John reviews Guns, Ammo, Ammo Makers, Gun Publications, Gun Makers & Gun Writers

[JohnKSa]

All Guns, Ammunition, Ammo Makers, Gun Publications, Gun Makers & Gun Writers have at least some bad qualities and virtually all of them have several good qualities--it's up to each user to determine which is which and to decide what "good" they have to have and what "bad" they can tolerate. (Choices involve compromise.)

That's it.
***********************************************

Ok, ok, if you're feeling let down, here are some related ramblings to go along with the review.

Anyone who says a Gun, Ammunition, Ammo Maker, Gun Publication, Gun Maker or Gun Writer has no problems is either extremely naive or is intentionally misleading you. (Nothing's perfect.)

Anyone who says a Gun, Ammunition, Ammo Maker, Gun Publication, Gun Maker or Gun Writer is purely bad with absolutely no value is probably either extremely naive or is intentionally misleading you. (Free enterprise makes it highly unlikely--though theoretically possible--for a commodity to have absolutely no redeeming qualities.)

Anyone who makes a statement about a Gun, Ammunition, Ammo Maker, Gun Publication, Gun Maker or Gun Writer and feels the need to include an insult that applies to those who disagree is probably operating more from emotion than fact and should be considered an unreliable source. (When facts speak, insults are unnecessary.)

Anyone who reacts to a fact based statement (positive or negative) about a Gun, Ammunition, Ammo Maker, Gun Publication, Gun Maker or Gun Writer as if it were a personal insult is probably operating more from emotion than fact and should be considered an unreliable source. (However, care should be exercised to differentiate exasperation from defensiveness.)

This place would be a lot more informative & useful if we could all get our minds wrapped around the idea that:

1. It's not about finding the perfect Gun, Ammunition, Ammo Maker, Gun Publication, Gun Maker or Gun Writer but rather it's about comparing the relative merits of imperfect guns, gun manufacturers, gun publications and gun writers with the understanding that not everyone's assessment of "merit" is identical.

2. My choices do not diminish you nor do your choices diminish me. There's a reason why the word "personal" is in both "personal preference" and "personal opinion". It's entirely possible for two people to disagree without either one of them being wrong.


P.S. Anyone who disagrees with any of the above is an A-1 double-flush, molded ceramic ninny!

[MPanova]

[sm]

:d

[4V50 Gary]

John - did you ask Rich if you could release the universal editorial guidelines for gunwriters?

[DPris]

John,
By far the most intelligent commentary I've seen on any gun forum regarding those subject/s.
Excellent!
Denis

[Johnny Guest]

Also, an extremely accurate assessment. There MUST be something wrong with it, though.

Best,
Johnny

[JohnKSa]

Kind responses, all.

Of course it's full of holes, just like any generalization that sweeping has to be...but I somehow I still don't feel like posting it was time wasted.

[BillCA]

John... Don't change a word. It's perfect.

[roscoe]

Well, with regards to gun publications, most of us just don't like the log-rolling. It's kinda dishonest. Otherwise, I dig what you are saying.

[JohnKSa]

I don't like it either. But even with the "problems" I find that it's rare to read a review that's not useful at all.

Besides, even when there's no obvious reason for bias (such as sponsorship) there is STILL bias. Reviews are done by humans and humans have biases. At least the biases due to sponsorship are easy to spot and mentally erase. It's the hidden personal biases that really taint things in a way that is very difficult to compensate for.

[sm]

Bias ?

I can't help it the 28 gauge is actually better than it is supposed to be.


A is A

[OBIWAN]

As long as people will read it...there will be people to write it

So your comment re: "absolutely no redeeming qualities" is fundamentally accurate

But I stopped reading the major gun magazines due to

1. Articles where I saw factually inaccurate statements made that were nothing more than a regurgitation of some of the more inane internet rumors

2. Some of the most amazing rationalizations of why a test pistol would not/could not function

3. Noticing that some of (in my opinion) worst writers appeared to have a standard template for their articles that they merely slugged a brand name/model name into (in one case I actually compared the two articles and there was virtually no difference

Number one is the only thing I truly cannot stomach...and I am not talking about simple errors....more like the absence of any fact checking at all

But 2 and 3 make me wonder why I wasted any time actually paging through the blasted thing...yes...I have read articles/reviews where I got nothing out of them....often because something else the writer said killed his/her credibility

Bias is universal...everyone is a victim of their environment

My favorite writers admit this and let you know where they are coming from

So I guess my question is........

Since you are right and nobody is perfect....how much mediocrity should we all be willing to stomach

Should that be an excuse for not at least requesting (if not demanding) excellence? ( or at least originality...maybe accuracy)

[JohnKSa]

...how much mediocrity should we all be willing to stomach?

Well, there's an infinite supply of it--I guess everyone swallows his share leaving an infinite amount for the next guy.

Should that be an excuse for not at least requesting (if not demanding) excellence? ( or at least originality...maybe accuracy)

Certainly NOT! Fortunately excellence is always available. But it's rarely cheap.

I'm certainly not praising mediocrity or implying that we should be satisfied with the average. Just pointing out that even the bad stuff almost invariably has a good quality or two and that even the best stuff isn't perfect.

[Mortech]

Whoa that actually made sense , who was that masked poster ???

[Double Naught Spy]

While I agree with everything said by JohnKSa, there are a couple of reality v. theory issues at hand.

Anyone who says a Gun, Ammunition, Ammo Maker, Gun Publication, Gun Maker or Gun Writer has no problems is either extremely naive or is intentionally misleading you. (Nothing's perfect.)

Especially when it comes to a lot of folks' claims of perfect running guns, come to find out that their perfect running guns often have only run perfectly because they choose to blame problems on everything but the gun itself such as ammo, magazine, shooter error, springs, etc.

Or when it comes to gun gurus, followers will believe most everything said, defaulting to the guru's knowledge base as unfaltering without attempting to verify claims.

Anyone who makes a statement about a Gun, Ammunition, Ammo Maker, Gun Publication, Gun Maker or Gun Writer and feels the need to include an insult that applies to those who disagree is probably operating more from emotion than fact and should be considered an unreliable source. (When facts speak, insults are unnecessary.)

Sadly, there are those who feel insulted simply when their guns, gear, opinions, etc. are questioned. Some have a hard time separating themselves from their views, data or their guns. They see their views, data and guns as being an extension of their own person.

Anyone who reacts to a fact based statement (positive or negative) about a Gun, Ammunition, Ammo Maker, Gun Publication, Gun Maker or Gun Writer as if it were a personal insult is probably operating more from emotion than fact and should be considered an unreliable source. (However, care should be exercised to differentiate exasperation from defensiveness.)

Often, folks fail to agree on what constitutes being a fact and facts used by folks on one side of the argument may be rejected or otherwise discounted by folks on the opposite side of the argument.

--------------

Bias is universal...everyone is a victim of their environment

Folks often fail to understand that they are biased given that they "know" their perspective is better or more complete than that of the opposition's.

[JohnKSa]

I think what you said was that it's not realistic to expect people to behave logically and leave emotion and bias out of it.

I agree.

But I can dream...

[Al Norris]

John, at this stage of our development (pre-warp civilization), the Vulcans would never think of contacting us....

[JohnKSa]

If that's true how do you explain velcro?

[sm]

<raises hand>

I know this one.
Some Scot was playing golf and sliced his second shot into the rough.
These little sticker-thingy's got all on his wool kilt and since he was not going to par this hole, he decided to invent "hook-n-loop"

Seems one too many when he wrote down the name he wanted, hung-over it read Velcro.

Its true, I read it off Micro-fiche and everything...

[Double Naught Spy]

I think what you said was that it's not realistic to expect people to behave logically and leave emotion and bias out of it.

Yeah, but my way of saying it took more words!

[Smokey Joe]

Tha is so much good in the worst o' us,

An' so much bad in the best o' us,

Tha' it ill behooves inny o' us

Tae find fault wi' the rest o' us.