a Shield English lesson
This is a discussion on a Shield English lesson within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; just read a magazine review of the S&W Shield pistol. while reading the review, i was struck by the very careful wording of this statement ...
June 22nd, 2012 03:22 AM
a Shield English lesson
just read a magazine review of the S&W Shield pistol. while reading the review, i was struck by the very careful wording of this statement in the text (which also appears as a photo caption with nearly the same wording):
"...I've put over 800 rounds through my sample 9mm Shield with exactly one solitary, ammo-induced failure..."
photo caption: "...more than 800 rounds of ammo through it with only one failure caused by faulty ammo...."
i don't know if the writer MEANT something different , but an exact parsing of the what he WROTE (and what the photo caption says as well) is that he had only one ammo induced failure. he did NOT say that he had only one failure, but that he had only one THAT WAS CAUSED BY FAULTY AMMUNITION. it is possible from the way he phrased things, that he had numerous failures that had non-ammo related causes.
i suspect that i spent too much time listening to then President Clinton trying to explain, without actually LYING, that he did not have sex with that woman. after all, that particular ACT is not what HE is defining as "sex". i would like to have seen his face if his daughter had ever tried to use that argument with him about something she had done.
and i was VERY careful to punctuate the review excerpts exactly as they were written.
June 22nd, 2012 03:47 AM
I see what you're saying - it's a shame we have to wonder about such a difference and whether it is a writer being slick to protect advertising dollars, careless writing, or someone innocently not noticing a possible ulterior message in their writing (shame they should have to consider that at all). Of course, the writer is presumed to be a professional.
Of course, I've been stung even when carefully wording what I've said by someone taking what I've said out of context or assuming an ulterior meaning - something that really gets my blood boiling like you wouldn't believe (or maybe you would). Heck, I get angry just thinking about how much one must censor one's speech these days in all but the closest company of vetted rational people.
June 22nd, 2012 07:47 AM
Or maybe he really meant to say, "with only one failure, which was caused by faulty ammo."
June 22nd, 2012 08:32 AM
I see what you're getting at. I almost never read a gun review anymore. I have read here and there on the internet, that the Shield does not seem picky about its ammo at all.
I guess what I'm saying is that I am collectively believing anonymous internet gun forum members over a known gun magazine writer.
June 22nd, 2012 01:19 PM
An ok point, but not nearly as bad as some other instances (see, "Eats, shoots, and leaves"). But really, is there a gun magazine where this level of detail actually makes that much of a difference? It's pretty much generally accepted that you won't see a 'bad' review (especially from an advertiser). Can't recall the writer telling the story, but at one point he was assigned to write a good review of a new concept of holster design that was so awful, he really struggled to find anything good to say about it...but it ended up running.
So personally, I go through the magazines to get an idea of what's out there, but I do a lot more digging before actually purchasing anything (my M&P Shield excepted as I had that sucker ordered the day it was released).
June 22nd, 2012 03:02 PM
you are absolutely correct. the problem being that we don't know what he really meant. we know only what he actually said.
Originally Posted by highvoltage
i don't know how to multi-quote, so in response to cj's observation:
i used to sell stereo equipment, and one reviewer who had the problem faced by your holster reviewer, supposedly wrote, "of all the speakers that i have ever tested, this is certainly one of them."
June 22nd, 2012 03:11 PM
im up to 800 rounds and the 1st day i had one ammo induced failour to feed. i was using target loads for a gas operated gun i have in the shield.
Originally Posted by highvoltage
get a new gun and i gather up lots of different re- loads ( 11 different 9's) plus a few different SD factory loads. golden saber is what i have the most of and the Shield
functions with all the factory ammo fine.
if you are not into reloading, it may be that you bring a few different kinds of factory ammo to test. my lone failour was too weak to cycle the slide.
it had nothing to do with the gun. i was testing it to find its low end. and i did.
would you blame a race car for not preforming when you fill it with 87 octane?
You plug 'em, I plant 'em
...kid can't read at 17 (Garcia/Hunter 1985)
Lack of preparation on your part does not necessarily constitute an emergency on mine
June 22nd, 2012 03:55 PM
I sure don't see any atempt to mislead in this statment. I could tell say My Bersa BP9CC after putting about 400 rounds through it has instilled perfect confidence in it ability to shoot any thing I can now throw into it, and it would be an honest statement. However I did not tell you about the early shooting that produced 3 different failure ot load problems. After a little cleanup on the load ramp, a full tear down, cleaning and lub of this gun, it has been flawless for the last several hundred rounds, although it did not quite meet that statment from the factory.
June 22nd, 2012 04:21 PM
I am a skeptical person by nature and normally latch onto things like this, but in this case it sounds like the reviewer just wasn't clear enough. If you are really concerned about it and are considering a purchase, just find additional reviews by people who own them. If it is a design problem, they will let us know. Gun owners have a tendancy to be upset when their new toys don't work right.
June 22nd, 2012 04:40 PM
He should have said that "I have 799 problem free rounds fired thru the gun"
June 22nd, 2012 10:30 PM
If you're letting that one article keep you from buying one, I'd say don't buy it. That will leave one more Shield available for some guy who has been dying to get one.
To date, the Shield has a real track record for reliable, if not ultra-reliable performance.
I've had absolutely no issues with mine, be it ammo related, shooter related, mechanical related or otherwise!
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."
June 23rd, 2012 06:04 PM
I only have about 500 rounds through mine but it has been as reliable as my 19.
June 23rd, 2012 06:40 PM
Ambidextrous. How do you spell that in Smith lingo? Unfortunately, I know how it's pronounced, at least on the M&P Shield: lacking. Bummer.
June 23rd, 2012 06:59 PM
I don't know if it means anything or not but...
When was the last time you read your favorite gun, fishing, hunting or golf magazine product review article, and they trashed the equipment used, or at least disparaged the problems or bad quality?
People tend to be in the unemployment line when they bad mouth the boss, or bites the hand that feeds it?
I take their product reviews for what they're worth, product advertisement.
The whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you Glock
I think, therefore I am...
June 23rd, 2012 07:39 PM
What we have here is an ambiguous modifier. We can't tell from the sentence whether the phrase "exactly one" is meant to modify the word "failure", or the phrase "ammo induced". This is a common problem in communication these days that stems from people writing the same way they speak. When speaking the listener can further judge meaning by cadence, inflection, and other vocal qualities. In a written communication these clues are missing and so is, too often, the meaning.
There is a related problem caused by using speech patterns learned from TV. The result is sentence fragments and ambiguity because the speaker has left out critical information that would have been transferred visually along with the spoken words. Thus, lacking the visual data, the listener is left to guess the speaker's meaning.
Here is one last thought. One would think that Journalists, being professionals, would be immune to these literary ills, but they are not.
Search tags for this page
bersa bp9cc review
bersa bp9cc vx s&w shield
pictures of shields for my english class
s&w shield review
s&w shield reviews jun
Click on a term to search for related topics.