October 2003

Firing Line: 10/03

Looking at Laser Sights
Re September 2003, “Looking at Laser Sights: What’s Right for the Self-Defense Shooter”:

I found your comments to reflect my experience with the Crimson Trace laser on my Taurus 85 .38 Special. However, what you did not say anything about was accuracy of the weapon with and without the laser. I found my Taurus to be very inaccurate with just the iron sights. About as accurate as throwing a baseball, I always said. This is due to the nonadjustable sights and the short length of the sight radius. No slight to Taurus, the gun is designed for lightweight carry and close-proximity defense, not target shooting. After adding the Crimson Trace laser, my accuracy was dramatically improved. This is due to the effect of lengthening the sight radius, in effect, all the way to the target. In an emergency, the gun can be shot immediately without the shooter waiting to acquire the red dot. However, if I have the time, I’m glad I have the extra accuracy afforded by the red dot on the point of impact. Also, for dry-fire practice at home, it’s an eye opener to see how much my supposedly firm, steady grip on the weapon actually wiggles the red dot when I try to hold on target.

-Mark Phillips
@comcast.net

----------

Opinion on S&W AirLite?
I am a fairly new subscriber and thoroughly enjoy your publication. I am thinking about buying a S&W 360 AirLite. I have read on your 2003 Buying Guide the article on the 386 AirLites, but have you done any evaluations of the smaller 360? I am thinking about the 360PD with red ramp or high-visibility front sites, but I also like the longer, adjustable-sight 360 Kit Gun. The gun will be for concealed carry. I like the High-Viz front sight compared to the red ramp, but I am concerned about its durability and snagging on belt/pants/holster. I’d appreciate hearing any comments you have on this product and on the front sight options.

-Mike Strachn
@cox.net


Sorry, but we haven’t gotten around to the 360PD. But we’ll take a look at it when we test lightweight carry revolvers again. -Todd Woodard

----------

Kahr T-9 and DSA SA58
I enjoy reading your magazine and have stopped subscribing to all the slick gun magazines. I appreciate that you do not use telemarketers to hound your customers about magazine renewals. I want to thank you for respecting your customers’ privacy. I would enjoy reading evaluations on the new Kahr T-9 and DSA’s SA58. Keep up the good work. You provide a valuable service to firearms enthusiasts.

-Name Withheld

----------

Sub 2000 Follow-up
Re: April 2003, “Firing Line”:

This is a follow-up to the Sub 2000 feeding problems I had that you published some months ago. After getting the okay from the Kel-Tec gunsmith to lightly polish out the very uneven and very notched feed ramp on my Sub 2000, I went and purchased a Dremel polishing kit and had at it. First, I “lightly” polished the feed ramp with a tapered Dremel medium-coarse stone to make a continuous feed ramp. (Turns out that the tapered stone was just slightly larger than the 9mm chamber.) The feed ramp ended up a bit wider and slightly deeper, but it was one nice, even ramp from its beginning on the retention collar to its end in the chamber. Next, I used the polishing compound to make the ramp mirror smooth. I then went to the range to find out if I was going to keep it or send it back to Kel-Tec for replacement. The results — perfect. Not one feed problem no matter what magazine or ammo was used. At an indoor range with a 17-round clip using rapid fire, I was able to punch a 1.5-inch by 2-inch hole at 25 yards. I just wish that Kel-Tec had made the feed ramp correctly in the first place.

-G.E. Cook
Florida

----------

August Downrange
Re: August 2003, “Downrange”:

Can’t help but think of the problems California has had with its leadership, and now going after the .50 calibers. It’s typical of the pea-brain hippie mentality that pervaded the West Coast in the ’50s. With those pot-smoking flowers-in-your-hair idiots who are now in public office, this is what we are going to see.

-Frank Barbera
@tampabay.rr.com

----------

BAR Recoil
Re: July 2003, “Semiauto Battlefield Guns, Part II: Another BAR and an 8mm MG-34”:

In my Navy training I recall instruction on the care and feeding of the BAR. The issue of recoil during automatic fire was also addressed, with a careful explanation of a damping system built into the stock. I think this consisted of a weight and spring arrangement. The semi-auto you tested probably doesn’t have this.

-Bill Heney
@starpower.net

----------

Kahr P9 Review
Re: July 2003, “Subcompact 9mm Pistols: Our Pick for Concealed Carry and Combat”:

Talk about good timing. I purchased a new Kahr P9 in mid-June, and about 2 weeks later, your July issue arrived with a review of my Kahr and two other subcompacts. I’m glad I purchased my P9 before I read your review, otherwise, I may have passed up an excellent gun. Unlike your experience with the P9, mine came adequately lubricated right out of the box, completely reliable from round one, showed no noticeable wear on the plastic rails after about 350 rounds of assorted 115-grain ammo consisting of Winchester ball and Remington and Federal JHPs. Also, all three of my magazines fall free of the gun when ejected — empty or full. Like most other guns, it has its peculiarities, for sure, but mine is a delight to shoot and carry, is extremely accurate, 100 percent reliable, and beats the hell out of the S&W J frames I’ve toted for more than 30 years. I’m not sure what you mean by the “vague” trigger on the P9 — different, perhaps, but certainly not vague. All my shooting was done between 7 and 15 yards, both slow and rapid fire, and I shot it a lot better than both my J frame Smiths at that same distance, and both have had trigger work done. Anyway, it works for me, and I think if you had followed the manufacturer’s instructions and put 200 rounds through it before passing judgment, your evaluation would have presented a more accurate assessment of this neat little piece of equipment. You would have given it a definite “Buy” rating.

-R. E. Feener

----------

.22 Pumps
Re: June 2003, “Pump-Rifle Probe: Are Rimfire Slide Actions Any Good?”

The Model 62 was a rifle that I first shot as boy. You may be interested to know that the phrase, “load it on Sunday and shoot it all week long,” originated during the war of Northern Aggression when the Brave Defenders of States Rights were confronted with the Henry rifle. I find myself going to the Firing Line section of each issue first quite often. The feedback is very interesting. Keep the good work.

-Albert J. Brock

----------

Mini-14s: Always Inaccurate?
I would be interested in your testing the sleeves that fit over and supposedly stiffen the exposed portion of the Mini-14 factory barrel (forward of the gas block) to prevent warping or bending during firing. Clark Custom Guns (www.clarkcustomguns.com, $245; $380 installed) Accuracy Rifle Systems (www.Mini-14.net, $160), and Accuracy Systems (www.accuracysystemsinc.com, $319.95, incl. match trigger & installation all feature these products. Will you be testing them soon?

-Name Withheld


Not soon, but we’re working on getting this together. -Todd Woodard

----------

Kahr P9 Reloading
Re: July 2003, “Subcompact 9mm Pistols: Our Pick for Concealed Carry and Combat”:

Thanks for the review of the Kahr P9. I’ve owned one for about 8 months and have been very pleased with it. Having shot the Glock 26, I choose the Kahr P9 because the grip and frame size makes it much easier to shoot for those of us with small to medium sized hands. It shoots to precisely to point of aim in elevation, though I needed to drift the rear sight just slightly right to center my groups. As you reported, I also found the magazines reluctant to drop free of the gun when new, but discovered that just a light wipe of BreakFree CLP on the magazine bodies was enough to get them to drop free with enthusiasm. As far as long-term wear on the guide rails, only time will tell, but your advice on proper slide lubrication is sound.

-Brian Bristol
Webster, MN

----------

Springfield Armory’s MIL-SPEC 1911 .45
Re: April 2002, “.38 Supers: Pleasant-To-Shoot Power Packed Into 1911 Pistols”:

Since 1954, at age 12, I’ve been crazy about handguns; and I’ve owned many (and some rifles and shotguns) over the years. In 1962 I talked my dad out of his Colt .45 Gold Cup (to shoot in competition), and I’ve owned it ever since. I shot my .22 Browning medalist in college team competition; but I’ve never enjoyed shooting handguns as much as collecting them. I only enjoy shooting .45 Colt autos, probably because of the “feel” of the grip with the “humped” mainspring housing and the “short” trigger. I also enjoy the recoil as the pistol rises and twists slightly to the left, and the full “thump” sound I hear through my earmuffs.

I long ago “retired” my Gold Cup (in 99 percent condition), and although I have several “collector” .45 Colt autos, I recently decided to get a “working government .45” I could shoot to my heart’s content. I looked though my stack of Gun Tests; found your April 2002 evaluation of SA’s MilSpec 1911 .38 Super, and bought a new Springfield Armory MilSpec .45 stainless (coincidentally, advertised at a price I just couldn’t pass up).

The MilSpec’s slide/frame fit is outstanding (actually, the overall fit and finish of everything is great), and the trigger is very decent. The MilSpec has no “custom” features (OK, SA “relieved” the ejection port, but it’s not noticeable). It has a “drift adjustable” rear sight, an unskeletonized hammer, unlightened “short” trigger, and (best of all) no “beavertail” grip safety! Just as a personal touch, I replaced the black plastic grips with checkered wood ones that I found in a drawer.

I shot it; I love it!

-Bob Easton
Lancaster, Ohio

----------

Springfield .45-70 Review
Re: August 2003, “Trapdoor Springfields: What’s Your Best Historical Purchase?”

I thoroughly enjoyed your review of the Springfield clones in your August 2003 issue. My father was a gunsmith who created fine hunting rifles from inexpensive military arms, primarily the Japanese Arisakas, which were plentiful and cheap after WW II. One of my favorite rifles that he created, however, is an 1873 Springfield, probably an officer’s model. The barrel is 21 inches long, with an original stock, on to which he grafted a pistol grip and a cheek piece. He also added a Lyman tang sight, leaving the original ladder rear sight intact. (This redundancy of rear sights was deliberate, as you can check to see if your sights have been bumped into misalignment simply by flipping up the ladder and seeing if all three are still in agreement.) This rifle also features a case-hardened receiver, everything else being blued. I originally shot the 405-grain factory loads in it, but now handload with a 300-grain Hornady hollowpoint. This gun will put it through the same hole all day long, and the straight-walled brass makes for very easy reloading. The overall simplicity of design is great for a hunting rifle, as there are few moving parts to freeze up or break, and the trigger can be stoned as smooth as butter. Here in the Adirondacks, one couldn’t find a more practical rifle with which to hunt. Thanks again!

-Scott Severance

----------

Correction
In the review of Trapdoor Springfields, we listed the source of the Trapdoor Springfield Officer’s Model incorrectly. The Pedersoli Springfield Trapdoor Officer’s Model, .45/70, 26-inch barrel, $1,540 is product number CRSTDR457026. Contact EMF at (949) 261-6611, or www.emf-company.com.

----------

SW1911: Third Opinion
Re: April 2003, “Philippine 1911s: Do Foreign .45s Compare To A Big-Name Pistol?”

Just read your SW1911 review and the “Second Opinion” in the April issue. For an additional data point, the trigger pull on my new SW1911 (S/N JRD04xx), as measured by my Lyman electronic trigger pull gauge, is right at 4 pounds (average of five measurements). The grip safety on my pistol requires 4.75 pounds to depress fully, again using the Lyman gauge. In my case, when I grasp the pistol, I don’t even notice the grip safety. Perhaps it’s my large hands. Ray mentions “adding a pad” to the grip safety. My pistol’s grip safety has the pad. And yes, my pistol came with the requisite bushing wrench. All in all, this is the pistol Colt should have built.

-Walter J. Kuleck, Ph.D.


The writer is author of The AR-15 Complete Owner’s Guide and The AR-15 Complete Assembly Guide—Build your own AR-15!, available from www.fulton-armory.com. Ned Christiansen, who recently sent me his concurring opinion of the grip safety: “Long story short: the gun works 100 percent, but that fuggin’ grip safety bugaboo makes it impossible. But for that it’s a great gun. With that it’s absolutely worthless. Some folks will not have the problem we do, but it needs to be much better before they start selling these! It is a result of a beavertail being put in without being hi-cut, so the hand is actually pushing up more than in, de-activating it.” Ned is completing my suggested modifications, and testing the gun in light of doing whatever else his massive expertise and ongoing competition experience dictates. I told him to make it into a gun that he’d be willing to carry, and to document whatever he does, and all his opinions along the way. This ought to make a good follow-up, especially since I’m currently also shooting the Valtro. -Ray Ordorica

----------

S&W’s New 1911
Re: April 2003, “Philippine 1911s: Do Foreign .45s Compare To A Big-Name Pistol?”

Thanks for your review of S&W’s latest .45. I fail to understand why you would a no name like Armscor and not the best competitive 1911 guns from those in the “out of the box” industry like Kimber’s custom, Springfield’s standard, Dan Wesson and Colt. I don’t care how the new S&W 1911 compares to a $350 to $500 gun that needs work just to make it fire. Thanks for letting me vent and I do enjoy your magazine.

-D. R. Moriarty


It was a difficult call. We could have held the gun for another test, but it was brand new, and we had had lots of inquiries about it. My judgment was to get the info to readers as soon as practical. -Todd Woodard

----------

TNW’s Browning 1919a4 (Field Strip)
Re: July 2003, “Semiauto Battlefield Guns, Part II”:

As a subscriber and shooter of the 1919a4 I enjoyed reading your reviews of the 1919 and the 1917 . Please check out website www.1919a4.com for complete disassembly instructions of the 1919a4 (with clear photos). At this site you will find a wealth of information on 1919a’s and related items.

-Robert R. Polson
Portsmouth, Virginia

----------

Pistol Selection
Re November 2002, “.380 Pistols: Beretta’s Cheetah Wins Small-Gun Showdown”:

Thank you for an excellent publication to which I enthusiastically subscribe. I offer a few suggestions to improve it further, namely in the area of comparison or group testing and how weapons are selected for those tests.

First, as background to my suggestion, an example of my concern: wishing to ensure that my wife shall constantly carry a pistol for self defense, i.e., a compromise between an effective caliber and weight/size, I eagerly awaited a comparison test of pistols in .380 ACP. With splendid timing, the November 2002 issue had such a report selecting the Beretta Cheetah over the Walther PPK/S-1, Bersa Thunder, and NAA Guardian.

My concern is over the selection of pistols for that test. While I applaud that you select a wide range of firearms by (perceived) quality, “image” and price, I wonder at your selection criteria for firearms for this and others of your tests. In the particular case, what of the SIG 232, surely a quality pistol (to be) compared with such as the Beretta and Walther? And, one any one in the market for an effective, reliable and sufficiently accurate .380 should consider? Thus, after reading the article I was not effectively served in helping me determine which pistol to buy for my wife.

I have noticed this dislocation on several other tests. How do you select firearms for such tests?

Anticipating your riposte that you “cannot test all and every firearm in a category,” however defined, I suggest that it is still a responsibility to cover the market range as available to the average customer in the USA. That is, I do not understand why such a pistol as the SIG 232 was omitted from what could have been a definitive test of .380 pistols.

Thus, my three suggestions, which are not mutually exclusive:

1. Having stated a theme, review the USA market for all firearms that are readily available and test a copy of each. This may mean less frequent testing, but a more meaningful result for those looking for an educated and experienced-backed assessment of what is available.

2. On any test report note all (other) firearms that might be of interest to your readers in the test category as defined, noting the reasons why you feel those weapons were unworthy of consideration or otherwise inappropriate and were therefore excluded from the test.

3. Create and maintain a set of standardized assessment categories, with ‘corrected’ scoring, e.g., as per various motorcycle testing regimes that award points out of (say) ten within a fixed set of uniform categories for all tests for such as handling, reliability, ergonomics, comfort, etc., that would allow some “like for like” comparison of weapons tested and reported on across multiple articles.

Finally, how do you rate the SIG 232 against the Beretta Cheetah?

-Adrian Coombes
@seanet.com


There are some limits to what we can include in a given article. Four guns, for instance, is the maximum, mainly for the complexity of the review. Other guns in the category can be reviewed at gun-tests.com. -Todd Woodard

----------

Taurus Model 62
Re: June 2003, “Pump-Rifle Probe, Are These Rimfire Slide Actions Any Good?”

After reading a rave review of this handy little rifle in a major publication, I purchased one. I, too, was impressed with the finish, wood to metal fit and the smooth action and trigger, as well as its compact size. I don’t believe your disappointment with the accuracy was a fluke. All of its attributes were negated by terrible accuracy, the worst I have experienced with any firearm purchase. I believe just about any inexpensive .22 rifle should be capable of 2-inch accuracy at 50 yards. This one wouldn’t come close, even with the best quality match ammunition. Four-, 5- and 6-inch groups were the norm. Slugging the barrel may have provided the answer. It had all the uniformity of a bloated snake. Just another reason why I now view the mainstream magazines as just entertainment.

-Roger Warren
Waco, Texas

----------

Taurus M62, Part II
Re: June 2003, “Pump-Rifle Probe, Are These Rimfire Slide Actions Any Good?”

I have just read the evaluation of pump-action .22 rifles. Thought you might like to know that it is not just your Taurus M62 that wants for accuracy. I bought a M62 with the 22-inch barrel for my son almost three years ago and have had the same problems. It is a wonderful, handy little rifle, with abysmal accuracy. I’ve put about 2,000 rounds through the rifle but have never gotten groups smaller than 4 inches at 50 yards and many are in the 6- to 7-inch range. This is actually the second of these rifles that I have owned. The first one had serious problems. It was misfiring at a rate of 30 percent and had a dangerously light trigger. I sent it back to Taurus, and they promptly sent me a second rifle. This rifle has only misfired once or twice, but the accuracy is so bad that my son refuses to shoot it. It is too discouraging for him. Luckily, he has since “adopted” my Remington 700 in .243. I haven’t given up on this rifle because I think it would make a great squirrel/rabbit rifle if I could just get it to shoot. Your article mentioned that Mr. Ordorica thought it might be possible to get better accuracy out of this rifle. I would love to know what he suggests. I’ve had every brand of .22 ammunition available locally through my M62 and still can’t get better than 4 inches at 50 yards. Great magazine, I just wish this article had come out about three years ago.

-Brian Stafford
@mynra.com

----------

It’s Old Grumpy Again
Re March 2003, “Big-Bore Snubbies: Taurus and Smith & Wesson Compete”:

You found that the Taurus snubbie was 8 ounces heavier than what was listed on the Taurus website. Just the tip of the iceberg. You found that the S&W 396-1 weighed 22 ounces. My model 396-1 weighs exactly 22 ounces on my scales also, but note that the weight given in the S&W 2003 catalog is 18 ounces. Reality weight is 22 percent more. My Model 317 has a catalog weight of 10.5 ounces. Real weight is 12 ounces, 15 percent more. The Model 60, SKU 162420, has a catalog weight of 22.5 oz. Real weight is 27 ounces, or 20 percent more.

The big surprise was the Model 629, 4-inch barrel. This gun has been tuned by the S&W Performance Center, laser engraved, and Mag-Na-Ported. I wouldn’t expect those processes to add weight. But the 41.5 oz catalog weight is far less than the reality weight of half a pound more, 49.8 ounces.

I maintain that anyone planning on purchasing a handgun on the basis of weight, not just S&W, should add about 20 percent to catalog figures, or better yet, weigh the planned purchase yourself, if possible.

-Dave Ward
Indian Springs, Nevada

----------

Thanks!
Re: September 2003, “Downrange”:

Thank you for your timely editorial deferral to John Lott Jr. I was really distressed by the media portrayal of our government disarming the Iraqi civilians. I certainly didn’t think it was appropriate given the tentative goal of encouraging democracy in Iraq. Why shouldn’t the Iraqis enjoy the same benefits as our constitution expressed? Then when John’s editorial came out it put a whole new light on the subject, and I understood that the media had once again distorted or withheld a part of the story that didn’t suit their agenda. Maybe other newspapers ran the complete story, but not here in Seattle, liberal yuppie Jim McDermott heaven.

Keep up the good work.

-Curt Greer
Marysville, WA

----------

Looking at Lasers
Re September 2003, “Looking at Laser Sights: What’s Right for the Self-Defense Shooter”:

I consider Gun Tests to be the “Consumer Reports” of gun enthusiasts. Most of the time, it’s simple, direct, and, most importantly, objective. However, your recent article about laser sights was an unfortunate display of old fogy prejudice. True, you gave both lasers a good rating, but you did so grudgingly.

You spent the first four columns on why you don’t like lasers. For one of your guns, you didn’t bother to get a laser that fit properly. And your “test” consisted of pointing your lasers at trees and rocks instead of shooting with them at the range to discover some of their benefits.

Obviously you had decided beforehand that you didn’t like lasers, so you really didn’t test anything. Worse, your conclusion that lasers are fine for people with failing vision but not for “experienced” shooters is not only wrong, it’s borderline insulting.

I don’t care how experienced you and your “test team” consider yourselves to be, virtually everyone in a sudden, dynamic, life or death situation will experience confusion and tunnel vision. So if a bad guy suddenly crashes into your bedroom at 3 a.m., it’s unlikely that you’ll be able to draw your gun, assume a Weaver stance, and focus exclusively on the front sight to squeeze off a well-placed center mass shot. If fact, reports from police and soldiers in battle show that under stress, even those who are well-trained often end up fixated on the target, not the front sight.

Should you train with iron sights? Of course. But why dismiss a tool as practical as a laser when it comes to self-defense? It lets you look at the target (where you’re probably going to be looking anyway) and allows virtually any shooter to hit what he or she is aiming at with a minimum of practice. We all choose different tools. But don’t trash one simply because you prefer another. Gun Tests is better than that. And your readers deserve more objectivity, better testing, and more balanced reporting.

-Dean Rieck
Columbus, Ohio


Actually, what most readers call objectivity is simply honesty, and that’s why we usually say, “in our opinion.” Part of being honest is disclosing, right up front, what our biases are, and why we hold them. You’re then free to disagree, but at least you know why we preferred one product over another. -Ray Ordorica

----------

Jealous of Youth
Re September 2003, “Firing Line”:

I am so jealous of Mr. Woznick, who can hit a golf ball at 95 yards with his XD .357. I would now have to use a bazooka to do so, or at least a scoped 30-06. I have several witnesses who can verify that none of us can even see a golf ball at 95 yards distance.

-Dean Hall

----------

Trapdoor Springfield
Re: August 2003, “Trapdoor Springfields: What’s Your Best Historical Purchase?”

Your August 2003 issue scored again with good advice for the gun buyer. I have read your magazine for many years, and have never been dissatisfied after purchasing one of your recommended guns. The article on trapdoor Springfields was excellent. Every Pedersoli product I have seen or handled displayed a high level of workmanship and fine material, particularly the wood. If any readers out there are interested in the old trapdoor, I suggest they check out www.the45-70book.com. The book featured on this site, “Loading Cartridges for the Original .45-70 Springfield Rifle and Carbine,” by J.S. and Pat Wolf, contains a wealth of information about the care of the rifle, the many variations, and how to identify a good original specimen. The emphasis is on black powder, but any trapdoor Springfield shooter will want this book. By the way, an original trapdoor in Very Good to Excellent condition with all original parts will cost more than the brand new Pedersoli!

-Dr. Greg Vermeychuk
Newark, Delaware

----------

A Subject Dear To His Heart
Re: July 2003, “.45 Single-Action Colts and Clones: USFA’s Rodeo Is Our Pick”:

I’ve inspected several Colt/Colts and find that, in my experience, everything you said about the New Colt was borne out, except the firing part. All my Colt firings have been with older sixguns and were a good experience. $1700+ for a name just doesn’t work for a revolver that must be immediately sent to a gunsmith for repairs! Yes, I said repairs, as I consider all these as faults, as you said, not acceptable at that price level. As for other brands, I have three kinds of Uberti, all with minor problems, but the prices of which make them more than acceptable. All shoot well, very near where I look, all three have the traditional sight picture. But there are differences.

1. A Cimarron .44-40 with a 4.75-inch barrel. Standard blue, but with excellent gray casehardening. When it came, the blackpowder frame had a “thumbscrew” to hold the basepin in. Replaced with the proper slotted screw. And a two-stop basepin. I replaced it with the standard basepin from one of the others that had the spring-loaded retainer. Works fine. As to finish, nowadays you can tell a Cimarron easily. Just slide your thumb gently over the top of the frame and the first slot always catches in a springloaded type. If the left side tries to cut you, it’s a Cimarron.

As you remarked, the cylinder rotates back too far and empties have a tendency to hang up on the frame. Loading is not a problem, as a sharp push combined with the neck of the cartridge makes it work fine. Scratches on the case-hardened hammer where the cut for the frame had some burrs. They don’t look out of place, as this was a used gun and there is some holster wear. Trigger break is crisp at about 3 lbs. and it cocks easy and locks up tight. Will look even better when I get my TruIvory grips.

2.) An older Regulator Uberti, 5 1/2" bbl., .357/38 has the Mickey mouse hammer safety. Absolutely stunning casehardening on the frame, with both light and dark elements. Not true Colt colors. The only really bad thing about the look of the gun is the brass TG/BS. Oh well, nickel or silver will take care of that as well as a set of TruIvory grips. Lots of sharp edges here, not in the loading area, than goodness. The hammer slot in the frame could be used as a razor. The lower edge of the ejector rod housing is sharp. The cylinder fit is tight, and the bushing is not only immobile, but very sharp. It is, however, precisely machined. Hard to get cylinder out, but there’s no play in it whatever. This one has the truck spring. I put a leather bushing under the mainspring, and it helped, but you still cannot free-spin the cylinder. Good no-creep letoff though, about 3 to 4 pounds.

3. The last Uberti is a .45 with a 7 1/2" bbl, marked Stoeger. Very dark casehardening, but no razors hidden on this one. It does have the Mickey Mouse safety on the hammer, but trigger pull is about the same as the others. It does not seem to hang up empties, nor do I have problems loading. Whee. Very satisfactory. So there you have it. Eventually, all three will have regular one-slot basepins, and Colt type hammers with no Mickey Mouse safeties of any kind. Load one, skip one, load four, cock and let her down works even in the dark. Hell, you can see if the next chamber is loaded or not.

Thanks for a fine magazine. I don’t always agree with you, but you always have a reason (usually the sample you are trying out) and usually explain them adequately.

-James Nixon
Corpus Christi, Texas