Manufacturing an In-Shop Shooting Drum
In the course of a typical day's gunsmithing, I test fire at least three weapons for such things as inconsistent primer ignition, failure to feed properly, and sear disengagement. With the cost of commercial bullet traps somewhere in the stratosphere, I had no choice but to make my own to keep costs down. My indoor trap, which I use for pistols and rimfire rifles, cost less than $25 to build. Even if you use brand new materials, it should cost less than $100.
Light 308 Win. Bolt Rifles: Winchester, Savage, Mossberg
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.
Range-Finding Binoculars: Zeiss, Steiner, Bushnell, and Swarovski
Adding a rangefinder to binoculars seems like a logical combination of technology. Not only does it mean carrying less equipment, there's less fumbling between binocs and range finder when a target comes into view. All things equal, we initially thought the only downside would be a heavier set of binoculars. We did find the combined technologies added about 11 ounces on average to the binoculars. A pair of Swarovski EL 10x42 binoculars used as the control in our test weighed 29.6 ounces.
The combination of technologies does increase the price, but if you were to purchase a comparable laser rangefinder and binoculars separately, you would approach the same cost. If you are frugal, you could purchase each piece of equipment separately at a significantly lower total cost, but the quality and durability may be compromised. If you are on the fence about paying more for a pair of quality binoculars, then look at any guide who knows his stuff. That guide will be using the best optics he can afford because hunting game means finding game, which is where the binocs come in. The rangefinder feature provides the distance to the beast quickly, so a shot can be taken.
FNP-9 Recoil Spring Solution
Chamber Identification With Cerrosafe
Uncle Mike’s Side-Armor Gear Bags Built for Serious Work
Kel-Tec Rolls Out New Gunlight
Eight Assistant Coaches Added to USA Shootings Re-Structured Shotgun Program
Mossberg Sponsoring Smith & Wesson IDPA Indoor Nationals
DeSantis Pocket Shot Holster Now Accepts Ruger LCP 380 with Laser
Three-Way Handgun Showdown: Springfield, Chiappa, and Kahr
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:
A Brace of 338 Win. Magnums: We Pick Winchester Over Ruger
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.