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”
2013GunTestsedit.indd 792013GunTestsedit.indd 79 5/31/12 10:47 AM5/31/12 10:47 AM
80 � Gun Digest®
THE TRUTH ABOUT “GUN TESTS”
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
2013GunTestsedit.indd 802013GunTestsedit.indd 80 5/31/12 10:47 AM5/31/12 10:47 AM
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
2013GunTestsedit.indd 812013GunTestsedit.indd 81 5/31/12 10:47 AM5/31/12 10:47 AM
82 � Gun Digest®
THE TRUTH ABOUT “GUN TESTS”
How a rifl e is bedded is important to know. Is it pillar-bedded, glass-bedded, or does it sit on a metal chassis?
2013GunTestsedit.indd 822013GunTestsedit.indd 82 5/31/12 10:47 AM5/31/12 10:47 AM
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.
2013GunTestsedit.indd 832013GunTestsedit.indd 83 5/31/12 10:47 AM5/31/12 10:47 AM
84 � Gun Digest®
THE TRUTH ABOUT “GUN TESTS”
2013GunTestsedit.indd 842013GunTestsedit.indd 84 5/31/12 10:47 AM5/31/12 10:47 AM
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.
2013GunTestsedit.indd 852013GunTestsedit.indd 85 5/31/12 10:48 AM5/31/12 10:48 AM
86 � Gun Digest®
THE TRUTH ABOUT “GUN TESTS”
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.
2013GunTestsedit.indd 862013GunTestsedit.indd 86 5/31/12 10:48 AM5/31/12 10:48 AM
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.
2013GunTestsedit.indd 872013GunTestsedit.indd 87 5/31/12 10:48 AM5/31/12 10:48 AM
88 � Gun Digest®
THE TRUTH ABOUT “GUN TESTS”
2013GunTestsedit.indd 882013GunTestsedit.indd 88 5/31/12 10:48 AM5/31/12 10:48 AM
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.
2013GunTestsedit.indd 892013GunTestsedit.indd 89 5/31/12 10:48 AM5/31/12 10:48 AM
Top Related