Precision Airgun Reviews

[Florida_Man]

I read and watch a lot of reviews, even rifles I’ll never own. Something I’d like to see is a target scope being used. Reviews should be done in good weather conditions. I can’t learn a lot of what a rifle is truly capable of if the only test day is variable wind condition.

I have a decent 6-24, an Athlon Midas Tac, but it pales in comparison when shooting paper compared to my 36x Sighton. Sure it doesn’t have a Christmas tree reticle that are so cool, but it’s not needed. I now evaluate all my new rifles using the Sightron.

I see a good deal of reviews that pair the rifle with a scope in the budget bracket of the rifle, I don’t think that does the evaluation of the rifle any favors. Is it a rifle review or a scope review. We have Cyclops Joe for glass.

They go to length trying different pellets and maybe tuning the rifle, why not have a purpose scope for it?

I know we have to take every review with a grain of salt. There are a lot of guys posting their personal reviews, and they have zero standing or credentials. I just chuckle at those. We’ve all been to a public range to witness the average shooter. Just throwing something out there I would like to see.

What would you like to see?

 

[wolfdog]

I would like to see the Ghost with a night scope that records and how it works just not that it works. Thanks

 

[JimD]

I agree that most reviews provide very little reliable information on accuracy and are generally not a great way to understand what a gun offers. I like the AEAC reviews where he tunes the gun, I think they are different. But most other reviews have rules like "we shoot the gun as we get it, we do not tune the triggers let alone the gun". I would never depend on a factory trigger tune. I can understand not messing with the regulator, especially if it is internal, but no hammer spring tweaks? Without doing these things we can't really understand what a gun can do. I like AAR on air but he and others do not even try a reasonable range of pellets IMHO. We are also at risk that the manufacturer supplies a tuned up model we do not have access to. I agree with your scope part, but I think it is only one of a bunch of factors that make the reviews less useful than they could be. But by watching several reviews I also think we learn something about the gun. There are no airgun stores less than several hundred miles away from me so when I buy a gun I am buying it sight unseen. The reviews help it be less of a leap of faith but they do not give a great idea what I am really getting. But even if we knew the accuracy of the gun the reviewer is looking at it would not tell us what the accuracy of the gun we buy is. There is gun to gun variability too. Testing several guns would be better but that is even less likely.

 

[Spartan]

....I know we have to take every review with a grain of salt. There are a lot of guys posting their personal reviews, and they have zero standing or credentials. I just chuckle at those. We’ve all been to a public range to witness the average shooter.....

A lot of those "personal reviews" are the only reviews where the "reviewers" are not actually being paid—or otherwise compensated—by the manufacturer or distributor. Perhaps they have zero standing or credentials as you say (I had my pinky up as if I were drinking tea as I typed that), but they also have zero incentive to inflate the performance of the rifle they are reviewing. This is where lines are drawn between videos that are"reviews" and videos that are "advertisements." I generally ignore the opinions in the multitude of advertisement videos, even though those videos are probably being produced by the people that you feel have the pedigree necessary to bestow such reviews upon us.

 

[L.Leon]

@Florida_Man, I believe I understand your post. For me its an amalgamation of user reviews combined with paid reviewers. Then I filter it all to see what they might all be saying in common. And make a decision from there if I’m interested in the reviewed product. I trust the comments made by multiple users over what any one particular reviewer might say, or not say.

 

[SpiralGroove]

Well Florida,
I've been around airguns my entire life and now more intensely for the last 10/11 years on .... GTA/AGN.
Like anything else, you have to find out who to listen to ...... and not any others.

Most You Tube videos have got a marketing tilt (aka politics), I usually listen to them and then look to trusted members for the real deal.
Also, after doing much work on personal guns ..... you know when the truth is being stretched or the reviewer is unintentionally, skewed or just wrong.

 

[Florida_Man]

A lot of those "personal reviews" are the only reviews where the "reviewers" are not actually being paid—or otherwise compensated—by the manufacturer or distributor. Perhaps they have zero standing or credentials as you say (I had my pinky up as if I were drinking tea as I typed that), but they also have zero incentive to inflate the performance of the rifle they are reviewing. This is where lines are drawn between videos that are"reviews" and videos that are "advertisements." I generally ignore the opinions in the multitude of advertisement videos, even though those videos are probably being produced by the people that you feel have the pedigree necessary to bestow such reviews upon us.

I think most of us see the paid advertisement reviews for what they are, a commercial not a review. The personal reviews can and do go the other direction. They can get personal, because someone spent their hard earned money and have a product that doesn’t perform for them. Or they spent that money and are in love with it and justify themselves with a rose colored glasses review. I just say some type of credentials because we know they are a professional in the field.

Steve of AEAC has one of the best methods, I’m just commenting and asking others what could improve that. Sure Steve is given rifles to review, and paid for deep dives. The time he puts in deserves that.

 

[L.Leon]

I think most of us see the paid advertisement reviews for what they are, a commercial not a review. The personal reviews can and do go the other direction. They can get personal, because someone spent their hard earned money and have a product that doesn’t perform for them. Or they spent that money and are in love with it and justify themselves with a rose colored glasses review. I just say some type of credentials because we know they are a professional in the field.

Steve of AEAC has one of the best methods, I’m just commenting and asking others what could improve that. Sure Steve is given rifles to review, and paid for deep dives. The time he puts in deserves that.

He is but one man, a professional reviewer, his methodology is helpful, but just one piece of the puzzle. You assume users who “buy” with their own money. Might wear “rose colored” glasses when critiquing? I feel exactly opposite, those who pay full price, their written words carry weight with me. Good or bad, parse a few of these actual buyer/users, comment, posts, or reviews. And a picture comes into view for me. No “one” particular dude is going to sway me. “It takes a village”.

 

[Florida_Man]

He is but one man, a professional reviewer, his methodology is helpful, but just one piece of the puzzle. You assume users who “buy” with their own money. Might wear “rose colored” glasses when critiquing? I feel exactly opposite, those who pay full price, their written words carry weight with me. Good or bad, parse a few of these actual buyer/users, comment, posts, or reviews. And a picture comes into view for me. No “one” particular dude is going to sway me. “It takes a village”.

I’m just saying it’s a real bias that I’ve seen. I’m not commenting on detailed reviews like we see on this Airgun forum or others. It’s something I see far more in video reviews than forum reviews.

The real purpose of this thread is what we’d like to see from reviewers that would help us.

 

[RickH]

I watch a few airgun channels/reviewers on YouTube regularly. Andy’s Airgun Reviews seem honest, Walnut and Steel, Airgun Detectives seems a bit biased. There are several that are just commercials and I leave those behind quickly and quite a few that are clearly done because someone just wants to. Those generally don’t have as good production values and the presenter doesn’t have much of a script. They give honest reviews but aren’t as well done. I still often get good information though.

Rick H.

 

[Farmplinker2]

I watch a few airgun channels/reviewers on YouTube regularly. Andy’s Airgun Reviews seem honest, Walnut and Steel, Airgun Detectives seems a bit biased. There are several that are just commercials and I leave those behind quickly and quite a few that are clearly done because someone just wants to. Those generally don’t have as good production values and the presenter doesn’t have much of a script. They give honest reviews but aren’t as well done. I still often get good information though.

Rick H.

Nibs ain't as bad as JC, but JC also says he won't post a video if the product is garbage. SpringPistonRifleFever seems the most honest, Oh Shoot is pretty honest too. Off The Shelf Airguns seems the best of the "I don't modify" channels.

 

[JimD]

I think it is totally reasonable that the reviewer:

1) Spends up to an hour messing with the trigger to get it to their liking.
2) Puts on a scope appropriate to the distance they will test at, 24X minimum would be my suggestion
3) Tests with H&N FTT and Baracuda and at least two weights of JSB made pellets.
4) Tests accuracy at a minimum of 30 yards
5) Tests from a bench with the rifle fully supported when testing accuracy
6) Check the hammer spring setting to determine if it is close to the point of maximum velocity for the regulator setting (if the rifle is regulated). If it is not at maximum or is well over, adjust it to a point the rifle is accurate close to the maximum velocity setting. Again, no more than an hour should be spent.
7) On a rifle with an external regulator adjustment to get a pellet the gun seems to like into the 800-900 fps velocity range is permitted but not required.

In my mind if you do not do these things you are making at best a casual assessment of accuracy. My PCPs were all under $500 and all needed some adjustment out-of-the-box to achieve their best accuracy. More expensive guns may not need this but I think cheaper ones typically do. If part of the reason the reviews show more expensive guns as more accurate the fact that they typically spend no time adjusting them? I don't think it's the total reason but I think it is a contributor.

 

[MikeVV]

I read and watch a lot of reviews, even rifles I’ll never own. Something I’d like to see is a target scope being used. Reviews should be done in good weather conditions. I can’t learn a lot of what a rifle is truly capable of if the only test day is variable wind condition.

I have a decent 6-24, an Athlon Midas Tac, but it pales in comparison when shooting paper compared to my 36x Sighton. Sure it doesn’t have a Christmas tree reticle that are so cool, but it’s not needed. I now evaluate all my new rifles using the Sightron.

I see a good deal of reviews that pair the rifle with a scope in the budget bracket of the rifle, I don’t think that does the evaluation of the rifle any favors. Is it a rifle review or a scope review. We have Cyclops Joe for glass.

They go to length trying different pellets and maybe tuning the rifle, why not have a purpose scope for it?

I know we have to take every review with a grain of salt. There are a lot of guys posting their personal reviews, and they have zero standing or credentials. I just chuckle at those. We’ve all been to a public range to witness the average shooter. Just throwing something out there I would like to see.

What would you like to see?

In red above -

Ah yes, if only every tester / shooter had the ability to control ol Mother nature !!
I don't think the comment in red by the O.P. is possible, at least not on this earth.

Mike

 

[beerthief]

I think people expect a new gun to make them a better shooter , A new gun may give you a chance to be better but it all comes down to you in the end .
The point is , it is the shooter giving the review and not hand picking the best shots . the reviewer actually uses the gun for a period of time like 2 or 3 weeks .

 

[Florida_Man]

In red above -

Ah yes, if only every tester / shooter had the ability to control ol Mother nature !!
I don't think the comment in red by the O.P. is possible, at least not on this earth.

Mike

Or you pick a good day and time when it’s decent. If you want to rush something you go immediately. When I shoot the 30y challenge, I try and get out in the morning before the winds kick up. I live a couple miles from the Atlantic Ocean, and I can still find a few times in a week usually when weather is favorable. I know when I evaluate a new rifle I do it so weather is a minimal factor.