Chuck Hawks on Compact Rifles (and the grain of salt™)

J Stuart said:
Seeeeee....having tea for dinner is what happens when you are poor, down-trodden and generally miserable because you are represented by low-life, filthy apologists in Parliament who are intent on turning all and sundry into half-baked housewives.
At least that is how it is in Australia, how are you faring over there ?
Click to expand...

We are doing about the same here, my friend. ;)
 
Gee - and here I thought my Frontier in .300WSM was'nt that much louder than my .300Winmag with a 26 inch barrel. Guess i'm beyond help and redemption:p Guess I and the at least 2 other Nutz with this rifle will have to have to form a NGO, get government funding, and file a discrimination complaint with a commission in a nutz friendly province.:rolleyes:
 
As a "know it all" that you guys may think Chuck Hawkes to be, at least he's not a f'n regurgitrator as Boddington, Layne and company are. The man call's it like it is and doesn't fall victim to the persuasions of magazine advertizers. I recently read an old mag where one of the editors of a mag rated the 710 as a great rifle....:mad: Chuck woulda call it a POS.
 
I'm with Gitrdun, some of the stuff he writes is "on-the-money"
He likes pump rifles and thinks 300 Savage is a good deer calibre.
Can't argue with that.
 
SwedishMan said:
some of the stuff he writes is "on-the-money"
Click to expand...

a million monkeys in front of a million typewriters.....



seriously though.. peoples opinions are bound to differ, and theres nothing wrong with posting your objective opinion on something.
what pisses me off is that he presents everything as fact and makes himself out to be some sort of gun guru that has extensively tested all these things hes reviewing. im starting to think hes never even laid hands on half the stuff hes reviewed.

its a shame because a lot of people take him at his word on everything. the fact that hes often in the top 5-6 google search results for firearms-related queries and is posting BS information is disturbing.
 
Last edited:
I am not a big fan of Hawks, but "sometimes" the articles with his name on them are not a bad source of information, even if he didn't write them.

His crap cant be any worse than some of the info handed out around here on a daily basis...
 
MBP, before this frequenting this forum I had never heard of Chuck Hawks so I had no preconceptions as to whether the Gentleman in question was worth reading or not.
Since you were so adamant about the Gentleman's lack of credibility I thought that it be only right (and interesting) to read some of the articles in question.

First up I do believe that the gist of the articles are aimed squarely at new/novice/potential shooters, not at seasoned knowledgeable shooters and as such were a reasonable introduction.

Secondly the articles were clearly marked as; article by...or review by...or opinion by....the contributing authors.

Last but not least I did not find his (albeit brief) articles objectionable or even vaguely controversial (granted that I did not study every single article with an overly critical eye), I conclude that the Gentleman in question is writing to novice/potential shooters and as such is doing no disservice that I can see.
This is my opinion, however we do know that opinions are like arseholes....we all have at least one !
J Stuart.
 
actually, chuck hawks.com is a pay site. he makes money 'reviewing' firearms and writing articles about guns, cartridges, hunting tips, etc. some of his shorter articles are available as a sortof 'preview' of his member site.

from his creative review of the Compact rifles - more specifically the 'flamethrower muzzle flash', 'recoil that would make King Kong flinch', 'unacceptable ballistic penalty', etc its clear that he has never fired one in his life.
the simple fact that he dreamed up these things in a review makes me question everything else hes ever written, and all of the other 'expert advice' people take away from that site. he doesnt state 'i have examined and fired every one of these weapons', but it is certainly implied that he is experienced with them and some sortof 'authority' on them. this isnt some kindly advice hes offering people - he makes his living from this and passes himself off as an expert on the subject.

i certainly did not mean to imply that everything he writes is false - far from it - but the fact that some of the information could be made up on the spot by him doesnt exactly inspire confidence when someone is looking for an honest, unbiased review.
then again, what gun rag does? take gunblast for example - has he ever not showered a gun with glowing praise?
 
crazy_davey said:
I am not a big fan of Hawks, but "sometimes" the articles with his name on them are not a bad source of information, even if he didn't write them.

His crap cant be any worse than some of the info handed out around here on a daily basis...
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head with that one.
 
Win/64 said:
You will have to explain that one to me. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I shall field this one if you do not mind MBP, basically MBP is suggesting that we as a whole are a group (loosely speaking) who tend to sit around in our spare time sagely offering advice on subjects that we may or may not be currently conversant with (and yes, I do include myself in this), where-as Mr Hawks is professing to be expert in his field and as such has a certain definite responsibility to be 100% accurate in offering advice, opinion or review.

MBP is I believe correct with the first surmise, however I believe him to be incorrect on the second, after all Mr Hawks is merely offering a web site offering personal opinion (aren't we all), that the consumer is not obliged to even read let alone believe, and there is certainly nothing forcing or coercing anyone to pay for access to Mr Hawks site.

So basically the point is that you take advice from complete strangers over the web at you own risk, and that it would pay to view these forums as a discussion venue only and take absolutely everything with a bloody great big bag of salt.
J Stuart.
 
Last edited:
J Stuart said:
I shall field this one if you do not mind MBP, basically MBP is suggesting that we as a whole are a group (loosely speaking) who tend to sit around in our spare time sagely offering advice on subjects that we may or may not be currently conversant with (and yes, I do include myself in this), where-as Mr Hawks is professing to be expert in his field and as such has a certain definite responsibility to be 100% accurate in offering advice, opinion or review.

MBP is I believe correct with the first surmise, however I believe him to be incorrect on the second, after all Mr Hawks is merely offering a web site offering personal opinion (aren't we all), that the consumer is not obliged to even read let alone believe, and there is certainly nothing forcing or coercing anyone to pay for access to Mr Hawks site.

So basically the point is that you take advice from complete strangers over the web at you own risk, and that it would pay to view these forums as a discussion venue only and take absolutely everything with a bloody great big bag of salt.
J Stuart.
Click to expand...

And that my friend is why when I walk into a gunshop, I walk in knowing what I want and not hoping that the "salesman" will sell me whatever is the flavour of the day. Grouping in around the campfire and talking to folks like you guys here in CGN at least gives one a whole world of opinions from which to make somewhat of an educated pick. After all....you are the master of your destiny and that of your next gun purchase. And if in the end, you don't like it and it doesn't fit your wants, then there's always the EE forum, someone will like it.
 
Good writeup! I don't care for featherweight rifles, but I'm certainly not going to dream up my own BS to convince everyone else they are evil!

In regards to the shorter .223 barrels, the US army had a problem with the effectiveness of the 5.56 after the barrel was shortened, but it had nothing what-so-ever to do with velocity. It was a rate of twist and bullet stability issue.

Again, well done with the research and writeup!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom