Anybody see the new issue of Gun Tests?

[Onmilo]

No ranting about how Gun Tests sucks just hear me out here, this is rifle related.

They conducted a test of an Arsenal USA .223 AK copy, a Ruger Mini 14, and a Century Arms C15 Sporter which is there copy of a standard AR15A2.

The Arsenal AK ended up being there pick.
Happy happy, joy joy for the AK fans.
Get this,
It was the least accurate rifle tested, they didn't like the sights, didn't like the way the buttstock felt, but it hummed along without any problems.
Sound familiar?

The Ruger worked OK, it was more accurate than the Arsenal rifle it was actually less accurate than the built by a drunken monkey Century C15.
These testers were actually pretty pleased with the overall fit and finish and general handling capabilities of the C15 Sporter.

Yet the Century came in last and I will tell you why.
Gun Tests experience a jam of epic proportions with this rifle.
One that they almost had to call in help to get cleared and this little fiasco soured them on an otherwise very decent showing from the rifle.

They noted the cut down M16 Bolt Carrier and the rough finish that it displayed.
I have seen this too in the Century C15 rifles I have examined and recommend that if you choose to buy one of these rifles, spend some extra money and replace the bolt carrier with a new one.
Now what I thought interesting is the brands of ammunition they chose to use in these rifles,,,
Remington 55 grain metal case
Hornady 60 grain TAP ammo
and,,,,
Wolf 55 grain FMJ!

Now they didn't specifically say which ammunition caused the Jam in the AR type rifle nor did they say exactly how many of each type of round they fired in each rifle or in what order,,,,,but I am betting money I know which round caused the jam.

Want to take a stab at a guess?

Uh Moderaters, Please move this thread where it belongs, Whoops!

 

[cracked butt]

Want to take a stab at a guess?

Without seeing the article, my money would be on Wolf.

Edit: oops, I just noticed that you had the ammo brands listed. I must be Psychic

 

[CBS220]

Gun Tests is a terrible rag.

I love their idea of non-biased testing, but I can't help but read it while feeling as if they are much more lenient on cheaper guns and much, much tougher on expensive ones. The audience they play to tends to shift from article to article- for one on budget guns, I recall them grading down a .350 Rem Mag because it had a short magazine, making loading heavier .358s difficult.

That, and they tend to make their grades seemingly at random much of the time, and if they happen to receive a gun with a problem they immediately fail it, without receiving a repair from the factory.

Also, they don't have many fans who are "in the know" when it comes to talking about ballistics, terminal in particular.

They have a nasty habit of billing you, but never sending the magazine

 

[cracked butt]

There are a lot of reasons why I no longer subscribe to that magazine....

 

[esq_stu]

have seen this too in the Century C15 rifles I have examined and recommend that if you choose to buy one of these rifles, spend some extra money and replace the bolt carrier with a new one.

MSRP
CAI Sporter 223 Rem., $975 (selling for around $650)
Arsenal Inc. SLR-106FR 223 Rem., $795 (selling for around $725)
Ruger KMini-14/5 223 Rem, $894 (selling for around $600)

I thought CAI was supposed to be inexpensive. Add a new no-name bolt/carrier for around $120 and it costs the same an the Arsenal.

 

[cracked butt]

Friends don't let friends buy semi-autos from CAI.

 

[CBS220]

I thought CAI was supposed to be inexpensive. Add a new no-name bolt/carrier for around $120 and it costs the same an the Arsenal.

ClassicArms has them for $550 atm.

I do think that I would rather buy a better quality AR, though, as much as I do love my Century AKs.

 

[KiltedClaymore]

they are around $500 from j&g.

 

[skinewmexico]

It was the least accurate rifle tested, they didn't like the sights, didn't like the way the buttstock felt, but it hummed along without any problems.
Sound familiar?

Why I no longer subscribe. They combine weapons that make no sense. A cool test would be to compare identical M4s from several manufacturers, but they'd probably throw an AR10 in there for no reason.

 

[Grunt]

I tried that rag once and came away convinced that their entire staff suffered from ADD. Good idea in theory but IMHO, it failed as bad as Pistolero did years ago. Come to think of it, Pistolero had another off-shoot magazine ironically enough called Gun Tests. Hehehe, I guess we know what happened to fat Phil these days! LOL

 

[flynlr]

tried the rag for a year. came away not so impressed.

 

[ArmedBear]

I think that the "grading" system has been a net negative. They should go back to their more overtly subjective judgment calls, like they had until recently. That left more room for interpretation by the reader IMO.

Otherwise, though, a discerning reader can get a lot more info about how guns shoot out of Gun Tests than any other rag.

I'm not so sure about their used gun reviews, however. Too many variables; while a Winchester 101 might be a great O/U, any particular 30-year-old used gun might or might not be so great, depending on what was done to it over the years.

 

[Ash]

Well, they make 100% assumptions on a single sample. I have seen crap come from every company ever, and while there is some point to saying a single sample is representative, the point is meaningless. It's a roll of the dice and statistically is meaningless. I have gotten their mags in the past and they were decent reading, though. And, it can give you a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling when they like something you like.

However, since I don't drive a Toyota and know Consumer Reports will always dog my vehicle, the same usually happens with Gun Tests.

Ash

 

[ArmedBear]

Consumer Reports has a whole different problem (apart from apparent animosity towards American car makers).

They assume that all drivers want and need exactly the same thing: a mid-size sedan.

Reviews of Jeeps and Porsches all read like they simply compare the vehicles with the Camry, without any acknowledgment that they offer other features and fill other needs or wants (or that most avid sports car drivers can't stand the suspension and road feel of regular sedans).

Gun Tests doesn't do that.

However I agree re a sample -- this is another reason why the used gun reviews seem pretty pointless to me. If they get a lemon from a new manufacturer, this probably should reflect poorly on the gun, although they should wait for any warranty work before publishing an F grade on something as generally reliable as a Ruger single action. Still, the real problem arises when it's the other way around, and they get a good example of a generally poor product, and rate it too highly.

 

[elmerfudd]

You're spot on about Consumer Reports. After reading numerous comments along the lines of, "the Jeep Wrangler has a stiff and uncomfortable ride", I stopped paying any attention to everything but their reliability indexes.

When you buy a Jeep, Samurai or 4runner, you expect a high center of gravity and a rough ride. It's just part and parcel of a serious offroad vehicle. Consumer Reports never seems to get that.

 

[ArmedBear]

My Jeep TJ doesn't have a rough ride, though. For what it is, the ride is pretty good -- nothing like, say, the old CJ-7 it resembles. That would have been useful: an in-class comparison.

I'd love to see them inform a mid-size sedan shopper that the new Mazda 6 couldn't get ten feet through a rock-crawling course. It's about as relevant.

So at least Gun Tests doesn't compare a Glock 19 with a Marlin 60 and a Blaser F3, and give them all failing marks because they're not J-Frames. That would be Consumer Reports, right there.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Terrible test.

I believe the AK to be a better combat weapon. Although, I'm a huge fan of the AR. I have both. I don't think either is bad.

When it comes to firearms that are cloned, there are varying degrees of quality from one manufacturer to the next. Platform really doesn't matter much, what matters is that you obtain a quality example of a given platform. There are junk versions of almost everything out there. Some platforms require much more money to acquire a quality example of than others. AK is one of the cheapest. For $800-$1,000, you can get the best. With AR's, you need more like $1,300ish...same holds true for 1911's, FAL's, M1A's ...list goes on.

They took the top of the line AK and put it up against a low level AR-15. Arsenal is up there. There are only two others that match it. The Saiga (when converted properly) and the VEPR, which hasn't been around in a while. These three are clearly a step above all other AK's on the market. Not counting customs like Krebs.

A better test would be an Arsenal vs. a Colt 6920. Each is considered one of the best of their platforms. Each using ammo it was designed to use. Arsenal using Barnaul milspec ammo, the Colt using M855 (not factory seconds). Same with magazines.

AK will likely still win, but the difference will be insignificant. Each will chew through magazine after magazine without stoppage to the point that it becomes trivial.

I've seen many AK's choke miserably. Usually some frankenAK's assembled at someone's build-party or some factory rifles built from reject surplus parts and then hacked up and reassembled for import. I've honest to God seen more AK jams at the range than AR-15's. Does that mean the AK is inferior to the AR? No. What it means is, don't buy a poor example of a given platform no matter what it is. The AK's I've seen choke are sad examples of the mighty Kalashnikov. But the same holds true of AR's.

I used to think the AK was more forgiving of poor assembly, I don't believe that anymore. Poor quality AK's have bad stoppages. The ingenious design of a platform cannot and will not make up for incorrect assembly, poor workmanship, out of spec parts etcetera. This is what I've seen with my own eyes. Metallurgy is a big part of that. BIG. Significant cost savings are made in this area. Cheaper steel (pot metals). Skipping entirely, or lessening the quality of heat-treating. The type of process, cast vs. forge vs. MIM. Certain ones are simply not appropriate for certain applications. Better steel is more expensive. Better steel wears out tools faster during machining. Heat treating requires time. Time = money. Good heat treating takes time. Quick and sloppy heat treating puts out a product that is "good enough" for the time being, but may not be when you need it most. These things are INVISIBLE to the average joe walking the isles at the gun show. But some manufacturers saved hundreds not bothering to stick to the military specifications.

Some people use a flawed argument and say "well, this rifle isn't for military use". Doesn't matter. Specs are intended for manufacturers to produce quality, reliable, robust working examples of a given platform. Doesn't matter if that gun is going to be used on guard duty, be on the front lines, end up in your safe being used once a month at the range for shooting cans ...the fact is, for that design to work as intended, it must follow the spec. If you are satisfied with lesser reliability or performance, then the spec shouldn't mean much to you.

These guns are designed well and have been through rigorous testing. The military and the designers all based their testing on quality, up-to-spec parts. These guns passed the test according to that spec. Decrease the quality, and you cannot expect it to perform according to the expectations.

And yes, people do buy these firearms having the expectations of military quality and performance. Just about everyone that buys an AK does so knowing he/she is buying the best possible reliability in a great design. But are they? What will happen to that rifle when it is run hard? When it is fired rapidly and it gets hot? That's usually what separates the junk from the tools. Heat and hard use breaks down inferior parts rather quickly. Poor assembly or incorrect dimensions usually show up right away.

There's a lot of folks who bought junky AR's and junky AK's that aren't getting what they thought they were.


That's why I believe pistols to be better defensive weapons than a lot of military-style carbines. Quality service pistols like Sig, HK, Glock, Beretta...are not clones themselves (although some companies clone them). They all come off the exact same assembly lines as pistols destined for military or police service. A lot of quality control goes into them as they are made new - by a manufacturer. These companies do not skimp on the quality of the metallic parts because when they start breaking, police departments and military will stop buying them. None are parts builds or kits. None are assembled by non-factory manufacturers. You get the real thing, made to spec - by the actual original source. Which is what I said earlier. You're getting the BEST example of that given design.

I have shot Glocks, Sigs and other quality pistols that went well over 4,000-5,000 rounds without a single stoppage of any kind. No jams. No stove pipes. No stuck cases. No double feeds. No nothing but flawless function. So have many other people. NOW, how many AR's and AK's that people own gone that many rounds without any kind of stoppage? Very few. Only the good, built to spec examples of each can do that.

I'd rather defend myself with a Sig or Glock than a cheap clone AK or AR.

 

[Onmilo]

Glock beat Kimber and Springfield in the same issue,,,,,,,,

 

[ArmedBear]

Glock beat Kimber and Springfield in the same issue,,,,,,,,

Quite plausible, actually.

The Kimber and Springfield guns were 1911's shoehorned into a small package by shortening the grips and barrels. There's no particular reason to believe that this would make for a better defensive pistol than a compact Glock, even if I'd rather shoot a regular-sized Springfield than a Glock, generally.