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

 

 

 

Recommended For You

30 Responses to Editor’s Note on Re-Testing Firearms: Housekeeping

  1. 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?

  2. 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.

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

  5. 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.

    • 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.

    • +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!

      • 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.

        • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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…

  6. 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.)

  7. 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.

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

    • 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!

  8. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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