Firingline

If you had a class for 'Weapons Designed by a Committee of Lawyers,' I’d second the nomination of the Phoenix HP22A. In the 'fire' position, you can’t remove the magazine. In the 'safe' position, you can’t rack the slide nor drop the hammer. Under stress, I hope one possesses all of one’s cognitive and psychomotor skills, because you’ll need them all to make this weapon function after a failure. We teach clearing drills for fail to fire, fail to feed, stove-pipes and dual feeds. With the trusty Phoenix, (different model, same safeties), we’ve been there and it ain’t pretty! Maybe if we’d had the manual to study, we could have looked less like a beagle

I liked your article regarding the CDL versus BDL, but it is too bad you could not find an "actual" BDL in the .350 Rem. Mag. The rifle you used appears to be a Remington Model 700 Classic. Although the BDL and the Classic are basically the same thing as far as the action, barrel, and sights go, the stock design and finish are different. I realize it is easier to call the Classic "a BDL without the fore-end cap," than it is to explain that you could not find an "actual" BDL in very good condition in a caliber that would have worked for the specific test you ran. Also, the explanation of the differences, no matter how slight they are, may have wasted print space. Nonetheless, good article

Your test on the North American Arms .22 Magnum Black Widow missed two major points. They tend to be carried, and they offer a big advantage in the defense department with the CCI ratshot shells. These are not kill-or-be-killed firearms. They are "stay away from me and/or leave me alone or you are in for a bunch of hurt" guns. I learned this and bought my Black Widow when an old man told me about a 300-pound bully that had him against the wall with his feet off the ground over a reserved space at the flea market. The old guy said he had his NAA mini-revolver in his hand and poked the bully in the stomach and cocked the gun.

I purchased three Springfield Armory XP subcompacts in 9mm & .40 S&W on 10/27/06 from a local shop In Phoenix. To date one of the 9mms has arrived. I waited four weeks for the other two. I called Springfield Armory this morning and talked to a young lady in customer service. Her response was that these pistols popularity has far exceeded their manufacturing capacity, and that I would just have to be patient! When that answer did not satisfy me, she actually took the time to check her production schedule, and told me that they would be producing the .40 calibers soon, and she would try to get some to our local dealer, who happens to be one of their priority dealers because of their volume.

After thinking it over, I really do think that that the old Gun Tests firearms grading system was much better. Though I enjoy reading each issue cover-to-cover, the old system was much more "to the point" and simpler to understand than the current letter-based grades. I plan on sticking around either way, but do give some thought to going back to the other set of firearm grades "Our Pick, Best Buy, Conditional Buy," et cetera.

I like the new letter grading system because it gives me the ability to compare firearms across reviews. I can compare an "A" to any other graded review of a similar firearm regardless of what it was reviewed with or when. Makes the reviews much more flexible and useable. Thanks for a great magazine!

I am a long-time subscriber and appreciate your publication very much. I dont buy a lot of guns, but have a few, including a Cabelas .45 Long Colt after your test. A couple of comments:

I am chagrinned at the "Dont Buy" rating you gave the Para Ordnance CCO CWX745S .45 ACP. I re-read your review on this piece, and your were entirely laudatory, your only reservation being its price, and that on the basis that you had tested a cheaper (operative term) plastic gun that would send the same bullets down range.

Re "Big-Bore Revolvers: For Power,Choose Rugers Super Redhawk," April 2006I was glad to see a review of the .454 Alaskan. I live in the mountains of the West, and I would like to see more comments or an article comparing what we call "bear guns" here. I assume most .454 loads are too much for this guns weight, but would like your staffs opinion. Ruger now has their Alaskan out in .44 Magnum. Is this…

Re "Weatherbys SAS Field Kicks Grass in Duck-Blind Showdown"July 2006I just read your review of Weatherby, Browning and Beretta duck guns. Ill still stick with my two Remington 11-87s instead. The 11-87 doesnt have a magazine cut-off, and Ive talked to the factory about that. To me, that is the glaring deficiency in the gun. …

Re "Cowboy .38 Specials: EMF Is Our Pick, Ruger Gets A Buy Nod," June 2006: Thanks for your great review of the Ruger Blackhawk and some of its competitors. Coincidentally, this same handgun was "reviewed" in another magazine in the same month. What a difference! While the competing article was basically an uncritical description (and complimented the transfer bar mechanism, which you found problematic in your test), it largely compared the new Blackhawk to the original.…

Re A Trio of Pocket .380 ACPs:
Steer Clear of NAAs Guardian, April 2006:

When you tested a new PPK, you had fail-to-fire problems in the double-action mode. Has S&W fixed the problem, and is this a one-gun problem, or is it occurring in the entire PPK line?

Steve

Readers will recall we had trouble with the fine little .380 Walther PPK, now made by S&W. Our test gun failed repeatedly to fire in the double-action mode. We sent the gun back to have the problem looked into, and got it back in short order. The redone gun no longer fails in any way. The gun has now fired many rounds of a variety of ammunition in the DA mode, with zero failures to fire. A phone...