Misleading headlines; fixing feeding problems; future tests

A Head Problem
Although I enjoy the equipment reviews in Performance Shooter, I was disappointed with the misleading subhead for the article on page 7 of the March 1996 issue. The headline and subhead was: “Verstile Scope Mounts: We pick Leupold. When we looked at the three most popular removable scope mounts, we found units from Weaver and Warne to be lacking.”

From that subhead, one would assume that Weaver and Warne mounts are unacceptable. As a matter of fact, without reading the article further, I immediately shipped back three sets of Warne rings which I has just received. But the subheading was misleading. When I finally read the article —specifically the “PFS Recommends” box on page 11, I found the following:

“In our view…the Warne Premier Series Lever Rings…and the Leupold Quick Release Mount…represent a higher standard of quality than the Weaver Detachable Top Mount.…Of the three, we think the Leupold exhibits the fewest problems and compromises and would be our pick as the top choice. This would be followed closely by the Warne system, and then distantly by the Weaver mounts.”

From this it appears that Leupold is the best, and Weaver is the worst (and even “lacking”), but if Warne “followed closely” the Leupold line, I would not consider the Warne line “lacking.” (As a matter of interest, I reordered the Warne rings.)

I think headings and subheading sould be more carefully written to accurately reflect the content of the article.

-Charles R. B. Kirk
San Anselmo, CA

Mr. Kirk is correct. Our apologies.

----------

Airgun Aficionado
Please include more articles about airguns and their ammunition and accessories. The story on BR-50 was interesting, but precision “adult” airgunning also includes 10 meter ISU-style competition, metallic silhouette, and field target. Various configurations of the pre-charge pneumatic gun, such as the Ripley, are being used in all the disciplines, but “box-stock” and custom creations in many permutations keep the piston gun very much alive on the airgunning scene.

Hunting with airguns is popular in countries with severe firearms restrictions, and it is becoming more accepted in the USA as people learn the capabilities of modern high-power airguns.

For your information, I’ve enclosed a copy of an article about “wadcutter” match pellets. Long-range airgun competitors generally use dome or round-head pellets where ammunition selection is perhaps even more critical. So far manufacturers haven’t provided the same level of quality control to this type of pellet, but they are doing better. A pleasant surprise is how competitive the Crosman “premier” grade round-head pellet has proven to be.

Accessories such as high-power scopes (20 power and up, some with custom reticles), spirit levels, special sizing dies and pellet lubricants, and support equipment for the field and firing line have taken airgunning great leaps past the traditional backyard, youth’s plinker status.

I hope you will be able to include space in Performance Shooter to eventually cover the wide spectrum of interests and equipment that now reflects the modern airgunning scene.

-William L. Benson Jr.
Oxford, MD

----------

The Deep Chill
Since I am a gunsmith, I like to see tune-up articles for various firearms, such as the Mini-14 article you had (November 1995).

How about a test of the cryogenic stress-relieving process?

-C.D. Walterneyer
Ozark Gunworks, Rolla, MO

We have a cryo feature in the works.

----------

Rimfire Thickness Gauges
I have enjoyed your publication and have found it very informative. I have a request for a future subject, if it is viable. A year or so back, I had seen an ad for a plastic gauge that the percussion or rimfire end of a .22 cartridge could be slid into to measure the dimension/thickness that this portion of the cartridge represented. The purpose of the gauge was to be able to take a box of .22 shells and by measuring this dimension and the weight of the bullet and the length of the bullet you might be able to obtain ammo that was uniform in headspace/weight/length for greater accuracy. Is this a correct assumption? Does ammo so selected shoot any better? How do select bullets stack up against match ammo, etc.

-Lance Frasier
Address Withheld

Don’t throw us into that briar patch, br’er rabbit. There are two schools of thought on measuring case and rim thickness. One school thinks it is a valuable way to refine selections of match ammo. However, no one we know selects cheap .22 fodder and expects it to perform like match ammo. The other school thinks lot-testing is the only way to assess rifle/ammo performance reliably. We’ve seen shooters perform excellently with both methods, so we can’t say gauging rimfires is a waste of time or a hidden trick. If we can figure out a test protocol, the question might be worth looking into.

----------

Wide-Ranging Interests
After two issues, I like what I’ve seen in Performance Shooter. I’ve been shooting Bullseye and PPC since 1975. Recently I’ve slacked off the bullseye and focused on PPC because of the availability of matches in the area and because I’m a peace officer.

I liked Chick Blood’s article on building a .45 (January 1996). I agree. I would have gone a little bit further. With all the modifications, I’d ask, how much accuracy are we going to build into a gun? Or what standards are we going to use? What should a hardball gun do at 50 yards and what should a wad gun do? I would have added, as I learned while with the 1982 All-Army Pistol Team, and subsequent Army shooting, that, a wad gun should shoot the X-ring ( 11/2 or 2 inch) at 50. I saw the MTU test one of the “Big Guns” guns (Bonnie Harmon) off a machine rest using 185-grain Federal Match. Some guns like the Winchester stuff. Hardball guns, using full-power hardball should do 3 in. The bottom line is that you want to build a gun you can’t outshoot. Also, some guns can be shot better by the shooter, not the Ransom rest.

In addition, I use a Glock 17 in competition. Full-power 115-grain factory or reloads became abusive. I used the gun in PPC matches because our association wanted to bring more semis into shooting. Stock Glocks (17s at least) don’t like lead bullets. I tried various loadings of 3-D 125-grain RN. No matter what the velocity, they wouldn’t group at 50 yards. So I had Mark Atwood at Bullseye Gunworks in Overland Park, Kansas, fit a Jarvis Match barrel using 3.2 gr. of Solo 1000, WW primers with the 3-D 125-grain bullet at 960-970 fps. I averaged a 580 out of 600 Match 5 and got semi-auto distinguished with it. Jarvis claims the barrel will do 2-inch groups at 50 from their machine, and I’m not going to dispute that.

I just bought a Stoner SR-25 fitted with a Leupold Mark 4 M3 10X Mil-Dot scope. The factory target they fired was 0.65 inch at 100 with Remington 168-grain Match bullets. If you have any information about reloading for this rifle, I’d appreciate it.

Keep up the good work.

-Thomas E. Hile
Arbuckle, CA

----------

Anti-Scope
I am greatly appreciative of your efforts to educate the shooting public. I have spent some time trying to educate some members of my local circle, and it is, at times, a hell of a chore. However, with such publications like Performance Shooter, the chore is made a bit easier.

One aspect of precision shooting that has become quite evident to me recently is that scopes are frequently lacking in performance, especially scopes of higher power. I have a fairly large pile of repair reports documenting all sorts of scope problems which were corrected by the builders. in every case, the builder required or rebuilt the scope for just the basic service charge and in all cases, the scope then exhibited noticeably improved performance. However, the fact that 90 percent of these scopes could be improved is disconcerting to me. I guess the final insult occurred this past fall when I mounted a scope with a retail price of $500 and did not even get to shoot the rifle before the scope malfunctioned. I did let the builder know about my feelings and did receive a letter from the company apologizing for my inconvenience and also detailing the vast number of agencies which were currently using their products. However, they neglected to mention if those agencies had ever had scope troubles or even knew what scope troubles were.

In a recent article, G. David Tubb remarks that a good iron sight is apt to be much more accurate than any out of the box scope. I do hope that remark found its way into the board rooms of most scope builders.

There have been all sorts of articles and comparison of scopes published recently, but I notice that these articles concern the quality of the optics rather than the overall performance and reliability of the scope itself. Nowhere have I seen a good comprehensive analysis of how these copes are built and why they are apt to misbehave. I am aware of a growing trend of thought that maybe scope technology has fallen by the wayside when compared to modern gunmaking technologies. I have a letter from Wally Siebert which hints at the problem but which also does acknowledge that there are ever-shrinking aggregates being posted these days. Wally also says that scopes leave a bit to be desired in the way they are designed and assembled. Also along this vein of though, Pat McMillan has been heard to remark that a really good scope is a rare item indeed.

All of this has led me to have a decided mistrust for modern scopes. For instance, on a couple of my reliable meat guns, I still use scopes that are 40 years old and have never caused any functional problems other that parallax and optic failure under poor light. These old B&L Balvars just keep on working. I generally use modern scopes only when I want their modern improvements for some reason.

I would really appreciate reading the results of a thorough study of how scopes work and are assembled and some comparisons arrived at as to their over-all functioning. For instance, many of us keep a well-tuned (read repaired) scope on hand that we use to determine if a rifle is really shooting or if a scope is not performing that well. More than once, I have replaced an apparently functioning scope with a scope of known performance and similar power to achieve a dramatic improvement in accuracy. The other side of the coin is to take a scope that may be questionable and mount it on a benchrest gun. You will find out rapidly if the scope is good or not.

-Peter Thorne
West Haven, VT