Firing Line: 09/06

I was glad to see a review of the .454 Alaskan. I live in the mountains of the West, and I would like to see more comments or an article comparing what we call “bear guns” here. I assume most .454 loads are too much for this guns weight, but would like your staffs opinion. Ruger now has their Alaskan out in .44 Magnum. Is this a better choice than the .454? S&W has their new .460 XVR in short-barreled and survival packages. Are the recoil, flash, and blast from these guns too much? Ive thought of getting a Taurus tracker in .44. Is it too light for the load?

For those of us who carry in bear country, concealability (yep, even with bear guns) is also a factor in deciding what gun to purchase. While the West is generally gun friendly, its also full of gun-hating hippies, granolas, and transplants who will harass or even lie to authorities to cause trouble for those who pack guns. Thanks, and keep up the great work!

Steve Funk

Your August article was completely unfair to Smith & Wesson. Why? Because you did not test the most comparable S&W model to the Ruger and Taurus models, which both had one-piece, full-lug barrels with adjustable sights. The comparable S&W model is the 686 Plus. I happen to own this fine revolver, and I find that it has none of the shortcomings you noted for the Model 619, which has a two-piece barrel with no underlug and fixed sights. I would bet that the Model 686 Plus would have earned an “Our Pick” and a “Best Buy” rating if you had stuck to comparing apples with apples.

George Glendenning
Las Vegas, Nevada

———-

You fault the S&W 619 for its unshrouded ejector rod and fixed sights, while praising the Taurus 66 and Ruger GP100 for providing ejector shrouds and adjustables. But why didnt you test the S&W 620 instead, since it has the same features as the Taurus and the Ruger? The 620 is the appropriate gun in the niche you chose to examine, while the 619 is the plain Jane version.

Even so, it should not, of course, have the crappy DA pull of your sample.

I just got my July issue and as usual sat right down and read it cover to cover. As usual I learned some new stuff.

1. Ive been holstering my 1911s wrong for about 25 years, including qualifying twice a year for 20 years in the navy. I have never held my thumb on the slide to keep it from moving, since the safety does not lock the slide (as stated on pages 6-7). This method of holstering a 1911 has also never been mentioned at any firearms class or IPSC/IDPA safety brief I have ever attended.

2. All my 1911s are apparently broken since they all lock the slide when the safety is engaged.

All kidding aside, it makes me wonder when I read comments like this about firearms I am familiar with whether I should trust your comments about other firearms.

All in all, you guys do a great job testing firearms without bias. Keep up the good work.

Jim Wamsher

The text in question reads, “When holstering a handgun that does not lock the slide in place when the safety is applied, (such as a 1911), it is wise to place the thumb over the rear of the slide or behind the hammer.” Obviously, that sentence needed work: Try this instead: “When holstering a handgun that does not lock the slide in place when the safety is applied (unlike the thumb safety on a 1911, which locks the slide), it is wise to place the thumb over the rear of the slide or behind the hammer.” -Roger Eckstine

———-

In your review, you note the lack of a thumb safety as a negative on the Springfield Armory XD 45 and S&W M&P40 DAO pistols, yet in the same issue, you review three service revolvers with no such qualms. Although it is not customary to equip revolvers with mechanical safeties, it certainly can be (and has been) done. It seems to me that if safety-less revolvers are acceptable service and carry weapons, then safety-less automatics are as well. In my view, this is more an issue of proper drill and training than firearm design.

Klebert L. Hall
Foster, Rhode Island

While I enjoyed your article, it failed to answer the basic question posed in your subtitle. Specifically, are they worth the extra money? Clearly, you showed the performance of these guns. What you omitted was a demonstration of how the less expensive guns compared to that performance. It would have been nice to compare the performance of a $400 CZ, such as the American Classic, with the performance of the Anschutz and Kimber.

“The … barrel on the Anschutz … exceeds the Kimbers by about 1 inch, but, surprisingly, it … produced bullet velocities 40 fps slower than the Kimber.”

I hate to keep dredging up the past, but some comments in “Firing Line” in the July 2006 issue regarding your review of the Hi-Point C9 (May 2006) prompted me to write. Im a full-time police-academy instructor. One of my duties is to be a firearms expert for the state attorneys office, test-firing guns that were used in crimes to prove they will function. I have test-fired many, many Hi-Points of all calibers, in all kinds of conditions, and I have yet to see one that did not work properly. Not saying Id want to buy one – they are very top heavy, triggers tend to be mushy, safety is very small, ergonomics are poor; but they are inexpensive and, in my experience, reliable.

Its all well and good to prefer a $2000 custom 1911, but not everyone has that kind of money, and for someone strapped for cash, Hi-Point is not a bad choice. FYI, there has been at least one change in the design along the way. Newer Hi-Point pistols have a magazine disconnect safety that older ones didnt have. I dont know when this happened.

PFC Tim Lose
Anne Arundel County Police Academy
Davidsonville, Maryland