Firing Line: 08/08
This is the first time I have written about one of your articles, but I couldnt 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.