I make the decision on what goes into each issue. If the articles meet with our reader’s approval I give credit to the authors. If met with disapproval, the fault is mine.
You bring up a good point in terms of surplus ammunition, and I can not remember running an article strictly on the performance of surplus ammunition. In honesty, I’m not sure how relevant an article like that would be as time and expense would not allow us to test everything available. If we get a good lot, we would report on it and readers would assume it’s all good stuff. The reverse would apply if we got a few bad lots.
I would love to be able to test ammo in 10 different firearms of the same make and type, but to date I have not been the winner in a large multi-state lottery. And, even if I had the money to buy 10 rifles, published results may not be indicative of performance in someone else’s rifle due to variables such as a rough chamber/bore, weak extractor spring, fouled gas system, etc.
In short, we do the best we can with what we have to work with.
I will, however, take a serious look at running some "fix-it" type article on magazines and other ancillary gear in the future.