Editor’s Note on Re-Testing Firearms: Housekeeping

Jon Wayne Taylor recently re-reviewed the Metro Arms American Classic II .45ACP 1911 (click here for original review). The “new” gun was reliable, save one malfunction. This is not the first time we’ve re-tested a firearm that initially performed badly. Here’s our policy on re-reviewing firearms . . .

TTAG is ready, willing and able to re-test guns at the manufacturer’s request. Our initial test gun is a single sample, usually sent by the manufacturer to us in our secret above ground bunker. We accept the possibility that an individual test gun may be a “lemon” — a sample that doesn’t represent the quality of the manufacturer’s product generally.

Regardless of how the “new” or repaired gun functions, we do not go back and revise our initial ratings. We publish a review update, like Jon’s.

There are other cases in which we return a defective, poorly or non-functioning firearm before we review it. When that happens, the final review always reveals the return and explains why we sent the gun back.

[NB: while we hope that the original gun sent or the one returned or replaced aren’t “ringers” — firearms carefully massaged by factory technicians — there’s no way to know that. That hasn’t been our experience, but we are situationally aware.]

While we hope that a finished gun review is authoritative, it’s a good idea to read other reviews, owner forums and the always informative comment section underneath our review. Owners sometimes reveal that they had no problems with the exact same model.

One more thing . . .

There’s a Chinese Wall between TTAG’s editorial and advertising. Our ad supplier is contractually obliged not to interfere with our reviews, to refrain from influencing our editorial decisions. They’ve always respected this non-negotiable part of our deal, knowing that we wouldn’t tolerate any such interference.

TTAG operates under the assumption that firearms are a life-or-death proposition. That’s one reason why we will never betray our readers’ trust in the integrity of our reviews. The other reason: we love doing this.

If you want to know the truth about a gun, as best as our no-holds-barred writers can discern and communicate it to you, you’ve come to the right place. Thank you for reading!

RF

 

 

 

comments

  1. avatar RocketScientist says:

    Sometimes they’ll even send a gun back to the manufacturer 2 or 3 or more times to (unsuccessfully) get it right, all the while raving about it as the paragon of the firearms world in every other article they write. But I guess that’s only if it’s a $15k+ Cabot?

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      Shots fired (and obviously not from a Cabot).

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Are you referring to the $3,600 S103? The one with 358 mixed rounds put through it in 23 minutes without fail? The one where we put 900 plus rounds into it by rotating shooters and constantly firing it, until the frame was too hot to touch, and it kept going?
      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/10/jon-wayne-taylor/gun-review-cabot-guns-s103-commander-full-cycle-carry-pistol/
      Or the 6K Black Diamond, which certainly did go back not once, but twice, but was a complete success when it was done, with me running over 400 mixed rounds through it in one sitting and RF going even more?
      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/02/jon-wayne-taylor/cabot-black-diamond-exonerated/
      Or the just under $4k Vintage Classic, which we only ran 200 mixed rounds through, but performed flawlessly?
      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/11/jon-wayne-taylor/new-cabot-guns-vintage-classic-1911-pistol/
      Which one of these was ultimately unsuccessful?

      1. avatar Renner says:

        I’d say the 6K Black Diamond. Went back twice. ‘Nuff Said. I don’t care about how much it cost, it needed to go back twice to get it right. Many manufacturers can get it right after three attempts on the same sample.

        I give TTAG credit for publishing the failures as well as the successes. We can make up our own minds whether we want any particular gun or not based on our own criteria. If you provide the facts, I can form my own opinion. I’m okay with that.

      2. avatar Russ H. says:

        SMACK!

    3. avatar TexTed says:

      C’mon guys, it’s a 1911… that isn’t just a model #, it’s the # of times you have to adjust it to get it reliable, everybody knows that…

  2. avatar Joe R. says:

    CNN has just claimed Russian collusion and vote tampering.

    Trump better slam them again.

    jk

    “TTAG operates under the assumption that firearms are a life-or-death proposition.”

    I’m glad you said that. Doesn’t matter if it’s a .22, black powder rifle, black rifle, MK 12, Barrett little 50.

    1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      My commute was worse than usual this morning.

      Damn Russians.

    2. avatar Stoney Man says:

  3. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Robert (and Jon) most of the folks here aren’t interested in dissing you or TTAG because you didn’t go out and get a dozen examples of each gun reviewed. I am interested in your take (and various commenters) on the guns you review as part of the data I use for my buying decisions.

  4. avatar Madcapp says:

    Wow, re-testing a 1911. Did he not believe it was a 1911 or something?

  5. avatar former water walker says:

    Hey cool. Part of why I support TTAG. That and the honest(the ONLY one) reporting of the Springfield/RRA Illinois debacle…

  6. avatar Ho Lee Shyt says:

    The correct term today is “Ethical Wall”, not “Chinese Wall”.

      1. avatar EGB says:

        Both terms are correct but one’s PC. JWT – I used a STI Trojan 9MM in the President’s Match at Camp Perry last weekend. While my performance left much to be desired, the pistol held 1.15″ groups at 25 yds in a Ransom rest.

  7. avatar AZgunner says:

    Your ad supplier pretty much only shows weird clickbait garbage of the absolute lowest common denominator. It’s exceedingly rare that I see anything firearm relates advertised here. All the ads are obnoxious garbage that looks like a virus waiting to happen.

    For the record, the trashy advertising really drags down the look of the site. Having actual gun related ads (like a certain other popular firearm blog) would help a lot.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      I’ll second that. If they are purposefully trying to present ads that have zero to do with guns and hunting they are doing a great job.

      I’m not Inclined to follow the links so there is that.

    2. avatar Ian says:

      +1000000
      Most of it is obviously click bait virus laden garbage, bad enough to make me wonder if the people running the site have ever actually seriously looked at their “providers”. And then there are the ones that make me gag from just looking at them!

      1. avatar billy-bob says:

        What? No toe fungus fetish?

      2. avatar Dave Lewis says:

        I’ve been wondering what model 1911 and specifically what load (ball, hollow point, frangible etc) would work most effectively on toenail fungus. Maybe TTAG can work up a test as long as the toenail belongs to the guy who places the ads.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          Please, get serious.
          Everyone knows a shotgun is the best for toenail fungus.
          12 ga if you can handle it. And 00 or #4 buck is preferable.
          But look out for the “Carbine” fetish guys who will tell you that the .223 overpenetrates less. Everyone knows the FBI doesn’t test on toenails.

    3. avatar Red in CO says:

      Yep, couldn’t have said it better myself.

    4. avatar Hank says:

      I have to pile on here. These ads actually keep me from sharing TTAG articles with friends because they instantly give off a “fake news” or trashy website. I started reading TTAG before that came along so I know they’re better than that, but looks are everything to most people.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        I (and others) have been saying that for years now. Every few months, I’ll turn off the adblockers and see if things have improved. And I see that they haven’t, and sadly turn Adblock and Ghostery back on.

        I really wish the site looked less trashy, because it’s an unnecessary hurdle to being taken seriously by new readers.

    5. avatar Russ H. says:

      The ads are pretty weird for a site like this – I imagine it’s to pay the bills. Regardless, it does hurt the site’s reputation a little but it would appear it doesn’t bother anyone writing comments – the same people keep coming back (many of whom make comments worse than the ads). Carry on…

  8. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    I will say that the transparency on it 1)Being a resent gun by the behest of the mfg 2)indicating it had clearly been fired extensively are good things. It lets the reader make their own mind up, which is more than a lot of the rags would probably do (look at the R51 debacle and how it was reviewed.)

  9. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Some guns just don’t work from the get go.
    I have a gun make wont be named. Its been back 4 times. THE GUNS A 1911 FROM A MAJOR MAKER. Its been a safe space taker upper for the last 3 years. As its so bad I wont trade it in and stick some poor slob with it. The manufacturer for whatever reason says they cant get it to fail. Yet I cant do a mag dump with it. Let alone 2 sets of double taps without it jamming. I can slow fire it like a target gun without fail.
    Sometimes one just cant win.
    I don’t believe for a minute. When a guns sent back to any ones CS that they will fire it as you might have to use it in real life. Some are just lemons regardless of cost.

    1. avatar Mr.Savage says:

      I like “fixer uppers” if we could figure out how to contact one another I may have interest in it….

    2. avatar Russ H. says:

      This is why I am learning to gunsmith all types of guns. I have AR’s and 1911’s down, now moving on to S&W revolvers. It’s great fun!

  10. avatar Chris Dumm says:

    It’s been a while since I tested any shootin’ irons for TTAG, but I’ll stand behind what RF said here because it’s important.

    I reviewed some awesome guns like the laser-beam accurate AX-308 from Accuracy International, and some utterly execrable pieces of ballistic, well, excrement.

    And whenever we found ourselves wondering which drunken monkey had installed a barrel or wondering if it would simply fall off, RF always told us to tell it like it is, no matter whose name was roll-stamped into that barrel.

    His damn-the-torpedoes attitude got us basically blacklisted by some major manufacturers and a host of smaller ones. Cheaper Than Dirt! utterly loathed us, because we called them out for charging $120 for a G.I. AR magazine adter Sandy Hook.

    We gave Marlin and Remington the drubbings they richly deserved, and paid the price for it. On the flip side, other makers like Taurus sent us great guns and iffy ones and never took offense at our warts-and-all writeups. (We still wish they’d supported that cool 9mm carbine… C’est la vie.)

    If something rocked or if it sucked, we said so. And RF & Co. still do.

  11. avatar Rick says:

    Nick, Awesome POST! Are your guys on https://AuctionArmory.com yet?

    Firearm Marketplace – Social Network

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email