I only glanced at the 25 yard 5 shot sand bagged accuracy test results and with the exception of one sub inch result, none were what you'd expect for an X gun.

I'll wait for real end users, like many of us, with real reviews.
Those of us who actually have to pay for the guns.

Kyle Lamb reviewing the V-TAC? Hardly objective.

I haven't been a subscribe to G&A since I was in high school. I picked up that issue because I wanted a review of the X guns. What a friggin joke G&A has become. You can subscribe and get the magazine delivered for 87 cents an issue. After reading through this issue I wouldn't take that mag for a nickel.

12131 makes the obvious and best point. Kyle Lamb reviewing the gun that he "designed". It was an embarrassing review even then, he fawned over his own inputs and if he used adjectives that would have been more appropriate in my 16 year old daughters twitter feed.

If I was him I would have refused to put my name to that article, it was that hokey and silly.

Not a review and I don't even believe their numbers anymore. If you told me that they took an old shell casing and punched out the targets in the office and made up the "accuracy" numbers out of thin air I wouldn't be shocked.

Wow, tough crowd.

Kyle is an honorable guy. Sorry to see that so many are so cynical.

quote:

Kyle is an honorable guy.

I have no issue with Kyle but seriously how about getting a 3rd party objective view?

That being said I'm very curious about the 320 X Carry.

quote:

Originally posted by sigarms229:

quote:

Kyle is an honorable guy.

I have no issue with Kyle but seriously how about getting a 3rd party objective view?

Yup, no one is questioning him being "honorable". But, to have any credibility at all at being objective, let someone else do the review.

It's like reading the Ford guy's review of the latest Mustang. Might as well be a commercial.

It doesn't appear Lamb is reviewing the V-TAC, but describing how it came about. In fact G&A even describes the articles as 'First Look'! Whether or not you care for G&A, it shouldn't be critiqued based on criteria that, at least in this case, it doesn't claim to try to meet.

Ok, first look vs review. Pretty thin distinction there fellas. Not to mention he might be the best guy ever but if you read the article you will probably walk away thinking this guy has a sixth grade education, tops. The editors of G&A didn't do him any favors. It is that fawning and super cool, yay, wowza kind of review. It is an embarrassing published work. It doesn't read like it came from a respected firearms training instructor.

Read it and then come back and say we are being overly harsh. lol

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Ok, first look vs review. Pretty thin distinction there fellas. Not to mention he might be the best guy ever but if you read the article you will probably walk away thinking this guy has a sixth grade education, tops. The editors of G&A didn't do him any favors. It is that fawning and super cool, yay, wowza kind of review. It is an embarrassing published work. It doesn't read like it came from a respected firearms training instructor.

Read it and then come back and say we are being overly harsh. lol

I would certainly agree with you, if it were a 'review', but it isn't, nor is it advertised as such. It is what it is, but it isn't a 'review'. It is an article by a guy interested in putting into the best light a product he had a huge part in designing, an enthusiast. Take it for what it is worth, and nothing more.

BTW.... I have read it. Bought the mag, but not a subscriber. I found it interesting from the perspective of finding out why it is configured as it is. Will probably buy one, but my first choice would be the X-FIVE.

Having shot with Kyle on numerous occasions, he'll tell you what he really thinks about something. He likes the P320 VTAC, largely because they made it the way he wanted it. There's no indication that he was trying to be objective, and anyone expecting an objective review out of G&A should contact me for business opportunities with Nigerian princes.

^^^^^

I can't argue with that. G&A only exists at this point to print advertisements.

Did you ever read anything negative from Zora Duntov about the Corvette?

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Did you ever read anything negative from Zora Duntov about the Corvette?

I think he said the engine should have been in the back of the car.

Not as big of a failure as Henry Ford II. Now that was a specimen dumbass!

Today I weirdly want that VTAC bad. Anyone ever use those sights?

quote:

Originally posted by K.O.A.M.:
Having shot with Kyle on numerous occasions, he'll tell you what he really thinks about something. He likes the P320 VTAC, largely because they made it the way he wanted it. There's no indication that he was trying to be objective, and anyone expecting an objective review out of G&A should contact me for business opportunities with Nigerian princes.

Yep.

The last time I spoke to him about this project, he was genuinely excited about it. And the excitement had zero to do with money.

Still very, very interested in that X5. Eager, even.

So far, my one qualm is that the plate for the optic mount contains the sights, so doesn't look like you have have both irons and optics.

G and A has good pics, reviews are always sketch.
Besides, do you really read the articles in Playboy?

I'm still excited for the vtac. Still wondering what street prices will be. IIRC it was around $900 msrp, seems a bit much....

The trigger is the same on all of them correct???

quote:

Originally posted by Amurr:
The trigger is the same on all of them correct???

Yes