I'm not disputing that Terry and I don't doubt that manufacturers value your opinion but I think you are missing my point about yours not being a independent review of the rifle after having your own input in to its build at multiple stages . if they are sending you a rifle for your advice as to how it can be improved in any of its stages imo that's a different matter. I can understand you refusing to review a rifle due to faults in any safety features but if a manufacturer has chosen to send you a rifle with poor balance , a heavy trigger or anything that makes it unfit for purpose but in their mind is "ready to go" I think your input should end there and a review of that rifle should start . you can argue that every stage in production is a chance for you to comment on anything negative you foresee and allow the manufacturer to respond by eliminating these problems or you won't review the finished article . if the manufacturer hasn't asked for your advice then run a review without giving them any , if they have asked for your advice or you have told them you won't proceed unless they take your advice I thought you might see that any review that followed wouldn't be impartial as you have worked on the rifle as a consultant. Just my opinion and I value yours too . I value yours so much I pay £4.00 a month for the chance to take it . I trust your knowledge of each rifle you review so much that I don't even need to read any of them because I can move on to one of the hunting pieces now safe in the knowledge that if a rifle has your name under it its as good as it needs to be . I'm not questioning your technical knowledge just having a opinion on how I would do it differently . I suppose there could be a argument that a "test" is different to a "review" on account of a tester helping to prepare the rifle for general release where a reviewer gives his opinion on the rifle after it is launched . if this is the case can we have more reviews please . atb Terry.