Range Gear

Magazines for the 1911 pistol have evolved more during the past two decades than during any other time since the pistol's introduction. The bane of the 1911 is cheaply made magazines, with poor ammunition close behind. For many years, the only choices were Colt factory magazines, which were usually high quality, then GI magazines, and poorly made gun-show magazines. Some were marked COLT 45 on the base in bold letters, and these usually meant the shooter was the real deal. At a time when new Colt magazines were around $15, aftermarket magazines sold for as little as $4, and most of them were not worth the aggravation. GI magazines were good quality, but shooters often found them bent and worn out, unless they were new in the wrapper. Quite a bit of barrel feed-ramp polish and tuning of extractors went on that probably was tied to ammunition and magazine problems. Some of the aftermarket magazines were not properly welded. In other cases, the follower was too tight in the magazine body; and in other instances, the magazine springs were weak. Others had poorly attached buttplates, that gave way when dropped on the ground during IPSC competition. Some survived, others did not.

The basic construction of the magazine itself has changed from sheet steel to aluminum and plastic followers versus metal followers. We have examined quite a few magazines that invited a situation called false slide lock. The follower appeared to catch the slide lock, but the slide lock was actually on the wrong shelf, which isn't good for any of the parts. A 1911 feeds by the loading block on the bottom of the slide stripping the cartridge forward as the slide moves forward. The cartridge case rim catches under the extractor and is pressed forward. Some feel that it is a good thing that the bullet nose snugs a little over the feed ramp and bumps the cartridge case head into the breech face as the cartridge enters the chamber. Some magazines, notably the Wilson Combat, allow the bullet nose to strike much higher on the ramp, which results in missing the feed ramp's edges more so than others.

…

We recently reviewed three 38 Special revolvers that cost about $400 and thought we would increase our budget and caliber size, and then sourced three revolvers each costing about $500 in three different big-bore calibers: 44 Special, 45 ACP, and 45 Colt, often called 45 Long Colt (LC) to ensure it's not mixed up with the Auto Colt cartridge. The three revolvers included two Charter Arms products, the Classic Bulldog in 44 Special and the newer Pitbull in 45 ACP, plus the Taurus Public Defender Polymer chambered in .410 shotshell and 45 LC.

Even though these were new revolvers, we still performed a range-rod test since there was a bit of side-to-side wiggle in the cylinders of all the revolvers. Range rods check the alignment of the chambers to the barrel bore. We also noted that the action of the Taurus seemed a bit stiff; our initial dry firing in double action found the cylinder would not fully index to the next chamber at times. Dry firing took care of the indexing issue, and all passed the range rod test. We also noted during the range-rod test the barrel of the Pitbull was not fully screwed into the frame. It was off by a fraction of a turn, enough to cock the front sight to the left when aiming the revolver. It is unacceptable that a gun leaves the factory in this condition. We anticipated and needed to use Kentucky windage with the Pitbull at the range.

In the past Charter Arms revolvers have been favorably rated, but in these two examples we found exception. The not-fully-screwed-down barrel was also the reason the cylinder-to-barrel gap was so large. We measured the gap between the front of the cylinder and the forcing cone at the rear of the barrel using feeler gauges from Brownells (606-950-252WB) and found a gap of 0.010 inches for the Pitbull and the Bulldog Classic and the Taurus at 0.005 inch. A gap of 0.003 inches is desirable for a competition revolver, but up to 0.006 inches is often found. A large gap allows more gas to escape, reducing the bullet's velocity. It also means there is more flash, and if the chamber and cylinder are not perfectly aligned, a user might experience splash from burning powders and bits of shaved bullet metal. We did not experience any splash with the Charter Arms revolvers. We did note that the Classic Bulldog had about 30 fps more than the published data for Hornady Critical Defense165-grain FTX bullet, which is 900 fps out of 2.5-inch barrel. The 3-inch barrel of Bulldog must have helped increase velocity. The Pitbull had noticeably less muzzle velocity compared to factory data. We assumed the reduction came because the Pitbull has a 2.5-inch barrel and the factory data for the cartridges use either a 4- or 5-inch barrel. Reduced muzzle velocity also occurred in the Taurus.

A common feature of all three revolvers was a safety transfer bar. This system prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the trigger is pulled fully to the rear.

These revolvers are made for close-in work, but we still tested accuracy out to 25 yards. Since the Taurus offers the ability to fire .410 shotshells as well as cartridges, we sourced some CCI shot cartridges in 44 Special. CCI manufactures shotshells in 45 ACP, but warns against using the the cartridges in revolvers since the crimp that holds the shot in the cartridge case may interfere with the rotation of cylinder after being fired. One of our team members regularly carries a revolver loaded with bird shot cartridges and bullet cartridges when we walks his dog in the woods. He's equipped to deal with snakes as well as bears, depending on what chamber he lets fly.

As a carry handgun, the Glock is rugged, reliable, and combat worthy. About the only modifications that actually improve the Glock are the addition of a better trigger and a set of aftermarket sights. We dealt extensively with the issue of trigger replacements in the April 2014. There, we installed a Zev Technologies' GlockWorx Ultimate kit from Brownells.com ($250, #100-006-566WB, Mfr. Part: ZTFULULT4G9BLK) into our Glock 17. We gave the Ultimate Kit an A grade, saying it "was the upgrade that produced the biggest difference in performance all by itself, increasing the accuracy of the Glock 17 from an average grouping of 2.3 inches down to 1.6 inches."

Also in the April 2014 issue, we looked at two sight-upgrade kits, both from Brownells. One was the Brownells Glock 17 Sight Upgrade Kit ($200, #080-000-919WB), which included a Meprolight (Kimber) ML-10224 Tru-Dot Night Sight System for Glock 17, 19, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39; an MGW Glock Sight Adjustment Tool, and an Ed Brown Front Sight Tool for Glock. Since we had the installation tools handy, we also ordered a set of TruGlo tritium fiber-optic Brite-Sites ($90, #902-000-107WB, Mfr. Part: TG131GT1Y), yellow rear and green front. We chose to put the TruGlo sights on the Glock 17 and the Tru-Dots on a G34 so that we could shoot them side by side.

With the Ed Brown Front Sight Tool for Glock ($20 sold separately, #087-017-001WB, Mfr. Part: 952) and the MGW Glock Sight Mover ($100 sold separately, #584-045-017WB, Mfr. Part: MGW309) for the rear sight, we started the switch with a disassembly of the slide to get access to the front sight. With the Ed Brown front sight tool and a small crescent wrench, we loosened the screw beneath the sight and removed it, then replaced the white dot with the new TruGlo front sight and tightened with the crescent wrench. Once the front sight was swapped, we hooked the slide into the MGW. The device came with some thin plates to raise the slide up the right height. We did not need them. The old sight drifted out with relative ease, going left to right pointed away from us. The new rear TruGlo sight did require some minor fitting with a file and a little more strength to slide in, but with the MGW tool, leverage was not a problem. We used the same process to put the Meprolite sights onto a factory Glock 34.

Despite the new TruGlo sights being fixed like the originals, we found them to be much clearer and easier to acquire and reacquire targets. We took to the range with the TruGlo sights installed, using all other original parts, and we cut our average group size down by almost half an inch, from 2.3 inches with the standard Glock to 1.9 inches with the TruGlo sights. We turned down the lights over the shooters, leaving the targets illuminated to check out how much the tritium would glow in the fiber-optic sights. The green front sight was quite bright, while the rear yellow sights were significantly dimmer, although still visible.

The Meprolight Tru-Dots provided an even more impressive change on the G34. We shaved just over a full inch off our average group size at 10 yards once we installed them.

Upgrading fixed sights can seem like a challenge to someone who hasn't done work on pistols previously, but with these tools and the simplicity of Glock's designs, this upgrade is a great place to start if you want to attempt a DIY project. You can drift the sights out with a punch, which will save $100 for the MGW tool, but you risk rupturing the tritium capsules. The MGW mover requires oil on the crankshaft, but it made drifting the dovetail sights in and out so easy we quickly misplaced our punch set. Overall, we found the TruGlo sights to be a nice upgrade and would recommend putting them in place of the standard non-tritium sights on any factory Glock. We gave them a Grade: A ranking, along with the Meprolight Tru-Dot tritium.

Naturally, readers asked about other sights, so we began looking at more replacements we could test head to head, rather than as a general Glock upgrade. So, again working with Brownells, we assembled a sextet of night sights suitable for installation on various Glocks. Also, we believe you can broaden our recommendations to include other firearms of similar size — the visual presentation won't be appreciably different on different platforms — though the installation process may differ gun to gun.

Toward the end of each year, I survey the work R.K. Campbell, Roger Eckstine, Austin Miller, Ray Ordorica, Robert Sadowski, David Tannahill, Tracey Taylor, John Taylor, Rafael Urista, Ralph Winingham, and Kevin Winkle have done in Gun Tests, with an eye toward selecting guns, accessories, and ammunition the magazine's testers have endorsed. From these evaluations I pick the best from a full year's worth of tests and distill recommendations for readers, who often use them as shopping guides. These choices are a mixture of our original tests and other information I've compiled during the year. After we roll high-rated test products into long-term testing, I keep tabs on how those guns do, and if the firearms and accessories continue performing well, then I have confidence including them in this wrap-up.— Todd Woodard

It does not matter what type of implement you use - modern firearm, muzzleloader, or bow - determining distance to your target is critical. For a primitive-weapons hunter, it means waiting until the beast comes into range. For a user of modern firearms, it might mean dialing in exactly the right amount of hold-over - or passing up a shot - on a trophy thats at the edge of your ability to shoot accurately. One of the fastest, easiest to use, and affordable means of accurately gauging distance to various targets is a laser rangefinder. Laser rangefinders are basically a monocular that send out a pulsating laser beam that bounces off a target back to the unit and provides an instantaneous readout in yards or meters. The laser is similar technology to that used in autofocus cameras.

The price of rangefinders is directly attributed to the quality of electronics of the rangefinder. More expensive rangefinders have lasers with less beam divergence, which is when the laser-beam diameter begins to spread out over distance. Instead of a tight, narrow beam, the beam becomes wider, like a cone, at the target end of the beam. The more beam divergence, the less accurate the distance reading. Those more expensive rangefinders also have more added features like a ballistic calculator, modes for use in rain or snow, different reticle choices, can range at farther distances, to name a few.

We recently tested three affordable laser rangefinders with similar maximum distances and features.

It does not matter what type of implement you use - modern firearm, muzzleloader, or bow - determining distance to your target is critical. For a primitive-weapons hunter, it means waiting until the beast comes into range. For a user of modern firearms, it might mean dialing in exactly the right amount of hold-over - or passing up a shot - on a trophy thats at the edge of your ability to shoot accurately. One of the fastest, easiest to use, and affordable means of accurately gauging distance to various targets is a laser rangefinder. Laser rangefinders are basically a monocular that send out a pulsating laser beam that bounces off a target back to the unit and provides an instantaneous readout in yards or meters. The laser is similar technology to that used in autofocus cameras.

The price of rangefinders is directly attributed to the quality of electronics of the rangefinder. More expensive rangefinders have lasers with less beam divergence, which is when the laser-beam diameter begins to spread out over distance. Instead of a tight, narrow beam, the beam becomes wider, like a cone, at the target end of the beam. The more beam divergence, the less accurate the distance reading. Those more expensive rangefinders also have more added features like a ballistic calculator, modes for use in rain or snow, different reticle choices, can range at farther distances, to name a few.

We recently tested three affordable laser rangefinders with similar maximum distances and features.

The 308 cartridge lends itself to being chambered in light rifles. The cartridge performs quite well on deer-size animals, and also it's lots of fun to plink with, given the easy accessibility to inexpensive ammo. For this test we looked at three light 308s. These were a Winchester Model 70 Featherweight Compact ($880), a Savage 11/111 Lightweight Hunter ($899), and a Mossberg 4X4 No. 27656, $471). We were unable to obtain a walnut-stocked Mossberg for a better comparison, but they are offered at $624, quite a jump from the black-plastic-stocked test rifle. We tested with Remington Core-Lokt 150-grain, Winchester Super X 180-grain, and with Remington Core-Lokt 180-grain loads. Here's what we found.

New and improved are common phrases bounced around in the shotgun market as a promotional effort meant to inspire shooters into rushing through the doors of their nearest firearms dealer with cash in hand. Sometimes the advertising rings true, and other times the buyer is left disappointed. With one of the latest new and improved offerings - the Benelli Ultra Light model billed as the lightest semiautomatic shotgun on the market - the Gun Tests team followed the example of the great state of Missouri and asked the Benelli to Show Me how good it was.We selected a 28-gauge version of the Ultra Light with a price tag of $1,760 and matched the new kid on the block against a 28-gauge version of one of the most venerable semiautomatics in the country - a used Remington Model 1100 picked up for $1,300.In addition to the price difference, the two 28s are poles apart in offering a sub-gauge platform for wingshooting and busting clay targets. The Benelli is more than 2 pounds lighter than the Remington; features an Inertia Recoil system rather than the gas-operated Model 1100 to reduce shoulder shock; and boasts of a new cryogenically treated barrel and chokes for cleaner shooting and tighter patterns.In support of the Remington are more than 40 years of service to 28-gauge shooters on both clay target ranges and dove or quail fields as the best-selling semiautomatic in America. More than 4 million of the Model 1100s have been sold - a testament to the shotguns popularity.We put the two shotguns through their paces on some South Texas mourning dove hunts and a few sessions of sporting clays to see how the youngster fared against the veteran, and to see how the Benelli lived up to its new and improved advertising.Test ammunition included Winchester AA Super Sporting Clays loads of 3/4 ounce of No. 71/2 shot with an average muzzle velocity of 1300 fps; Rio Game Loads with 1 ounce of No. 71/2 shot and an average muzzle velocity of 1200 fps; and B&P Target loads with 3/4 ounce of No. 71/2 shot with an average muzzle velocity of 1280 fps. The Winchesters were used for clays and patterning, while the Rios and B&Ps were the dove loads of choice.We patterned each of the shotguns with Improved Cylinder and Modified chokes and fired the Winchester ammunition at a 30-inch circle set up 30 yards downrange. The results were as advertised by Benelli, with the Ultra Light producing denser, more uniform pellet strikes with both chokes.With both chokes, the Benelli punched 233 holes in the 30-inch pattern (the average number of pellets in the Winchester shells was 270) and the improved cylinder pattern had only two 3-inch holes between hits. The modified choke left only four 3-inch holes, mainly in the outside of the circle with a very solid pattern in the 20-inch center of the target. A very acceptable 50-50 pattern, with an equal number of hits above and below the center of the target, was produced by both chokes.In the Remington testing, the improved cylinder choke also produced 233 hits, but with six 3-inch holes all over the pattern; and the modified results were even worse with 249 hits and seven 3-inch holes. On the plus side, the Remington also spread out the hits in a 50-50 pattern.Concerning the recoil factor, no semiautomatic 28 gauge worth its salt will smack the shooters shoulder with the authority of a larger 20 gauge or 12 gauge. Both of these shotguns were a pleasure to shoot, with little felt recoil from either model. At best, the recoil factor was a tie between the new lightweight Benelli and the heavier veteran Remington.With this knowledge and confirmation of the Benellis advertising under our belts, we took the two 28s into the field for some quality time with birds and clays. Here is what we found on the ranges:

The 338 Winchester Magnum is perhaps the most versatile of the so-called "all-around" rifle cartridges for North American hunting. The caliber is less intimidating than the physically longer 375 H&H, though it has similar performance. The 338 can be flatter shooting than the 375 with careful choice of loads, and also carries its power to long distance well, thanks to the great sectional density of its more useful bullet weights. A 375 commonly shoots 235- to 300-grain bullets, and bullets in that weight range are readily available in 338, at least for reloaders. The 338 bullets are slimmer, and therefore retain their velocity better, even though they might start at slightly lower speeds. The 338 can be fitted into shorter and less costly actions, which is why so many shooters choose the 338 over the 375. And the 338 will do things 30-caliber rifles only dream about, having a significantly greater amount of power at any range.

For this test we look at two of the currently available 338s that come with iron sights. We found there are not many of those on the market. The Winchester Model 70 Alaskan ($1270) and the Ruger Model 77 Hawkeye ($1099) were our choices. We tested them with Remington 225-grain Core-Lokt, Hornady 225-grain SN, and with a handload featuring the 210-grain Barnes X bullet. Here's what we found.

Choosing a carry sidearm is a complex task for most shooters, who must weigh power and portability, size and simplicity before spending hundreds of dollars and committing to wear a gun a good chunk of the day. Pistols usually have an edge in capacity, while revolvers have a point-and-shoot ease of use that's hard to overlook. Then there's the issue of cartridges. How much power is enough?, and how does the consumer sift the chamberings to get the most bang for his buck?

We recently tested three guns that illustrate a range of carry choices readers had inquired about, in effect pitting McIntosh and Red Delicious apples against a Valencia orange. In gun terms, our pistols were the new Springfield XD-S 45 ACP, $599, and Kahr's CM9 No. CM9093 9mm Luger, $382, going up against the Chiappa Rhino No. 200DS 357 Magnum revolver, $800. Those are counter prices from Fountain Firearms in Houston (FountainFirearms.us), where we acquired the guns.

What we wanted to find out, in particular, was whether the CCL holder had to sacrifice power (45 vs. 9mm) in order to get wear-all-day comfort, and whether a wheelgun, albeit an unusual one, could compete against subcompact pistols.

In fact, when you look at the basics other than action types, these three pretty much fit in the same box. The Rhino revolver is 6 inches long, about a half-inch longer than the Kahr (5.4 inches) and slightly shorter than the XD-S (6.3 inches). Height-wise, the Rhino checks in at 4.9 inches, a half inch taller than the XD-S (4.4 inches) and nearly an inch taller than the CM9 (4.0 inches).

But here's where power factors in. The Rhino and the XD-S clearly outdistanced the CM9 in pop, so for some shooters, having the smallest footprint in the CM9 also means shooting the weakest round, which they won't like. And, the 9mm Luger's performance is further diminished because these short handguns won't generate all the rated power of their respective rounds — there's just not enough length in the barrels. Winchester's 115-grain 9mm Luger round in the 3-inch-barrel Kahr develops average velocity/energy figures of 984 fps/247 ft.-lbs., well behind the XD-S (3.3-inch barrel, 817 fps/341 ft.-lbs.) and Rhino (2-inch barrel, 1134 fps/314 ft.-lbs.) The Fiocchi rounds showed a similar gap, except the 357 Mag was the strongest at 370 ft.-lbs., compared to 305 ft.-lbs. for the 45 ACP round and 272 ft.-lbs. for the 9mm. The power margins are little narrower for Hornady rounds because the 9mm is a +P loading, so it makes 308 ft.-lbs. of muzzle energy compared to the 45 at 360 ft.-lbs. and the 357 at 380 ft.-lbs. Also, it's worth emphasizing that the Rhino had the highest energy ratings of the trio with two of the rounds (see the accompanying accuracy/chronograph table for details).

Besides comparing the numbers, we also tested all three for accuracy at 7 yards from a benchrest. Then we tested how each would perform when drawn and fired quickly, using Hornady Critical Defense rounds for the XDS and Rhino and Hornady Critical Duty for the CM9. For this defense test we had a target 7 yards downrange on edge, programmed to turn and face the shooter for 3 seconds, then turn back to edge, with a randomized wait time before turning. Our testers had to start from low ready and fire as many shots aiming at center mass as accurately as possible in 3 seconds. The target was a Birchwood Casey silhouette splattering target with X, 10, 9, and 8 rings.

On a gun-by-gun basis, we found some things we liked and didn't like about each of the carry contestants. Here's what we thought about each one individually:

Reliability and velocity are two prime considerations when choosing a propellant for your flintlock or percussion gun. Which of these products should you pour into your powder horn?

Over the past few years weve used a trio of powerful scopes on our test rifles. In our view, Weavers relatively inexpensive model is a better buy than similar glass from Leupold and B&L.