Re Online 40 S&W
Ammunition Test
Dear Sirs: I’ve enjoyed your incomparable reporting for a while and often suggest to friends to subscribe. I used the “40 S&W Ammunition Test” article that recommends the “Federal Syntech 40 S&W 165-Grain AE 40SJ1” to buy that self-defense round. I was curious why the box stated “Syntech Range” on it, so I contacted Federal as to whether it’s a range/target or self-defense round. Their reply from August 14 read, “Bill, Thank you for contacting us. The AE40SJ1 is strictly a target round. We do not advertise or test it for defense purposes. We do have a Syntech coated defense round S40ST1. This is a 175g Segmented Hollow Point. But the part # you provided is not a defense load. Thanks, Federal.”
I suspect this incorrect information has already been pointed out, but if not, it’s critical that readers have correct information, especially when it comes to self-defense ammunition. May I also suggest dating these seminal documents that last for years as a valuable reference guide. — William
Hey William: Thanks for the product number for that 175g 40 S&W Syntech self-defense round, S40SJ1. However, in the August 2021 issue, we did test the Federal Syntech Range AE40SJ1, and it did great, regardless of how it’s marketed. To your points, however, I added the publication date to the headline of that online 40 S&W ammunition test article, and in the online text, I also added an editor’s note that you contacted Federal about that round, and what they said. That way, folks can make their own decision. I appreciate the legwork.
— Todd Woodard
Re “Background Check
Rule Is Coming For You,”
June 2024
I enjoyed this Downrange editorial. Mr. Woodard is spot on. We can’t ask Randy Weaver, nor Bryan Malinowski, nor must we forget the death of Kenyon F. Ballew in June 1971. It was the first ATF-involved death that I can remember. I was 13 at the time. The American Rifleman had a great story on the raid on Ballew’s apartment back then, My Dad was an NRA Life Member; I am an Endowment Member. I believe the BATFE is a unconstitutional entity. — Tom
Re “Mid-Size 380 ACPs:
Beretta, Smith & Wesson,
and Ruger,” May 2024
Hi all at Gun Tests: In this article on mid-sized 380 ACPs, you observed that there had been an improvement in ammunition over the years. However, 380 still lags behind 9mm and even more behind the 9mm +P or 38 Special +P. Therefore, I postulate that something like a 380 ACP + P would help to improve the performance without increasing the recoil too much or requiring a longer chamber. Is something like that in the works anywhere? Just a random thought.
I have enjoyed your publication for many years, and it has been very helpful to me in deciding on purchases as well as learning about guns, ammunition, and accessories in general. The editorials about new laws and firearms politics are very timely and informative. Please keep up the good work.
— Joseph
Hey Joseph: Buffalo Bore has several 380 +P loads in 80-, 90-, 95-, and 100-grain weights, as well as standard-pressure loads. I think the 100-grain hardcast flatnose load 27A/20, $35 for 20 rounds, is interesting, making 1150 fps at the muzzle and 294 foot-pounds of muzzle energy. Some of the website copy at BuffaloBore.com reads, “This is a serious improvement in this typically anemic cartridge. This 380 Auto +P ammo is more powerful than the typical 38SPL ammo made by most American ammo makers, and you’ll get seven shots of it in a small/flat/lightweight 380 versus five shots out of a bulkier 38 SPL J-frame revolver. Additionally, with the 380 you’ll get much faster reloads, and the little magazines are flatter than a speed-loader used for a J frame.” So try some of those loads and see what you think. — tw
Re “Duty Pistols: Glock,
SIG, and Springfield Armory
Shoot Out,” June 2024
Todd, I really enjoyed the article/comparison of the Glock 47, SIG P320 RX, and Springfield Echelon in your newest issue. Good, solid info to make an informed decision with. As I looked down the list of specs, I realized that a possible enhancement to that list might include the price of additional factory magazines. Many of us who would consider buying one of these type of pistols would always buy several extra magazines if planning on using it for competition, and the prices of these mags can vary a lot, depending on the manufacturer. Just a thought.
I also enjoyed the June 2024 review, “Bolt-Action 30-Caliber Short-Rifle Shoot-out: CZ-USA Versus Ruger,” where you compared the CZ 600 versus the Ruger American Ranch rifle. There again, the fact Ruger had the foresight to utilize AR-style mags is a huge plus, and we don’t know what the extra CZ mags would cost. Thanks again for your great publication! — Marc
Hey Marc: I take your point. I agree this would be a valuable addition to the specs lists for the guns we review, so I’ve asked the staff to start including information on spare mags. In the case of the CZ 600 7.62×39, magazines are available from OpticsPlanet.com for $44. The manufacturer part number is 60037 and the UPC number is 806703600376 if you want to shop around online. — tw
Consider This Match Up?
Hi, Todd. I’m a long-time subscriber and would like for you to look at a few pistols:
• Walther PDP Match 9mm 2872595
• H&K VP9 Match 9mm MFG MDL 81000553
• S&W M&P M2.0 Competitor 9mm MFG MDL 13199
Thank you for considering these pistols for coverage in the magazine. — Wayne
Hey Wayne: I forwarded your ask list to the staff for development. Thanks for the idea. — tw
Re “22 LR Semi-Autos:
Savage A22, Ruger 10/22,
Bergara BXR,” May 2024
Todd, in this issue on page 13, the text reads, “A few issues back we tested a Vortex Crossfire II 2-7x32mm rimfire SFP scope ($149 Optics Planet)….We become partial to this scope….” I looked in my back issues, the annual indexes, and on your website without finding your test of that scope. So my question is: Where is it? — Paul
Hey Paul: Contributing Editor Robert Sadowski first tested “with” the Vortex Crossfire II 2-7x32mm rimfire SFP scope in the January 2024 issue. There’s not a standalone evaluation of it, other than Robert continuing to use it because he liked it. — tw
