In the first part of the article I give a little bit of historical context to the blaster I'm reviewing. I try and give some context for why it exists and what market niche it was intended to fill.
In the second part of the article I give a physical description of the thing itself. I'll describe the sights, control layout, its weight and dimensions, probably a description of how to field strip the thing, if applicable.
I'll wrap it up by giving a report on how the thing functioned (or didn't) in actual use. At most, here, I might mention that I'd carry the gun myself, or that I think the thing has good sales prospects. There will then be a data box of some sort with specifications and the manufacturer's suggested retail price.
Inevitably, I will receive inquiries asking whether I thought it was "good" or "bad" and should my inquirer spend their own hard-earned dough on one?
Friend, I have given you all the applicable information you need to make that decision. It's up to you to compare that data to your needs and wants and determine whether you want to buy one or not.
I've practically chewed your food for you, Gentle Reader; I'm not going to rub your throat to help you swallow.
Similarly, when I write about a cartridge, it's not because I "love" the cartridge or "hate" the cartridge. I was once the sort of dork who had a "favorite caliber" (it was 10mm, in case you're new here) but I also once laboriously made tedious little top ten lists of my favorite songs, too. I was a kid. Kids do dumb and tedious stuff and get really serious about it; hopefully most people grow out of that phase.
So when I write up some five or six paragraph explainer about what Federal was thinking when they came up with .327 Fed or .30 Super Carry, for example, it's not because I want you to like the round. Or that I want you to hate the round. I'm just explaining why the round exists in the first place. I don't care one way or another whether you like it or not.
And yet every time I do, I get someone doing this...
