I feel compelled to write this article after a recent gun review I did that received some comments to the contrary of my recommendation. I mean, how could I recommend a gun that wasn't manufactured by one of the big 5 gun manufacturers? The big 5, if you're curious, are as follows in no particular order:
One of the comments said this, and I'm paraphrasing: First you recommend SCCY, and now Kel Tec? I lost all respect for you.
That comment was eventually removed by its owner, so I'm going off memory here. But, I remember reading it and getting my response ready. Imagine a world in which someone does a review on a product. That product gets an outstanding review from the product tester, but then says the following:
This product worked flawlessly the entire time I had it. It had no malfunctions and did exactly what it was supposed to do each time I used it. However, even though it worked great, I cannot recommend the product because it was not manufactured by my favorite company in the industry. You should go buy from them, instead.
How ludicrous is that? How crazy is it that some gun owners write off a gun based on the name of the gun itself without having any experience with it at all, contrary to the recommendation of the person who actually put rounds through said gun?
Before I go on, let me tell you who I am and what I'm trying to accomplish with this publication. First, I'm the managing editor of this fine publication. Every piece of content runs through my fingertips before it's published.
It is one of my primary goals to remain unbiased in our product reviews. One thing I don't want us to get into the habit of is recommending guns based only on who makes them. I want the guns to speak for themselves. If a gun manufacturer sends us a lemon, we send it back to give them the opportunity to fix it, while documenting everything.
If the gun comes back fine, all is well. We still mention the original issues, adding that they were fixed. If the gun comes back and is still effed up, it gets a no-go status from us.
We let each gun speak for itself.
If it works I have to report it as a fully functioning firearm.
To do otherwise is dishonest. And, there are plenty of other publications out there who have no problem bad mouthing a company based on who they are. I welcome you to go read those blogs if you have an issue with us letting the guns speak for themselves.
I have to recommend a gun that functions properly for me. I cannot say something like this: This gun worked flawlessly for me the whole time I had it, but I cannot recommend this gun for any type of use because, after all, it's a SCCY. And, we all know how those budget guns work!
That sounds asinine but is exactly what some gun owning “experts” want us to do.
As someone who actually knows guns, how they work, and has worked for the industry for quite a few years, let me tell you a little known secret: All guns fail.
Do some break more than others? Sure. But, every company produces lemons from time to time, and us judging one gun company based on the experience of a handful of gun owners is akin to the gun grabbers likening all gun owners to the ones who're criminals.
Good or bad regarding the function of the gun itself, it goes into the review. If I'm having certain issues with the gun, I mention it. If the gun is a no-go based on malfunctions, I mention it. And, guess what? If it works fine, I have no problem recommending it.
Is it possible that another person who owns the same model gun has problems with his or hers? Yeah, remember all guns have the potential to fail at some point. But if we are to remain a non-biased firearm publication we have to recommend guns based on each individual gun's performance while keeping the idea in the back of our mind that any gun can fail.
Would you prefer I lie? Because I won't.
I'll end my rant here. Leave your thoughts in the comments below.