Letters: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

2206’s failure rate was in error, a Performance Shooter reader points out.

In your March 1997 cover story, “S&W 2206 Rimfire: Why It Failed,” you summarize the total failures as being “nearly 4 percent,” and the primary reason why the 2206 had “shooters shy away.” I guess you don’t like the 2206!

Actually, your published statistics are a bit off. When you add total failures between lots, you need to average the failure rate, not add the lot failures together. The actual failure rate total is 1.8 percent.

-Harold Stromberg
Southington, CT

We appreciate the correction. It’s not that we personally don’t like the 2206—we do, in fact. However, the market didn’t seem to like it. We simply tried to explore some of the possible reasons why. And even with the math error, the 2206’s failure rate was still three times what we experienced in the 41.

----------

High Standard Magazine Tweaking
I found the February 1997 article on High Standard magazine tweaking very curious. My experience with magazines of earlier High Standard models (Supermatic Trophy, 1963-vintage; HD Military, early postwar; Model B, 1930’s) was near-total reliability with all ammo types. This was true also for Colt Woodsmans I owned of the same vintages and, more recently, the Ruger Mark II.

I’m surprised the new High Standard has had so much trouble with the modern version of what was a reliable product 35 to 60 years ago. Mr. Aronstein’s detailed “tweaking” instructions indicate to me that he and, certainly, his firm have the engineering ability to produce generally reliable magazines. I hope they do it.

-Louis V. Riggio
Managing Director
Accuracy Associates International
Hollywood, FL

Things to look for with the older pistols: Failures to fire are caused by a weak driving spring, a broken or short firing pin, or a defective sear or hammer. Unless the sear or hammer have been modified, faults with them are wear related, and they will need to be replaced. If you don’t replace these parts, the gun can go full auto, fail to cock, or the hammer can fall to half cock.

----------

Include Lapua
I received my first issue of your magazine today. Good job! I notice that you are going to compare .22 rimfire ammo. Please have Lapua and Lapua M and L in your comparison tests. These are hot sellers right now, and I would like to know more about them.

Also, when you test spotting scopes, please add the Kowa TSN 77mm. I look forward to many more issues.

-Theodore A. Platt
Wallingford, CT

----------

.250/3000 Case Tips
The old-fashioned way to case-form a .250/3000 Ackley Improved case was to use fast powder in small amounts with filler. This method is out of vogue for good reasons; it’s messy and grimy from filler in barrel, and the shooter doesn’t know if the shoulder will be formed properly.

To get the best out of this cartridge, handloading is the way to go. My Barnes #1 Loading Manual shows that 36 grains of H-4895 with a 75-grain bullet has moderate pressure in a normal .250/3000. If the shoulder is not fully formed, go up to 38 grains of H-4895.

This is a great cartridge, with efficient powder usage. I shoot 85-grain BY bullets from Fowler for varmint shooting. With a 100-grain bullet, is great for deer hunting. In a 24-inch barrel, the 85-grain bullet should run 3,350 fps max and the 100-grain bullet about 3,150 fps max.

-Jim Sutton
Cashmere, WA

When it comes time to mix your own load recipe, remember that smokeless handloading powders all contain about the same amount of energy per unit of weight. However, they differ in burning rate. In a rifle barrel, fast-burning powders like 4227 produce gas at a far higher rate than slow products like 7828. A powder that is too slow won’t create enough pressure to produce the necessary velocity. A too-fast powder will produce excessive pressure without enough velocity. Performance will suffer either way. For the average rifle cartridge, begin experimenting with a powder charge weighing about 85 percent of the cartridge’s water capacity. With an appropriate powder, these charges will usually fill the case to the shoulder.

----------

Special .38 Kudos
Thanks for your test on the .38 ammo. I can’t recall anyone doing one like that before. I’d like to give you some feedback, though. I shoot PPC. I started with a SW586 made in 1982. I graduated to a Bill Davis Grade 3. This has an Aristocrat Rib, Apex barrel w/weights, and a very fine action. I reload, and only Federal primers can be used because of the light hammer fall on double action. Davis guarantees this gun will hold the X ring on a PPC target at 50 yards.

The highest score I ever shot with the 586 was a 1480. The highest with the Davis is 1492. That includes some 599s at the 50-yard line. For years, I’ve used 2.8 Bullseye with the 3-D HBWS to get 750-775 fps. Recently, I changed to 2.6 grains of Solo 1000. It burns a little cleaner than the Bullseye and produces the same velocity.

Over the past two years I got a little frustrated because my average hung about 1483, a point or two below making the Governor’s 20. The gun had been checked and had a clean bill of health. There were two things that came to mind. One was that I had a lot of casings from different companies. Two, I had never sandbagged the gun. No Ransom Rests here! I had several different ammos, and I took these and went out to my private range.

I fired under excellent conditions at 50 yards. First the Remingtons, 2x6 rounds from the same position. I got a ragged hole of about 2 inches. Then I fired the mixed-case stuff. The width of the group was about 2 inches or so, but they were vertically strung to 5 inches. Then I fired the like-case reloads. They acted like the Remingtons. Then I went back to the Remingtons (the gun had not been cleaned) and produced the same group as the original.

I realize this was not as careful a test as you did, but this season I’m sticking with the same cases-a new lot of 1,000 brass I bought. Mentally, I feel better and wished I would have done this test before. At least I have peace of mind now.

-Thomas E. Hile
Arbuckle, CA

----------

Scope Resolution
I have been reading your publication awhile, and like what you’re doing. In particular, I was glad to see Bob Robb’s February 1997 direct comparison of four of the bigger scopes—all scopes that I’ve used, incidentally. I agree that the Light Collector on the Burris is a nice feature. I have used one to take thousands of South Dakota prairie dogs, and in the bright summer sun out there, it’s handy to be able to stop down the entrance pupil size.

But I do have a question. Several times it’s mentioned that in testing for resolution, the scopes would easily read 1-inch type at 50 yards when set at 12X. Is this supposed to be difficult? This can easily be done with much lower-power scopes. With a 12X setting, letters on a target can be read much farther in decent light.

Maybe Robb will explain this.

-Bob Bell
Editor-in-Chief
Handloader’s Digest

Robb said he printed out a facsimile of an eye-doctor’s chart with characters ranging from 36 point (half inch), to 60 point. He was able to read half-inch type with all the scopes, which is a more critical test than marking the location of holes on paper. However, he said he should have written one-half inch, rather than one inch, for the size of the characters.

----------

Backlash Backlash
Regarding your optics comparison in the March 1997 issue, I feel that you did not do justice to the return-to-settings adjustments. Any screw-operated device will have some backlash, so that to truly test, you must always approach the settings from the same direction. To move to the right 16 clicks and then return, will always result in an error equivalent to the backlash. You must return 16+ clicks (say 20), and then move 4 clicks right to reach the original setting.

I find it very disappointing that you rated these scopes as well as you did with the glaring errors on returning to zero. For my use in target shooting, these are unacceptable errors.

-Richard K. Peelle
Corning, NY

----------

Swimming Eyes
I enjoyed the article about aftermarket adjustable pistol sights in the November 1996 issue. I am sure that the conclusions are correct. It was incorrect, in my opinion, to assume why some of these effects occur. For example, eye movement has absolutely nothing to do with the front sight swimming with open sights. The front sight, or any sight, swims because the eye cannot focus in two different planes at the same time. Only one plane in the sight picture can be in focus. The others throw multiple images (blur circles) on the retina. The best practical focus is about 2 to 4 meters in front of the front sight. This is about equal to +0.25 to +0.50 diopters, if you wish to add this to your prescription. This addition is a must for precision shooters and hunters.

-LTC (ret) John C. Heiby
St. Clairsville, OH

Mr. Heiby is an optometrist and a former consultant to the Army Marksmanship Unit.