Firingline

The ammunition we choose varies largely with the type of firearm being tested. We would not expect a 22 target rifle to perform its best with inexpensive ammunition, yet very often they surprise us. And we sometimes get the worst performance with the 'best' ammo. We try to choose the types of ammunition the average user might grab and take to the range. We always try to use at least one 'premium' brand to give the gun a chance to shine. It’s nice to know you have some good guns and can outshoot all of us and all of our guns. But 1-inch groups with iron sights at 50 yards are not really bad. For example, the test 69A fired a 0.33-inch group, five shots at 50 yards, a few years ago with RWS Rifle Match. We cannot test our guns with all the available ammunition, or we’d never get to press.

An the opinion of many experienced shooters, the 45 Auto is the caliber of choice in self-defensive pistols. However, most of these guns, like the classic 1911 Colt, are big and heavy. Therefore, they often get left behind for a lighter piece, which generally is of lower power. If you still want the power of a 45, why not go to a smaller and lighter gun?

We found three such pistols for this test, and gave them a wring-out. They were a Colt CCO, no longer in the Colt stable but available on the used or new-old-service market for about $1250, depending on condition; the recently introduced SIG Sauer 1911 C3 No. 19GS0031, $1143; and a new PM45-series pistol from Kahr, the PM4543, $855. The Kahr was not quite the same setup but clearly had the same intent as the other two, to deliver big power in a smaller, lighter package.

Both the SIG and Colt had aluminum frames, and they featured the old Colt Officer's Model handle with the Commander-length slide. Most of our test group believes this is the ideal setup for a 1911-type 45 auto, but those with large, wide hands might prefer a gun like the lightweight Commander, which has a bigger grip. The Kahr had its usual ergonomically designed polymer grip with stainless slide, and of course was DAO. We tested with three types of ammunition, Federal 185-grain Hi-Shok JHP, Federal 230-grain ball, and with Cor-Bon 185-grain JHP. We also tried a few groups with Federal Gold-Medal Match, 185-grain TC bullets. Here's what we found.

The ammunition we choose varies largely with the type of firearm being tested. We would not expect a 22 target rifle to perform its best with inexpensive ammunition, yet very often they surprise us. And we sometimes get the worst performance with the 'best' ammo. We try to choose the types of ammunition the average user might grab and take to the range. We always try to use at least one 'premium' brand to give the gun a chance to shine. It’s nice to know you have some good guns and can outshoot all of us and all of our guns. But 1-inch groups with iron sights at 50 yards are not really bad. For example, the test 69A fired a 0.33-inch group, five shots at 50 yards, a few years ago with RWS Rifle Match. We cannot test our guns with all the available ammunition, or we’d never get to press.

Your experience of having the Taurus gun 'lock up' or 'freeze' sounded very familiar. My Taurus Tracker in .44 Mag did the very same thing after I fired about 20 rounds and the firearm became warm. It was completely locked up. Two days later, cold to the touch again, it functioned properly. So far, Taurus has not responded to my letter asking for advice. Needless to say, our mutual experiences with this company’s products suggest strongly they are not reliable and could get you killed in an armed confrontation.

Your experience of having the Taurus gun 'lock up' or 'freeze' sounded very familiar. My Taurus Tracker in .44 Mag did the very same thing after I fired about 20 rounds and the firearm became warm. It was completely locked up. Two days later, cold to the touch again, it functioned properly. So far, Taurus has not responded to my letter asking for advice. Needless to say, our mutual experiences with this company’s products suggest strongly they are not reliable and could get you killed in an armed confrontation.

The Prismatic is a little different from other 1X scopes, especially those with holographic or red dot reticles. It has a lot of potential as a tactical sight, but possibly more so as a hunting scope. Here are some characteristics. First, it is not for long relief. You have to get 'inside the scope' so that the reticle can be used to 'graph' the field of view. The reticle has two shapes for coarse target acquisition and one for fine point of aim/impact. The circle and the crosshairs cover a large area. There is, however, a tiny dot at the center of the crosshairs that I was able to use with success across a rimfire silhouette course. The illumination option is ideal for hunting at dawn or dusk. I prefer using the lowest setting necessary. The reticle can be set to click on and off at a desired degree of illumination, and if you have it blazing away, the reticle can be too distracting for a fine point of aim. In bright daylight I preferred not to use the illumination. Perhaps if the central dot was larger and its illumination could be isolated from the remainder of the reticle the Prismatic could be used like a traditional red dot scope. I also found that there was more adjustment in terms of windage and elevation available than on most 1X scopes. Mounting options were simple and effective.

The Prismatic is a little different from other 1X scopes, especially those with holographic or red dot reticles. It has a lot of potential as a tactical sight, but possibly more so as a hunting scope. Here are some characteristics. First, it is not for long relief. You have to get 'inside the scope' so that the reticle can be used to 'graph' the field of view. The reticle has two shapes for coarse target acquisition and one for fine point of aim/impact. The circle and the crosshairs cover a large area. There is, however, a tiny dot at the center of the crosshairs that I was able to use with success across a rimfire silhouette course. The illumination option is ideal for hunting at dawn or dusk. I prefer using the lowest setting necessary. The reticle can be set to click on and off at a desired degree of illumination, and if you have it blazing away, the reticle can be too distracting for a fine point of aim. In bright daylight I preferred not to use the illumination. Perhaps if the central dot was larger and its illumination could be isolated from the remainder of the reticle the Prismatic could be used like a traditional red dot scope. I also found that there was more adjustment in terms of windage and elevation available than on most 1X scopes. Mounting options were simple and effective.

I have been patiently waiting for you guys to do a test on the new and improved Ruger Ranch Rifle. I wanted to see how the new one compares to the old, especially for accuracy, and the stringing problem when the barrel is heated. The new Ranch Rifle has been around for about two years now. So I get the August 2008 issue and you test an old model! Thanks for nothing! If you guys want, mail me the guns and I’ll do the tests!

I have been patiently waiting for you guys to do a test on the new and improved Ruger Ranch Rifle. I wanted to see how the new one compares to the old, especially for accuracy, and the stringing problem when the barrel is heated. The new Ranch Rifle has been around for about two years now. So I get the August 2008 issue and you test an old model! Thanks for nothing! If you guys want, mail me the guns and I’ll do the tests!

This is the first time I have written about one of your articles, but I couldn’t resist. I have been an avid reader of Gun Tests for several years and have found the vast majority of the articles very informative and unbiased. However, I have to wonder if I am the only one who noticed the statement in the June 2008 issue regarding the Ruger LCP as ' ran reliably, did what it was supposed to do, and looked good doing it.' At the end of the test on page 15 you state you suffered no malfunctions throughout your test. In the final grade you gave it an A-, saying again '… this gun did what it was supposed to do.' In the 'Special Report' you compare the LCP to the Kel-Tec P3AT. In this article you call the LCP a refined Kel-Tec and then go on to say it jumps around in the hand and took a strong pair of hands to control it. You then say, '… unfortunately we had a persistent problem with the Ruger LCP in the form of failures to feed.' Then you show a picture of the Speer Gold Dot with the deformed nose that caught on roughness that had to be polished away. I realize that self-defense ammo needs to be tested in your handgun before trusting your life to it, but the problem you had with the Ruger and the other ammo would suggest that it be disqualified for self-defense.

This is the first time I have written about one of your articles, but I couldn’t resist. I have been an avid reader of Gun Tests for several years and have found the vast majority of the articles very informative and unbiased. However, I have to wonder if I am the only one who noticed the statement in the June 2008 issue regarding the Ruger LCP as ' ran reliably, did what it was supposed to do, and looked good doing it.' At the end of the test on page 15 you state you suffered no malfunctions throughout your test. In the final grade you gave it an A-, saying again '… this gun did what it was supposed to do.' In the 'Special Report' you compare the LCP to the Kel-Tec P3AT. In this article you call the LCP a refined Kel-Tec and then go on to say it jumps around in the hand and took a strong pair of hands to control it. You then say, '… unfortunately we had a persistent problem with the Ruger LCP in the form of failures to feed.' Then you show a picture of the Speer Gold Dot with the deformed nose that caught on roughness that had to be polished away. I realize that self-defense ammo needs to be tested in your handgun before trusting your life to it, but the problem you had with the Ruger and the other ammo would suggest that it be disqualified for self-defense.

I read with great interest your review of three .380 caliber pistols, in particular your critique of the Walther PPK. In the May 2008 issue, you positively gushed over the Walther PPK 32 ACP. After reading your May 2008 issue I ran (not walked) to my local gun store and bought a Walther PPK/S chambered in .380 instead of the 32 ACP because I wanted more power in a concealable. My brother has the 32 ACP PPK/S model. Everything we both read was that the 32 and 380 were 'virtually indistinguishable' except for the caliber. Imagine my surprise when the June 2008 issue was far less complimentary about the 380 than the 32 despite their being nearly physically identical. True, my right hand-thumb metacarpal ached (see photo at right) from the recoil as you describe in the June 2008 review. I also had to adjust my typical 45 ACP 'Ayoob' grip by lowering my hand and hooking my pinky finger under the thumbrest on the magazine to avoid two things: (1) my right thumb interfering with the decocker; (2) 'biting' me between the thumb and forefinger. On the other hand (no pun intended), I find this classic pistol to be as accurate as you describe and have already pumped over 500 rounds through it using three different Walther original magazines (note to users: break in the magazines, they tend to 'double feed' when new). I appreciate the craftsmanship and fit/finish probably more than your testers do. I am aware of the serrations on the decocker, but mine aren’t nearly as abrasive as the ones you describe on the PPK.