So this week, the November issue of Guns & Ammo arrived on my doorstep. The cover photo was of SIG’s Adaptive Carbine Platform (ACP). Given the fact that I reviewed it back in August, I was anxious to see G&A’s take on the gadget which, to be perfectly frank, I didn’t much like. The first clue as to how this was going to go down . . .
was the fact that G&A gave the ACP its coveted cover slot. Given that kind of play, it’s probably safe to assume they aren’t about to pan it. Then there’s the whole timing thing.
SIG’s new P224 and P938 guns are new and damned hard to find right now (I don’t think the P224 has even been released in any quantity yet). But G&A did reviews of both of them months ago. The ACP, on the other hand, has been out and pretty readily available for several months now. If you can’t find one locally, the SIG Pro shop in Epping will be only too happy to ship one to you. As would any number of vendors on eBay.
So given that this thing has been around so long, why is G&A just now getting around to a a review? Editorial calendar a little slow, maybe?
But back to the man question: what did G&A think of the ACP? Well, its kind of funny when you parse the review. First, there’s no mention as to how it shoots. Sure, G&A has a fair amount of prose that could have come straight out of SIG’s PR department that tells you why you really want an ACP on your gun. But the author makes no mention at all as to whether the ACP makes one whit of difference in terms of shootability.
The author also notes that the ACP will “accept any of a long list of handguns,” yet fails to say what heaters are on this mythical list. Or for that matter, where one can be found. I sure couldn’t locate a listing of compatible guns. Fortunately for G&A, SIG had thoughtfully sent one of their P226s along with the ACP that, amazingly enough, worked perfectly together.
The reviewer had only one nit to pick with the ACP. Namely, he reckoned that with the gun’s barrel hidden deep inside the ACP, it might cause some folks to get a bit careless and forget that there’s actually a gun in there. Kind of a minor nit that doesn’t really address the main question: what do you actually get for your $400 investment?
Much ink and many megabytes have been spilled discussing the reliability and value of heavily ad-supported glossy gun mag reviews. I don’t necessarily think they’re useless – but you do have to know how to read between the lines.
If a glossy’s reviewer gushes all over whatever he’s writing about like a high school cheerleader talking about the dreamy quarterback, there’s a half decent chance the object in question may actually be okay. On the other hand, when you get a review like the job G&A did on the ACP that’s light on relevant details (the guns it fits, how the damned thing shoots), it might be reasonable to conclude that the reviewer thinks the item’s a steaming piece of crap. He just can’t come right out and say it lest he cost his mag some serious ad bucks.
