GunTalk-Online.com

New review in Gunblast, lots of photos:

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SR1911.htm

Ruger is trying to compete with Springfield Arms? Looks like it will be a pretty solid entry into the SA Mil spec, Taurus, RIA tactical market area.

ruger22 wrote:New review in Gunblast

A moment of thought ... has Gunblast EVER written a bad review?

bigfatdave wrote:

ruger22 wrote:New review in Gunblast

A moment of thought ... has Gunblast EVER written a bad review?

I guess jeff Quinn can find the good in anything..... I would say the highest praise a reviewer can give is that he's keeping the review gun.

bgreenea3 wrote:

bigfatdave wrote:

ruger22 wrote:New review in Gunblast

A moment of thought ... has Gunblast EVER written a bad review?

I guess jeff Quinn can find the good in anything..... I would say the highest praise a reviewer can give is that he's keeping the review gun.

He probably keeps every gun. Very economical way to build a great gun collection.

No, plus Ruger really likes his reviews. At one point they were providing him with free firearms to test. I don't know if this is still the case but when you get something to keep the final results can tend to be skewed. He and I had a few vigorous exchanges about the original all metal LCI. On the other hand, he usually provides some good details about new firearms and his pictures are often pretty good too.

R,
Bullseye

ruger22 wrote:New review in Gunblast, lots of photos:

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SR1911.htm

I posted this mostly for the "lots of photos"; only good set there is online as of yet.

I know Quinn's reviews can be a "bit" biased, but not totally. He does slip minor criticisms in. Mainly good photos, and some mention of details not easily seen.

If you do negative reviews, you don't get the next gun to test. However, you can damn with faint praise.

Regarding Gunblast.com, I agree with the above. I've read several reviews by Jeff Quinn and overall they have all been very positive. However, I feel he does do a good job with the reviews, he provides quality photos and quality information, his analyses just aren't quite as critical as some of us would like. But in the end, Jeff Quinn's website is quite popular, I'm sure there's a lot of politics involved with running it.

Bullseye, I guess in the end you won the exchange seeing as they changed the all metal LCI on your account.

My argument over the LCI wasn't really with Jeff Quinn, he was just kind of a go between for the factory. Ruger pulled out all stops in an attempt to discredit my analysis of their new Mark III's Loaded Chamber Indicator. They left me no choice, I gave them a lot of rope but they just kind of wrapped it around themselves. Ruger claimed that their extensive laboratory testing couldn't make a LCI fire a cartridge and my testing procedures were flawed. Jeff chimed in publicly saying he attempted the same LCI testing and couldn't duplicate any of my results. So with my reputation on the line, I made a little video of my rather simplistic performance testing and sent it to Ruger. Suddenly they took me very seriously and shut down the Mark III production line for six weeks to rework the LCI. Ruger's Prescott COO also promised to send me the very first LCI retrofit kit and made good on that agreement. The rest is history.

As far as Jeff Quinn and Gunblast.com is concerned, I'll read what he has to say but I always have a slight distrust of his motivation in the back of my mind. I also bore no hard feelings toward Ruger as it was mostly a few misguided folks who were causing all the trouble, not the whole corporation.

R,
Bullseye

For Ruger it was probably hard to admit your great safety idea had a flaw. Also hard to admit you might have safety flaws when you have to go through lawyers. Glad you found the flaw. Just too bad they didn't redo the whole bad idea of the LCI instead of just redoing it.

My son-in-law's father did car reviews. He never wrote a bad review. Always a positive comment about the car. But you surely could tell when he didn't like one. When he wanted a car to review, the manufacturer's ponied one up for him to drive. Most of the gun reviews, I think, are like that. They never met a bad one. Some just more positive than others.

It has got to be hard to put your personal prefrences aside and be objective about a subject, guns or cars. it would be a worthless review if you don't like plastic guns (polymer) and you were reviewing a 22/45, glock, m&p, XD, or etc... they all might be fine guns but you give them all negative reviews because they are plastic. the same for folks against the "pot metal guns" (p22, chiappa, and such) good guns but some can't get away from their issues with the construction.

could you imagine reading a review of a glock by ruger22?

I agree that it can be hard to remain "balanced" when personal opinions are involved. Tactfulness is often required when you find something to review that is a little off. This is another reason why I do not accept "Gratis" products or advertising for this forum. It is one way I can remain "unbiased" or beholding to no one.

R,
Bullseye

bgreenea3 wrote:could you imagine reading a review of a glock by ruger22?

I'm sure he would do a fine job, but I bet he would like the Glock 22 best

bgreenea3 wrote: could you imagine reading a review of a glock by ruger22?

I resemble that remark!

True, I definitely don't care for plastic guns. The Glock may be a fine functioning pistol, and lots of folks like it, just not me. I'd have a real problem doing an objective review of any polymer gun.

Imagine a Ford guy reviewing a Chevrolet. Or vicey-versy.