A lot of reviewers have had a rule that if they don't like something they won't review it.  That doesn't mean everything gets a positive review.  Some of the others will say negative things if they feel they are warranted.  There are different styles of reviews and reviewers.  

NTP reviewing the Sig Cross and exposing the trigger issue comes to mind, but even in that review I think NTP was saying he really liked the Cross rifle.

He never reviewed any of our products for a long time.  I never said a negative thing about NFA review channel that I can remember.  He had talked to us a few times over the years.  It is obvious that with social media and Youtube banning firearms channels from being paid for the ads their content allows youtube to show (demonetizing) [which by the way is horrifically unfair and amounts to discrimination] that somethings got to give and reviewers have to obtain revenue streams whether those are patreon- sponsors they advertise in the videos, ammo sponsors, or other means of being compensated.  

They are professional video content producers.  Video production costs ten plus thousand dollars in equipment, software subscriptions, and the videos take time with more than one person, so they probably have to pay a person to run a camera or edit video.  His productions probably take several days of work.  That is beyond a hobby at that point.

The youtube channel owners and partners shouldn't be expected to eat ramen noodles and live in a tent.  Our company internal media department is staffed by professional full time employees.  Their talents are similar to those of the professional firearms media community.

What the big tech companies want, is to kill the firearms industry.  When they demonitize the channels or shadowban the pages from subscribers, what they are trying to do is stop people from thinking about firearms in order to assist in the total ban of firearms.

There was a ton of free content before Youtube demonitized the firearms channels.  If anyone has been around long enough to remember that, you can probably see how effective the big tech companies have been.  There was formerly a lot more successful Youtube firearms channels.

I think that's an unfair characterization of youtubers in the firearms industry segment.  Obviously they can bow out behind the scenes without eviscerating products and keep their reputation as being nice people.  That doesn't make them shills when they say a good thing about a good product.

I'm sure they want to broadcast positivity, and avoid damaging relationships in their line of work.  

Why is it surprising that we newsletter a review of our new product to our customers who have signed up to our email list?  

Or that we newsletter media content on our products to our customers on our newsletter?  

Every company does that.  

Nobody looks at a cgs video, dead air, or oss, or a rex, or rugged video on NFA review channel and posts anything about that.


I get your point that there are a few good mounts on the market like Surefire for example. Most of the emphasis for better mounts were probably inspired by the customer feedback on the AAC mounts.  

The m4-2000 is a great can on an average to poor mount.  Thats too bad as a great can should have a great mount.

I used to attempt to do suppressor reviews/comparisons, until I got a phone call from one of the manufacturers telling me they would end our relationship if I kept doing that.   Sucks, but understandable.

I've been able to be present in person or online at several sort of all hands industry meetings on sound testing.  The purpose is generally that someone has an idea of how the product should be tested and wants everyone else to adopt their method.  

Our adoption of the unchanging muzzle reference position was promoted by a Nato sound testing standards meeting at SHOT show in like 2014.  Silencer Co had funded a University of Florida scientific research project through the ASA conducted by acoustic scientists who argued for the unchanging muzzle ref pos.  When we bought our Pulse system I thought about how we wanted to test moving forward and we adopted B&K's proposed headband for the ear mics, albeit re-arranged on tac 6S ear protectors, because the B&K headband looks really lame.  We are using the B&K microphone mounts provided in the Pulse kit for firearms measurement. The University of Florida scientists had made a convincing argument for the unchanged reference position.  So we adopted that.  

Few people agree to the standards proposed in the meetings, and relatively little happens.  

People mentioned Pew specifically in the most recent meetings and the industry reservation has been as such, the std isn't published so it essentially doesn't publicly exist, and the equipment is also publicly unknown.  That makes it harder than any argument to accept because the conditions being accepted aren't known.   Generally speaking, intelligent people won't accept anything that isn't completely specified and understood, as well as experienced, and agreed with.  Those are a lot of conditions, and that's probably why the consensus has never been reached in any of these meetings.

I didn't speak in the meeting, because I see the inevitable impasse of these types of meetings- so I was there to listen to the opinions of other passionate people in the suppressor and metrology industries.  My personal opinion is that the industry doesn't need a new standard, because the existing methods are capable of telling people what they need to know in the most easily consumable way possible.  Nothing is perfect. People are unlikely to agree.

I'm a little interested in the AHAAH, but I have only the time that life affords me to look into it.