matth12321 Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 Does any one know how shooting writers get hold rifles for reviews and tests? Shotguns and air rifles are easy as they can add and remove them from there license as they wish or are freely available, however rifles would require a variation? Surely that would be a ball ache with the huge waiting waiting times? Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medic1281 Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) PM fister, this is his job! However I think they register themselves as firearms dealers. Edited February 3, 2016 by Medic1281 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshwarrior Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 Await fisters reply but they will mostly hold RFDs for the purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medic1281 Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 That didn't take long! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshwarrior Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 I happened to be around Lurking again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) Just as it is with magazine publishers, no? I used to be heavily involved in carp angling, and often read the latest publications with a smile on my face as the latest products were reviewed as being the best thing ever, despite most being simply regurgitated **** in a new wrapper. Magazines are all dependent on the revenue from advertising as much as they are dependent on sales. Which undoubtedly puts a bias on an independent and honest opinion or appraisal of an advertisers product. YouTube less so, although the commercial outfits like Field Sports Britain and those numpties at Team Wild are just as much slaves to the dollar as all the others. Edited February 4, 2016 by mick miller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) I only read the first bit. No, I don't believe the Internet is unbiased, years ago I was posting 'reviews' for tackle manufacturers online. I doubt whether many savvy people do believe that certain reviews are unbiased. More especially when they appear a little too detailed or fervent in the approach. You are right about the personal fiefdom that some forums have become, deleting posts that contradict or criticise. I can think of many, but this one is undoubtedly one of the better ones. My comments certainly weren't a personal attack on you. Merely an observation that bias is evident across all. Edited February 4, 2016 by mick miller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) But you all THINK the internet is unbiased! I can see the same article submitted 'virgin' in 4 different places and edited four different ways and the internet so far shows the greatest amout of subjective editing I have seen. It is the most heavily controlled medium seemingly as it has not been around long enough to acclimatise the the external balance of requirements of readers v advertisers. There are many who write as a hobby, there are very few who do it as a job, and it shows. Getting an iPhone and publishing videos online is cheap and requires no assurances from editors, publishers or legal teams. Think on. If it is their own kit, they are hardly comparing and contrasting are they. In the last 5 years i have only expereinced one rifle that wouldnt shoot and most people are afraid of having their inability to shoot questioned, they have to believe it's all the gun's fault. I have grown bored of accuracy testing, for hunting it hardly matters as shooter error is far worse than rifle error. READ the negatives box, if there isn't one ask the magazine why! Ask the writer/filmaker why.........oh yes he bought it and can hardly diss how own opinion or financial position can he/she. Typos excused, i'm on my phone keypad. Agree with this. I used review and write for hifi magazines (I am an audio engineer/designer and run a specialist audio company) but paid advertising controls things so tightly these days that I wouldn't trust any audio review written, plus most are subjectivist drivel with meaningless wording anyway. The age of the consumer reviewer has dumbed down any real meaningful detailed reviews in this area, that and webzines using enthusiastic but sadly lacking in knowledge unpaid reviewers. That plus heavy editing and sometimes pulling of any draft review which offers anything other than positive comments. You're not allowed to say anything honest where that honesty could upset advertisers (ie, their products stink) and it was having some reviews (not of the same kit I design and manufacture hence no conflict of interest) pulled that made up my mind to quit doing reviews. Also agree where sporting firearms are concerned, that these days, few rifles don't shoot straight so the value of a review seems mostly on vfm/quality and practicality issues anyway. Edited February 4, 2016 by Savhmr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walt1980 Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Used to be involved in the motorcycle trade, a buyer for a big independent shop in Suffolk. Suppliers used to be quite open that magazine review scores were pretty much a reflection of advertising spent with them or free kit given to the journos! They used to laugh about it, pretty much a joke, give them some new bits, tell them how valued their review is and how great they are, and you get a good review!!! I always take what they say with a pinch of salt, unless you get the same comments from more than one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert 888 Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 But you all THINK the internet is unbiased! I can see the same article submitted 'virgin' in 4 different places and edited four different ways and the internet so far shows the greatest amout of subjective editing I have seen. It is the most heavily controlled medium seemingly as it has not been around long enough to acclimatise the the external balance of requirements of readers v advertisers. There are many who write as a hobby, there are very few who do it as a job, and it shows. Getting an iPhone and publishing videos online is cheap and requires no assurances from editors, publishers or legal teams. Think on. If it is their own kit, they are hardly comparing and contrasting are they. In the last 5 years i have only expereinced one rifle that wouldnt shoot and most people are afraid of having their inability to shoot questioned, they have to believe it's all the gun's fault. I have grown bored of accuracy testing, for hunting it hardly matters as shooter error is far worse than rifle error. READ the negatives box, if there isn't one ask the magazine why! Ask the writer/filmaker why.........oh yes he bought it and can hardly diss how own opinion or financial position can he/she. Typos excused, i'm on my phone keypad. Well said. A bad workman allways blames his tools and all that. I rarely ask a question on the Internet, without a bit of knowledge and background beforehand, I then sift through it carefully and work out what I think is best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 The unwritten rule was if you got something for review that was pants you sent it back with a polite thanks but I am unable to review this product presently. The alternative was to give it s bad one and face a whole heap of flack and nothing else from the supplier Give it a real good one and the item was often gifted on long term review without return ( that must be hard with fac rules even as an RFD) Don't read too much into reviews I once bought a Renault after the model comming top in which and a stream of glowing press reports ( I sold the heap of junk within a year of purchase) Perhaps u tube is the best place for reviews? The issue is how much cash is comming in from other advertising payments and how much from the product manufacturer or distributer. It's no coincidence that an advertiser has adverts booked in for a product in line with a recent review if we talk magazines as these rely on advertising not subscriptions in the main RFD is required for all firearms not on your ticket Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alycidon Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 One of the reasons I gave up reading shooting mags maybe 40 years ago was that you never saw a bad review. When looking to expand my toys I wanted honest reviews, at least with the web people tend to tell it as it is and maybe it you are not to far away you can have a look and a shot or two with a weapon you are thinking about, A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Actually, on a technicality, you don't need to be an RFD, you don't even need to be an FAC holder. The law allows for RFDs and their agents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgy Posted February 8, 2016 Report Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) Think we all know that the magazine reviews are are total carp. I now look online at as many reviews and comments by the people who own and shoot them both good and bad. You get a more balanced view for reliability and any common faults or traits. Find a lot of Americans can be brutally honest about kit they have bought. Edited February 8, 2016 by figgy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.