Gun reviewers I take seriously... and not.

C

Cosmodragoon

New member
YouTube has become my favorite platform for reviews because I can see products in use. I like s00tch because he often includes glamour shots of the gear and action shots of him (and sometimes friends or family) using it. I don't always agree with his opinion but the reviews themselves are usually fun.

He definitely seems to like a lot of the gear he reviews. Jeff Quinn is another one who tends to like the things I see him review. That doesn't make me think anything funny is going on. I think it is just an issue of sensitivity or natural bias. So I do prefer watching more critical channels as well.

Hickok45 is fun but I sometimes end up fast-forwarding or not watching the whole video. The Military Arms Channel is good. His gauntlet tests are pretty brutal and go beyond what I consider fair for a CCW.

Paul Harrell is my favorite presenter in this realm by far. However, I wouldn't really consider him a gun reviewer. He likes to explore guns, ammo, issues, etc. Some of his content is like a lab for stuff that gets discussed here in the forums. Some of his content in the same category as the "Active Self Protection Extra" channel. That said, Active Self Protection with John Correia is an extremely valuable resource for anyone who carries.
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
totaldla said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why is that to his credit? Isn't what we usually complain about is gun reviewers who never have anything bad to say about the guns they test? Seriously -- if someone has tested 25 guns, or 50 guns, or 100 guns -- they can't all have been free of defects or negative features.

Unfortunately, regardless of the reviewer's inherent honesty, there is a built-in conflict of interest. It's probably worse for the print magazines, because they make their money from the ads. If you still subscribe to any of the dead trees versions of the gun rags, open a couple and count how many pages there are of full or half-page ads out of the total page count.

Then pick a gun review ... and see how many pages away from the review the full-page ad for that gun is. If a magazine allows a writer to really tell the truth about a lousy gun, the manufacturer may stop advertising in that publication, and may not submit samples of other guns for future reviews. That's a death sentence for a magazine. They need the ad income. They don't make money from subscriptions; that's why many will practically give away subscriptions, if you know where to look. They want to pump up the circulation numbers so they can charge more for ads.

So the writers are kind of walking a tightrope, trying to present an honest review while at the same time trying not to alienate the manufacturer of a turkey of a product.
 
C

CLYA

New member
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.
Click to expand...

I figured you didn't watch many. Just a few, and then a strong negative opinion to spread to others.

Maybe I'm the same. I read something that really ticks me off. Then see the writer has a website. Problem is, I'm so ticked off, that I won't farther investigate the website, that sells products I might be interested in. I won't, because I've based customer service, on my quick opinion, of what the owner wrote. I'll never know weather this website has good products or not.


As to Paul Harrow, I've watched a lot of his videos, and checked out much of his background. I do totally disagree with your assessment.


edit: sales to sells.
 
Last edited:
C

CLYA

New member
As to Hickok45

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

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.
Click to expand...


Actually, quite often, he'll discuss just what he doesn't like about a particular firearm.

I can think of a bunch of them, even when I don't agree. Hickok likes Glocks, I don't, but my wife sure does.
 
T

TXAZ

New member
One guideline that seems to apply when inputs may be questionable:

If virtually all the reviewers like a weapon, it's probably pretty decent.

If virtually all the reviewers don't like a weapon, it's probably not a good weapon.

(It clearly applied for 1980's Yugo's :D )
 
T

totaldla

New member
TXAZ said:
One guideline that seems to apply when inputs may be questionable:

If virtually all the reviewers like a weapon, it's probably pretty decent.

If virtually all the reviewers don't like a weapon, it's probably not a good weapon.

(It clearly applied for 1980's Yugo's )
Click to expand...

True as long as the reviewers aren't parroting the same line.
So when you have a YouTube Pistolero saying that "X sucks" - skip that video.
 
L

Lohman446

New member
By the time a gun reviewer has built enough credibility to have ongoing reviews I assume the manufacturers are supplying the guns tested. I also assume, wrongly it appears, that every person in marketing doing such a job is familiar with the fiasco of the 1968 Corvette sent to Car and Driver in December of 1967 that was deemed unsafe and unable to be tested by them. As such I assume these internet reviews are with hand picked samples that are not reflective of what I will be buying.
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
It's possible that some reviewers may get a specially selected gun for testing once in awhile but, overall, I don't think that's as common as most people think. I've seen some guns sent to reviewers that probably should never have left the factory, including one compact 1911 that literally started to disassemble itself with every shot.
 
T

TruthTellers

New member
Bill DeShivs said:
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?
Click to expand...
Youtube doesn't pay crap anymore to gun channels, Paul Harrell included. I'm pretty sure he is fully funded through Patreon and viewer donations of ammo, the meat and fruit targets cost money as do the guns he buys to make the videos.

It doesn't take an "expert" to make an in depth video of the Miami shootout and the effects it had on LEO tactics and ammo design.

Since you haven't seen most of his videos, while I have, and don't know the current climate of youtube demonetization of gun videos, I can easily say the only ignorant one is you.
 
T

totaldla

New member
lee n. field said:
Any You-tuber that starts his review "whatup youtubers" will get ignored.
Click to expand...

A definite "+1" on that.

Must be a generational thing because I don't think much of Death Metal music intros, "whazup youtubers", or long scenes of somebody shooting. Oh and there are some advertisements that make me groan as well.

I think I suffer from OFS*





*Old Fart Syndrome - a condition where the afflicted struggle to understand why the younger generation is so darn ignorant, while forgetting that they were there once too.
 
D

dyl

New member
Paul Harrel

Ahh Paul Harrel. I can see why Bill DeShivs feels like he thinks highly of himself - and it comes in his style of presentation. His videos remind me of the old black and white educational school videos demonstrating a science fact or public service announcement. Everything from the longer pauses in speech than most contemporary videos to the immediate adoption of the role as a teacher. Instructive, top-down approach. In comparison, most contemporary Youtube reviewers approach more on the level of peers and give plenty of caveats and preemptive "this is my opinion only". I think Paul was also influenced by his past - I believe he was a pistol instructor for the military (he mentions his credentials in one of those videos).

I like that his video style is different than the other reviewers. Old school. Gives me time to process instead of filling the void with lots of extraneous words. One thing to keep in mind is that he has practiced A LOT and this colors his assertions. Some newcomers to pistols will see the things he does but won't have that in the back of their mind. For example, I believe was showing that there wasn't much difference in recoil, accuracy and and split times between 9 and 40. Maybe even 45. Well, not for HIM out of his service size pistols. But for a newcomer who comes along thinking of buying a M&P Shield 40 or something like that for their first gun, they might be affected.

You know who else is very opinionated? Nut'n Fancy. LOL. That one is a can of worms for me. For some reason I don't like his attitude. Every time I see him referring to himself in third person and demanding quick answers from (or speaking for) those around him, it just makes me think he has a... healthy ego. One could distill all the helpful phrases or comparisons into 5 or less minutes per video. But if someone is a newcomer to firearms or don't mind the mannerisms, it feels like the more the better so they'll gobble it up.

As I've done more things with pistols, I find myself looking at reviews less and less. Sometimes it's because the latest iterations have been minor changes, or have been easy enough to understand that I don't necessarily need to research a lot. Or it's because I know now that unless someone does a review with actual measurements or recordings, makes comparisons to a pistol I happen to already have, and has the ability to communicate it clearly, some stuff you just won't know unless you feel it for yourself. "Fits well in hand" just isn't descriptive enough for me anymore.
 
M

MarkCO

New member
Anyone who is worth the time to listen to on any subject is going to have Ego, Bravado, Know-it-All, etc. Sure, that will put some off, but if it is done with integrity and honesty, fine by me. There are a few mentioned above, and others, who 1. Can't shoot and 2. Don't know guns very well, but they look good to the masses and get the follows and likes. Puffery to me. I did not initially like Paul Harrel either, but he has grown on me and I do search him, and a few others if I have a question I want to research.

Yeah, I am friends with some of these folks mentioned and I know their backstory. MAC and Hickok45 are a bit mainstream, seem to be good dudes and above average skill. Jerry is NOT a gun-writer or reviewer, he is a paid brand ambassador. He is a great shooter and a great man, but not where I would point someone for gun reviews. Another good friend is Patrick Kelley. Sponsored by Savage, but he does a lot of great box to match reviews on handguns that he buys with his own money. He is also a big man, but he does a great job on his reviews.

There certainly ARE writers and youtubers who are getting $ benefit for their reviews either in channel advertising, sister company advertising or other forms. But most order the guns, review them and get an invoice in 30-60 days at distributor cost. If they like it, they can pay. If not they use the pre-paid label to send them back. I have a few firearms I kept and paid for and a few the manufacturer told me to ignore the invoice, they would write it off. I was at the home of an old famous writer (since deceased) many years ago. He had closets stuffed with rifles just leaning against each other, probably 300 or so each in 2 closets, that were guns he had been sent and they had 10 to 50 rounds through them each. His boys sold most of them when he passed.
 
I

IdaD

New member
I think I learn the most from Paul Harrell's videos, and I like his meat targets even if they aren't the most scientific thing. He's got some inherent credibility with me because of his past career and the shooting incident experience he went through which you can find articles about without too much trouble.

The other gun channels I find fairly educational would be Mrgunsandgear and MAC. I also like Clay Martin on GunsAmerica and Lucky Gunner actually has quite a bit of good content. There are a lot of others I watch pretty regularly too, especially if I have interest in the particular firearm or topic being discussed. Hickok can be entertaining but I don't learn a ton from him and he's kind of a shill for the NRA, Buds, etc. He seems like a nice enough guy and has a cool range, though.

I follow some other channels that are somewhat related to guns but more focused on hunting or camping/overlanding, but I wouldn't really consider them gun channels per se.
 
T

T. O'Heir

New member
"...the source of this information?..." The gun rag writers used to write articles about the time they spent hunting/shooting in exotic locations at the expense of the manufacturers.
In 40 plus years, I've seen exactly one gun rag article that didn't say the subject wasn't the best thing since sliced bread. Odd that it was Cooper who was reviewing the HK VP70. A semi-auto only machine pistol that Copper called a Jam-O-Matic.
Oh and anybody with internet access can pontificate on YouTube.
 
G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
Well, folks should look more carefully. SWAT magazine had a scathing review of the Judge by Tom Givens. In fact, realistic reviews of Judges and Shockwaves are found on many internet reviewer sites, to the chagrin of their fans.

Greg Ellifritz's blog is pretty realistic on guns and equipment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top