I think that the choices have been made in order to please the magazine's readership. Readers would be pleased to see the magazine verify that one of their guns is "best," or selections were made that are universally accepted, and not always with reason, as being "good." In addition, I feel that there is misleading information. Some is just plain wrong, other information leaves out important facts. Here's some stuff I found by browsing through:
#20 - Why is the S&W "Triple Lock" listed here? It was used to develop high pressure loads that led to the .44 Magnum, but the triple lock was needless from a strength perspective (the Model 29 only has 2 locks and is based on the same frame -- and it handles .44 Magnum.) This shows that the mechanism was needlessly complex. Complexity and expense are hardly a reason to list the weapon as "great."
#28 - H&R Topper: Now there's a truly unique gun! Can this be taken seriously?
#31 - Hardly a tour de force in the design department, the T/C Contender is simple, but the author leaves out the fact that it is based on investment casting (but still isn't very cheap), something that it pioneered in the arms industry along with Ruger.
#33 - Ruger #1:
It would have cost a fortune to make, except that Ruger had conveniently reinvented a process called investment casting (last used in ancient Egypt).
Excuse me, but the "lost wax" method of casting is as old as time and has been used all around the world. Far from passing out of use since the days of Ancient Egypt, it has been used since time immemorial in India for jewelry making, just to cite but one of many examples. The trick here wasn't the method, which is pretty common and has been for millennia, it is its use for casting high strength steel alloys. (Hint to writer: Ancient Egypt was largely a Bronze Age culture -- ~1000 BC and before.) Let's get it right, writer, if you undertake education of your readers!
#1 - Model 70 Winchester:
...but utilized a cone-shaped breech like the Model 54's, which guided cartridges into the chamber even if they weren't perfectly aligned.
Why does the writer fail to mention that the cone breaching system was borrowed from the 1903 Springfield, which is also on his list, rather than the Model 54 (which did also use it?). I might also suggest that the writer pick up a copy of Strunk & White's
The Elements of Style. If he had read it in high school or college, rather than selling it for 50¢ at the used book store, he'd have known why you don't use utilize. But then again, real style has gone out of style in some circles...
Under the Savage 99, he talks about its ability to handle pointed spitzer bullets, which tubular magazines don't handle. What about the Winchester 95, which had a simpler, lighter magazine? Under the Marlin 336 (a crude design -- I've owned a couple!) he says the .35 Remington is better than the .30-30. I guess he wanted to give the .30-'06 vs the .270 argument a rest -- yawn! This one must be the 2nd most useless discussion in gun magazines.
Agree with MoA -- why no Mannlichers (which we just discussed here recently). Only one classic English double? Enfield/SMLE based sporters are in use around the world and .303 has taken as much game as most American cartridges, but no listing here? No Sakos? Why not? The list of omissions is huge, given the number of largely irrelevant and ordinary choices that were included.
RE: Investment casting, check this out. Our writer obviously didn't even bother to do this much:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_casting
I have seen some VERY interesting documentaries of artisans (a craft passed down for generations) in Tamil Nadu, casting bronze temple images, like a Nataraja, by this technique. It is hardly a process that needed to be rediscovered by Bill Ruger!
I also believe that the Weatherby Mark V, also on the writer's list, was/is produced by investment casting. If I can find this stuff out, what's the educational value he's offering?
re: the Weatherby Mark V:
The Hunter's Guide to Accurate Shooting
Also, on the writer's comments on the Weatherby Mark V:
And instead of dual locking lugs, the Mark V employs nine much smaller lugs, which reduces bolt lift from the Mauser's 90 degrees to 45 degrees.
You can see his math is poor and he's not thinking. 3 rows of lugs means 3 lugs and 3 raceways, for 60° spacing. As the
Hunter's Guide link I provided notes, this works out to a 54° bolt throw, because a few degrees are lost due to the needs of clearance. To achieve a 45° bolt throw, one would need 4 rows of lugs and 4 matching raceways.
