Hope this is the right place.
Although I'm no stranger to gun mag reviews and how they treat the big gun manufactures, I can usually control myself over the gun reviews.
That being said , how much softer could Shooting Illustrated have been on the Colt King Cobra in the November issue?
I'm no Colt hater, but damn! No trigger pull weight numbers and quote "pull is quite smooth with the weight increasing just enough before hammer release to let you know you're getting close, but not close enough to cause the dreaded trigger jerk". Come on!
Even with a three inch barrel and fixed sights, only fifteen yard accuracy results . The entire review is a powder puff treatment, IMHO, and I am seriously considering this model.
Maybe I'm just old and cantankerous, but where is the real review? I learned very little from this. I would think seriously before I buy this revolver based on this review due to the lack of substance. I would hope that this revolver would deserve better than this. Where is the meat?
OK, that's it. I feel better now.

__________________
" I don't recall, senator."

Is the review online? If so, please post it.

15 yard accuracy results seem to be common in NRA publications for any pistol with a barrel shorter than four inches.

__________________
Release the Kraken

I have seen a number of reviews that were designed to say nothing bad about and advertiser's product!

One product was so over priced and preformed so below the competition, the review had high praise for the color of the packaging!

On the other hand, I have seen review accuracy so poor, I had to wonder if the shooter/author knew which end of a rifle was the muzzel! If I was a Major manufacturer and the sample rifle I sent them was scoped and fired the Premium ammo I sent them and from a rest did a 5" group at 100 yards. I would have to wonder why I was torpedoed? Was it because they can't keep the rifle for free? (This was in the American Rifleman about 5 years ago!) Or did they have an 8 year old testing a Short Mag?


I have often been suspicious of reviews that had marvelous things to say about absolute junk, and the reverse!

Then again I saw a new "reporter" do a test on the S&W model 10 in the late 90's. They at least admitted they had never fired anything but a Glock! But the review was complaining about how heavy a 4" revolver was. They might have hurt themselves with a model 29!

Everyone understands there are no minimum requirements to right a review. But I know some of the "Boutique" gun companies have refused to provide sample guns for "Nonsense" articles by idiot reporters! (Think BFR 45-70for a survival magazine!)

Remember we have the freedom to ignore the press also!

Ivan

If the rags don't treat the manufacturers nice, they won't receive advertising dollars. Most gun forum members are able to perform more objective reviews than any magazine hack. And that's true of any industry.

__________________
John

I've learned , over the years , to "read between the lines" ... what they don't say is a lot more telling than what they do say .

The long time publication Guns Magazine is better about publishing the facts , but you still have to take it with a grain of salt... they can't bite the hand that feeds them.
The one good thing about you tube gun test's is that if you watch several you will get a fairly good idea of how good or bad a product is .
Shooting Illustrated is a NRA monthly publication so they wont be too hard on the big guy's .
Research many reviews on any firearm and that will give you a better idea than just one magazine review .

Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

I prefer to shoot the guns myself and make my own determination.

Other peoples opinions are just that ...... what others think. May not be right for me.

In the Specs section on page 56, they have the trigger pull at 3lbs. 12 oz., single action, and 9lbs. double action. But those may be Colt's specs. Yeah, almost all these reviews have in it where the writer uses his (Brand name) trigger pull weight device. No, we're going to get a sugar-coated review on all these reviews, but, you can probably get a nice Ruger GP-100, 7-shot, for a little less $$$.

Didn't see the review. All I can say about the King Cobra is I like mine. My only complaints? No one, except maybe custom makers, offers a good leather holster for it yet. J frame holsters are too small, K frames are too big. And, it is a bit pricey. As I've stated in other posts here, will it take the place of my Model 66 as my go-to revolver? Ask me in a few months.

I never trust any reviews from a source that accepts advertising money.

I try to look at a review, any review as a data point. I try also try to look critically at the reviewer. Are they getting paid? How experienced are they?

Regarding revolver reviews, I'd much rather they be done by someone from the revolver age, someone who really knows their way around a revolver.

Revolver reviews by the average twenty something year old with mostly Glock experience except for a brief flirtation with a Smith&Wesson Shield is not going to be very useful. Harsh but true.

At the end of the day, all the reviews are just data points. The final verdict is in my hands. Don't mean to be egotistical but how the gun fits, functions and shoots for me is by far more important than what someone else thinks about it.

Once again, I take reviews as data points with myself as final judge.

That's an interesting way to sugar coat the dreaded stacking trigger, the killer of accuracy.

I haven't read a gun mag in years. Their articles are nothing but advertiser-driven puff pieces and recycled material. How many "9mm vs 45" articles can possibly be run?

I look to YouTube exclusively for gun and ammo tests. These "influencers" typically have no allegiance to any manufacturers because their independence is part and parcel with trying to be independent.

If you want honest reviews go to GUN TEST MAGAZINE. They accept no advertising and buy their guns on the open market rather than "borrow" loaners from manufacturers or distributors.

It is not reasonable to expect a mag to say THIS IS A PIECE OF JUNK if they want the manufacturer to buy full page color ads from them for the next four months.

I have read several tests on the new Springfield Armory Hellcat. My range has one I can rent and shoot for $15. And then make my own judgement. Exactly what I did before spending on my last several new guns. I’m fortunate to live where there is availability of rentals.

__________________
SWCA 3255 SWHF 615

I agree but you still have to take into account the reviewer. Some just do not like or have no experience with revolvers. Some are not really that knowledgeable but are entertaining. Just take the whe situation into consideration but mostly judge for yourself.

I am very leery of reviews in print and also video. Both are way too dependent on advertising money but especially the dying print industry.

Jeff Quinn over at Gunblast has never met a pistol that isn't "DANDY."

Hickock45 is a bit of a shill too, (now promoting precious metals) but there are times he will come right out and not bash a gun but clearly state he has no interest in owning one. When he reviewed the Charter Boomer (ported Bulldog with no sights) he couldn't hit squat with it, was completely honest about it and his opinion completely swayed the small interest I had in a Boomer. I'll stick with a more standard Bulldog which he does recommend.

I hear you on the gun magazine reviews. I no longer take any of them because they feel more like gun ads than an independent pov. These days if I’m interested in something I’d rather read the forums or watch several vids on YouTube and decide if I want to spend the bucks.

On another note I handled a Colt King Cobra Target yesterday. Interesting. Front sight was cool for my tired eyes. Trigger was real good, similiar to a python I owned. At $900 plus I’ll need to think on it a bit. Nice gun though

Anyone who has read some of my revolver posts here over the last few years will know I am not a huge fan of currently made Revolvers from pretty much any of the Company's. We are in different times now-days and Company survival trumps quality, fit and finish and new fangled "Lawyer features".

While the new Colt might very well be the best of new current production revolvers (at least it does not have any internal locking keys) it still does not compare to the Colts made 40- 60 years ago - IMHO.

There are some that would not buy used revolvers and in that case the Colt should be a very viable revolver. For me personally, I buy older vintage models and since I do my own repair and maintenance work, I am not overly concerned with the fact that a said revolver is out of warranty, not Factory repairable anymore, etc. The oder guns were around for so long and there are still plenty of parts available that I don't concern myself with that aspect. If I were not capable of doing my own repair and maintenance work I might feel differently - but I can and do.

I have heard mostly good things about the new Colts and aside from my personal feelings, it seems to be about the best of what's out there these days - definitely worth looking into.

To be fair Hickok45 is dealing with a LOT of constraints to maintain his status on Youtube AND Youtube has really cut the knees out from under him in terms of payment. His videos are "monetized" for only a short time, which if I understand it correctly means he doesn't get a dime of payment for viewers looking at a video that is out of monetization In addition because his videos deal with dreadful firearms any hint of acting as a brand reputation means he will be banned. It's why he's now doing blatant advertising for silver and such, he's just trying to get back some of the income he lost when youtube changed the rules.

As for the fluff and buff seen in almost any printed review, that has been going on for more years than I've been alive and I am not a youngster. Even Consumer Reports reviews have a noticeable bias in spite of claims they are free of being "influenced". The simple truth is that any printed review relies on people being willing to support the reviewer. If you can't sell your newspaper your newspaper will be out of business in short order.

I will also not that was a very clever way to describe a trigger that stacks and is what some might consider as a bit heavy.

I have the newer Colt 38spc. Not crazy about it. It's the dang trigger. I shoot DA amost exclusively and I just strongly prefer the Smith's DA trigger.

The Colt's SA is very fine.

Was that a factor in Smith coming to dominate the DA revolver market post WW2?

I'll save you some money...The new Colts are to the old ones like the new Smiths are to the P&R era...

So, you’re saying that the new Colts are functionally just as good as the older ones but may lack in aesthetics?

I have to laugh at some gun reviews by purchasers that state gun feels good in hand and looks good but haven't shot it yet. What a useless review.

When I read a review about accuracy, I look at the distance they shot it and if less than 50 yards don't even consider it. I consider a group of 3" at 50 yards good enough. Have about 40 handguns that can achieve that accuracy with the right ammo, barrel length does not always predict accuracy.

My favorite authors, Jeff Cooper brought me into the club, Elmer Keith was pretty good, Clint Smith knew well what he wrote about, Gary James is my favorite author along with Hold Boddington when the editor lets him write about what he wants to write about.

Other than that I just smile or shake my head and go on to the next article.

I’m with you, though I’m happy with a 25 yard review.

I think most gunwriters just can’t shoot and use the ol’ “tested at 7 (or 5) yards because of its intended purpose” dodge as an excuse. Test it at 7, but also at 25.

I have a Guns and Ammo Annual from 76 or 77 that has a review of the High Standard .22 Magnum Derringer and that guy shot it at 25 yards! Hit the target, too. Now I see tests of mid-sized 1911s and you get a 7 yard test, and sometimes no group size listed or shown - just something like “good combat accuracy”.

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

Yeah. Those guys you mentioned were "gun guys". They knew how to shoot and they understood the purpose of the gun they were reviewing.

The new breed of magazine gun writers? More like frustrated English Literature majors in comparison.