I've been a subscriber to your magazine for years. I enjoy it immensely. But there is something that drives me crazy. When I read a firearm review and I get to the accuracy testing (mostly with rifles) and I read the small print and see the testing was done from a sandbag rest, I just shake my head and discount the results immediately.
I think I can speak for many of your subscribers when I say we are interested in the inherent accuracy of the rifle being tested. We don't really care how well the author can shoot it off of sandbags. In this day and age when a functional mechanical full-length rest can be had for a little over $100, why not? It would remove one of the biggest variables when it comes to putting five shots in the smallest group possible.
Another thing concerns using a 12X scope at 100 yards. Again, why? Doesn't anyone own anything above 12X or even 16X when benchrest testing for accuracy? How many times I've read "... my results might have been better if I had a more powerful scope ...." Yup--I bet they would, and the results would be meaningful.
Please buy a full-length machine rest for your contributors and ask they use them and encourage them to use a scope with sufficient power to put one hole inside another at 100 yards. The name of the game...