That’s how Gunblast gets cooperation from the manufacturers. If they like the firearm, they give it a positive review. If they find fault with it, they publish nothing…
For what it’s worth, nearly every firearm I’ve shot that they’ve given a positive review has been a decent or better piece of machinery. The only exceptions have been a couple Taurus pistols. One revolver, and the other a 1911 clone. Both were dirt cheap, and felt and fired that way for me, but that could just have been poor quality control in Brazil. I’m sure when Taurus press folks send a firearm to a reviewer it’s not the units made at 9:30 Monday morning, or 3:45 Friday afternoon. I generally consider a Gunblast endorsement to be reasonable seal of approval.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:58 am
I like Jeff, but I don’t think he’s ever reviewed a gun that they didn’t like.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Damn, Caleb beat me to it 😉
Actually, I think it’s an official policy over there, that they only publish positive reviews. I know I’ve never seen a negative one from them.
December 30th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Well, I was just going to ask the same question (has GB ever given a bad review), but I’ve been beaten to it twice!
December 30th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
That’s how Gunblast gets cooperation from the manufacturers. If they like the firearm, they give it a positive review. If they find fault with it, they publish nothing…
For what it’s worth, nearly every firearm I’ve shot that they’ve given a positive review has been a decent or better piece of machinery. The only exceptions have been a couple Taurus pistols. One revolver, and the other a 1911 clone. Both were dirt cheap, and felt and fired that way for me, but that could just have been poor quality control in Brazil. I’m sure when Taurus press folks send a firearm to a reviewer it’s not the units made at 9:30 Monday morning, or 3:45 Friday afternoon. I generally consider a Gunblast endorsement to be reasonable seal of approval.