The Truth About Gun Tests...THE TRUTH ABOUT “GUN TESTS” The more a riﬂ e departs from...

78 � Gun Digest®

BY JON R. SUNDRA

A signifi cant percent-

age of hunters and

shooters who read gun

magazines and annuals like Gun Digest

on a regular basis do so because they’re

interested in rifl e tests. Why? Well, there

are several reasons, all of which fall

under the umbrella of curiosity, but the

three major ones are: 1) you already own

the basic model in question; 2) you’re

shopping for a new rifl e and want to make

an enlightened decision; and 3) it truly

is a new design, in which case we’re all

interested in learning what makes it so.

Expanding on reason No. 1, when

a new variation of “your” gun is

introduced, it’s natural to have an

interest in reading what writers have to

say about it; it’s looking for affi rmation

that you made a good choice. But let’s

face it, the vast majority of gun tests

consist of reviewing minor variations

of existing models. Think about it. The

major, domestically produced bolt-action

centerfi re rifl es have been around a long

time. The Savage 110 and Weatherby

Mark V, for example, have been with us

“GUN TESTS”“GUN TESTS”THE TRUTH ABOUT

The fi rst thing author Jon Sundra does is weigh the test gun, as that’s the one spec that is often optimistic.

2013GunTestsedit.indd 782013GunTestsedit.indd 78 5/31/12 10:47 AM5/31/12 10:47 AM

67TH EDITION, 2013 � 79

since the late 1950s, and the Weatherby

Vanguard/Howa for almost as long. The

Remington 700 just celebrated its fi ftieth

anniversary (though, in reality, the basic

action goes back to 1948). As for the

Winchester Model 70 Classic and Ruger

77 MK II, they both surfaced in the early

’90s. The bottom line is that what are

touted as new models differ from others

in their respective product lineups in

only minor details.

As for reason No. 2, it needs little

further comment, other than to say that

most of us want to make our buying deci-

sion knowing what the alternatives are.

Unless we’ve already made up our mind,

comparison shopping simply makes

good sense. And, fi nally, reason No. 3

should be self-explanatory.

So, then, just what is it that readers

expect to learn from the typical rifl e test

and evaluation (T&E)? Well, if you’re not

familiar with the gun in question, you

really can learn a great deal about it by

reading an article or two (presumably

written by a credible authority). But

there are some things you cannot learn,

and those things just may be the most

important of all.

Gun tests, if not unique, are quite

different from reviews of most other

consumer products, because each is a

law unto itself, when it comes to perfor-

mance. Take, for example, a toaster, a

camera, or a television. If we were to buy

the same product that we’d read about,

we know that it will perform exactly as

described by the reviewer. The toaster

will toast, the camera will operate

exactly as described and render pictures

of the same color and sharpness, and the

TV will have the same picture quality as

the one reviewed.

A rifl e, on the other hand, is a

different story, because there are so

many variables involved that affect its

performance, not the least of which is

the person shooting it. But more about

that factor later. Let’s start by looking at

those things we can learn about a rifl e

from a typical gun test.

I’m not sure how many rifl e evalua-

tions I’ve done over the past 42 years,

but it has to be at least 600, so I’ve

long since developed a somewhat

formulaic system, as I’m sure most of

my colleagues have. The fi rst thing I

check, the moment I pick up the gun, is

its weight. I’ve never encountered a rifl e

that didn’t conform to its printed specs

except in the weight department. I’ve

reviewed rifl es that were as much as a

THE TRUTH ABOUT “GUN TESTS”

pound off spec, and it’s always been on

the optimistic side—in other words, I’ve

never seen a gun that was lighter than

the maker said it was!

Among the many things that can

be checked before going to the range

are cartridge feeding and extraction.

Sometimes I’ll use dummy rounds—no

powder or primer—to check functioning,

but it can also be done at the range with

live ammo. If a rifl e has a tendency for its

bolt to bind, it will manifest itself when

the action is cycled from the shoulder.

That’s because the pressure on the bolt

handle tends to come from a different

direction when the action is operated in

a port arms position, compared to when

the gun is shouldered. In the port arms

position, the bolt handle can easily be

pushed in the direction parallel to the

bore, which induces very little torque

to the bolt. But, when operated from the

shoulder, there is a tendency to push

upward on the handle, which applies

torque that has a tendency to bind all

but the smoothest of bolts. Generally

speaking, if the bolt on the test rifl e has

a tendency to bind, so, too, will all other

examples.

Other functions that can be assessed

prior to a visit to the range are trigger

A good T&E should include some history as to the evolution of the existing model. Here a Browning A-Bolt, right, is shown next to it successor, the X-Bolt.

“GUN TESTS”


80 � Gun Digest®


The more a rifl e departs from convention, like this Blaser R8, the more a writer has to both show and describe the differences.

tension, smoothness, and creep, as

well as the effort required to cock the

action (upward pressure to achieve

handle lift). I’ve encountered many

rifl es that required so much effort to

cock, they could not be cycled with the

rifl e shouldered. All the aforementioned

functions can vary among rifl es of

the same make, model, and caliber,

though it’s usually within fairly narrow

parameters.

Whether a barrel is free-fl oated or

pressure-bedded is a fact not usually

found among the manufacturer’s specs,

but it can easily be verifi ed. If you can’t

slip a piece of paper between the barrel

and fore-end tip and slide it all the way

back to the receiver, you know the barrel

is pressure-bedded—or not. I’ve encoun-

tered some test guns that had large gaps

along the sides of the barrel and no pres-

sure band at the fore-end tip, indicating

they were supposed to be fl oated, yet

they wouldn’t pass the paper test.

If the gun in question is really new, we

want to see what makes it tick, so taking

it apart to see its innards is mandatory.

Lifting the barreled action from the stock

reveals all kinds of things a reader would

want to know. Is the receiver pillar-

bedded, partially glass-bedded in the

receiver ring/recoil lug area, or sitting

on a metal bedding block? What about


67TH EDITION, 2013 � 81

the fi re control system? Is it a two- or

three-position safety and, when engaged,

does it block the trigger, the sear, or the

fi ring pin?

How is the magazine designed? If it

has a hinged fl oorplate, is the magazine

box integral with the fl oorplate frame or

a separate unit? Is the trigger guard bow

a separate unit? Are cartridges stored

in a staggered column or a straight row?

If the former, are cartridges fed from a

central position in alignment with the

chamber, or from alternating sides of

the magazine? If a detachable magazine,

can it be loaded from the top when in the

rifl e? (Most cannot.)

Potential problems with the receiver

bedding can be determined in the re-

assembling of the rifl e. Once the action

screws begin to tighten, they should

come to a sudden stop within a quarter-

turn. This applies to synthetic stocks, be

they injection molded or laid-up fi ber-

glass, as well as one-piece and laminated

wood stocks. If, while tightening either

the front or rear action screws, either

begins to resist the screwdriver (or

Allen key), yet continues to allow further


82 � Gun Digest®


How a rifl e is bedded is important to know. Is it pillar-bedded, glass-bedded, or does it sit on a metal chassis?


67TH EDITION, 2013 � 83

tightening with increased torque on the

screwdriver, something is wrong with

the bedding. In other words, if it feels like

the screw is almost snug, yet continues

to tighten with a mushy feel, that means

the stock or receiver tang is bending.

In either case, there are serious strains

being induced to the bedding dynamics

between these two critical components,

and that can (and usually does) affect

group size and consistency.

If there are obvious bedding prob-

lems with a test rifl e, should they be

addressed by the writer before going

to the range? That’s a tough call, but if

the writer does fi ddle with the bedding,

is that rifl e still representative of that

make and model? One thing is sure,

if I do any tuning of the rifl e, I always

mention it. It has to be minor stuff,

however, the kind that any owner can

address, like shimming the receiver

ring to fl oat what was not but should

have been a free-fl oating barrel, or

shimming it at the fore-end tip to apply

dampening pressure where there was

none. That’s really about the limit of

what tinkering I’ll do.

It’s almost a given that, if we were

to take two identical rifl es of the

same make, model, and caliber, the

best-shooting load in one will not be

The maximum cartridge length

that can be accommodated

by the magazine is another spec that is often lacking in

the factory owner’s manual.


84 � Gun Digest®



67TH EDITION, 2013 � 85

the best-shooting load in the other. As

already stated, that’s due to many fac-

tors, the barrel being the starting point.

Though both barrels are ostensibly

identical, each of the various operations

of drilling, reaming, rifl ing, turning

to contour, hubbing, and threading is

done to within certain dimensional

tolerances. So long as each operation is

within those tolerances, it’s acceptable.

As close to exactly the same as two

barrels appear to be, they are not.

Neither is the granular structure of the

steel, nor the harmonics of the barrel

as a bullet accelerates down the bore.

Harmonics can be changed by altering

the bedding or shortening the barrel

slightly and re-crowning the muzzle,

but these certainly are not things that

should be done to a test rifl e.

Other factors that can vary from

rifl e to rifl e but cannot be checked

by anyone other than a machinist are

the concentricity of the bolt and the

“squareness” of its face relative to the

bore line. Receivers can warp in the

heat-treating process and, as a result,

the bolt and bolt face will not be square.

When such is the case, there can be

uneven contact between the locking

lugs and their abutment surfaces. I’ve

seen twin-lug actions where one lug was

barely contacting its bearing surface,

even after several boxes of ammo were

put through the gun. Again, these

conditions can be present in a rifl e that

passes its manufacturer’s tolerances.

Rectifying these conditions is part of

what they call “blueprinting” an action.

Another condition that can occur in

one rifl e but not the next one off the

assembly line is uneven bearing of

the recoil lug. Generally speaking, if

it’s a wood stock, recoil forces of the

fi rst few boxes of ammo will compress

and seat the lug so that it is bearing

across its entire surface. However, with

a synthetic stock or one with a metal

abutment surface, the condition does

not rectify itself.

There was a time when I worked up

handloads, if a test rifl e didn’t perform

as well as I thought it should, but I

no longer do that. The only thread

of commonality between the rifl e I

test and the rifl e you buy is factory

ammunition. Even though you may get

better or worse accuracy than I got,

we at least can try the same loads.

Even then, chances are you’ll be using

a different lot (manufacturing run) of

ammo, even though it’s the same load.

It’s not much, but that’s about as close

as we can get to duplicating conditions.

It’s easy to check and see if the barrel is free-fl oated. Sometime it isn’t but is supposed to be, and other times vice-versa.

There are many criteria used in evaluating a rifl e, two of which are overall quality and features relative to price.


86 � Gun Digest®


With handloads, there’s a near infi nite

number of possible combinations of

bullets and seating depths, powder

type and charge weight, primers, and

differences in case preparation, any

one of which can make a rifl e a stellar

performer—but only that particular

rifl e, because, remember, every one is a

law unto itself.

Now we come to that variable alluded

to at the outset: the man behind the

gun. Say we have a genuine half-minute

rifl e. How many of us can shoot it up to

its potential, especially if we’re talking a

big-game rifl e in the .300 Magnum class

or more? Having fi red a couple hundred

thousand rounds from the bench, I’m

a fair to middlin’ shot, but I’ll be the

fi rst to admit that I can’t match what an

accomplished benchrest shooter could

probably wring out of that same rifl e if it’s

The quality and features of these numerous Dakota Model 76s, which are virtual clones of the Winchester Model 70 Classic, cost roughly triple what a production Winchester does. Each must be evaluated in those terms.


67TH EDITION, 2013 � 87

chambered for a mild-recoiling benchrest

cartridge. I might have an edge with

larger and more heavy-recoiling calibers

because I test all of them, from .17s to

.470s, but it wouldn’t be much of an edge.

There are a few rifl e companies that

guarantee accuracy, mostly expressed

Top: Some manufacturers guarantee accuracy, if the same

factory load or handload used in testing the gun at the factory

is used by the customer. Just remember that range conditions,

equipment, and shooting skills also come into the equation.

Middle: Given the quality of today’s rifl es and ammunition, the

consumer should expect his rifl e to shoot three-shot groups of 1¼ inches at 100 yards, with at least one factory load out of fi ve tried.

Bottom: In his gun reviews, author Jon Sundra likes to note the worst groups fi red, along with the same

load that fi red the best groups.


88 � Gun Digest®



67TH EDITION, 2013 � 89

as minute of angle (MOA, or 1 inch at 100

yards), but some even guarantee ½-MOA.

If the consumer gets reasonably close to

what the maker claims, he’s usually satis-

fi ed, because he knows the sample target

sent with the rifl e was probably fi red in

an underground test tunnel where there

was no wind and mirage to contend with,

that the scope used was probably of a

much higher magnifi cation than the one

he’s using, and the guy doing the shoot-

ing was a pro.

Still, there’s always a few who will

send the rifl e back to the maker because

they can’t duplicate the accuracy that

was guaranteed. In some cases, it was

because the buyer didn’t use the same

control factory load or handload. In

other cases, it was due to a change in

the bedding dynamics of the rifl e, be it

the result of tinkering or simply climatic

changes. And, in still other cases, it could

be due to the fact that the customer

simply couldn’t shoot well enough. In the

latter case, if a returned rifl e is checked

out and it does indeed pass the maker’s

guarantee, it brings about the awkward

situation where the buyer has to be told,

as diplomatically as possible, that he

can’t shoot.

What it all boils down to is there are

many things one can learn about a rifl e

by reading a T&E, but, when it comes

to accuracy, it only applies to the rifl e

in the test. I’ve shot groups with test

guns that were so small I hesitated to

report them, for fear some reader would

buy that same gun and not get the

same results. Such is the nature of this

gun-writing business. With today’s rifl es

and premium ammunition, a buyer can

expect the sporter-weight rifl e he buys

to shoot— and I’m sticking my neck out

here—1¼-inch three-shot groups at 100

yards, with fair consistency and with

at least one in fi ve factory loads tried.

Many will do better, much better, espe-

cially if it’s a heavy-barreled varmint or

target rifl e.

Last but not least, the writer has an

obligation to express his subjective

analysis of the gun’s design, what he sees

as its good and bad features and how

the gun’s overall quality and mechanical

performance relate to its price. The latter

is important, because you can’t expect

a $500 rifl e to be of the same quality as

one that is $1,500. As for all the other

elements— the fi t, fi nish, mechanical

performance, etc.—the consumer

has every right to expect the

same, should he purchase that

same gun.

Shooting atop sandbags from a rock-steady bench should take the shooter’s abilities out of the equation to a great extent, but not altogether. Some shooters

are simply not capable of shooting half-inch groups with a half-minute rifl e.


The Truth About Gun Tests...THE TRUTH ABOUT “GUN TESTS” The more a riﬂ e departs from...

Documents

Transcript of The Truth About Gun Tests...THE TRUTH ABOUT “GUN TESTS” The more a riﬂ e departs from...