User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:48:25 AM EDT
[#1]
Fortier never impressed me.
Only gun writers I've read and liked are Hackathorn, Spaulding, and Merkel. They might not love HK up and down, but they give pretty objective info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:57:30 AM EDT
[#2]
It is hard to believe that anyone writing an article about these rifles was not familiar with the B&T mounts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 5:27:40 AM EDT
[#3]
That kind of dribble is exactly the reason why I gave up buying 'Gun' books.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:20:01 AM EDT
[#4]
i'll have to read the article. anybody can make a point (slanted or not) with excerpts. i for one like most of his articles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:34:58 AM EDT
[#5]
Hack writer who only writes glowing reviews. His articles are a joke. He loves to "dress up" and play soldier, while his wife takes pictures of him "in costume". Another military arms "expert" who has never served a day in his life, and bases all his articles on anecdotal information. Apparently he has lots of friends in "special operations" and "RDTE organizations" who spend all their time leaking to him the latest developments.
David, if you want to be a soldier than stop being a poser and SIGN UP! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:36:56 AM EDT
[#6]
How is that false? Just because he didn't mention Brugger and Thomet...?
B&T is pricey stuff- people would probably complain about someone suggesting putting a mount on a CETME that cost 3x more than the rifle itself if he'd suggested that.  I think you're just being touchy. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:58:52 AM EDT
[#7]
yeah i never liked fortier much. i have said before what i read above. he dresses up in all that gear he recieves for free and then goes out and plays with all the free T&E guns and accessories. has he really never served? anyone confirm this? that makes it even funnier that he plays dress up while his wife takes pictures.
that happens a lot around here. look at how many members of this board thing they are hardcore because they bought a ton of gear and took a class from some goatbang county swat cops with a side business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:04:51 AM EDT
[#8]
Gun mags are useless. It consists entirely of advertisements (both articles and ads). Name one time you've seen something negative about a gun in a review. Also, that bit looks like a puff piece for Valdada and Tapco.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:15:16 AM EDT
[#9]
Most of that article is just lifted general information from the optics forum here. It's the only place all that particular info comes together in one place like that. Sometimes you can tell his articles are based on a quick browsing of arfcom. The funny part of this article was that Guns & Ammo goofed up the picture captions and wrote, "HK and CETME shooters need a special claw mount in order to scope their guns. Unfortunately, the mount places the optic very high off the receiver," under a picture of a FAL with the DSA mount. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:16:47 AM EDT
[#10]
Yep, that's why the only subscription I have anymore, is to SAR.
Man, everybody wants to be high speed! Well, it takes a hell of alot more than gear for that particular calling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:17:17 AM EDT
[#11]
Having read a write up in Shotgun news of his, where he spent $1700 on a SVD from CDNN, then another $1000 worth or smithing/parts on it to get it to shoot (?), he has lost all creditability in my eyes as a source for any real information.
(Read over $2500 in the rig with scope/mount and its still printing Plus moa at 100 yard in his hands) There are writers that have book/ad information/second hand knowledge, and then there are writers that actual know how to work on rifles, what makes them tick, and have the balls to give a true critic on them. Trust me, I would rather struggle through an article that was poorly written with a real review of it's strengths and weakness of the product on hand, then to be just fluffed by regurgitation of advertisement double speak/other generic already published information, and have found that his articles are just the latter of the two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 9:11:36 AM EDT
[#12]
The only gun magazines I read anymore is the "American Rifleman" and thats only due
to getting it because of my life membership in the NRA. Even that one magazine is more than enough for me. I consider all gunwriters to be mere prositutes for the manufacturers. They always crank out the same " I never meet a gun I didn't like" drivel just to sell the magazines for the benefit of the advertisers. You are more likley to do well by listening to the real life end users of products on this (and other ) forums to know the straight shit. While there are always people on the forums who just regurgitate things they read, without ever actually owning/using the products, there is usually enough input to know what the general consenus is. If the general consenus says to buy or stay away from a certain product or service its generally right. Even when its wrong its usually a better guide that is base it on gun magazine crap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 9:49:12 AM EDT
[#13]
Knowing that the gunrag writers and manufacturers haunt these sites, I'd just love to get inside their collective heads for a moment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 10:19:09 AM EDT
[#14]
My main point is, there is no way he is not familiar with B&T mounts, he left them out on purpose so HKs can be shown as inferior. He further drove in the nail by saying you usually need STANAG scope rings to fit the claw mount and lists a euro scope maker as the supplier. So the scope mounts “very high,” and it takes a weird kind of rings you have to get from IOR-Valdada.
Just reading it would make dollar signs cross my mind if I didn’t know it was a lie. He also dogged the Tapco mount he mentioned earlier with the STANAG comment. A newbie reading that crosses HK/HK clones off their list. In the same amount of space he could have said you are no longer stuck with claw mounts because B&T has two low mounts. He might have even mentioned there is a $20 clone of the B&T. But no, he says, “This will require...a claw mount.” I see it as an underhanded and dishonest slam of HK, CETME, PTR, and Vector. It’s a slap in the face of gun owners and Guns & Ammo readers as well. It was not a mistake by an inferior writer, this was done on purpose by a devious one. IMHO |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 11:26:22 AM EDT
[#15]
That does it.
Dave Fortier's one man mission to discredit H&K must stop. Thanks Robert for going off meds long enough to notice this alarming trend. If Dave Fortier is allowed to continue H&K may be forced to stop selling long guns In the USA altogether. I cant believe he almost got away with this. Who do you think he works for?????? One of HK's competitors? FN Herstal....... Sig.........High Point? Which one! (Sarcasm Off) You must get in a lot of fights. JR |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 12:05:59 PM EDT
[#16]
As I said before Racecar, what he did was, "a slap in the face of gun owners." Maybe he is doing the slam because he did a glowing report on the wonderful Century CETME clones and got a bit of a backlash from Shotgun News readers. Joke if you must, but this is the same kind of trashy "journalism" that says AR15s are chronic jammers, but AK47s are outstanding, but can't be used for hunting because they are so inaccurate. At least that's what they tell me at the range. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 12:46:07 PM EDT
[#17]
anybody that gets their information from one source is a fool. you should always corroborate your information from mutliple sources. hasn't anyone written an argumentative paper in college, or even high school(first on i did was in high school). it's simple analysis. all papers/articles are written from certain point of view (as was the original post). i'm sure his article is well written and has stuff that some would view as in-accuracies, and others as accucrate.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 12:53:34 PM EDT
[#18]
You have left me no option. JR |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:47:43 PM EDT
[#19]
SWAT is pretty good, I got a subscription a couple of months ago. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 7:11:23 AM EDT
[#20]
lol 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2006 3:43:16 PM EDT
[#21]
Fortiers articles have turned into billboards. I lost all respect for him when I read the article in Shotgun News a few weeks ago about shotguns...saying that shotguns won't over penetrate and that rifles are too powerful for home defense. What did it was when he suggested the use of birdshot...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2006 5:55:51 PM EDT
[#22]
Seriously he said that? Putting people’s lives in jeopardy with false information is way over the line, even for a billboard. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2006 7:04:32 PM EDT
[#23]
He's the No1 Mall Ninja in America today!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2006 4:15:59 AM EDT
[#24]
I do believe that Fortier served a short stint in the US Army. I seem to remember reading that somewhere when he started getting published a few years back. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2006 1:16:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Fortier is a gear-queer tool.
SGN and any other rag that uses him needs to drop him, fast. If his crap keeps up, I ain't renewing my SGN (which I'm sure will bankrupt them immediately)... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2006 1:35:01 PM EDT
[#26]
My gosh you guys are touchy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2006 7:56:20 PM EDT
[#27]
Robert2011
You need to loosen up your tinfoil hat, there were a lot of items not included in the G&A overview simply due to a lack of space. There was no conspiracy against H&K. Reading this is actually pretty funny as I just finished an article on HK's new HK45 pistol I was given a first look at....by Heckler&Koch...oh well....perhaps they are part of the conspiracy..... CMS81586 you are out of line and full of shit, I NEVER wrote anything like that. I have never suggested using birdshot for home defense and have never said rifles are too powerful for home defense. Whatever you are referring to was written by someone else. The rest of you have the right to think my writing sucks, is pretty good or whatever......for those of you that like it, cool, for those of you that don't, turn the page and move on. Life is too short to raise your blood pressure over such things..... irregardless of what you think of me or my writing, rock on David M. Fortier |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2006 9:38:51 PM EDT
[#28]
Lack of space? That’s your excuse? You could have covered the B&T mount in one line and deleted the rest of the paragraph.
I for one don’t care about the dressing up pictures and actually like the quality photographs of guns, but when I read an article in a gun magazine I expect to learn something from it. If I shake my head at obvious inaccuracies then it’s a backward step and strips credibility from both the author and magazine it’s printed in. I guess that’s why I don’t read many articles in G&A. And whoever put the HK claw mount comment under the scoped FAL picture needs to find another line of work. I also lost tons of respect for SWAT magazine last year when they published that bogus night vision article. There was a thread in a forum here where people posted that they read the article, bought the NV scope, then found out they had been had by a bogus lying gunrag writer. Your inaccuracies were not as bad at that. You probably kept a few people on the fence from buying old HKs and new PTRs and Vectors with the negativity, but at least you did not promote a bad product and frustrate people like the SWAT article. BTW, Heckler & Koch is actively trying to stop people from buying HK clones (they bought space in SN to say so) so your HK pistol comment is backwards too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2006 10:26:17 PM EDT
[#29]
i know, i will still read guns and ammo and SGN. it beats reading cosmo my wife leaves lying around while im the shitter. I enjoy reading anything on firearms. i actually liked the article on the military scopes. But im not the type that judges people by what they write. Its called freedom of speech. bt i also agree people can have opinions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2006 3:18:41 AM EDT
[#30]
+1, I think that some of you guys are way too touchy and need to realize that we are all together in this hobby known as firearms. I don't care if you are active military or not, if you have used a firearm to actually defend your life, or you only use a firearm to punch holes in paper! If only some of you guys that are bitching would channel some of this anger towards that anti-gun folks, we'd all be a lot better off! I enjoy reading anything on guns, and I have came across some articles that have quoted info that I knew was wrong, but that happens. As the other guys have said, people are entitled to their own opinions, I respect that because I want to be entitled to mine. ARKAR |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2006 3:19:43 AM EDT
[#31]
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2006 6:16:32 AM EDT
[#32]
I never take a gun read as the gossipal truth. I always research it futher. But I have always liked David F articules. Even in costume . It gives you the era and what the soldier would have looked like that carried the rifle or equipment. I guess Im not with the norm. I like his stuff. I didn't see a conspiracy attemp in his article . I have a very nice HK clone built by ARS. G3 all the way ............. WarDawg
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2006 9:16:57 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
The rest of you have the right to think my writing sucks, is pretty good or whatever......for those of you that like it, cool, for those of you that don't, turn the page and move on. Life is too short to raise your blood pressure over such things..... irregardless of what you think of me or my writing, rock on David M. Fortier[/quote Well, I'm pretty much in the catagory of "whatever." I don't think you are really any worse than other gunwriters but, as a group, you gunwriters leave your objectivity at the door to sell your editors (read advertisers) agenda. I realize that the money is made from advertising and editorial content is of minor importance. I understand the economics of it and as a result I don't place much worth on anything a writer says. I place more worth upon the opinion of an actual end user who pays money out of his own pocket to use a product or service. For me, this applys to any field of endeavor, not just the firearms field. BTW-for a writer you should know that irregardless is not a word.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2006 11:58:57 AM EDT
[#34]
Mounting a scope on an HK does suck, regardless of which mount was spot-lighted and which was not. You can twist your panties into a knot if you like but the Cetme/G3 is a conscript gun designed to be stamped out by archaic presses and putting a scope on one was an after-thought.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2006 12:05:35 PM EDT
[#35]
<Robert2011> What do you mean the dude has an account here?!?!  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2006 12:05:47 PM EDT
[#36]
well said. and I am one who does enjoy it. Hell, if everyone knew and agreed with everything gun writers wrote about, there would be no reason to write it in the first place. keep up the good work! Oh, and MichaelVain.........you left out Charlie Cutshaw 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2006 12:24:51 PM EDT
[#37]
Heh, which issue? I've got most of my back issues, give me a guestimate of when, and I'll dig it out. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2006 12:35:13 PM EDT
[#38]
That's a chickenshit answer. Your first page font is a much larger point size than the rest of the article. This is a common printing practice to make a short article fit in the space that's been pre-layed out for it. If anything, you had too much space. Witness the article that follows yours, "Make Mine A Nine" by Stan Trzoneic, on page 42. The first paragraph on the first page is a larger font, the following 3 or 4 paragraphs on the same page have had their font size normalized to the rest of the article. You could have quite easily normalized the font size of the second paragraph on the first page in order for you to allow yourself the room necessary to report on the B&T mounts, and anything else you "didn't have space for". Instead, you write:
This truly is a misleading sentence. It insinuates that the ONLY option for a scope on a G3/CETME is a claw mount, which is patently false. Hell, you could have left out the line "Only a German could have designed a scope mount such as this." in favor of a brief mention of the B&T mounts, and not had to alter the front page whatsoever. Oh, and FYI: TAPCO should be presented in all capitals, as it's their business name, and you might want to let whoever's writing your photo captions know that they put a caption regarding HK/CETME claw mounts under an FAL picture. Nice work! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2006 2:23:18 PM EDT
[#39]
kythri, it's a chickenshit answer only to someone who is not familiar with the subject, like you. For each article the editor has me write to a certain word count and provide a set number of pictures. That's my side. The layout and font size is all done in our LA office, and I have nothing to do with it. The wrong photo caption happened when they deleted a number of pictures and in the process stuck a deleted picture's caption with one they kept. It looks stupid, but out of my control. Shit happens. Should the guy or gal that made the error be shot for it? Perhaps....but its out of my control....
the B&T mounts didn't make it into print......deal with it.....there was no conspiracy......it just didn't make it like a bunch of other mounts out there........that's life....sorry....I'll keep it in mind for next time.... thanks for the input all, best Dave F. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2006 3:01:29 PM EDT
[#40]
I know a lot more than you'd think, having worked in the print industry for a fair amount of time.
And you have absolutely no leeway to run a bit short, or run a bit long? I'd find that extremely hard to believe, given your status as an industry "star" writer. Regardless, that still doesn't explain why you felt the need to include a slam on the Germans, instead of mention an alternative to your misleading sentence that optics on a G3/CETME require either an HK claw mount, or clone of such, as if there are no other options for mounting optics out there. That's yellow journalism, sir. The subject of mounting optics to battle rifles was the theme of your article - not providing as much information as possible, and providing misleading information not only does a disservice to the reader, it does a disservice to your credibility as a writer. Here, let's experiment. Here's your original passage:
Here's an example that includes more information:
Your's is 75. My example is only 15 words longer, at 90. If word count is THAT tight, I'm sure that a few more words could be trimmed out.
I'm not arguing a conspiracy, I'm arguing that you have a duty to your readers to provide accurate information, which your paragraph on the HK/CETME rifle did not. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2006 3:53:00 PM EDT
[#41]
Ya know ... I have a very nice G3 build. As good as any HK 91. And I would drop it in a heart beat to carry a M14.
 ... The HK's are nice but "it didn't hang the moon". .. This thread sure is silly. WDP.S. Just funnen ya guys.... 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
