Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Guns & Ammo turns classless, threatens Progun group with lawsuit for disagreeing with their review

Does not surprise me... all of them are about he same... Even American Rifleman... Never see a bd review... but lots of advertising.... I still remmeber the Kimber Tlakeenta review that A.R. did... the writer even said they left out all 300 brain bullets since it did not shoot them well at all... "buit of course not to change the results of the test firings"..... Sure... not that Kimber is a big advertise or anything...

Gun rags are all just that....rags and about nothing but the money - advertising and they will not piss off their advertisers....

Yep it is one Ugly Turd, but they'll sell one boat load of them.

So , do they make a left handed version ?


Mike

The truth offends people. It got Jesus crucified by his own people.

i've never seen G&A give a bad review to anything. you'd think every gun coming out of brazil and the phillipines is a friggen gem. i have personally handled some of these "gems" and found them to be turd-like.

Looks like a real stopper!

The suing part is ridiculous.

No longer read the rags or do I trust the writers. Doesn't take long to figure out whose payroll they are on... just regurgitating the garbage they've been fed.

Gunrags are no more than infomercials now.

Want the facts? If you can survive the onslaught, ask Big Stick, hint..

Looks like a well designed piece for pocket carry. I totally disagree with using a word I have long been taught wasn't used in polite society on a public forum. This picture depicts a piece where form surely follows function. It appears perfectly designed for pocket carry. I can't think of a single magazine or published for profit item that bites the hand that feeds them and I surely don't go round saying they take anything more than advertising dollars to review the item. I know nothing of anything referring to Dick Metcalf. I barely know who he is but I have never found Guns& Ammo to be any worse than any other publication of shooting today. I rarely read any firearms publications today. But this gun appears to be a thoughtfully designed handgun for personal protection concealed carry.

Ditto.. Along with the rest of 'em as well..

Exactimundo...

Nice to see you post again!

Now that's funny!

Guns and Ammo is a steaming pile of dogschit.





Travis

Turds for tards!!!!!

you can find more accurate info on the interwebbs than G&A and that my friends is saying a whole lot.



damn just got a call from some law firm....

Hey G&A, the pistol is a turd and you are bought off by the advertisers, sue me.

What I can't understand is when did Guns and Ammo become the parent company or the legal department of Taurus? Or have the right to sue when they have no vested interest in the company. This is so laughable it hurts.

"John called the new pistol a "Turd," and he took the magazine to task for its glowing review, which he said was fueled by advertising dollars."

nothing to do with Taurus, issue at hand is libel, they threw accusations out at G&A......course technically alright or not to sue all G&A did by acknowledging and threatening to sue was make their situation worse int he eyes of the public and advertisers....

First it doesn't seem that very many actually read the article. G&A told them to take G&A photos down, that's copyright infringement so they're well within their rights there. The rest could be libel for insinuating that the G&A writer was directly influenced by advertising (remember it's one thing to suspect it, it's quite another to prove it).

I've written for a lot of magazines, only one magazine ever asked me to do a puff piece, and I immediately ceased all contact with that publication, and won't even pick their publication up.

I don't know if the gun is a POS or not, I've never seen it. The fact that the GSL guy had to use photos from others makes me think he's never seen or handled one in the flesh (if he actually has, he put nothing in his article to indicate that he has), so that makes me seriously question his credibility. If he has personally never handled the gun, it's pretty piss poor to print such statements without first hand knowledge. Basically he's just speculating.

Now, on the other side. The Taurus pistol in question appears to be pretty weird. If I were still writing for gun magazines and someone asked me to do a review, I would probably decline as it doesn't seem to be something I'm interested in, and I'm dubious about the entire concept. That's the luxury a freelance writer has. A staff Primedia writer doesn't have that luxury and may be forced to write about something unsavory.

Well, John Boch seems to have two or three valid criticisms of the Curve: No sights, clumsy non-intuitive switch for laser, no safety.

I saw American Rifleman's review and I thought it was an interesting design. I did wonder why they didn't at least put some sort of sighting groove on the slide - that seems like a pretty schlocky shortcut. I wondered about the odd little trigger sheath that was supposed to protect the trigger against accidental activation but fall off by being tethered to your pants - that too seems like a pretty schlocky solution and one likely not to be widely utilized.

But! I think the gun is innovative and hope they develop it further. I like the body-hugging curve idea, the clip instead of a holster and the built in laser/light (which look a little too bulky. But I'm not tucking a pistol without a safety into my waistband - at least not with a round chambered, and I'm fond of sights even if they are crude.

I wish I had read the G&A review to see if they did overly flatter it.

Just a little Devil's Advocate here...

The pistol in question seems to have more protection of the trigger than a S&W M&P (don't fool yourself into thinking that two piece trigger "safety" actually does anything), and amazingly no one seems to be complaining about S&W's "lack of a safety". I guess if you put a piss poor device on there and call it a "safety" then everyone's appeased.

Now compare when Ruger put an external thumb safety on their little pocket .380, everyone hated the presence of a manual safety. (if you go to the handguns forum, and look up discussions of the Ruger .380 you'll see that the manual safety seems to be pretty much universally disliked; I think I was the only person who liked its presence).

Seecamp's little .32 & .380's are extremely well thought of, yet they lack sights of any kind, and I don't recall much criticism (although I have always disliked that about the Seecamps).

Just playing devil's advocate here. I've never actually held the Taurus in question, and from what I've seen thus far, I'm not sure I'd want to.

I like that they're thinking outside the box, but they may have gone a bit far. The curved grip is what really concerns me, it makes me think I wouldn't hold it straight, and that worries me more than any single feature I've seen. But again, I haven't held one, and I'm not sure I really want to.