Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Gear Talk
Nutnfancy gear reviews.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="aestus" data-source="post: 1668978" data-attributes="member: 2989"><p>His reviews are long winded but thorough. I enjoy his shooting vides the most, because through all the talk and nonsense, the real gold is when equipment fails. Guns that should be reliable aren't and equipment that should be durable wears out. That is essentially the core of what his channel is about. The rest of it is just BS for entertainment, ect. People get all hung up about how "untactical" he is in his shooting vids, but really that's not the point. The point of his shooting vids and courses is to test the durability and reliability of the equipment and firearms. </p><p></p><p>Lots of people get butthurt about his Glock 17 comment about it being the standard, but I think people are taking it out of context. The ones who complain about it are probably the ones who watch 5 minutes into a video and then bail and decide his reviews are crap or 1911 fanboys. He uses it as the standard for his reviews in terms of weight, capacity, accuracy, reliability and durability. It's what serves as the basis for other firearms that he reviews and it's serves as a point of reference. It's a good standard to use to judge all pistols in a service/duty type of role and it's a hard standard to beat. Also, if you watch his shooting vids (like trench warfare) the Glocks and Sigs almost always run flawless. XDs, SR9's and various 1911's will almost always fail in just normal run and gun situations. It's easy why he would consider the Glock 17 to be the "standard" to be used to measure all other guns in his reviews.</p><p></p><p>His philosophy vids are decent, but really just regurgitating a lot of what most people already know and/or think. His outdoor / camping vids are actually excellent and I've learned a lot from those vids. His shooting vids are worth it, not for the "tactical" elements, but for seeing what equipment works and fails. Overall, he is a bit of douche and a little full of himself. He talks waaaay too much and waaaay too long. However, this is why he has tons of subscribers and viewers. People like to watch douchebags with ego, not normal everyday folk like you and me <img src="/images/smilies/smile.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="aestus, post: 1668978, member: 2989"] His reviews are long winded but thorough. I enjoy his shooting vides the most, because through all the talk and nonsense, the real gold is when equipment fails. Guns that should be reliable aren't and equipment that should be durable wears out. That is essentially the core of what his channel is about. The rest of it is just BS for entertainment, ect. People get all hung up about how "untactical" he is in his shooting vids, but really that's not the point. The point of his shooting vids and courses is to test the durability and reliability of the equipment and firearms. Lots of people get butthurt about his Glock 17 comment about it being the standard, but I think people are taking it out of context. The ones who complain about it are probably the ones who watch 5 minutes into a video and then bail and decide his reviews are crap or 1911 fanboys. He uses it as the standard for his reviews in terms of weight, capacity, accuracy, reliability and durability. It's what serves as the basis for other firearms that he reviews and it's serves as a point of reference. It's a good standard to use to judge all pistols in a service/duty type of role and it's a hard standard to beat. Also, if you watch his shooting vids (like trench warfare) the Glocks and Sigs almost always run flawless. XDs, SR9's and various 1911's will almost always fail in just normal run and gun situations. It's easy why he would consider the Glock 17 to be the "standard" to be used to measure all other guns in his reviews. His philosophy vids are decent, but really just regurgitating a lot of what most people already know and/or think. His outdoor / camping vids are actually excellent and I've learned a lot from those vids. His shooting vids are worth it, not for the "tactical" elements, but for seeing what equipment works and fails. Overall, he is a bit of douche and a little full of himself. He talks waaaay too much and waaaay too long. However, this is why he has tons of subscribers and viewers. People like to watch douchebags with ego, not normal everyday folk like you and me :) [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Gear Talk
Nutnfancy gear reviews.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom