Firingline

After receiving several issues of Gun Tests, I am very happy with the articles. The tests are very thorough, and as a lefty I like that you usually include info on how the gun functioned for left-handed people. However I am somewhat disappointed with what guns are chosen for tests, particularly among semi-auto pistols. It seems that there is always at least one evaluation for 45s in every issue. I would have thought that 40-cal and 9mm reviews would be more prevalent. I have to wonder, are so many 45 cals tested because that’s what the readers want, or because the staff is infatuated with 45s.

After receiving several issues of Gun Tests, I am very happy with the articles. The tests are very thorough, and as a lefty I like that you usually include info on how the gun functioned for left-handed people. However I am somewhat disappointed with what guns are chosen for tests, particularly among semi-auto pistols. It seems that there is always at least one evaluation for 45s in every issue. I would have thought that 40-cal and 9mm reviews would be more prevalent. I have to wonder, are so many 45 cals tested because that’s what the readers want, or because the staff is infatuated with 45s.

Regarding your response to John Lamkin’s letter, your decision to include a 'Value Guide' sidebar… Bravo. The sidebar was executed perfectly with the name, issue, grade, and comments. I pulled out my past issues and was able to really expedite my buying decision. Keep it up, and please try to add more than just one an issue. The Value Guides increase the value of the magazine exponentially.

Regarding your response to John Lamkin’s letter, your decision to include a 'Value Guide' sidebar… Bravo. The sidebar was executed perfectly with the name, issue, grade, and comments. I pulled out my past issues and was able to really expedite my buying decision. Keep it up, and please try to add more than just one an issue. The Value Guides increase the value of the magazine exponentially.

Regarding your test and D grade of the Fulton Armory UPR in the May issue, we received the rifle back and test-fired it without doing anything to it. That is, we simply took it out of the shipping box, ran a patch down the bore to clear any potential obstruction and then just shot it. Shot it with the mag Roger Eckstine received, and with some mags off the shelf, with round counts of 4, 9, and 19. We even shot it with one additional round forced into the mag (10 in the 9-round mag, 20 in the 19-round mag), and we even held it loosely (not against a hard backstop like a shoulder) which can cause short-stroking in semiautos), and still it fired every round, every way, flawlessly. Not a single malfunction. Not one. The rifle has not been disassembled, cleaned, lubed, nothing. I have instructed that it remain this way—untouched—so we can test it again, and again. For a rifle that reportedly functioned so poorly it could not even be used to complete your testing, a rifle that performed so horribly that you failed it in a public venue (by dropping it from the test) without any communication/question/elucidation as to possible causes from the manufacturer is simply incomprehensible to me.

Regarding your test and D grade of the Fulton Armory UPR in the May issue, we received the rifle back and test-fired it without doing anything to it. That is, we simply took it out of the shipping box, ran a patch down the bore to clear any potential obstruction and then just shot it. Shot it with the mag Roger Eckstine received, and with some mags off the shelf, with round counts of 4, 9, and 19. We even shot it with one additional round forced into the mag (10 in the 9-round mag, 20 in the 19-round mag), and we even held it loosely (not against a hard backstop like a shoulder) which can cause short-stroking in semiautos), and still it fired every round, every way, flawlessly. Not a single malfunction. Not one. The rifle has not been disassembled, cleaned, lubed, nothing. I have instructed that it remain this way—untouched—so we can test it again, and again. For a rifle that reportedly functioned so poorly it could not even be used to complete your testing, a rifle that performed so horribly that you failed it in a public venue (by dropping it from the test) without any communication/question/elucidation as to possible causes from the manufacturer is simply incomprehensible to me.

I was surprised at the lack of accuracy of the SA58 in your recent test. I’ve had a different experience. The rifle I shot was bought in early 1999 and was/is pretty much the 'standard' FAL version: carrying handle, 20-inch standard barrel, sheet-metal barrel guard (not quite standard, but close), typical iron sights, plain old factory trigger. My accuracy results for representative five-shot groups ran 3.25 inches, 2.6 inches, 2.75 inches, and 3.25 inches at 100 yards, using iron sights and Winchester white box ammo. My worst group was better than your best group from the data chart. That’s without a scope, without a fancy trigger, without a fancy barrel, and with white box only. Either DSA quality has hurtled downhill in the last few years, or there was something wrong with your rifle—or possibly I got a really sweet and unusual rifle (that’ll be the day). You can probably guess I’m voting for number two. I’ll also say that you can only test the rifle you have, not the one you don’t; so if you got a lemon, them’s the breaks.

I was surprised at the lack of accuracy of the SA58 in your recent test. I’ve had a different experience. The rifle I shot was bought in early 1999 and was/is pretty much the 'standard' FAL version: carrying handle, 20-inch standard barrel, sheet-metal barrel guard (not quite standard, but close), typical iron sights, plain old factory trigger. My accuracy results for representative five-shot groups ran 3.25 inches, 2.6 inches, 2.75 inches, and 3.25 inches at 100 yards, using iron sights and Winchester white box ammo. My worst group was better than your best group from the data chart. That’s without a scope, without a fancy trigger, without a fancy barrel, and with white box only. Either DSA quality has hurtled downhill in the last few years, or there was something wrong with your rifle—or possibly I got a really sweet and unusual rifle (that’ll be the day). You can probably guess I’m voting for number two. I’ll also say that you can only test the rifle you have, not the one you don’t; so if you got a lemon, them’s the breaks.

I am a longtime subscriber and will continue to be for the indefinite future. I have the highest regard for your publication and consider it to be an invaluable resource to assist me in selecting firearms for future purchase. Your conscientious, almost scientific, approach to testing methods seems fair and reasonable. It is comforting to know that, since you don’t accept commercial advertising, your advice is far less likely to be biased in favor of one brand over another for fear of irritating any certain manufacturer and thus losing an advertising revenue source. You are the Consumer Reports of firearms in my opinion—and for that, you deserve great respect. However, unlike Consumer Reports, you do not test virtually every product currently in production in a particular category. This is your prime failure, I think. For example, I was excited to find that your January 2009 issue included a report on 6.8 SPC AR-style rifles, a particular caliber and type of rifle I intend to purchase very soon. However, I was also immediately disappointed to see your report did not include those two brands currently at the top of my list for consideration—Barrett and Bushmaster. This follows a pattern that has a long history and is my primary disaffection with your magazine. You only cover a small slice of what is available. This doesn’t give me the warm and fuzzy that I’ll be buying the best rifle; only that I’ll be buying the best among those few you tested.

I am a longtime subscriber and will continue to be for the indefinite future. I have the highest regard for your publication and consider it to be an invaluable resource to assist me in selecting firearms for future purchase. Your conscientious, almost scientific, approach to testing methods seems fair and reasonable. It is comforting to know that, since you don’t accept commercial advertising, your advice is far less likely to be biased in favor of one brand over another for fear of irritating any certain manufacturer and thus losing an advertising revenue source. You are the Consumer Reports of firearms in my opinion—and for that, you deserve great respect. However, unlike Consumer Reports, you do not test virtually every product currently in production in a particular category. This is your prime failure, I think. For example, I was excited to find that your January 2009 issue included a report on 6.8 SPC AR-style rifles, a particular caliber and type of rifle I intend to purchase very soon. However, I was also immediately disappointed to see your report did not include those two brands currently at the top of my list for consideration—Barrett and Bushmaster. This follows a pattern that has a long history and is my primary disaffection with your magazine. You only cover a small slice of what is available. This doesn’t give me the warm and fuzzy that I’ll be buying the best rifle; only that I’ll be buying the best among those few you tested.

I think the Silver was a $1000+ dud. I was very puzzled by the B rating given to the Browning Silver Mossy Oak Duck Blind 20 gauge. I would be very upset after spending $1064 and going into the field and having failures to feed and/or fire. I think I’d rather save $568 and go with the more dependable Mossberg. What gives, guys? You should have rated it no more than a 'D' for dud.

I think the Silver was a $1000+ dud. I was very puzzled by the B rating given to the Browning Silver Mossy Oak Duck Blind 20 gauge. I would be very upset after spending $1064 and going into the field and having failures to feed and/or fire. I think I’d rather save $568 and go with the more dependable Mossberg. What gives, guys? You should have rated it no more than a 'D' for dud.