Re “Lever Actions from Winchester, Rossi, and Taylor’s & Co. Joust,”
August/September 2025
Todd, as always, your magazine is topnotch. I own a Ruger/Marlin 1894 in 44 Magnum, and I have dropped a lot of feral pigs with it using over-the-counter ammo. But I saw a big jump in accuracy once I had Williams Fool Proof sights installed. The gun now shoots 1.5-inch groups at 100 yards from a rest using almost any ammo. The sights make a good gun better, and they are a worthwhile investment.
— Luger Mike
Hey Mike: Thanks for the recommendation. The Williams Gun Sight FP sights feature a bright-red fiber-optic front sight and fully adjustable peep or U-notch rear sights. The FP (Fool Proof) micro-adjustable peep sight mounts to existing holes in the top or side of the receiver, depending on the model. WilliamsGunSight.com.
— Todd Woodard
Re “21 Sharp Evaluation: We’re Not Impressed with the Round,”
May 2025
A quick comment on the “Special Report” about the 21 Sharp evaluation. I have seen and read several articles in other gun magazines, including your article. None of these articles make any statement about not using 21 Sharp ammo in 22 Long Rifle firearms.
All of the articles I’ve read note that the rimfire cases of the two cartridges are the same and that the only difference being the heel-based bullet versus the 21 Sharp projectile diameter difference (0.015 inch). It seems an advisory or warning should be noted. Please comment. — Ron
Hey Ron: As you warn, it is a very bad idea to fire a load in a chamber it was not designed for. Perhaps we always make the assumption that Gun Tests readers won’t chamber rounds in rifles their barrels aren’t marked for. However, here is what would happen. Some have already tried it, and this is purely for information and warning. The smaller-diameter 21 Sharp will chamber just fine in a 22 LR. Upon ignition, the gasses from the burning powder will blow by the smaller-diameter bullet as the powder gasses escape. Velocity would be poor. Also, the bullet may well miss a target at even 20 yards. Don’t try it!
— Bob Campbell
Hi Todd, I am so glad I’m a subscriber to Gun Tests. I just read your Special Report about the new 21 Sharp rimfire cartridge and saw the problems you had with the Savage Mark II F rifle chambered in 21 Sharp. Like you, I was curious about the new cartridge, so I bought a 100-round box of Winchester 21 Sharp ammo with the 34-grain jacketed hollow-point bullet. I then looked online and found that Savage makes three bolt-action rifles chambered for the new cartridge. They’re all relatively inexpensive: the Savage website shows prices ranging from $269 to $369. I was going to order one of these rifles so I could test the ammo. After reading your article, I changed my mind. I’m going to save my money and avoid the frustration of dealing with a malfunctioning rifle. — Paul
Hey Paul: We are glad to help. We hope the new 21 Sharp round gets the bugs worked out of it. We’ll look at it again in a couple of years. — tw
I was particularly interested in your May 2025 21 Sharp evaluation for a number of reasons, the first one being the stuck fired cases in the Savage B Series F and MK II rifles. Relatedly, I have a Savage B-Mag 17 WSM rifle that gets thoroughly cleaned every 50 rounds fired. Well, the just-cleaned rifle was problem-free until (Winchester) round number 717. It got stuck, and the extractor could not pull it out, even with repeated tries. A cleaning rod was needed. The same problem repeated for the next five rounds, at which point the rifle became a safe queen, and I’ve reverted to my Browning T-Bolt 17 HMR. The Savage extractor still looks new and undamaged. I log all rounds fired in all my rifles. So, with your findings and mine, I now really question the reliability of Savage rimfire rifles. Finally, not to forget, similar to your experience with the Savage magazines, my 17 WSM magazines are a curse to load, whereas those of the Browning 17 HMR are pure pleasure .
Next thing. The recent 10 years thereabouts has seen a proliferation of new and unnecessary cartridge offerings, the 21 Sharp being just one such example. Likewise, who needs a lengthy list of ballistically similar 6.5mm cartridges, or 7mm cartridges, or 30-caliber cartridges? In some instances, the new round is supported by only one ammo manufacturer, seriously limiting supply. For example, for me 17 WSM ammo was not available since before COVID until autumn 2024.
Finally, you list two emails for readers to use, GunTestsEditor@me.com and GunTestsEditor@ icloud.com. Why? — Murray
Hey Murray: We list both email addresses because some SMTP services will choke on one or the other. They both land right here on my desk in Houston. — tw
Praise for Garmin Xero C1 Pro Chronograph
Hello Todd and staff. I noticed in your June/July 2025 issue you twice mentioned the use of the Garmin Xero C1 Pro chronograph. I wish to express my high satisfaction with the one I bought from Midsouth Shooters Supply. It arrived inside of five days with insured delivery because of cost. I was so surprised with the ease of set up and use. Offered my friends at my muzzleloader club (Joliet Muzzle Loaders) to check their loads. So easy. I still have my former chronograph with the sun shields and sticks for keeping shots over the sensors, but I will probably donate it to the local ISRA range office for needy shooting newbies.
I also wish to thank you for your fine technical detailing in your product reviews and the carefully worded descriptions, fine close-up photography, comparison line-ups in charts, disassembled firearms photos. It is almost as if I got my fingers on those guns and they came apart in my hands. In particular, I liked the review of CZ-USA Shadow/SIG Sauer X5 Legion in the June/July issue. Fine writing. Please keep at it. — Mike
Hey Mike: That Garmin seems to be a favorite of both Contributing Editors Joe Woolley and Robert Sadowski. Joe is pictured above with the Garmin on the bench with him during this issue’s tests of 223 Remington bolt actions. There’s also a similar one by Athlon that may require a comparison. — tw
