

[Jim Watson]

I have watched a number of Patrick E. Kelley's 'Out of the Box to the Match' videos.
I don't usually watch every Clang of his usual Steel Challenge match but he finishes by shooting groups on paper and stating conclusions.