[Mike R. Allen]

I just finished reading a range report in a popular gun magazine.
They were testing a high end 1911 built by one of our premium manufactures.
The shooter is also well known with untarnished character.

My point is that the pistol shot a little left.

Any of the three (the magazine, the manufactor or the shooter) could have requested to adjust the sights and lets do it again. Nope, they wrote the article the way it was and published it.

I think it says alot about the integrity of the industry and the people in it.

Well I just had to tell someone.

 

[Tim K]

I saw the same article and drew a similar conclusion. That particular magazine has a history of mentioning the bad along with the good. I find them very credible.

 

[AZ Husker]

Personally, I'm glad to see them report the truth. For years, gun rags have done nothing but praise the item. Of course, the manufacturer also runs a huge paid-for ad in the same issue.

 

[DPris]

And, there was another recent article about a $4000+ pistol that busted during testing.
Golly! Truth in print? There's a diary entry....:biglaugh:
Denis

 

[sholling]

They are getting better. Perhaps one of the better writers/forum denizens put a bug in a few editors ears. I've even found two I'm impressed with enough to subscribe again.

 

[40dcoe]

Sounds to me like they were too lazy to adjust the sights.


Joe

.

 

[Greg in OKLA]

There are 1 or 2 that I can still tolerate to read.My problem is with some of the writers and no "standard for distance when testing a gun.Its obvious some of the writers are not "shooters".One magizine had 2 1911 pistol tests,both with
1.5 or better accuracy guarentees,one pistol shot anywhere from 2 -4 inch groups at 25 yds.The other pistol,one of the higher end models availale from this company,they tested at 10 yards.Come on,if a writer cant shoot,or doesnt have anywhere available to shoot,they have no business doing gun tests on $2500+
1911,s.They need to go back to reviewing refriderators for Consumer Reports.

 

[Taffnevy]

Sounds to me like they were too lazy to adjust the sights.


Joe

.

I think the point is that they sent out a gun that they knew was going to be scrutinized, so the gun was tested as it was received.

 

[40dcoe]

I think the point is that they sent out a gun that they knew was going to be scrutinized, so the gun was tested as it was received.

Or the manufacturer pulled a gun from stock and sent it without testing
or adjusting it at all. Or the testing magazine didn't receive it directly
from the mfg. I take this as a POSITIVE for the mfg, and not a negative.

Joe

.

 

[WalterGC]

Could be that the manufacturer didn't want to embarass the tester by revealing his lousy trigger control.

 

[Metaloy Ind.]

Or it could have been the different ammo or the hold of the gun.

 

[kevins_garage]

I fail to see how shooting the handgun "as is" and printing a story that it shot a little left, somehow indicates gun writers and magazines suddenly decided to start printing the truth or got a shot of integrity.

I'd tend to agree more with 40dcoe, in assuming they were simply to lazy to adjust the sights. It wouldn't bother me in the least if a magazine review of a pistol stated the gun was shooting a bit left when they received it, but they adjusted the sights, and provided meaningful test results that showed what the gun was really capable of.

I guess it would be the same as if there was a real problem, like the rear sight fell off when they took the gun out of the box. I'd certainly like to hear about a problem like that, but I would hope they would fix the problem before testing. I wouldn't consider them all of a sudden "truthful" if they just shot the pistol for groups without the rear sight, and then printed that it didn't group very well.


I didn't read the magazine, but they weren't by any chance shooting Blazer Brass were they? With all the people on this site having problems with it either shooting to the right or the left, it could have just been bad ammo. (I'm being sarcastic with those last comments, BTW.)

 

[RetiredRod]

Does the name of the gun magazine have to remain a secret? Their "telling it like it is" is a good thing, so why not give the mag some publicity?

 

[Dangerous]

The fact that it shot to the left doesn't bother me. I want to know exactly how it shot out of the box without any adjustments.

If it advertises 1.5 inch groups did it get 1.5 inch or not. This presumes his hold and sight picture remained constant

 

[golfer1]

If the pistol had adjustable sights, shooting left is not an issue. Group size and function are the issues.
Have to agree, the writer should have adjusted the sights or indicated why he did not.
An example would be more like some of the pocket type pistols with a tunnel sight and no adjustability.

 

[ColtM1911A1]

The fact that it shot to the left doesn't bother me. I want to know exactly how it shot out of the box without any adjustments. If it advertises 1.5 inch groups did it get 1.5 inch or not. This presumes his hold and sight picture remained constant

I'm with Dangerous here -- shooting a little left as long as it grouped as advertised is fine with me. I'm assuming the gun was shot free hand, and not from a fixed rest which might account for the 'little left' performance...


ColtM1911A1

 

[BillD]

And if it was fixed sights, they might have been worried about drifting the sights on a pistol that they had to send back.

 

[Mike R. Allen]

Fixed sights were on the gun.

The reason I posted was because it was a no BS article and that is the way I like to read range reports.

 

[mitrod3]

It's always nice to see truth.........and just how it really was.

For what it is worth, both my higher end guns (the Kimber Gold Combat and the Wilson CQB) shot slightly left (for me) out of the box. Most of my other 1911's where smack on center out of the box. Both of those guns shot nice tight groups when put to the test, just as advertised. I had my smith drift the fixed sights on the GC and CQB a hair to the right and now they are tack on, if I do my part. Might have been just me and the sight picture on those guns.......but they are on now.

Be safe, shoot well. :rock:

 

[Andy]

I am not concerned that the pistol printed slightly to the left. That could have been a function of the lighting. I am constantly amazed, though, that a great part of the firearms cognoscenti believes that once a firearm is "zeroed" (at the factory, by some gunsmith, their next door neighbor's brother-in-law's uncle, etc.) then everybody who picks it up and shoots it will be shooting to the same POI as the person who actually zeroed the gun. Not true! Everybody holds/grips the firearm differently, looks through the sights from a slightly different angle, and follows through the shot a bit differently. This holds true for both rifles and pistols, and the "fit" of a shotgun has even more variables. Did I mention actual shooting skill?

A firearm's zero is truly only good for the person who did the zeroing. Everybody else is just assuming (hoping) it's "close enough for government work". When it's your life (or a loved one's), on the line, "close" isn't an option. Do your own zeroing. The factory zeroing only lets you know that the sights should be in the ballpark, the final adjustments are up to you, fixed sights or not.
Regards,
Andy