You will notice that this blog often goes several days or weeks without updates. This is most often because I don’t have anything to say which is worth a blog post. When I do have minor thoughts, I post them on Facebook or occasionally Twitter, where such content belongs. I don’t have any advertising on this blog and it doesn’t matter to me how many people visit it on a daily basis.
This is not the model followed by many other firearm-related blogs. I have no disdain whatsoever for those who post more than I do, but I do take issue with people who blow hot air when they should be listening and learning.
Yes, I venture into dangerous territory here, but there are some websites which focus on producing a massive volume of content at the risk of sacrificing quality, basic journalistic principles, and even common sense. I’ve written about guns.com before, and after reading a few things over the last few days, I have some comments about “TTAG” (The Truth About Guns) as well.
In response to a short article – part of a series – by Tim Lau on Modern Service Weapons about the Colt M45 CQBP handgun, TTAG lifted a few paragraphs from the article and commented sarcastically about both Mr. Lau’s comments on 1911 reliability and 10-8’s decision to not publish their function test protocol for the 1911. On the surface, the latter point seems to have merit – why wouldn’t they publish the protocol? But they explain it in a way that makes sense to me – the test outside of its proper context is meaningless.
I understood immediately. It is important to step back and understand all factors relating to the performance of a firearm. Years of experience with the observation of a certain firearm are not easily compressed into a 500 or 1000 word blog post. Mr. Lau and Mr. Hilton choose to observe their test protocol firsthand, and I fully believe that they are in the right when they do so.
Of course, if one does not know the background of Tim Lau and Hilton Yam, it sounds suspicious. This is where that “journalistic integrity” thing comes in: if TTAG had bothered to mention that MSW is run by a pair of guys who teach courses specific to the 1911, their readers might have seen the comments about 1911 reliability in a different light. Similarly, their expertise regarding the 1911 platform explains their development of a test protocol specifically related to that firearm, and their decision not to release that protocol would have been, at the very least, better understood, if not fully accepted by all.
But that wouldn’t have gotten very much traffic, so instead, TTAG chose to stir up their reader base by publishing a few paragraphs from an article, accompanied by cryptic and snide remarks about the source. Naturally, the people who choose to read TTAG attacked Mr. Lau on a variety of fronts (Ironically, one of the commenters pointed to some of my previous work as an example of how things should be done).
TTAG then doubled down on their retardation by publishing a comment which could have easily been written in 1992 – a further attack on Mr. Lau and that one paragraph about the 1911 – as a separate blog post. It, naturally, received lots of admiration from the TTAG faithful, who again ignored the fact that Mr. Lau is a subject matter expert on the 1911. I don’t always agree with what Mr. Lau or Mr. Hilton say or do, but I do respect their experience and opinions.
Keep in mind that TTAG is the same website which published an article about why people shouldn’t use ARs for self defense – written by someone with literally zero background in the offensive or defensive use of any type of firearm… which brings me back to my opening thoughts.
There are firearm-related blogs which yearn for mass appeal and end up being purveyors of garbage. I’ve written about this before, and I am sure that I will do so again. I don’t expect this article to have any major impact. I don’t expect my work to have the mass appeal of TTAG or Guns.com. Frankly, I don’t want that. But if I’ve educated a few people about how dangerous it is to confuse enthusiasm for expertise, I will have succeeded.
I am with you on the quantity over quality thing. I have never read guns.com, but I used to faithfully read ttag when I got into shooting. I quickly realized that it was pretty much a commercial exercise and it also included way too many posts that were just intended for shock value. I quit reading their website when they published an article headline that was something like Should you shoot a supreme court justice? I don’t even care what the content of an article like that is, it is obviously shock value drivel intended to generate hits. Great piece Andrew, I enjoy reading your work.
Very good post. I had a gentleman, several years my senior, tell that before judging a subject or a person’s point of view, you have to look at from the point of a coin. It has a top, bottom and an edge. And the edge is 360 degrees. Basically, it makes you think first before pulling the trigger on the tongue (or pen).
This industry is plagued by bloggers/forums who takes themselves too seriously.
Seriously, why does no other industry seem to have this problem? I’ve never seen any other industry that cares so little about customer service and actual education than the firearm world. Even car blogs/forums are far more useful than most gun blogs/forums. Why do we put up with so many of these clown wipes?
I don’t think this kind of thing is limited to the world of firearms. I think one reason it seems more pronounced on the internet when looking at the world of firearms is that many people are uncomfortable with talking about their passion in person unless its at a gun store or on a range. Car guys will sit in the office and chat/brag/opine on all things car. Many gun guys don’t do that at work – so they take it to the interwebs.
I am usually fairly quick to detect and drop from my reading list blogs that are solely trying to drive traffic through controversial posts or trash talking. TTAG is one of those blogs that only lasted a few weeks on my Feedly reading list. TFB, Vuurwapen, and a handful of others have stood the test of time because they tend to be much more informative and useful.
Not limited to the gun world at all. My photographic assistant, who is also an accomplished shooter, commented yesterday that the horse training world is rife with the same kind of foolishness.
Similarly, years ago I spent some time on an optician’s forum to get some information about vision and shooting. I was amazed at the number of professionals there who openly admitted they knew absolutely nothing about the subject but felt it was important to opine anyway.
It’s human nature to talk about things you know nothing about, IMO.
Quality over Quantity is always the best option. I could be missing it, but TTAG never seems to ad citations or references for it articles unlike you and a few other sources I read. (not all gun related) Keep up the great writing!
Good read. I used to frequent ttag, but after awhile it was pretty apparent many guys that wrote for them werent trying to inform, but trying to push their opinions onto the reader. At least thats how i felt after reading some articles.
Forgetting the egos of all involved for a moment, that post on MSW couldn’t sound any better if it was a paid advertisement. Which begs the question…
I have never been a fan of TTAG. They always focus on sensationalism and hypothetical situations as opposed to spreading fact and encouraging proper training. To me it seems like an educated redneck blog filled with opinion and bias similar to a political blog
One of the few useful things that I took from my extra expensive piece of paper that indicated that I have a better than average understanding of history is that is that you always must investigate before coming to a conclusion. My professors would have shredded a work that did not examine a number of varied sources to try and develop a comprehensive conclusion.
TTAG can be interesting to read at times, but it is written to draw readers. Therefore, they need to stir the pot at times because we all know that many people crave controversy. I guess that is what you get for having to ensure a number of page visits for your advertisers. The thing that I dislike about TTAG now is that they are catering more and more to the (very hard right)political side of firearms, rather than the practical side. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Feds aren’t monitoring that site 24/7 now. Also, stumping for their new companion website(TTAK) is starting to get annoying.
He has always done this kind of reporting. His old blog Truth about Cars was the same. He was boycotted by BMW over remarks he made about Subaru’s minivan, the Tribecca. It made him some money though, and he sold it and started TTAG. Other bloggers have pointed out their reluctance to properly attribute text and images lifted from other bloggers. “Linoge” at Walls of the city blog documented it toughly.
The Subaru Tribecca review though, is one of the funniest things I think I’ve ever read:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2005/08/subaru-b9-tribeca/
Its not funny, its stupid. On what planet does a Tribecca and a Vagina look the fucking same? Yeah, the Tribecca sucked but the cheap sensationalism of his writing is apparent and tedious. BMW banned the shit out of his blog for that crap, and started the “all buick all the time” reviews on TTAC for about a year. The dude is a literary Howard Stern with out the wit and subtlety.
It was an ugly, awful car that absolutely deserved to be called to the mat for being ugly and awful. Farrago did so with the same maturity as the morons who designed it.
The guy can write his ass off though, when he wants:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2002/03/lotus-elise-s2/
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2005/10/porsche-911-c4/
I agree but we also have to admit that the vast majority of industries that dispense/report information are money driven. This includes major media outlets, scientists and universities. Yes you have the individual journalist, researcher or professor who values the purity of their work more than the new car that their colleague just bought with the grant they just received, but those seem to be the exception. Now if you can find a paying audience AND hold true to your convictions, tell me your secret because I’ll be on that like white on rice.
Thanks for pointing that out. Here is an excerpt from the authors bio on ttag ………………………,”He came to shooting later than most, picking up his first shotgun in his thirties. While happily pointing a smoothbore at any orange clay Frisbee, Dan primarily shoots trap. He bought his first handgun about five years ago and has since acquired his concealed carry license. Now heâs trying to learn more about rifles.”
So tired of journalist who have read open source info on the web written by other JOURNALIST pawning off their views as gospel. To these fruits who have shot at paper targets with the only only induced stress being a timer. Close your mouths, still your fat little keyboard fingers and listen to “real world” experts. You might actually be able to regurgitate something of value for a change.
TTAG is a good site for news, just take their reviews and opeds with a grain of salt.
After you referenced that article on TTAG about rifles not being adequate for home defense I had to look at it. After skimming though it I feel as if I can’t go back to that site any longer. I admit that I enjoyed the site when it had pistol reviews but now it’s just… “le bleh” as my lady friend would say. Also I have recently stumbled upon the modern service weapon blog and it’s pretty awesome. So no more ttag and now I’ll have to get my Ar out of it’s kitchen hidey hole and keep it handy for self-defense… and to practice room clearing.
The author of said article fancies himself an expert despite relatively little experience with firearms. Any rifle he reviews must have the trigger pull of his custom AR or its crap. He trashed the Tavor because of its bad trigger without even realizing the known fact that pulling a redundant spring makes it better. Military rifles don’t have match triggers – figure it out.
Personally I like to train with crap triggers because they’re everywhere. Get decent with a crap trigger and things can only get better.
I’m out of the Army now and still don’t shoot as much as I’d like. Although the QMS trigger I have is way better than the crap trigger in my issue M4. So yes, leaps and bounds better without a huge price tag.
Their competition writer lost all credibility with me when wrote about how he once accidentally abandoned his handgun in an “unsafe” condition (with the penalty of being DQ’d) during a match, and then kept his mouth shut after he noticed while the RO was doing the scoring. He unloaded it, the RO didn’t notice, and he finished the match.
Actions like that say a lot about a man’s character.
As Linoge over at Walls of the City has pointed out in great deapth, the proprietor of TTAG is hardly a savory sort. http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2012/10/the-truth-about-the-truth-about-guns-and-robert-farago.html
Wow.
(Full disclosure: I wrote a few posts that were cross-posted at TTAG years ago, but decided TTAG wasn’t for me and cut off the relationship)
None of the comments above address the original posting, nor the controversy over it.
The finicky nature of the 100-year-old 1911 design is well documented. Hiding the test protocol does nothing to enhance the 1911’s reputation and in fact makes the the entire original post suspect.
If this was a non-1911 that Mr. Lau and Mr. Yam wrote their post about, the 1911 Appreciation Society would be nitpicking the same issue of hidden test protocols.
Clever Clintonian excuses aside, the authors need to publish the test protocols with the full explanation (and context) along with or beside their original post. “Hiding the data” sank the global warming movement, folks. Is that the kind of company that Mr. Lau and Mr. Yam want to be lumped in with?
They don’t “need” to do anything – and if it were that simple, they would have already done so.
I think this point was properly addressed in MSW original post, the test protocol is on the order of a 50 point process and would be a small booklet of information that not processed in proper context would leave the reader with a somewhat incomplete picture.
Speaking of credibility in the gun world… lol
If they want to be taken seriously they need to disclose their methods. Otherwise they are inviting skepticism. Which is what they got.
And clearly the 1911 fanboys and fangrrls have seen the Bat-signal and responded in force. LOL.
Thats a false premiss. If you ask an oncologist to disclose his test methodology and he does you won’t understand it unless you have the same medical background. Same thing with this; if you spend two days with them in their classes you’ll understand where they’re coming form. Their time and knowledge is worth money and people demanding they write a small book about their experiences with the 1911 to properly frame the test protocols in a way that would frame it for laypersons is not feasible. Sometimes people’s breadth of knowledge and resumes speak for themselves. If people in the industry consider two men experts on a certain platform, just because you’ve never heard of them doesn’t invalidate that group opinion.
Oh, definitely. I saw the big JMB-shaped beacon in the sky and came a runnin’.
LOL.
Let me phrase this as delicately as possible: You have about as much business being skeptical of anything Tim Lau says as an Australopithecus has critiquing Kubrick’s choice of lens filters. You’re practically a poster child for the topic of this post; your sole qualification on the topic is “I lyk gunz lolololol.”
Whereas you are in the sweet spot of your area of expertise: bitching about stuff.
I have never hidden the data used to underpin my posts. And I don’t form my opinion before I gather the facts. (I leave that to 0bama lovers and rabid 1911 fanatics.)
Back to the topic at hand, I will quote Tim Lau in the article at issue here:
“Those of us whoâve been around the 1911 platform know it is a finicky gun that requires a dedicated end user and strict maintenance schedule if it is to be relied upon. Many 1911 style guns on the market wonât even work well out of the box.”
You didn’t skip over that part of Mr. Lau’s article, did you? Maybe I should call a college in Indiana and see if their seismographs recorded any cranial implosions.
Are you going to leave a flaming bag of dog feces on Mr. Lau’s front porch, hun?
Address Ms. Keel with civility or go home.
Love these double-standards.
Point out the foul language in her comments.
I wasn’t aware that a word that gets used on network TV at any time of day without FCC intervention is “foul”.
But next time I’ll use something G-rated. I certainly don’t want anyone to feel put upon.
Well, now you are aware that I have certain standards for comments on this blog. Conduct yourself accordingly.
“You didnât skip over that part of Mr. Lauâs article, did you?”
You reinforce my point about your lack of qualification.
There’s nothing in that statement I disagree with.
Do you still maintain that a 1911 cannot be field-stripped without tools?
That’s the way JMB designed it.
There are some models that differ from his pattern, but they are like Chaz Bono: swapping out rods doesn’t change the underlying DNA.
“Thatâs the way JMB designed it.
There are some models that differ from his pattern, but they are like Chaz Bono: swapping out rods doesnât change the underlying DNA.”
No. See? That’s exactly what I’m talking about.
The original design has a stubby guide rod and can be field-stripped without tools. Some new “custom” commercial guns use a full-length guide rod and require tools.
You get the facts exactly backwards and top them with a half-witty comment to punch up your zinger and then stand there beaming… all the while not realizing how wrong you are.
You’re embarrassing yourself and don’t even realize it. It’s sometimes a little painful to watch.
And then their methodology (and therefore their reputation) would be used by people to justify how awesome their (insert name of 1911 mfr here) is, when a properly performed test would not “pass” such a pistol. No, they are smart to keep it close to the vest.
Did you read the description of the test?
“I then proceed to run the pistol through the 10-8 Consulting 50-round Function Test Protocol. This consists of running the gun through various courses of fire, including slow fire, rapid fire, speed/emergency reloads, etc., and is designed to push the gun to its operational limits within a reasonable round count. Before you ask for the protocol, we donât publish it online for a simple reason: without putting the test in proper context, the results are meaningless. Not only are we looking for function, but evaluation of the pistolâs performance as well as ejection patterns and other characteristics.”
50 rounds. And it isn’t even a “reliability” test. It might have some aspects of that in it, but we don’t know for sure. And 50 rounds isn’t much of a sample.
In any case, it is what it is, and it isn’t what it isn’t. Mr. Lau never claimed it was a comprehensive test. So why are the 1911 fans acting like it was?
Yes I did…what is clear is that you cannot understand the concept of a function test.
I know that 50 rounds doesn’t qualify as one.
No. No, you don’t. Function tests sometimes don’t require any ammunition.
This one did. 50 whopping rounds. I have no doubt that the test served the authors purposes. But some people would feel more comfortable with a higher round count before betting their life on a gun.
Is that how low the 1911 reliability bar has fallen? “50 rounds so it must be reliable”?
You know the saying, you can’t argue with idiots because you will end up sinking to their level and they will beat you with experience. face palm
The only use I have for TTAG is stealing the content they steal from other blogs.
To understand TTAC, you need to understand Robert Farrago. He is, above all else, an extremely talented writer. Second to that, he has a wry way of reading the zeitgeist and catering his work to topics that seem to be surrounding the hot-button issues of the day.
His background is in journalism, but he turned to automotive writing. After a stint at (and I can’t recall the exact outlet) a major UK automotive publication, he created The Truth About Cars; a website that spun up to glory right as the automotive industry was going through major upheavals. His recipe was quite simple; don’t be too cozy with automakers (most auto writers are incapable of anything but gushing positive hyperbole) and hire folks who are intelligent and capable of high-quality writing, but with only tangential connections to the industry. Occasional smatterings of folks with deep-industry knowledge would write pieces, giving the whole affair a miasma of authority. The brilliance of this approach is that the writers tend to be only slightly more versed in the topics than the readers, and this makes for pieces that connect *really* well with a lay (i.e. non-industry expert) audience.
The Truth About Cars was sold off by Farrago. In fact, I remember the piece he wrote that denoted his first experience with firearms where he used his initial firearm training to illustrate a point about a particular car. Farrago’s firearm’s knowledge is literally an open history; he’s a guy in the midst of a mid life crisis who turned to firearms and the gun “lifestyle” out of anything but some truly pressing need to address any security issues. Given his knack for spinning up websites that touch on highly controversial topics, it wasn’t long before The Truth About Guns was formed from the same basic recipe that brought the world The Truth About Cars.
The frustrating difference between writing about the automotive industry and writing about firearms is that, in the United States, the number of citizens who are deeply versed in firearms knowledge is far greater than cars. Very few people own a Porsche or Ferrari. Very few people have personal connections or inside knowledge into how giant automotive corporations think, act and are motivated. Very few people have the finances to race cars or drive them in anger properly.
Guns? Whole different ballgame. If you write about a Ferrari, you know that only 0.01% of your audience has one in the garage to call bullshit on your writing. Write about a Noveske NSR, and a large amount of your audience will already have one sitting in the safe with a few thousand rounds through it. Thanks to a two-front war, there are now literally tens of thousands of Americans who have vastly more real-world firearms experience than the entire TTAG writing staff has.
In the end, TTAG is a website that people come to because the writing is (for a blog) quite well done, they post often enough to make hitting the URL interesting and the folks are intelligent enough to generally not get things too stupidly wrong. Their raw media talent tends to cover up the fact that the site has a *serious* credibility gap that TTAG/Farrago never want to admit to and will get indignant about if it is ever brought up. So much so that they feel the best way to cover up the fact that none of the people there really know WTF their talking about is by obliquely attacking folks like Lau and Yam.
I would agree with the last two paragraphs but the info above it does not actually add any understanding just excuses for why the quality is so low. Secondly Farrago is clearly not particularly ethical when it comes to his journalism as the guys over at Walls of the City have pointed out, and his blame the victim “It should have been a firearm” pieces just show how low he is willing to sink.
Well, I was trying to politely say that Farrago is proof that not all horses asses are on horses.
He walks into industries he doesn’t have a background in and builds himself a high horse from which to criticize those in the trenches, under the guise of telling “The Truth.”
I was trying to drive readers to that conclusion on their own, but if I failed, the above sentence should make my intent crystal clear.
This.
TTAG once published and article by a guy who advocates pulling the trigger with your middle finger so you can use the normal trigger finger to point the gun. This is about on par with a pediatrics website publishing an article by the University of Penn Coach who was convicted of multiple counts of child molesting.
So *that’s* where that came from!! I was on some other forum a long time ago where a member was saying the Tokarev was a superior design because the slide release retention clip allowed you to fire that way without risk of it popping out like a 1911. LOL!
I quit going to TTAG when Robert Farago started linking to p0rn sites in every third post. That was a long time ago. Combine his p0rn addiction with his “liberal conservative” politics and I don’t miss it a bit.
Andrew, my only criticism of this dead-on post relates to this: “TTAG then doubled down on their retardation …” and its redundancy.
Keep up fine work, its most appreciated.
Since i first came across your blog( not to mention msw and its predecessor 10-8 performance blog)it has been in my bookmarks which i check daily, multiple times some days. One of my biggest gripes is that lack of updates haha but i know that when there is a post it will be one worth reading. (ill forgive the random aviation detours only because my late great friend had a love for it as well) admittedly i do read ttag and guns.com the shear volume keeps me going back, usually i end up wading through alot of crap from supposed “people of the gun” who aren’t even close to sme, nit pick every other post from people who have used guns in ways i hope i will never have to while also being able to deliver quality content. Keep up the good work i guess is what im trying to say. Youll have at least one loyal reader wasing through the crap for the good stuff.
Pretty sure Bailey doesn’t write for Guns.com anymore. I think he writes for the Examiner now.
Your stuff is the only stuff I read over there.
To Vuurwapenblog, our students, and all our friends and loyal readers, thank you for your support.
Let me take a moment to explain our 50-round Function Test Protocol and its purpose. We fully realize that it is impossible to conduct a comprehensive reliability test in only 50 rounds. That is a given. A true reliability and durability test would require long term testing over thousands of rounds with strict documentation, while following very specific guidelines. Our test was born of a need for the end user to evaluate the function of a 1911 pistol given a realistic amount of ammunition. If it was too cumbersome or required too many rounds fired, no one would do it. Too short or simplistic, and the results would be totally meaningless. So with these competing values, we finally settled on 50 rounds. The test requires specific, detailed instruction as there are behaviors of the gun that need to be observed.
Yes, we could write a very long article, or short book detailing the specific things to look for, but to be honest, we spent a lot of time, effort and research to develop and help validate the test and are reluctant to give it away for free. Come to one of our classes and you will receive specific training on how our test protocol works, what it means, and what it doesn’t mean. There is nothing magic about it. It just comes from the premise that firing two magazines worth of ammunition, slow fire with two hands really doesn’t tell you much about whether or not a gun truly works or not, or if there will likely be issues down the line.
As mentioned in my article, I am truly a 1911 fan. I own more 1911s than any other single pistol. I have built some very nice, full house custom 1911s and worked on many more, both in my day job duties as well as in our classes. I have carried one on the job for nearly a decade and a half. I know the advantages and disadvantages of the 1911 pistol, and encourage anyone who plans on carrying one in harm’s way to educate themselves before committing to a system that is more maintenance intensive and expensive to set up than other options available.
Thanks again to all our friends. And to those who disagree with me, that is fine. Enjoy what you have, be safe, and have fun with it.
Great post. Quality over quantity on the blogs. Also, If you have done the 50 round function test at a 10-8 class it makes sense. I try do it every time I modify or change anything on my 1911. For example I bought a pair of CM power mag 10 rounders. They worked fine during several speed and slow fire drills. Some other guys and I had some fun on the dueling tree and I had a failure to eject on the last round, two separate times. I went back and did the functions protocol with the 10 rounders, it showed the flaws.
Andrew, once again you prove yourself a class act and for the most part, most of your readers are several cuts above the usual morons that haunt the Internets.
Anyone with access to the internet and the ability to search Wikipedia can blog on guns. I like to read this blog for a few reasons. One, Andrew quickly points out when he is borrowing material, isn’t an expert about something or that his experience is limited to his personal experience. Basic honesty it’s always nice to see. Second nothing I read here feels like the regurgitation of an opinion that no one can substantiate. My favorite has to be the article for lucky gunner testing steel case and brass cased rounds in ar shooting. Taking something often argued about and doing some research that proves a point is of great benefit to us all
Of course, I tried to share that post on a forum for others to see and was quickly bombarded with comments about how easily they could invalidate his work without a one of them offering to attempt actual testing to disprove his findings. The world wide web is great for people to stir stuff up without any factual backing.
On the subject of TTAG, everything I’ve perused on there reads like an ad, less of an objective article that most people really need. Like the state farm commercial reads ” they can’t put it in the internet if its not true ” plenty of people believe things they read on the net without the drive to investigate it any further themselves
I read some websites for in-depth analysis of various subjects. Others are entertaining but have a certain slant to them, or may be funny if occasionally inaccurate, or enjoyable except for that one subject where the author turns into a jackass. I enjoy reading Cracked articles on pop culture, including the nerdy stuff that I love so well, but I don’t go to them for in-depth reviews of sci-fi movies.
I come here for solid advice and analysis, and some great mythbusting. MSW (nee 10-8) was my go-to for 1911 and M&P advice. I go to TTAG for a different take on the firearms topics of the day. I go to guns.com for their daily buffet, and sometimes leave hungry. I go to gunnuts.net for other aspects of this sport/hobby/passion/money pit we all share, even though some bad blood apparently exists between Caleb and Andrew. And while I read both of their work, I really don’t care about whatever happened. They are both adults, and can handle their own lives.
I occasionally disagree with any and all of the above, and sometimes subsequently come back to agreeing with them, sometimes not. Heck, I originally thought Andrew was one of the most arrogant SOBs in the industry, but he defends his views well, and I am no longer of that opinion.
It’s possible to disagree without being disagreeable. If someone is disagreeable, the proper response is to point it out to them, and then to ignore them if they continue. I don’t believe “bitching about them on another forum” is the proper response.
This dust-up between TTAG and MSW is pretty silly. MSW is filled with SMEs on the 1911. If they have a procedure that works for them, and they say it gives X result, then I believe them. If someone thinks it’s fishy that they won’t publish their procedure, I might wonder about it, and remember the mechanic who diagnosed a stuck lifter on my truck by touch and sound alone. He did it with experience, something that defines an SME.
Holy crap (he says, re-reading his rant), sorry for the ramble, but I’m really tired of the drama in this business. I’ll just ask one question.
Isn’t an armed society supposed to be a police society?
I don’t have any problems with Caleb.
My apologies, then. I misunderstood a comment or inferred that which what was not implied. Thank you for clarifying that.
I also forgot that brevity is clarity. 🙁
Lots of good links here.
Actually reading this, and forming my own conclusions, I was driven away from TTAG and havent looked back since then. I made my last post today.
Since my internet access will be rather limited in the great northern frontier, this is the gun site I will be going to from now on.