Around the World Wide Web, there are thousands of personalities that influence our perceptions, opinions, and even our decisions. I guess I am one of these "Personalities" I am talking about, if you wanna get technical. Everyone is going to have an opinion and we rely on these opinions to be educated and backed up with good reasons that are not just biased in nature. The problem is that lately, people are filling their reviews with less facts, and more biased opinions. The worst thing a reviewer can say when talking about why they don't like something is "It's just my preference." This statement immediately, at least in my eyes, invalidates everything good or bad that the reviewer says about the product because they just told you that they are not looking at the product fairly.
I "prefer" to not include a bias in my reviews. I do my best to adapt to a platform and learn to shoot it the best I can and then teach everyone else how to use it from the quirks and characteristics I noticed. I don't wanna stroke my cause too much, but in my eyes, this is the best way to keep your reviews relevant and helpful across the board. Sure you can give similarities of the platform, like "This trigger reminds me of the trigger on the ________." With this kind of comparison, you need to be careful about what comes after this statement. If they insert that it just doesn't compare to this or that custom, modified, tacticool, high speed, Operational Operator thingy, then they have lost their credibility in that subject.
When comparing two guns, I often see several different types of guns getting compared to one another. This can be pointless most of the time, and I will explain why. Think about the difference between the Glock 17 and 19. One is a full sized pistol while the other is classified as a compact. I hear people comparing the two as if they are the same. The one thing that negates comparison is the fact that they are different in size by at least half an inch in height and length, with a difference of 2 rounds of overall capacity. Or how about when people compare the FNS to the Walther P99. This is just as bad, if not worse than comparing two different sizes. Then there are the comparisons of one gun against another gun, but one has a manual safety, or grip safety. These are all examples of terrible comparisons I have seen, and I have done these myself a couple of times.
If you are going to compare two guns, or look for a comparison of two guns, or even a few, you need to make sure they are as close to one another as possible. Now if you are comparing two different sizes, compare the idea and difference between a full size and a compact or subcompact. When comparing two guns with different triggers, you need to compare the trigger designs, not the guns themselves. Now I get that there are pistols like the Lionheart LH9/DP51/K5 that have a very unique trigger system, and that can be tough, but your still going to have to compare the triggers first. When getting into two pistols where one has a safety while the other doesn't, you must compare the idea of accepting a safety whether it is a grip or manual safety.
As you can see, it is not hard to fairly compare pistols. You just need to know the difference between the pistols you are comparing. The height/capacity, barrel length, safety, and the trigger are the most important features that you need to choose from. In most cases, people are looking to have a gun to carry or use in the home. This is why these features are incredibly important to find out first. If you are going to carry, you may want a gun with a smaller overall height, while for a home gun, you may not care about the overall height. Just make sure you know what you are looking for and what you are okay with. This can include accepting a lower capacity, or a heavier trigger for the other features the gun gives. Every gun offers a benefit, and compromises on certain things. There is no perfect pistol and I see too many reviewers writing or doing videos about certain guns after shooting anywhere from 200-500 rounds. I have a very different way of reviewing things. I don't believe that I can fairly JUDGE a gun until i have put at least 2000 rounds through it. I have a video all about why on my channel.
My reviews really only cover the performance of guns after they have been broken in. I feel that this is vital, because you can't realistically and fairly judge a gun right out of the box when the springs are tight and haven't been through enough stress to smooth out. Judging a pistol by how it will be at 1000 or 2000 rounds is better because this will generally tell you whether certain quirks get worked out. I notice that recoil in some "Snappy" guns go way down after being shot a good bit. The trigger is the biggest thing that changes with being shot more. Shooting 500 rounds won't really tell you much about how the trigger will be down the road. After 7000 rounds in the CZ P-07, the single action trigger is at 2 pounds, which is more than half of the stock single action weight. This is why I do what I do. People need to see what the pistol can do further down the road. We need to know how these guns are going to perform long term, not right out of the box.
I have a real hard time finding information on how pistols perform in different ways, whether its about recoil, or the trigger pull characteristics after my kind of break in. I also like to know about things on the pistol that will need to be replaced more often than others, like springs. Perhaps reviews will start including this kind of detail, like I do, because I rely on this stuff too in order to decide if my next purchase is worth it. I hope this gave you plenty of food for thought about what kind of reviews you should seek out, and the ones you should take with a grain of salt.
I "prefer" to not include a bias in my reviews. I do my best to adapt to a platform and learn to shoot it the best I can and then teach everyone else how to use it from the quirks and characteristics I noticed. I don't wanna stroke my cause too much, but in my eyes, this is the best way to keep your reviews relevant and helpful across the board. Sure you can give similarities of the platform, like "This trigger reminds me of the trigger on the ________." With this kind of comparison, you need to be careful about what comes after this statement. If they insert that it just doesn't compare to this or that custom, modified, tacticool, high speed, Operational Operator thingy, then they have lost their credibility in that subject.
When comparing two guns, I often see several different types of guns getting compared to one another. This can be pointless most of the time, and I will explain why. Think about the difference between the Glock 17 and 19. One is a full sized pistol while the other is classified as a compact. I hear people comparing the two as if they are the same. The one thing that negates comparison is the fact that they are different in size by at least half an inch in height and length, with a difference of 2 rounds of overall capacity. Or how about when people compare the FNS to the Walther P99. This is just as bad, if not worse than comparing two different sizes. Then there are the comparisons of one gun against another gun, but one has a manual safety, or grip safety. These are all examples of terrible comparisons I have seen, and I have done these myself a couple of times.
If you are going to compare two guns, or look for a comparison of two guns, or even a few, you need to make sure they are as close to one another as possible. Now if you are comparing two different sizes, compare the idea and difference between a full size and a compact or subcompact. When comparing two guns with different triggers, you need to compare the trigger designs, not the guns themselves. Now I get that there are pistols like the Lionheart LH9/DP51/K5 that have a very unique trigger system, and that can be tough, but your still going to have to compare the triggers first. When getting into two pistols where one has a safety while the other doesn't, you must compare the idea of accepting a safety whether it is a grip or manual safety.
As you can see, it is not hard to fairly compare pistols. You just need to know the difference between the pistols you are comparing. The height/capacity, barrel length, safety, and the trigger are the most important features that you need to choose from. In most cases, people are looking to have a gun to carry or use in the home. This is why these features are incredibly important to find out first. If you are going to carry, you may want a gun with a smaller overall height, while for a home gun, you may not care about the overall height. Just make sure you know what you are looking for and what you are okay with. This can include accepting a lower capacity, or a heavier trigger for the other features the gun gives. Every gun offers a benefit, and compromises on certain things. There is no perfect pistol and I see too many reviewers writing or doing videos about certain guns after shooting anywhere from 200-500 rounds. I have a very different way of reviewing things. I don't believe that I can fairly JUDGE a gun until i have put at least 2000 rounds through it. I have a video all about why on my channel.
My reviews really only cover the performance of guns after they have been broken in. I feel that this is vital, because you can't realistically and fairly judge a gun right out of the box when the springs are tight and haven't been through enough stress to smooth out. Judging a pistol by how it will be at 1000 or 2000 rounds is better because this will generally tell you whether certain quirks get worked out. I notice that recoil in some "Snappy" guns go way down after being shot a good bit. The trigger is the biggest thing that changes with being shot more. Shooting 500 rounds won't really tell you much about how the trigger will be down the road. After 7000 rounds in the CZ P-07, the single action trigger is at 2 pounds, which is more than half of the stock single action weight. This is why I do what I do. People need to see what the pistol can do further down the road. We need to know how these guns are going to perform long term, not right out of the box.
I have a real hard time finding information on how pistols perform in different ways, whether its about recoil, or the trigger pull characteristics after my kind of break in. I also like to know about things on the pistol that will need to be replaced more often than others, like springs. Perhaps reviews will start including this kind of detail, like I do, because I rely on this stuff too in order to decide if my next purchase is worth it. I hope this gave you plenty of food for thought about what kind of reviews you should seek out, and the ones you should take with a grain of salt.
RSS Feed