Accuracy; auto vs revolver.

J

jackknife

Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
17,501
It seems that price doesn't matter, and east is east and west is west. Never the twain shall meet.

I startedout shooting with my dad's old Colt Woodsman when I was kid, and when I got old enough to get a pistol of my own, the old pre-war Colts were expensive collectors pieces and I ended up with a Ruger Standard model for 39.95. Yeah, I know I'm dating myself, but that's what they were going for then. A new Colt Woodsman, that was bigger and blockier than the old ones was 75.00 dollars.

For years I shot the snot out of the Ruger, and it was a great gun. Still is. For some reason, I got side tracked in the wheel gun thing, and bought a few Smith and Wessons. A model 18, and later a model 618. They are nice guns, but they never shot as well as the Ruger. Just didn't have the accuracy. And it wasn't just a little difference either. t consoled myself with the old "the revolver doesn't jam" thing, but I'm a target shooter and plinker, not a gunslinger. My home defense guns were revolvers, and I was content. But that faded. I reached a point where I want the most effective handgun. I now have sold off all my revolvers and gone auto. My home defense gun is a Glock 9mm, and now my range gun is my old Ruger that all three of my kids learned to shoot on. After 50 years of service it started to misfire, so I sent it back to Ruger, and they stuck in a new firing pin and new mainspring. They didn't charge me for it. I tried to pay them, but they said it was their pleasure to return my old gun to good shooting condition. Ruger is a hell of a company.

So I guess I'll go down the road till the end with my old Ruger.
16557622660_16caa4ba84_c.jpg


After ten years of really trying to like this gun, I sent it off down the road with a new owner. It just never shot that well, in spite of being a costly little gun.
16434842454_62890b7525_c.jpg



The old S&W model 60 that served from the early 70's. Went along on many camping trips and travel.
14875610460_e28c2d31a9_c.jpg



The new baby Glock that replaced my old S&W .38 special revolvers. In the first 500 rounds it had zero malfunctions of any kind, and shot rings around the revolver.
19408519045_5a39bd526e_c.jpg


For all my long term loyalty and love for the wheel gun, I have to admit that the modern auto pistol is a better shooting gun. Things evolve, and I guess we have to evolve too. I still love the old cars, but the new stuff is way more reliable than the old cars eve were. I have to get over getting stuck in the past and go with new technology when it makes things better. Heck, I love cap and ball revolvers and muzzle loading rifles, but they are not that effective compared with modern stuff.
 
Last edited:
In large part with modern handguns, accuracy is up to the user. I have a Ruger revolver which is very accurate. If I do my part, it never fails to hit where I aim. Of course I am familiar with it and it has good sights and I have shot it for years.
 
I love them both. My S&W M10V can shoot cheap semi-wadcutters into a 2" circle with fixed sights if I do my part. It's not as precise as my Ruger MKII, but for a nearly 70 year old gun it does well. The BFR in 460 S&W Mag on the other hand is quite an accurate and precise gun, it is scoped though. I love them all, will keep buying more and understand the limits of each.

Nice looking ol' MKI too! Great guns!


-Xander
 
If there is nothing mechanically wrong with the gun, i.e. an uneven crown, a burr in the barrel, sights out of adjustment, etc. then the gun should be as accurate as the shooter. What many people fail to realize is that accuracy is directly related to sight radius. Now I find it interesting that your G26 out shot your wheel guns. That G26 has a very short sight radius, which kind of leads me to believe that there may have been a mechanical issue with the S&W. Some times though, different guns just shoot better for different people. Either way, if you've found a shooter that works for you, stick with it and have fun.
 
Yeah, I always thought it was up to the shooter too, but when the experiment went to sandbag rest, with two different shooters and the same result, the auto's shot tighter.

The .38 snubbies were used with 148 grain Speer wadcutters, and 2.6 grains of Bullseye in Federal cases. This was the best load, followed by the standard 158 lead round nose. The revolvers did best with heavier bullets and lower velocities. The 130 grain full metal jacket was not a good load at all, neither was the 125 hollow point. The lighter the grain bullet in the revolvers, the more the accuracy degraded. There is no crown damage or gun problem. A competent gunsmith checked both revolvers. Some off the shelf ammo was also used, from Winchester and Federal.

The Glock didn't seem to care if it was the 124 or 115 grain bullets. The 115's shot maybe a little larger group from a sandbag, but you had to stare at the target and measure with a ruler. Maybe fractions of inches difference. Not as bullet sensitive as the little revolvers. Ammo used was Federal and Winchester.

The .22's were shot off sandbags using Federal .22 high speed hollow points. Same ammo in both guns, agains two different shooters. Same results.

In the revolvers, this old bodyguard did better than the model 60, but still not up there with the Glock from a sandbag. It had a great trigger pull, and feels like a nicer gun, but just didn't do as well. Much smaller sights that are way harder to see, and ammo sensitive to bullet load. I love the feel of the Smith and Wessons, they have class. The Glock feels about as good as a Bic disposable lighter compared to a nice old Zippo. But the plasticy cheesy feel aside, the darn thing just works well. Very well. I always was disdainful of the Glocks, but I have become a believer.

15062268305_ece3c4ca34_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
Accelerator said:
If there is nothing mechanically wrong with the gun, i.e. an uneven crown, a burr in the barrel, sights out of adjustment, etc. then the gun should be as accurate as the shooter. What many people fail to realize is that accuracy is directly related to sight radius. Now I find it interesting that your G26 out shot your wheel guns. That G26 has a very short sight radius, which kind of leads me to believe that there may have been a mechanical issue with the S&W. Some times though, different guns just shoot better for different people. Either way, if you've found a shooter that works for you, stick with it and have fun.
Click to expand...

Congrats on the new Glock JK... They are a great gun. Very reliable and very accurate even though many say otherwise...
Some guns just don't shoot well, and some people can't shoot certain guns well. Doesn't matter if it is a rifle or a pistol... I never bought into the sight radius issue having much validity to it. I think a lot of people use that as an excuse to shoot poorly. People are to quick to blame their lack of accuracy on the gun.

About 10 years ago I took some rifles to the range, and a couple pistols. One was a new 2 inch 357 mag Taurus that I picked up cheap at a gun show, just to have as a "truck gun" and to carry when I felt I needed a change from 1911's and Glocks, which was VERY rarely :D

Before we left I told my Dad I wanted to put some rounds the Taurus. We were still at the 100 yard range, and I told him to spot me. Before I started shooting, the range master walked behind us and said, " You aren't really going to shoot that at 100 yards are you ? The sight radius is way to short, you will never hit that target... I told him I didn't know if I could do it or not, but I was going to find out.

So, I proceeded to shoot 6 rounds at the clean 100 yard target. I asked Dad how I did, and he just smiled. The range master said to my Dad, he didn't hit did he ?

Dad informed him that yes I did hit the target with all six shots. Not what would be considered a group, but if it was a person standing at 100 yards, they would have developed six leaks.
The range master asked to look through the spotting scope and said he would have never believed it if he hadn't watched me do it...
 
As usual, good reads Jackknife.

I have a Ruger Mark II 678 with the tapered barrel and target sights. I love the thing. The only issue I had was ammo selection. Some hollow points were just a tick short and would feed at the wrong angle. My Marlin Model 60 had the same issue.

The biggest offender was the Winchester X-Pert bulk stuff.

target004.jpg
 
I enjoy the aesthetics and nostalgia of revolvers, but eventually sold mine in favor of autoloading pistols.

I didn't really care for the DA/SA trigger, and felt like 6 rounds wasn't enough. They are also generally very heavy.

I will likely end up with another .357 magnum, but for now I'm content with my modern polymer autoloading pistols.
 
Most of either (well designed and built pistols or well designed and build revolvers) are more accurate in a rest (a true rest like a Ransom Rest) than the shooter can actually fire them. That said, the longer the sight radius of even nearly identical handguns otherwise will prove more accurate in a shooter's hands. Nearly ever aspect of a handgun, whether revolver or pistol, is a compromise to develop a tool adequate to its specific purpose --- which is why you'll not see people carrying many competition/Olympic pistols for self defense.

11313031-large.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jerry Miculek. DA revolver.

[video]https://youtu.be/LuNL1MFgvZI[/video]

[video]https://youtu.be/lLk1v5bSFPw[/video]


Bob Munden. SA and DA revolvers.

[video]https://youtu.be/8gWaBimM0Us[/video]

[video]https://youtu.be/Tied-t1fFsk[/video]

[video]https://youtu.be/XJ_fPY7axmU[/video]
 
Last edited:
My Ruger Gp-100 is, for me, the best shooting gun. I have a Glock in .40 and a Sig Sauer in 9mm and can't get near the accuracy of using my wheel gun with either of these. I am not sure why, but for me the revolver seems to be the best choice. I'd be more afraid of a person who handles their gun well than a person with a 17 round magazine in their gun who hits with little accuracy. That said, I think it is all personal preference and you use what works the best for you. I see some very nice guns on here today! I wouldn't mind shooting any of them!
 
I've shot an awful lot of both....I had a Ruger Mk1 target model (bull barrel, target sights) that was just amazing. However, I also had a S&W M27 that would print 2" groups at 50 yards.

I did quite a bit of shooting with my old shooting buddy's 6" M29 (The "Dirty Harry" gun)... It would reliably knock around milk jugs at 100 yards....Offhand.

I don't think one design is inherently more accurate than the other. Olympic "Free pistols" are autos, you know... And competition revolver shooters seem to be rather handy with those "race guns".

Oh....And Elmer Kieth famously hit an elk at 600 yards with a .44 Magnum revolver.
 
I think it all depends. Barrel length, trigger, sights, caliber, grip, etc. I'm not partial towards autos or wheel guns in regards to accuracy. My one buddy has some .44 and .454 wheel guns for hunting that are damn accurate guns. I don't have any revolvers at the moment, but my Glock 19 is a very accurate pistol. I don't know what it is capable of on its on as I've never done bench rest tests with it however I have pulled off some really nice 2" groups at 20-25 yards with mine, standing. Aftermarket 3 dot sights, stock trigger. My Ruger Mk3 22/45 is a very accurate .22lr auto with just iron sights. I've also shot some 1911's that I was very accurate with. I don't have any doubts though on the accuracy of a nice revolver that you can shoot in single action by cocking the hammer first.
 
jackknife said:
Yeah, I always thought it was up to the shooter too, but when the experiment went to sandbag rest, with two different shooters and the same result, the auto's shot tighter.

The .38 snubbies were used with 148 grain Speer wadcutters, and 2.6 grains of Bullseye in Federal cases. This was the best load, followed by the standard 158 lead round nose. The revolvers did best with heavier bullets and lower velocities. The 130 grain full metal jacket was not a good load at all, neither was the 125 hollow point. The lighter the grain bullet in the revolvers, the more the accuracy degraded. There is no crown damage or gun problem. A competent gunsmith checked both revolvers. Some off the shelf ammo was also used, from Winchester and Federal.

The Glock didn't seem to care if it was the 124 or 115 grain bullets. The 115's shot maybe a little larger group from a sandbag, but you had to stare at the target and measure with a ruler. Maybe fractions of inches difference. Not as bullet sensitive as the little revolvers. Ammo used was Federal and Winchester.

The .22's were shot off sandbags using Federal .22 high speed hollow points. Same ammo in both guns, agains two different shooters. Same results.

In the revolvers, this old bodyguard did better than the model 60, but still not up there with the Glock from a sandbag. It had a great trigger pull, and feels like a nicer gun, but just didn't do as well. Much smaller sights that are way harder to see, and ammo sensitive to bullet load. I love the feel of the Smith and Wessons, they have class. The Glock feels about as good as a Bic disposable lighter compared to a nice old Zippo. But the plasticy cheesy feel aside, the darn thing just works well. Very well. I always was disdainful of the Glocks, but I have become a believer.

15062268305_ece3c4ca34_c.jpg
Click to expand...
that's pretty
 
jackknife said:
In the revolvers, this old bodyguard did better than the model 60, but still not up there with the Glock from a sandbag. It had a great trigger pull, and feels like a nicer gun, but just didn't do as well. Much smaller sights that are way harder to see, and ammo sensitive to bullet load. I love the feel of the Smith and Wessons, they have class. The Glock feels about as good as a Bic disposable lighter compared to a nice old Zippo. But the plasticy cheesy feel aside, the darn thing just works well. Very well. I always was disdainful of the Glocks, but I have become a believer.

15062268305_ece3c4ca34_c.jpg
Click to expand...

Seriously, what kind of accuracy are you expecting from a 1 7/8" barreled DA only snub nose revolver?
 
Last edited:
I have a High Standard Victor (22LR) which always shot better than any revolver I owned. When HS went ka-plunk, I picked up a Ruger Mark II with the bull barrel and it shoots very well. I am basically a revolver person, and I like revolvers, especially 22's.

Just guessing, you got rid of your revolvers when you basically downsized your knife accumulation.

I am not a big 38spl shooter, but when the CCW thing took off in the 90's, a small 38 was my choice along with a Glock 23. I can definitely shoot the Glock better, but then I'm comparing that to a snubbie and if I can hit a pie plate a 10 yds I'm good with that. I just don't enjoy shooting the lightweight centerfire revolvers.

I would be most unhappy if I shot my 41 magnums the way I shoot the snubbies. I even have a few 22LR snubbies which are fun too.
 
I've owned my Ruger Mark I for 26 or so years (bought it when I was 12).

I can't count how many 10's of thousands of rounds I've shot through it. I've shot 1000 rounds in a single sitting through it (Sore thumbs!).

Love that thing.

I believe my Glock is pretty accurate (at least I feel I shoot it well).

I only have two revolvers. An old model 66 S&W with a 6.5 inch barrel, and a small SP101 double action only .357.
 
I've read about handgun shooting for almost 50 years and I've tested a lot of revolvers and autos.

Production rimfire autoloading handguns such as the Rugers, Smith and Wesson, High Standard and Colt will beat most good rimfire revolvers by about 1/3. The 4" S&W 617 pictured above should do 1.25"-1.5" off sandbags at 25 yards with good ammo. (Note that a lot of the current bulk ammo may or may not be considered good ammo.) Good to real good autoloaders should do 0.75"-1.25" at the same distance. Almost all of them will have ammo that they like and ammo that they don't like. The stated group sizes will exclude the ammo that the guns don't really like. The good rimfire autoloaders basically have the barrel, sights and frame all mounted solidly together and this is why their accuracy is so good. There are a lot of rimfire autoloaders that are not so good, things like the Beretta's, Bersa's, Llama, etc.

Now move to centerfire handguns and the results reverse. A good centerfire revolver, at least 3" or 4" barrel, will usually shoot groups about 2/3 the size of what a good centerfire autoloader will do. So take your average S&W or Ruger revolver and you should get groups of 1.5"-2.0" from sandbag rest at 25 yards. Most good autoloaders will do 2.0"-3.0" at the same distance. I have not tested any 2" barrel revolvers and yes the sights are usually hard to use.

Sight radius does matter. A revolver with 4" barrel does have a shorter sight radius but with concentration it can be pretty accurate. Some people find that it is easier to shoot with a sight radius that is longer, such as what a 6" barrel or 7.5" barrel revolver would have. I did see a 2" barrel S&W 34 that was surprisingly accurate if you concentrated enough so it is possible.

There are exceptions to the centerfire revolver vs. centerfire autoloader. Les Baer makes autoloaders that he guarantees to shoot 2.5" or 3" at 50 yards, and even some with 1.5" guarantee. OTOH the S&W 629 DX can be counted on for exceptional accuracy, factory verified. And any revolver made by Freedom Arms is capable of very good accuracy. Modern Dan Wesson revolvers are also known to have very good accuracy. But there are autoloaders that are very accurate, mostly the ones used for olympic competition.

There is information available on the net if a person wants to do some research. I would suggest searching for "taffin tests" articles, and also look for specific models on gunblast.com.
 
There are going to be a lot of variables, the gap and headspacing with a revolver is going to have at least some effect on trajectory, maybe some handle it better than others, or some ammo is less affected by it. The dynamic changes in an auto-loader are going to matter as well, be it slide movement, barrel movement, all that sort of thing, some will impart more variance than others. I don't think you can make a blanket statement other than the fact that some guns shoot better than others, and in Jackknife's case it works out that the autos he has used are better than the revolvers.

That being said, off the rest, some guns are easier to shoot than others, and that probably makes up for a lot of it with most shooters. But once the shooter and the gun are shooting as well as each other, then the gun's flaws are going to show up more and more.
 
The accuracy of this old S&W M17 is greater than my ability to shoot it, and I'm not a shabby shooter.

S%2526W%2520M17.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top