Crossfire March 2019
Grease Gun
.45 Glider Guns
Enjoyed Mike Venturino’s December “Grease Gun” article. My father was a glider pilot in WWII and kept his M3 under his seat, but kept his 1911A1 in a shoulder holster.
Tom Hoats
Allentown, PA
Crossfire March Handgun
Random Radom Request
I really enjoy your magazine. What would be the chance of an article about Poland’s Radom 9mm pistol? The original Radom came with a slotted mainspring housing for a shoulder stock/holster very similar to the type used for the Broomhandle Mauser. That stock is extremely difficult to find. Very few originals exist. Copies are made in Europe, but they are also hard to locate. The pistol is very dependable and accurate. Keep up the great work.
Frederick Ludwikowski
Clarksville, TN
Not My Cuppa Tea!
GUNS is my favorite magazine and one of the best. However, Dave Anderson’s December “The Pros and Cons of the AR” was long on the “pros.” The “cons” must’ve been left on the cutting-room floor. Let me help out. ARs are ugly. There’s no kind way to say it. They’re more like a kid’s Erector Set with a limited caliber choice. The pride of ownership of a well-stocked traditional hunting rifle is sadly lacking. My shooting spans 80 years (I’m 90). I no longer own any ARs. They’re more trouble than they’re worth. Dave’s article was right on in many ways, but ARs do have their “cons.”
Tom Page
Chardon, OH
Crossfire Luger
Luger Lovers, Inc.
I’ve never written to any gun magazine before, but I’ve always found Will Dabbs’ articles to be enlightening and entertaining. However, November’s “Germany’s Great Pistole 08” has practically pushed me into “love letter” territory. I share his affection for all that the Luger embodies. Not only does the pistol qualify as art, so does Will’s creation of the article in my view.
William Ridge
Thomasville, NC
Missing In Action
The December Handloading column on page 20 — “Hodgdon Clays and Your .45” — was missing from your table of contents.
Dan Egner
Houston, TX
Reader Egner is correct. Some as-yet-to-be-determined miscreant was asleep at the switch. But we suppose it’s better to run the article and leave it off the T of C than list it and leave the article out of the magazine! —Editor
Conventional Wisdom Reversed?
Mas Ayoob’s November Handguns column on the Five-Yard Roundup caught my attention with his comparison of the relative energies of the 9mm and .45. Depending on ammo, both develop similar energies, and the question naturally arises as to which is more effective. Popular opinion usually comes down on the side of the slow, heavy, large-diameter bullet, but popular opinion is wrong. There is actual scientific proof that when two bullets have the same energy, the smaller one is more effective. The proof is to be found in an extensive ballistics testing program conducted by Winchester in about 1970 to study the effects of changing from lead shot to steel for waterfowl. The results positively identified energy was the key lethal ingredient of a striking pellet, and further demonstrated that if two pellets had the same energy, the smaller one was more effective. (This totally reverses Hatcher.) These tests have been ignored in the handgun stopping power debate probably in part because they were about shooting ducks with shotguns, and in part because they are rather obscure. I know of no readily available complete accounts of the tests, but the chief ballistician in the Winchester tests was a gentleman named Ed Lowry who summarized the tests in the December 1992 American Rifleman.
TC Crossfire
Twist ’Em Tighter
I bought a TCR22 the moment they hit the market. And was severely impressed by it. So when I came across the November issue with an article about the rifle, I snapped it up and rushed home to read it. I was truly dismayed the author didn’t mention the barrel’s twist rate. I mean really! This is about the only .22 to come along that is different.
I’ve long maintained that 1:16 is too slow for modern 22 ammo. Oh, yeah it still works. But a little more spin would help make .22’s less picky. The TCR22 has a 1:15 twist. It is the most accurate, relatively inexpensive .22 I’ve ever seen. No joke! And it shoots Aguila 60-gr. Sniper Subsonic ammo really well — which coincidentally happens to be my favorite. Yes, it’s slow and is said to have less FPE than some of the faster stuff. But it really knocks over game, big and small. We all know how hard it is to find a gun that will shoot the Sniper Subsonic without having one custom built. But I’ve been getting 2.5″ groups at 110 meters with those 60-gr. bullets! And I can confirm for a fact that the 10/22 mags work in my rifle. Now if only more gunmakers would start making .22s with a faster twist. Ideally I think 1:14 would be better all around.
Kshana Hitchings
Via email
GUNS Magazine® welcomes letters to the editor. We reserve the right to edit all published letters for clarity and length. Due to the volume of mail, we are unable to individually answer your letters or e-mail. In sending a letter to GUNS Magazine, you agree to provide Publisher’s Development Corp. such copyright as is required for publishing and redistributing the contents of your letter in any format. Send your letters to Crossfire, GUNS Magazine, 12345 World Trade Dr., San Diego, CA 92128; e-mail: [email protected]
