A good read by Chuck Hawks about modern cheap rifles and their reviewers
- Thread starter sandman7925
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
DesmoDucRob
#1 Dad
"How comfortable do you think I will be sending you additional consignment guns for testing if this (article) is an acceptable practice? Working with the media is a two way street, is it not?"
This is a pretty discomforting statement when you realize that it represents the majority of manufacturers who fill the pages of our favorite gun magazines. I typically value the opinion of a capable shooter over a gun writer who receives advertisement money as a primary (and perhaps indirect) source of income. Can anyone think of a magazine that would give a flat-out bad review if the product simply sucked. I think Mr. Hawks called this one just right.
This is a pretty discomforting statement when you realize that it represents the majority of manufacturers who fill the pages of our favorite gun magazines. I typically value the opinion of a capable shooter over a gun writer who receives advertisement money as a primary (and perhaps indirect) source of income. Can anyone think of a magazine that would give a flat-out bad review if the product simply sucked. I think Mr. Hawks called this one just right.
Chuck Hawks had always called em like they are. He may not flat out say this rifle is complete garbage. But if he says something like "This rifle would not be my first choice over such and such", avoid that product like the plague
I wonder how much actual experience he has with those guns. For example I have handled and shot a number of Tikka t3's, they shoot well, they are well built, they will outshoot a 700 out of the box. I have a stevens 200. It is one of the most accurate rifles I own. It will place nosler partitions into a pinky nail sized hole at 100yds all day long. It has a multi piece bolt, and a flimsy injection molded stock. As far as that goes my Sako 75 has a flimsy injection molded stock. It also has a recoil lug pinned in place in the bottome of the reciever. I could buy 3 stevens for what I paid for that Sako and they both shoot as good as the other.
I have often found Mr. Hawks to be a "rifle snob" ie, rather than evaluate each gun on its merits he seems to assume that if the gun does not have 100 year old features such as a one piece bolt or flat bottomed reciever with intragal lug, or cost $1000+ that it is not worth owning.
Funny how modified Remingtons and Savages keep winning matches, and in the hands of a High Master, will outshoot a novice on a full custom build.
I have often found Mr. Hawks to be a "rifle snob" ie, rather than evaluate each gun on its merits he seems to assume that if the gun does not have 100 year old features such as a one piece bolt or flat bottomed reciever with intragal lug, or cost $1000+ that it is not worth owning.
Funny how modified Remingtons and Savages keep winning matches, and in the hands of a High Master, will outshoot a novice on a full custom build.
It's a sad,sad,sad world we live in to let the almighty dollar control everything we do or make. When will it ever end ???? Whats wrong with telling the truth,hey your product is cheap and not good quality.Look at Tasco and Simmons they're still in business!!!!! I could go on and on with this !!!!
First of all, I am not really defending magazines, but just think about what I am saying for a minute. The reality of it all is that we, the consumer, would not be willing to pay what a magazine would cost if they did not have advertisers. I have had several articles published (not in gun mags) and have seen readers complain about all of the ads and lack of criticism of certain items. Those same readers want to know why the mag costs so much and why there isn't more info to read. Who is going to pay for it?
Subscriptions don't generally pay what it costs to produce a mag. Without money coming from somewhere else (ads, off the shelf sales), the company isn't going to make it. Without companies willing to donate items to be reviewed, what will there be to read? Bottom line is magazines work for their advitersers more than they do for their readers, that's just the way it is. If we want a magazine that tells only the truth, it would have to be completely funded by the reader and then who would be willing to pay for it? As long as you keep that in mind, then you should be able to tell what a writer really thinks of a product without him cutting his own throat financially.
Subscriptions don't generally pay what it costs to produce a mag. Without money coming from somewhere else (ads, off the shelf sales), the company isn't going to make it. Without companies willing to donate items to be reviewed, what will there be to read? Bottom line is magazines work for their advitersers more than they do for their readers, that's just the way it is. If we want a magazine that tells only the truth, it would have to be completely funded by the reader and then who would be willing to pay for it? As long as you keep that in mind, then you should be able to tell what a writer really thinks of a product without him cutting his own throat financially.
Props to him.
This is why I refuse to buy a weapon that I cannot call the company and get straight info on. Hence why I'm a noveske customer and won't buy a larue stealth setup. (I had to get independent testing done on the lw50 steel used to discover barrel hardness.) It's why I refuse to buy a 4th gen glock, or lwrc piston ar, and other "me too" products that sacrifice function for form. Lots of money for the marketing. Not so much for the functioning.
However. Multi piece bolts do work very well and allow better lug contact without hand lapping lugs (savage is a company that does well with it. Very well.) Freefloat barrels do enhance consistency. Aluminum bedding blocks are more stable than bedding compound. A well designed composite stock is far more dimensional stable.
This is why I refuse to buy a weapon that I cannot call the company and get straight info on. Hence why I'm a noveske customer and won't buy a larue stealth setup. (I had to get independent testing done on the lw50 steel used to discover barrel hardness.) It's why I refuse to buy a 4th gen glock, or lwrc piston ar, and other "me too" products that sacrifice function for form. Lots of money for the marketing. Not so much for the functioning.
However. Multi piece bolts do work very well and allow better lug contact without hand lapping lugs (savage is a company that does well with it. Very well.) Freefloat barrels do enhance consistency. Aluminum bedding blocks are more stable than bedding compound. A well designed composite stock is far more dimensional stable.
Last edited:
Or companies could make products that don't suck.
LongGoneDays
Mine. Not yours.
Mag I got for awhile had a section dedicated to 7 or so .380s and compared them all as carry wepons.
Gushed about all of them, even the ones I'd seen trashed on forums consistently.
.380s lol
Gushed about all of them, even the ones I'd seen trashed on forums consistently.
.380s lol
Well of course there's always that, but then you get into what sucks for some (or many) works well for others. Pick any product you think sucks and there are going to be others that like it for whatever reason. Lots of examples just on this forum (brands, calibers...). I'm all for it since it means more choices available.
