Anyone else find that magazine's description of markers isn't exactly accurate?

[Wickster]

I'm not a big complainer about this issue, as I certainly see your point of cost for what you get. I really like my spyder flash and my F-1 Illustrator (that I got in 1990). Both are cheap and work well. I have never had to fix anything on the f-1 except to put in a velocity adjustable bolt, better barrel and a bottomline kit (all for ease of use not really fixing). It still works well with normal maintenance.

That being said, some magazine reports never seem to have any negative aspects of reviewed products in them. Some also seem to imply that a lower end marker is just as good as a higher end one. Personally, I would like to see the markers evaluated against each other. The problem with that is that the basis of comparison would be subjective. For example, is the original barrel worth comparing? Is ROF really a big difference if you play rec ball?

In short, it would be nice to see a more realistic comparison, however I know that it is difficult to compare low to high end markers.

[Kevmaster]

Bill, my opinion and view came directly from PB2X. In a letter to the editor, the question is posed: "why does the paintball community not see real qualitative reviews?" and in John's reply (in addition to cost and time prohibitive) he writes "First, no magazine in the paintball industry has enough reader-only support to survive without advertisers. Thats why you won't see 'real' head to head studies on equipment or ratings on guns or gear. if we did a top ten barrel article we'd prolly lose all barrel advertisers except for the winner"

May, 2003 issue. Vol 10, No 5. (PSP LA Open issue)

[aaron_mag]

The comment of wanting head to head marker comparisons seems to come up alot. Realistically, however, I think it would be a disaster because of what you mentioned (subjectivity). I know if my brother wrote a head to head comparison with his A-5 and my mag the A-5 would come out ahead in everything to price/value. How can someone possibly judge those things objectively when what we are talking about is personal taste?

I can honestly say I don't know which is a better marker between our Omen and the mag. The mag is tried and true plus the trigger feels right to me. I personally like using the mag. Given a choice, however, my stepson would choose the Omen every time. I just can't see head to head comparisons working.

[billmi]

Originally posted by Kevmaster
Bill, my opinion and view came directly from PB2X....

Kevmaster,
It was great to finally meet you in person last month.

Your post on which I was commenting isn't exactly the same as what John said. John made a blanket statement about paintball magazines in general (one with which I do not completely agree) losing advertisters if they did head to head comparisons or ratings.

In contrast, you said that if WDP pays CFW enough, that APG will say the Speed is the best gun ever. Having worked for APG's publisher, and being in regular communication with it's editorial staff, I know that the ad sales staff (the side that gets the money from WDP) is very distinct, and separate from the editorial staff (the side that says what goes in the magazine's articles.) While I worked for them, never, ever, did any amount of money paid by anyone result in me being asked to skew the magaine editorially, and I've been told the same from APG's editorial staff.

While it may be a minor difference in wording, I think it is a big one in terms of implications, to jump from magazines not wanting to offent sponsors, to saying they are selling out their journalistic integrity to the sponsor who cuts them the biggest check.

As for John's statement, that may be his reasoning, but I don't believe that a magazine would have a serious loss or gain in advertising revenues directly from an accurate and realistic product comparison. When he was editor of PCRI, he used to rank products and award "best INSERT CATEGORY HERE of the year" awards, and rank products with a number of stars. If loss of advertisers is the reason PCRI folded, then perhaps that is how he came to his point of view.

In my opinion the problem with head to head performance tests comes from the complexity of doing that comparison - most publications do not have the facilities, equipment, or staff to do an accurate, impartial, detailed, objective performance test that would use repeatable conditions from marker to marker.

I'll note that the loader speed test that I did for WARPIG, which was a head to head performance test, resulted in no gain or loss of WARPIG sponsors.

Similarly, when I did a comparison between an original VL Revolution, and the 2000 Revy that showed computer sensor data proving that there was a delay in the 2000 Revy electronics causing them to not perform as well as the previous models, WARPIG did not lose any of BE/VL's sponsorship. When the X-Board came out, several samples were rushed to me, because they knew that a thorough review by me, published on WARPIG would show with similar test data how they had improved their product.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[Kevmaster]

Bill, the pleasure was all mine, Im sure.

It's clear that my first statement was far fetched and now that I read the original question: off topic. I read the issue back 3 months ago when it came out, mainly beacuse it had a little correction putting my name in it, but didnt take much time to read through all of it. Stumbled over the letters and remembered a much more inflamitory statement than John actually made (something along the lines of nps pays the bills around here...which high end gun do you think we like the best) however when I went back a couple of nights ago, to make that post, I was off by quite a bit

What intruiges me is the discrepancy between your experience running warpig and john's doing pb2x.

you obviosuly feel that you can make a claim about a marker (assuming its factual) and not lose any finances from the company. thats great. thats how it should be. i really mean that.

However, the PB2X staff obviously feels differently. It seems they must give positive reviews of ALL products. They dont want to give head to head comparasons because all but one must lose and someone must be last.


as a side note, I see a couple of internet sites doing gun tests where they test the accuracy. This of course means nothing because anyone with a functioning brain knows that the barrel and paint are the two largest factors in the test.

really, Id love to see Josh2Xtremes or John (I think he has an AO account) come on here and post what they think on the matter. A review site that can operate and give "fair and balanced" (OK, so I watch too much fox news) opinions on a a marker is a great thing...the best of things

anyways, as always, keep up the good work -- i'll come back to ya every day hoping there is a new feature

[hitech]

Originally posted by billmi
As for a consumer reports style magazine, I don't think there are enough critical thinking paintballers out there to support it.

Ahmen!

[einhander619]

I've seen Paintball Sports International give what I thought was a bad review of the vertabrate cocker. Of course, the gun came to them with some rusty parts, and not timed in the least. I'd say that warranted a bad review.

[Featherlite 80]

I have concluded a short while ago, that most paintball magazines suck. At one point, I used to get the 3 magazines available to me, APG, Paintball Magazine, and PB2X. Eventually, I got sick of the APG and paintball. I was tired of all the hype. I never saw a bad review of a product. Every one they say the same thing, very accurate, hyped up ROF, and extremely reliable. How reliable can the sheridan jackal be. The kingman EM1, I mean that was one of the worst markers made, Almost no one bought one. Not to mention all the articals are irritatingly(sp) catered to newbs, all of them. I have no problem with newbs, when I see them at the field and such, but other people read the magazines too. All the articals are about senario games, again, I have no problem with these, but a little tourney coverage would be nice. Or every month the usual "how not to look like a newb" or "typical newb mistakes to avoid". PB2X is not really that bad, APG and paintball are clearly the worst.

-side note- yes I know why the reviews are so biased, and why there are so many newb articals, but its agrivating none the less, and thus I have given up on such magazines. I would much rather go online to a forum such as AO, and here from actual paintballers, who dont care if they give a negative review.

[Bucky]

well, in apg's 888 paintball ad, the one in the back i believe, they sell the "WDP ANGLE" and no -I- didnt spell it wrong...

[paint magnet]

As far as ads go, I think one of the worst was the old Bushmaster ad, the one where the guy is in the woods and it has the whole slogan of 'field domination', and he doesn't even have a tank on the gun... or a hose going into the reg or anything. I've seen some other manufacturer ads where it looks like the guy is playing a game when there is no hose going from his tank to the gun. Then there are the countless ones featuring Tippmanns with bolt handles on the right side, Angels with the LCD display on the right hand side of the grip, and numerous backwards photos.

[i like tictacs]

I've always wondered about the proffesionalism of paintball magazines. The two closest that I can think of that would be anywhere near professional are PGI and Facefull. They have the least typos, best content, best photos etc. etc.

And some of the ads are fricken atrocious. They can't even spell a gun right, or mislabel a gun, or a product, or blah blah blah. Imagine if you saw an ad like that in Time magazine or something.