Re: Gun Tests‘ Glossy Paper
Your publication is always the first one I pick up when the mail arrives. Great tests on great guns. I especially wanted to thank you for upgrading the paper you are now using. Easier to read, and it appears it will be more durable. Yours is also the only publication I keep long term. Regards.
— Scott W.
I just received my January 2017, No. 1 issue of Gun Tests. Just wanted to comment on the new, and improved, format. The finish and appearance adds a lot to an otherwise excellent publication, which I always enjoy. Thank you.
— Tom
Re: “Downrange,” January 2017
First off, I like the glossy paper! Your Downrange comments are spot on. Used 9mm pistols, exactly so. I’ve still not found a Taurus pistol worth keeping, and that’s a good number I’ve tried/owned. I bought a Remington 870 20-gauge pump, youth model, years ago for home defense — almost the same gun as the Mossberg you just rated. It stood next to the bed for many years, until I decided it wasn’t getting used enough, and “converted” it into a night-shooting jack-rabbit harvester a few years back. The short length makes it a great truck gun, quick to get on target, and the light recoil makes it ideal for the long nights of keeping the alfalfa fields safe. Love your publication, keep up the great work!
— Marc
Dear Mr. Woodard: First, let me compliment you on the continued publication of your fine magazine! Just read your editorial concerning the presidential election. I don’t know how many people understand how clear the correlation between Ms. Clinton’s vehement anti-2A views and her loss of what should have been a slam-dunk win.
If the numbers are remotely correct, there are 80 million gun owners in America. This number presumes that most of those folks are adults and not felons; therefore, they were potential voters. Another stat says that roughly 1 out of 20 Americans have a concealed-carry permit.
To call all those folks evil, and to threaten their lifestyle, was a mistake Al Gore made in 2000, and cost him the election. President Obama learned that, and toned down the anti-gun rhetoric for his two campaigns. It worked for Mr. Obama, and he won. Ms. Clinton completely misread history and went off the deep end with her comments and proposals. She already had the left, was hoping for the middle, and courted the moderate right. One wonders how any campaign planning went on to decide to alienate a huge group with no votes to gain? Even Bernie Sanders called her out on some of her proposals, such as her idea to prosecute gun makers for illegal use of legally produced firearms. Ah well.
— Armen
Todd: Great question on which gun legislation I’d like to see. I vote for Fast and Furious, just to see how many in the “gumment” can be prosecuted, up to and including Eric Holder. Then judges to uphold Heller and McDonald, followed closely by National Right to Carry, military personnel having the right to carry at recruitment stations (I would add while on base also), and, finally, silencers. I am so hard of hearing, gunshot sounds do not bother me any more, but younger ones should not have the impediment of not being able to have them. I like the new cover, and as always, your insightful and superb analysis of our 2A rights. God bless our Constitution and Gun Tests.
— Jim
In your editorial you correctly state, “The Pentagon has already rolled back regulations preventing soldier carry.” That, however, is not the full story. The soldier is still subject to the state law allowing or not allowing concealed/open carry. As such, in the nanny state of New Jersey and other similar states, soldiers would not be allowed to do so, as permits are not issued. Our lawmakers wish to leave these soldiers and the law-abiding citizens defenseless. However, this seems to only apply to us common-folk. It appears that many politicians are more concerned about depriving good citizens their rights rather than correctly punishing the criminals. We need President Trump to right these wrongs with Federal legislation, including a National Right to Carry. Thank you.
— Clint
Re: “Mil-Spec .30-’06 Bolt Guns: ’03 Springfield Vs. ’17 Enfield,” September 2004
I wanted to pass along to my fellow Gun Tests readers a little information about the Enfield.
Generally regarded as the best battle rifle of World War I, 2017 will mark the centenary of the 1917 Enfield rifle. As mint examples of this rife have become increasingly scarce, they have soared in value, reaching in excess of $2,000. So there would appear to a opportunity for Remington, who presumably still has the engineering drawings for the 1917 on file, to profit from producing a run of authentic 1917 Enfields for the collector and shooter.
With their internal metal injection molding capability and available investment casting sources, Remington should be able to rapidly and economically tool up for producing this rifle. It should be made exactly as the original was, including the clip guides, as it will likely be used in vintage military rifle competitions, which have become popular across the country.
The vast majority of rifles are shot at the shooting range, not the hunting field. The 1917 excels as a range rifle by virtue of having a hand guard to protect the shooter’s hand from the hot barrel and a rear sight which is readily adjustable for elevation at predetermined ranges. And at the end of the day, there is only a barrel to clean instead of a complex mechanism with self-loading rifles. No other military-style bolt action rifles are being produced today, so if Remington were to do so, they would have the market entirely to themselves.
With the election of Trump to the presidency, the pressure is off for stocking up on the best self-defense rifles, so now gun buyers will be turning their attention to buying rifles which are fun to shoot at the range and easy to maintain, like the 1917 Enfield.
— Mike
E-Book Question
On the last page of the Gun Tests E-Book, The ‘A’ Team: Concealable 9mm Handguns & Gear, there is a statement that reads, “Contact links for this story have been loaded onto the Gun-Tests.com web page.” I can’t find the links, could you please help me?
— Peter
Hey Peter: Sorry about that. Following is a list of the webpages where you can get more information on products listed in the August 2013 Gun Tests article, “Inside-The-Waistband Holsters: Kydex, Leather and Hybrid Styles,” which also appeared in the 9mm E-book. — tw
Hopp Custom Leather Holsters IWB
ebhleather@gmail.com
JM Custom Kydex IWB Holster
Version 2 IWB2
SwapRig Holsters MiniSwap IWB and SwapRig Holsters Revolution
Old Faithful HolstersAssembled Inside the Waistband Hip Gun Holster
Re: “Budget 20-Gauge Shoot Off: H&R, Century, and Mossberg,” January 2017
Back in the late 1970s, I bought a Mossberg 500 in 20 gauge with an 18-inch barrel and pistol grip for home defense, for the same reasons you stated: lower recoil for my wife and young daughter should the goblins attack. I used the heck out of it, and recently had it repaired, and it suffered from a very rusty barrel in the past. Now, it’s still ugly, but also still works reliably. Still about perfect for home defense. Also, I’ve fired both barrels of a 12-gauge double simultaneously, and I agree, it is not for the faint of heart. Keep up the great work; I’m a long-time subscriber.
— Mark
Re: “The 44 Special: An Old Number Is Revitalized by Modern Loads,” January 2017
Dear Editor Woodard: Time flies when you are having fun, or carrying a gun. I just finished reading your January 2017 test and comparison of 44 Special ammo. The performance of the Hornady Critical Defense and Custom ammunition in the 3-inch Bulldog was very informative and prompted this enquiry.
I am 68 years old and have possessed carry permits from various states for fifty years. For longer than I can remember, I have carried 2.5- to 3-inch-barreled 357 Magnum revolvers loaded with the Remington 125-grain scallop jacket hollowpoint load, which decades ago was touted as having 96% one-shot-stop performance, thus making it the ne plus ultra carry load of the day. Although I have gone to Hornady Critical Defense and American Gunner for 38 Special and 9mm Luger, I have stuck with the old Remington load for 357 Magnum, partly because I have a good supply sufficient for carrying and practice.
However, I am curious if the modern Hornady 357s with the FTX and XTP bullets are superior in performance to my old, probably not still in production, Remington scallop jackets? You may have a ready answer, or you may consider doing a test to see how the modern ammunition from Hornady, SIG, Speer, and even Remington, stacks up against my vintage carry ammo.
— William
Hey William: I don’t have a ready answer, but I do have a test of 357 Magnum ammunition on page 29. Perhaps it can tell us at least part of the story. Also, maybe we can root around and find enough of your load to test and see how it does. I’ll inquire with Mr. Campbell to see if he can begin a search. — tw
I was disappointed and perplexed that you would test one Buffalo Bore load and omit the Buffalo Bore load that was designed specifically for the Charter Arms 44 Bulldog, a load with its possible “shot out of timing” problem in mind.
I refer to Buffalo Bore’s Anti-Personnel 44 Special Hardcast Wadcutter 200-grain load. Very accurate and controllable from both 3-inch and 2.5-inch barrels. Very hard hitting. The only negative is that because of the shape of the wadcutter, it takes more practice to reload quickly with a speedloader. While the Hornady FTX ammo is excellent, Charter Arms are fixed-sight revolvers that seem to be sighted for 200-grain bullets. My experience with the 165-grain FTX is that, in a Bulldog, it does not shoot to point of aim. My other favorite choice would be a load that Winchester still catalogs but apparently no longer makes, the 200-grain Silvertip Hollowpoint.
— Ed
Hey Ed: We can see why you’re fond of BB’s Anti-Personnel round. We only have a finite amount of time, so we’ve got to cut off the ammo choices somewhere. Buffalo Bore says the Anti-Personnel load was developed to be used in all 44 Special firearms, including Charter Arms. “Our other heavy 44 Special loads exclude the Charter Arms as suitable for use with them,” the company website says. — tw
