Re: DRD Tactical Paratus Rifle
I meant to post a link to this preface to Shepard's article. Based on your reply, I am led to believe that you didn't understand that my comment which was merely "It doesn't sound like you and Jim Shepard are buddies any more." was based on Shepards reaction to your hide postings. I think any casual observer reading that preface would wonder about the state of your current friendship with Shepard. It's a first for me to see a specific forum, or person mentioned by screen name like that in any publication, internet or otherwise. I think that's called the bully pulpit, which is overkill considering only 785 people have read this thread and thousands have read his words.
Rick
http://www.shootingwire.com/
FEATURE
Sometimes, This Is What You Get
On August 13, we became the first industry publication to preview DRD Tactical's Paratus takedown AR-style semiauto rifle. I thought it was a story worth telling. After all, not everything developed to compete for very specific special-ops contracts ever sees the light of day with consumers.
The story (you can read it for your self at
http://www.shootingwire.com/features/226328) didn't have a lot of technical information or extensive test results. That's because I'm not a technical writer, former SEAL Team sniper or even a stealthy mall ninja. I'm a recreational shooter who happens to be a reporter.
I'd be stupid to claim otherwise. A technical enthusiast needs less time than Jerry Miculek needs to clean a plate rack in the Colt Speed Challenge (1.82 seconds, if you're interested) to know that I'm interested in how something shoots and not particularly tuned-in to technical details. That's true about watches, cameras, optics and computers, too. Love 'em all, but they're tools. I'm a tool user; not a tool maker. But I do appreciate the knowledge and precision that goes into the making of fine equipment, whatever their purpose.
For more than four decades, I've been a reporter. I've covered a lot of different areas, but have a lifelong interest in the process of designing, building and bringing products to market. Knowing what new product was specifically designed to do helps evaluate it. As a rule, I don't waste time (yours or mine) writing about something I don't like.
My critiques go to the manufacturer. Based on my experience, negative observations made directly to them benefit everyone. Negative observations before a product comes to market may mean a decent product gets modified and becomes a very good one. Conversely, solid products that I don't like aren't damaged by a personal preference. Working that way, products succeed - or fail- based on your buying decisions, not my preferences.
Working that way isn't selling out - it's working in good faith with manufacturers -and readers- who trust me to be honest. Today isn't about building a reliable rifle, it's about building a reliable story.
A couple of people participated -indirectly - in a portion of the Paratus rifle story. As a result, one posted some very negative comments on a web board (SnipersHide.com).
He also accused me of being dishonest because "after all, a gun writer is about as biased as biased comes. Those advertising dollars and cheap rifles sure play into a part of a writer saying good things about a gun".
This posting, unfortunately, wasn't just the opinion of a self-proclaimed expert. It was a toxic mixture of a little first-person experience and a whole lot of presumption. As the old expression goes, a little knowledge is a dangerous weapon.
This expert (a/k/a Deadly301) being included in any part of my evaluative process was a mistake won't repeat. I didn't bother to explain the gun he handled and shot was never intended to be sold at retail. In the gun business, that's not unusual.
A majority of the guns you see demonstrated on television, displayed on magazine covers, or otherwise reviewed aren't final production models. Lead times mean guns sometimes need to be provided for testing, photography and evaluation months before they're announced, much less put into full-production.
"Deadly301" had no way of knowing that. So....he described the gun from his viewpoint as a consumer/sales clerk. Thought it was less than perfect in fit and finish. Said so in some pretty unflattering terms.
Remember the old parable about blind men describing an elephant?
He hadn't seen concept drawings, talked with the designer, looked at early design models - or seen the military specifications the gun was designed to meet. He had no way of knowing because he was never part of that process.
As far as the comment about gun writers, that's his opinion. As Abraham Lincoln purportedly said, "It is far better to keep silent and be considered a fool than speak and remove all doubt."
His cheap-seat comment didn't just insulted gun writers in general - it insulted me personally- and any of my readers' intelligence. He doesn't think you're smart enough to know if someone's shilling a product. Wrong again. A reader called the whole discussion thread to my attention.
It's the kind of relationship we have, and it's based on time and trust. Neither of which I'd trade for any product, no matter how unique. We have each other's backs.
Here's what was accurate about Deadly301's comments: he was present for a (small) portion of my story preparation. I'm not aware of his "extensive" time spent on any Paratus - and 500 rounds of .308 ammo certainly isn't in my testing budget.
His "details" don't matter because his base premise was wrong. He assumed he was looking at a rifle identical to one he might one day be trying to sell a customer. It wasn't.
The fit and finish he trashed were exactly what I'd expected. I wasn't reviewing an open-stock gun- I was previewing an entirely new gun. It's an accepted way to get stories ready before guns are formerly announced. Distributors frequently buy based on pre-production models.
And changes don't stop after the introductory stories are written. Last week, I received a new spring that's an upgrade for the test gun. It's the standard spring on all production guns.
See what I mean?
As the GOP holds their convention this week, I guess it's appropriate that I give you some sage advice from Ronald Reagan: "Trust. But verify."
Be safe and enjoy your holiday weekend.
--Jim Shepherd
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deadly0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That article is the same as it was when it was first published Rick, don't see anything other than what I have already said?????
Go back and read my post 3 up from here. I gave my opinions, which in fact were true, Jim is a writer and therefor that plays into the bias in gun reviews just remember that.
I am assuming you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about Rick, so please enlighten me as to what MY opinion should be. </div></div>
