I kinda like this 'guy' show. It's a mindless show for 'dudes' to watch who don't have wives, girlfriends or jobs for that matter and are probably hungover. These kinds of shows are the equivalent to gardening or sewing shows for women - it's like shameless, unadulterated junk food for the mind.
Add a Review
-
richardcuccia4 December 2011Watch Triggers. It is informative, entertaining, fast-paced, knowledgeable, educational, and an historical learning experience. Triggers provides a number of chronological, historical presentations showing the technological and historic lineage of the weapon which is centerpiece of the episode. One gets to see how the various predecessor weapons and related science advanced through time in order to arrive at centerpiece weapon. Of course, there is a number of the obligatory rather fun-filled, enlightening, and instructional shooting demonstrations and contests. These demos and contests are arranged so that the viewer has a rooting interest in the weapon in question. Further, the viewer is primed and eager for the final head-to-head shooting contest using the centerpiece weapon versus an alternative, similar weapon. All in all, in each episode, you'll learn and be entertained. It's not brain surgery, but Triggers is worthwhile. Not bad, indeed.
-
ptrgreeny22 February 2012Sat thru several episodes during back to back showings and was amazed at how little the host knows about firearms, ballistics and the history of the firearms they spotlight. The AK47 episode was the worst...just checking a questionable source like Wikipedia would have helped. In brief: The M-14 is NOT an assault rifle. Assault rifles fire an intermediate round, the 7.62NATO/.308 is anything but, it's a full size...full power round and the M-14 can not be controlled by 99% of the world's population in full auto mode. The M16/M4 carbine is not a carbine because it has rails, like the "expert" guest claimed. That's so dumb its funny. Almost ANY military rifle today can have rails attached to it. A carbine is a carbine because of short barrel length, NO other reason. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the "expert" who claimed that fact was a real Navy SEAL. The coconuts he shot didn't fall or explode because he shot them with a "short" round...it because of ballistics, something this show's host and producers have constantly demonstrated they know nothing about. Those "tests" they demo are useless and prove nothing. Shooting a square piece of clay proves nothing. The graphic they use for the M-14 isn't an M-14...it an FN/FAL. They don't even look alike. This show isn't good for anything except watching crap get shot in slow motion and it's disgustingly pitiful how little research and fact checking went into it. But, hey, his hair looks great...
-
bumnote8 December 2011After watching the first two episodes I'm debating if it's worth to continue viewing the show. The second episode on the M1 Garand bothered me a lot. First and foremost...it hardly covered the Garand. More time was spent covering other rifles than the rifle the episode was supposed to be about. About 10 minutes total time is spent discussing the Garand. NOTHING was discussed about the development of the weapon, it's inventor, the rifles it competed against, the caliber is was originally chambered for, the reason for the change to 30-06, it's extremely slow introduction into the US armed forces pre-Pearl Harbor, it's use after WW2, use by other countries...and many other important things that should have been mentioned. It also perpetuates they myth that the ejection of the enbloc clip and the 'ping' sound it made cost lives. This is simply not true and there isn't one single documented case of it happening. Think about it, in the middle of combat who could hear it anyway? That story has become excepted as fact, when it's not. The US also never paid the Mauser company a fee over the '03 rifle design. It is a copy of the Mauser GEW98 bolt, they tried to sue, but a case was never brought against the Springfield Armory and no money was ever paid. The little live fire demos are interesting, but are SO common on these shows now that something new would be nice. Also demoing a rifle with shots at 25 yard or less isn't impressive, when the rifle has a range of up to and over 1000 yards. Hitting a glass bowl filled with colored powder or sand, in slow motion, over and over and over and over again at extremely close range is common and not impressive. This show need to start focusing on the weapons system it claims to be about, if the show is about the Garand then talk about the Garand...and not what ever the 'latest and greatest' sniper rifle is. They spent more time shooting and talking about that new sniper rifle than they did the M1. Next get the facts straight and use more info. The pilot episode when comparing the M9 Beretta vs the M1911 never even bothers to point out that the Beretta is both single and double action...something that should have been mentioned for a true comparison...let alone by a host with a military background who interviews people who claims to be experts. If you really want to learn about the M1 Garand, Wikipedia has done a far better and more informative job of it that this show did.
-
jlthornb5128 May 2015The host and those "experts" who appear on this program seem to have little knowledge or familiarity with the weapons featured. Misinformation is rampant and there is never a truly in depth analysis of the firearms tested. Those tests simply amount to the host-with- great-hair and masculine stubble running about shooting randomly at targets like melons and bottles. The real historical significance of these weapons and their impact on warfare and society is superficially covered at best. More important is showcasing Mr. Willis' skill at causing watermelons to explode in slow motion. According to the show's introduction, he is a veteran of the Army Rangers, Seal Teams, and Air Force Special Ops training. Wow. Not many can claim simultaneous membership in three separate branches of the U.S. military. Somehow, the Marines missed out on having Willis grace its ranks and have probably suffered intensely for that recruitment oversight. A crack shot (multiple retakes) and carefully mussed hair do not alone make for an informative program about weaponry.
-
dianerpessler-461644 August 2015Substandard examination of weapons that is simply inadequate for any serious study. Often inaccurate and regularly silly, this is a program for those who enjoy shooting oranges off trees with their .22 rifle. No one familiar with these firearms would take these episodes with a large grain of salt. Besides the host showing off his skills as he runs through a course shooting vegetables and beer cans, there is little to know about the program. There is copious imagery of produce exploding in slow motion. A great deal of bragging. As far as significant analysis and perspective, this never hits the target. Sadly, a truly engaging and academic study has yet to be produced.