Finally bought a revolver and I hate it


PDA






p89cajun
August 30, 2007, 03:05 PM
I finally bought a revolver, a taurus cia 650ss, and kinda hate it. I like compact guns and I own three. A millenium pro in .40, a para warthog, and the revolver. The revolver is basically the same size as the para and a little less than 1 inch shorter than the taurus. It weighs the same as the Para and 5 oz. more than the taurus. Basically size and weight wise it has no real advantage over the two.

The revolver is definately the looser in acuracy. We all shoot each others guns and nobody can shoot the revolver like they can the others. The revolver is also the looser in capacity with the para and mill. pro both more than doubeling the revolvers capacity.

The only good thing I can say about revolvers is A) They are gorgeous and B) The .357 throws one hell of a fire ball. I don't think I will ever get rid of it because I like having one revolver but he is sure to get lonely because I wont buy another revolver to keep him company.

If you enjoyed reading about "Finally bought a revolver and I hate it" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
earplug
August 30, 2007, 03:23 PM
You have to be nice with revolvers, their female.

Gunbabe
August 30, 2007, 03:25 PM
EARPLUG....THAT'S SO WRONG!!!! Haha

Sorry you didn't have a better experince p89cajun. I have a taurus .22 and I love it. I bought a laser grip just for fun. I have a Millenium Pro and a .38 as well.

MrBorland
August 30, 2007, 03:33 PM
The revolver is definately the looser in acuracy.


Is it the revolver or the shooter(s)? Not to be a wise guy, but if this is your 1st revolver, it may take some practice getting used to the trigger, though you didn't say if you were shooting in DA or SA. To test whether the gun's inherently inaccurate or not, shoot it from a rest in SA mode and compare it's accuracy to that of your other guns shot similarly. You might find you just need to practice. Could also be you got a dog.

MrTuffPaws
August 30, 2007, 03:46 PM
Yeah, as accuracy goes, chances are it is your fault and not the guns. Sorry that you don't like it though. IMO, you should have started with a full sized revolver rather than the pocket guns.

nitesite
August 30, 2007, 03:48 PM
The snub-nosed revolver is the single most difficult revolver to become proficient with. That's a fact.

It is widely regarded as an "expert's gun" because of the amount of training or practice required to be accuratte with one.

I'd just about guarantee you my next paycheck that if I put a 4" K-frame or L-frame in your hand you would shoot far better than with a 2" J-frame sized revolver.

col_tapiocca
August 30, 2007, 03:54 PM
Don't get me wrong, but I'll never buy Taurus.
Most Taurus revolver are cheap copy of Smith & Wesson.

p89cajun
August 30, 2007, 04:10 PM
I understand the accuracy thing. I knew this going in to it. My point was that everyone talks about what good carry guns they are. I just dont see how with such little capacity and such "hard to learn" accuracy.

esq_stu
August 30, 2007, 04:19 PM
Practice a lot with your carry gun.

IMHO, carry revolvers require way more practice than semi-autos. I've been able to get decent accuracy with DA snubbies at self defense distances, but with much greater difficulty than with autos. I carry a 642,a PM9, and a G26 at different times, and I have to practice A LOT more with the 642 to feel anywhere near confident compared to the others.

You trade practice for carry comfort and simplicity. Everything's a trade off.

Gunbabe
August 30, 2007, 04:34 PM
With you col_tapiocca. My husband and I have six Taurus guns between us and we have never had any problems with them. I must admit I'd love to have a Smith & Wesson but thats just for the name I suppose.

22-rimfire
August 30, 2007, 04:34 PM
Shame on you.... you should have gotten a Colt or Smith revolver!

There has only been one revolver that I have had trouble shooting as well as I expected. That was a Python a long time ago and I suspect the problem was ME, not the gun.

Either you like revolvers or you don't. I like them. I hate loading those finger pinching magazines. :)

Regolith
August 30, 2007, 04:34 PM
Revolvers are a little bit like a pump shotgun. They're simple, rugged, and extremely reliable. You are basically trading a large magazine capacity for more reliability and simpler manual of arms.

jad0110
August 30, 2007, 04:41 PM
Mechanically, the snubbie is capable of pretty astounding accuracy. So unless there is something wrong with the gun, then it is the software in this case (no offense intended). I have plenty of software problems to address myself, most of us do :o. And granted, you have picked one of the more difficult wheelguns to start with, for most people anyway. A 4" S&W Model 10, or a DA 22 of some kind would be more ideal to learn on.

Don't give up on shooting a DA wheelgun though, even if you don't care for it now. For many, it is an aquired taste. One thing I (among others) note is that many semi-auto only shooters (not all, but many) have a tough time shooting a revolver, whereas a typical revolver shooter that is at least a decent shooter can do well with an auto too, usually.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you can build good trigger control on a revolver, it should translate to better shooting on your other guns.

As for capacity, my rule of thumb is that if I determine that there is a realistic chance in my locale of needing more than the 5 shots available to me in my 642, then it's time to move. For me, I desire a reliable gun that draws quickly and points naturally. My S&W 642 fits the bill perfectly ... though YMMV of course.

Give it time and be patient. When you practice, focus and make each shot count. You will get better with time.

GunTech
August 30, 2007, 04:44 PM
I've worked on a lot of revolvers, and while Taurus has come way up in quality, and is, IMO a 'good' gun, it's not a 'great' gun. Lots of rough edges and poor tolerances in the internals. A good revolver is a lot harder to do than a good auto.

Deanimator
August 30, 2007, 04:46 PM
Most Taurus revolver are cheap copy of Smith & Wesson.

Hell, today most SMITH & WESSON revolvers are a cheap copy of a Smith & Wesson!

Cougfan2
August 30, 2007, 04:59 PM
Don't get me wrong, but I'll never buy Taurus.
Most Taurus revolver are cheap copy of Smith & Wesson.

My experience when I worked for BE Hodgdon Inc was that the early Taurus guns when first imported, were of pretty low quality. This was in the late '70's. From what I've heard lately they made a major investment in metalurgy and manufacturing technology the last several years and the quality has improved greatly. Don't own one personally, but they appear to be well made now.

Cougfan2
August 30, 2007, 05:03 PM
Hell, today most SMITH & WESSON revolvers are a cheap copy of a Smith & Wesson!

Touche':D

44and45
August 30, 2007, 05:06 PM
Boy, have you hit the nail on the head on that one, Smith & Wessons are a cheap copy of what S&W use to be.

This generation is being over priced on sub quality firearms.

Here's some real S&W revolvers, made by crafstmen and women, not computer generated crap that is laser etched...all pre-war.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e321/44and45/100_0124croppedandtouchedup-textsiz.jpg

Jim

Feanaro
August 30, 2007, 05:07 PM
Mechanically, the snubbie is capable of pretty astounding accuracy. So unless there is something wrong with the gun, then it is the software in this case (no offense intended).

I don't think it is that simple. If you make the most mechanically accurate pistol in the world but fit it with gorilla grips and a 50 pound trigger, you can't put all the blame on the shooter. The snub is hard to shoot. Indeed, I would call it the hardest handgun to shoot. This is failure of the hardware.

However, it can be shot accurately. Not being able to compensate for the weakness of the snubby exposes a weakness in your abilities. The snub fails to make accuracy easy to attain, the shooter fails in not being able to adjust to this weakness.

W.E.G.
August 30, 2007, 05:20 PM
If it can consistently hit a dessert plate at 8 feet, a gun like this is as accurate as it ever needs to be

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/pistol%20pics/650SS.jpg

Tom Servo
August 30, 2007, 05:33 PM
If it can consistently hit a dessert plate at 8 feet, a gun like this is as accurate as it ever needs to be
I can make it do the same at 8 yards most days :)

The gun itself is capable of far better in the right hands.

Revolvers take more time to learn. They require discipline and concentration, and they operate on the principle that every round counts.

Practice with it. When you're decent, pick up an auto, and you'll notice a drastic improvement in your shooting.

Silvanus
August 30, 2007, 05:41 PM
I find reolvers a lot easier to shoot than semi-autos. DA or SA, it doesn't matter, they are always more accurate than a semi. You should try a 4" or longer model.

44and45, what makes the older Smiths superior?

I quite enjoy shooting a 686 and my 19. They are both extremely accurate and reliable. They look nice too, but that depends on your taste in firearms.

What can the "oldies" do that the new ones can't?

BigBlock
August 30, 2007, 05:42 PM
Don't get me wrong, but I'll never buy Taurus.
Most Taurus revolver are cheap copy of Smith & Wesson.

Isn't it funny how most people that say things like this don't actually own one? :rolleyes:

GunTech
August 30, 2007, 05:44 PM
44and45

I recently had a chance to compare some recently made S&W with older models from the 50s, 60s and 70s. What I found surprised me.

The currently made S&W revolvers have better internal fitting and machining than those post war. There were alomost no machining marks in the contemporary revolvers, unlike 1960s and 1970s vintage guns.

The other thing to remember is that revolvers 'wear in', that is get somther with use. Comparing a revolver with 40 years wear to those made today in not a fair comparison, unless you have one with little or now wear.

While i like the old S&W and collect 5-screws, the modern CNC made guns are better machined than the old timers. The old guns required much hand fitting. The new ones require none.

Time matches on.

Old Fuff
August 30, 2007, 05:47 PM
I have owned several Taurus revolvers and they were/are satisfactory in all important respects.

I don't know if you are shooting .357 Magnums through it or not, but If so I understand the cause of your accuracy problems.

The combination of a double-action only (DAO) trigger pull, small handle and short barrel length and sight radius do make this particular revolver difficult to shoot accurately. Their primary advantage is that they aren't ammunition dependent to work. You can also, if necessary, shoot the revolver through a pocket without first drawing it. Simply dry firing about 1000 times can smooth the trigger pull out. Do fill the chambers with snap-caps or empty cases. The former are a lot better choice. Last but not least, try some mid-range 148 grain .38 Special wadcutters and see if your hand-held accuracy doesnít improve....

ArchAngelCD
August 30, 2007, 06:21 PM
p89cajun,
Don't condemn the tool when the worker isn't doing his job. You said the revolver is inaccurate when you should have said I'm inaccurate with a revolver. Like said above, a pistol is very different from a DA revolver and you need to practice a lot to get it right.

There is no reason to bash revolvers just because you can't shoot one well. I can hit 4 out of 5 steel targets from 25 yards. (I'm working at the fifth LOL). I can shoot very well from 15 yards and closer and can achieve tight groups. I couldn't hit the paper from 7 yards the first day I had my S&W Model 638, it all takes practice.

I truly hope you are willing to put in the time required to shoot a snub nose revolver well because it's well worth the time, IMO of course...

Below is a target I shot from 10 yards (30 feet) out, 5 rounds of .38 Special through my M638. (1 7/8" barrel)

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/Jframetarget10.jpg

22-rimfire
August 30, 2007, 06:26 PM
Personally I like revolvers, but I believe they are more difficult to shoot consistantly than a semi-auto pistol. If you can shoot a revolver well, I think you can shoot a pistol very well. The shooter has to pay more attention to form with a revolver (grip, hand placement, etc.) even in single action. I often relax my grip and have to re-do the grip between shots. Hence, you have introduced a measure of inconsistancy into the process that often doesn't happen with a semi-auto pistol. I honestly probably shoot a pistol better than most revolvers, but it is more about my sloppiness than ability or the revolver's inherent accuracy.

Shoot the revolver in single action until you are consistant and then move to slow controlled double action fire. Heck, I rarely even shoot in double action except for fun or practicing with my carry gun. That's what I have semi-autos for.

19-3Ben
August 30, 2007, 06:43 PM
If you were looking for a first revolver for CCW, i would have pointed you toward an SP101 3". It's a sorta-snubbie. the 3"bbl conceals nicely, but will still give you accuracy, and more controlability. You may have had a better experience. If you like the idea of having a revolver around, why not trade the Taurus for an SP101. Even if you take a loss in trade it will be very well worth it for your shooting experience.

shooter429
August 30, 2007, 07:24 PM
Is what I would do. These are sweet, smooth, comfy shooters that will shoot straight and give you years of reliable service.

If all one can afford is a Taurus...fine, but if you can spend a little more get the S&W and I think you will be much happier in the long run.

Shooter429

Nathanael_Greene
August 31, 2007, 12:32 AM
I for one won't try to change your mind.

You bought the revolver, hate it, and want to move on to something else.

I understand.

And I want to help.

I'll take that nasty, inaccurate piece of Brazilian metal off your hands. I'll even give you fifty bucks.

Really; no need to thank me.

Monkeybear
August 31, 2007, 01:22 AM
I say, from experience, that if you can shoot a DA revolver well you can shoot anything(handguns). I agree that you should have started off with a larger revolver but if you have chosen a difficult platform to learn with you can either say "its hard so I don't like it as much" or you can say "I am having a hard time with this, dose anyone have some tips".

On the other hand if its just not your thing, I will gladly take it off your hands. I'll even pay the shipping and transfer fee. :p

Elm Creek Smith
August 31, 2007, 01:27 AM
I'll take that nasty, inaccurate piece of Brazilian metal off your hands. I'll even give you fifty bucks.

You're just trying to take advantage of that poor fella. I'll give 'im fifty-five bucks!

ECS

Arcticfox
August 31, 2007, 03:15 AM
eh hem....

Shoulda bought a smith & wesson. Then, you never would've started this thread :)

Nathanael_Greene
August 31, 2007, 12:45 PM
You're just trying to take advantage of that poor fella. I'll give 'im fifty-five bucks!

ECS

The Nobel Prize Committee will think I'm stumping for votes, but as a humanitarian gesture, I'll go to sixty.

No, wait...sixty one.

sansone
August 31, 2007, 12:51 PM
I had a 4" smith revolver, and my dad had a 4" colt.. Both were as accurate as any 4" auto. I like auto's for capacity, but a revolver lives at my bedside

Hawk
August 31, 2007, 01:22 PM
I have trigger related OCD. My double-action-fu is weak, very weak.

I've been trying to correct that with a fair number of rounds through several recently acquired revolvers. No joy. I still shoot the 4" semi much better than any revolver in double action.

Single action out of the Python is a wondrous thing but one can't really enjoy talking about such things in the revolver forum where real shooters only use double action and some even <gasp> bob the hammers and pay to have the SA sear ground off.

Doesn't mean the revolvers are for sale, just means they're usually fired single action. In the event of a "serious" encounter where I find myself with a revolver, I'll simply aim a yard low and left of where I intend to hit.

James T Thomas
August 31, 2007, 01:28 PM
I have a feeling that the "old curr dog" of a revolver, will grow on you.
Haveing him around for awhile, you will find yourself growing to like him more and more.

Bo
August 31, 2007, 01:49 PM
I've got a 650 ss also. Great pocket pistol! It doesn't have to be that accurate, it's a up close and personal gun. Shooting 357's through it will definately make your hand sore. Keep practicing, it's a good pistol.

The_Shootist
August 31, 2007, 08:03 PM
Ok - got to shoot my Taurus 85 today - a true snubby vs my SP 101 in 3 " bbl. It was quite the shock compared to the Ruger.

I found, at seven yrds, if I didn't concentrate on the sight picture, my shots were easily going 6-7 inches high. Concentration on the sights and aiming put them either dead on or within 1-2 inches of POA.

Now I realize that 6-7 inches high might still be considered "minute-of-bad-guy" but I sure wasn't used to being off that much with any revolver. With my SP 101, even careless aiming puts me within 3-4 inches of POA at seven yds.

Now if any self-dense encounter took place when armed with the Taurus at 3 yds or less (as FBI stats indicate through the rule of 3's) I suspect accuracy will be sufficient. But I kinda like every edge I can get, and if in a real encounter, taking place at 7 yds with people shooting AT ME, I wonder how able I will be to concentrate and get the needed accuracy?

Another shocker was the FBI load in the Taurus. Most of the rounds where standard pressure 158 gr wadcutters and recoil was negligible - even in a revolver of such light weight. But when firing off the FBI load, it was like going from the FBI Load to Full House Magnums in my SP 101!! Fortunately, with a bit of concentrating, that proved to be a pretty accurate (albeit unpleasant ) load to use.

I didn't fire many rounds today - it was just too hot/humid (and sunny) for a change. I will keep at it, as the Taurus is just too easy to carry. But you have to be reasonably competent with what you carry and for this, my first real snub, its going take some practice.

greyling22
September 1, 2007, 12:52 AM
what makes the snubbie revolver so much more difficult than a snub automatic? I've always thought an auto was much more difficult to hit with than a revolver. what am I missing?

The Lone Haranguer
September 1, 2007, 10:49 AM
For your first revolver, you picked the most difficult (IMO) of all handguns to shoot. They have relatively poor sights, heavy trigger pulls, point high and have little grip to hold onto, which is necessary for deeper concealment but magnifies the already heavy recoil. Had you chosen a medium-frame revolver (e.g., the S&W Model 10s shown in multiple threads on this page), I think your opinion would be much different. :)

glassman
September 1, 2007, 02:42 PM
I like revolvers for their simplicity and reliability. No FTF, FTE and it is very forgiving. If it fails to fire, just pull the trigger again..no wasted precious seconds needed to rack the slide. Someone here wrote that a pocket snubbie is a gun that "should be seldom fired but often carried". I disagree in the sense that if you carry it, you should be proficient with it. Yes, the recoil is nasty and at first, it may seem inaccurate. I think if you shoot the beast you will become adept with it and learn to like it for what it was meant to do.

Biff
September 1, 2007, 04:40 PM
Hey, I'll go seventy-five!

Seriously, my Taurus 606 (6 shot 2" .357) has a set of grips that fit my hands so well that inside ten yards hitting what I am looking at is actually pretty easy.

Rufus Pisanus
September 1, 2007, 05:06 PM
I would be very surprised if - all else being equal - a revolver was less accurate than a semi-auto (pretty much the same situation as a bolt action rifle and a semi-auto rifle.) The revolver (like the bolt action rifle) doesn't have much mass in motion while the bullet is accelerating in the barrel so it's easier to make them accurate. Clearly technology can make the semi-autos more accurate to the point probably of being as accurate as the revolver, but more? I doubt it. The only benefit could perhaps be that the mechanism reduces apparent recoil and thus may make it more controllable and easier to shoot.

The big if here is of course the "all else being equal" which has to do with mass, barrel length, shooter skills, etc etc. Thus, I am sure that one can find a snubby in 357 less accurate than an accurized 1911 in 38 super...

Personally, I can shoot my SW model 19 and a friend's 686 much more accurately than any 40 SW or 357 SIG pistol (including Glocks, Berettas and SIGs) that I have tried. On the other hand the revolvers might have been heavier than at least some of the semi-autos so this is not a good test either...

Eyesac
September 1, 2007, 05:39 PM
For your first revolver, you picked the most difficult (IMO) of all handguns to shoot. They have relatively poor sights, heavy trigger pulls, point high and have little grip to hold onto, which is necessary for deeper concealment but magnifies the already heavy recoil

sandy4570
September 1, 2007, 06:08 PM
p89cajun
Get yourself a set of snap cap and starting reload for your snubbie because that will be only way you can hit anything with it. I won't dare get a snubbie of my own until couple of years ago when I start to reload because I knew then as I know now that without practice I will never hit anything with this snub nose (I still work on 15 yards because my target still look like a shot gun pattern ) . I can't argue about accuratcy of the revolver because I seem to hit tighter group with 9 mm pistol but then again they are bigger , heavier and have longer barrel than snubnose revolver .:)

MrBorland
September 1, 2007, 06:30 PM
The revolver (like the bolt action rifle) doesn't have much mass in motion while the bullet is accelerating in the barrel so it's easier to make them accurate.

I recall the revolver-vs-semi accuracy issue was addressed here some time ago (probably many times). IIRC, the consensus was that, as far as inherent accuracy, each platform had it's own strengths and weaknesses, and in the end, all else being equal, the revolver mayyyyybe be a teensy bit more accurate. Mayyyybe.

As far as the "mass in motion while the bullet is accelerating" argument, I've heard this before, and I'm skeptical. I used to think this was true as well, but then I saw a high-speed movie of a pistol being fired, and it was clear (from this movie, anyway), that the bullet clears the barrel long before the slide even begins to move. If this weren't true, semi-auto rifles, such as an AR15, would be more inherently inaccurate than pistols.

Hawk
September 1, 2007, 06:44 PM
I don't claim any expertise on the matter but, intuitively, I can't picture the revolver being as accurate as a semi when fired by normal mortals.

But mechanical accuracy perhaps is not relevant. Tack-driving accuracy isn't what most of our handguns are about. The much-maligned phrase "combat accuracy" likely makes sense in the context of a "packable" CCW.

Triggers matter.

It's been my experience that the best Python trigger is long, heavy and nasty compared to even a low cost 1911's trigger. Comparing the trigger of a more pedestrian revolver to a well-tuned combat single action semi is impossible - it's like they're from different planets.

People a lot smarter than I advocate disabling the single action functionality of any defensive revolver. Several models come that way from the factory. I'm reasonably accurate with my revolvers when fired single-action but the range babes look at me funny when I do that. One can no doubt get proficient in double action, as exhibited by some in this thread, but it's going to take practice, a lot of money for ammo or componenets, determination and no small amount of talent to do what is much easier with a single action semi. One can put all the time and money thus saved into training and more practice.

I hear there are semis with grotty triggers. However, I have steadfastly avoided them and acknowledge their existance as an article of faith. ;)

MrBorland
September 1, 2007, 07:23 PM
I don't claim any expertise on the matter but, intuitively, I can't picture the revolver being as accurate as a semi when fired by normal mortals.


There's a lot to be said for rendering a defense-only revolver DAO. OTOH, not all revolvers are defense-only, so, in these cases, it's a nice option to have, so long as you're proficient shooting DA.

The above statement implies big differences in inherent accuracy of the 2 platforms, which, isn't really that big. To be more accurate, I think it should read "I can't picture any shooting being as accurate with a revolver as with a semi". I, for one, will tell you, I'm at least as accurate with my revolver (shooting DA) as I am with any semi I've shot (and it's nice to know I can pick up a semi and shoot a nice group). I personally prefer revolvers, though, so I practice a lot with one. As said before, one should shoot what they prefer and what they're willing to practice with, but know up front that becoming a good shot with a revolver just takes more practice.

doc2rn
September 1, 2007, 09:45 PM
I know that the exotic alloy Taurus are just like my 642 some of them rounds hurt my wrist. You might wanna consider some pretty light wadcutters to practice with first.

Rufus Pisanus
September 1, 2007, 10:39 PM
MrBorland said:

As far as the "mass in motion while the bullet is accelerating" argument, I've heard this before, and I'm skeptical. I used to think this was true as well, but then I saw a high-speed movie of a pistol being fired, and it was clear (from this movie, anyway), that the bullet clears the barrel long before the slide even begins to move. If this weren't true, semi-auto rifles, such as an AR15, would be more inherently inaccurate than pistols.

The movie is perhaps a good indication but I wonder whether it's really significant: the bullet is much lighter than the gun (or the slide) so by conserving momentum the gun (or slide) is going to move at a much lower speed and this might trick the eye in a movie. The gas in the barrel will complicate things but I don't think is going to change the picture. In any case try to shoot a SW 629 (44 magnum) with a soft grip and a solid one. In the first case the muzzle climb will be enormous and you'll see it's effect on the accuracy and point of impact. This tells me that the muzzle is actually raising while the bullet is still in the barrel.

In my opinion, the rifle case is very different in many respects, for instance the primary support (shoulder) is better aligned with the barrel than the grip of a pistol and this should guarantee a comparatively lower torque which will reduce muzzle climb and contribute to accuracy. Of course the overall stability of a rifle shooting position and the speed and spin of the bullet (and hence barrel rifling) matter as well.

Frandy
September 1, 2007, 11:35 PM
Finally bought a revolver and I hate it

You do know how to get to Carnegie Hall, right? :D

Hawk
September 2, 2007, 01:28 AM
The above statement implies big differences in inherent accuracy of the 2 platforms, which, isn't really that big.

The typical semi-auto centerfire has parts coming to rest after each shot which involve the sighting mechanism and barrel relationship. I would guess that this introduces more variability than simply having six different chambers, each machined just a bit differently.

However, not all semis are typical. Some are rimfire with fixed barrels and rear sight mounted on the frame.

This gives us Hammerli, Walther and Pardini Olympic target pistols among others. Also, a good supply of old High Standard Trophy Supermatics and Olympics.

I could be wrong, but I don't know of any Olympic grade target rimfire revolver. For every hundred target semis in Olympic competition there are exactly zero revolvers.

Not particularly relevant to the topic at hand but when absolute mechanical accuracy is the goal, revolvers are tossed overboard pretty early on... at least with rimfires, every four years.

gezzer
September 2, 2007, 01:49 AM
Taurus

There is the problem. Factory only repairs # 1 problem. Had a 22 hornet with the barrel off time by 15% or more 3 times back and still not on zero.

I DO NOT RECOMMENED THEIR PRODUCTS (STAND BY FOR FLAMES)

precisionshootist
September 2, 2007, 07:58 AM
Rufus Pisanus,

Revolvers and bolt action rifles are mechanically easier to make accurate not because of less parts or mass in motion as the bullet is accelerating down the barrel but because of less parts that move after the shot is fired. Semi auto's have much more complex moving parts in their actions that tend to not lock back together exactly the same shot to shot. There are no parts moving in a semi auto when the bullet is accelerating down the bore. The bullet is long gone before the action moves.

Rufus Pisanus
September 2, 2007, 08:57 AM
precision shootist:

Revolvers and bolt action rifles are mechanically easier to make accurate not because of less parts or mass in motion as the bullet is accelerating down the barrel but because of less parts that move after the shot is fired. Semi auto's have much more complex moving parts in their actions that tend to not lock back together exactly the same shot to shot. There are no parts moving in a semi auto when the bullet is accelerating down the bore. The bullet is long gone before the action moves.

I have two problems with this statement:

1. linear momentum is conserved at all times so if the bullet moves something else has to move backwards. You don't see the slide moving because it moves with much lower speed (inversely proportional to the ratio of the two masses.)

2. If what moves does so after the bullet has left the barrel, having an improper grip would not impact your accuracy but it would just make you take more time to get back to the aiming position. Whatever you do after the bullet has left the barrel doesn't affect where said bullet is going to hit. Try my suggested experiment with a 44 magnum: there it is not subtle trigger effects at play there it is just pure and simple recoil.

MrBorland
September 2, 2007, 09:11 AM
If what moves does so after the bullet has left the barrel, having an improper grip would not impact your accuracy but it would just make you take more time to get back to the aiming position. Whatever you do after the bullet has left the barrel doesn't affect where said bullet is going to hit. Try my suggested experiment with a 44 magnum: there it is not subtle trigger effects at play there it is just pure and simple recoil.


In fact, shooting a .44magnum with a relative loose grip and letting the muzzle to rise was the preferred method of Elmer Keith, who was a darned good shot and instrumental in the development of the .44magnum. The bullet's long gone by the time the muzzle starts to rise. The inaccuracy you're describing's likely due to the shooter anticipating the recoil & muzzle blast. A looser grip would to magnify the effect of the flinch. Besides, even with a tight grip, the muzzle still rises, and if what you describe is true, even a little muzzle rise would be enough to ruin accuracy.

Rufus Pisanus
September 2, 2007, 09:24 AM
Fine, since there is consensus that the laws of physics don't apply to handguns and linear momentum is conserved only after the bullet has left the barrel I quit. You guys win.

wuchak
September 2, 2007, 11:27 AM
My suggestion is to load up with snap-caps and try the wall drill. This will help you develop the hand muscles and grip feel required to pull the trigger on the snubbie without changing the sight picture.

Link to video of the wall drill
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid452320104/bclid459256134/bctid909886852

MrBorland
September 2, 2007, 02:55 PM
Fine, since there is consensus that the laws of physics don't apply to handguns and linear momentum is conserved only after the bullet has left the barrel I quit.

The laws of physics are still valid. Here's my take (if you're still reading): Once the powder detonates, a pressure wave builds over some short time period. Since the bullet is lighter than the combined weight of the slide and spring, the bullet is propelled relatively early. The pressure wave has to develop further develop the force needed to push the slide/spring back and/or flip the muzzle. By this time, the bullet's long gone. Newton's 3rd Law is still in effect, but so is the 2nd.

I think the thread's officially highjacked, but thanks all for some good discussion.

glockman19
September 2, 2007, 03:56 PM
Don't get me wrong, but I'll never buy Taurus.
Most Taurus revolver are cheap copy of Smith & Wesson.
eh hem....

Shoulda bought a smith & wesson. Then, you never would've started this thread
Mechanically, the snubbie is capable of pretty astounding accuracy. So unless there is something wrong with the gun, then it is the software in this case (no offense intended).

Agreed 100%

Landlocked Pirate
September 4, 2007, 12:28 PM
I have the same Taurus 650, and other than needing to send it back to Taurus to adjust the timing (before I even fired it) I've learned to really like the gun. It feels better in my hand and is easier to shoot than my son's S&W 640 or my wife's S&W 642, and has a slightly better trigger, too IMO. As far as accuracy, considering it's intended purpose and DAO trigger I don't have any complaints. All my other revolvers are S&W and I generally prefer them, but I'm not at all dissatisfied with my Taurus.

MCgunner
September 4, 2007, 01:43 PM
Quote:
The revolver is definately the looser in acuracy.


Is it the revolver or the shooter(s)? Not to be a wise guy, but if this is your 1st revolver, it may take some practice getting used to the trigger, though you didn't say if you were shooting in DA or SA. To test whether the gun's inherently inaccurate or not, shoot it from a rest in SA mode and compare it's accuracy to that of your other guns shot similarly. You might find you just need to practice. Could also be you got a dog.

My Taurus revolvers are the most inherently accurate weapons I own in category. My M85 is more accurate than any compact auto I've tried, shooting 3" at 25 yards off a rest. Try that with your average PPK. That's about as good as I can do with a two inch gun and iron sights. I think maybe my SP101 is a very little bit better, may be the heavier weight has something to do with it. My 4" 66 will put a cylinder full into an inch at 25 yards. I've never owned an autoloader that could do that. My M10 Smith can do almost as good as that Taurus M66 and will absolutely embarrass most service grade autos. For hunting, I'll take a revolver's accuracy any day of the week over a run of the mill autochucker. The desert eagle is the only auto I can think of with acceptable power and accuracy for hunting. I'd still rather have a blackhawk or 29 Smith or something to any DE, more compact gun with better accuracy on the average.

If the shooter cannot master the snubby revolver on first shooting, hey, that's not unusual. Took me a while. I'm by no means a master class shooter, but my revolvers are generally more accurate for me than autos I've shot or that I own. I shoot well with the little snub, but I'm not Jerry Miculek by any means. You don't have to be THAT good, just practice with the gun, that's all. Takes more than one range trip. If you ain't willin' to put in the effort, buy a Glock.

halvey
September 4, 2007, 01:51 PM
If you ain't willin' to put in the effort, buy a Glock. Can everyone say AMEN! Now your making sense. Why buy a gun with a 500 round break in? Why buy a gun you have to "learn" to shoot?

Finally, someone is making sense!

MCgunner
September 4, 2007, 01:55 PM
Glocks appeal to people that can't shoot anything with a safe carry trigger (DA). To me, though, they resemble a single action with a lot of creep and I ain't really into carrying one condition one in a pocket. That's why I won't carry one. I ain't a highly trained DEA agent, ya know. :D I could modify one to work for me, put in an 8 lb trigger and use one of those safety dohickies that go behind the trigger, but there are better choices for me. Nothing wrong with a Glock for a gun, though, quite accurate as autos go out of the box and reliable as it gets for an autoloader. You hardly EVER see one jam at the matches, which cannot be said for even high dollar 1911s in the hands of those that can't feed them properly (FMJ only in some cases). The Glock is a good gun that is a bit nimrod friendly compared to a 1911 platform, but I'd rather tote my revolvers, thanks.

halvey
September 4, 2007, 02:08 PM
Well, unfortunately, most people live in the real world.

In a high stress situation, would you (or your family) rather work a 1911 and hope it works (assuming you "broke it in"):uhoh:, hope to stay on target with a 15 lb trigger on a revolver or a Kel Tec, or have a dummy proof gun like a Glock with a 5lb trigger, that is at least decent?

Seriously, when it really comes down to it, what do you want? I'm asking the original poster or people who really think about this stuff. Not your typical Monday morning armchair commando.

I resisted Glocks - and the 9mm - for years. Hated them both. Thing is, actually carrying a "plastic" gun is much more comfortable than a 40 oz. 1911.

And think mall shooting. What's better: 17+1 of 9mm or 5-6 shots of .38? Think if you were with your wife and kids.

Good luck "speed loading". And good luck working the safties. Go to any match and under the simple non threatening match stress you will see guys forget to work their safties.

MCgunner
September 4, 2007, 02:26 PM
I have some personal experience I really cannot elaborate on because of pending court action, but I can assure you that the 10 lb trigger (new ones are 8 lbs) of a Kel Tec P11 feels like a 3 lb SA trigger in the heat of things. Maybe it's the adrenalin, but I wouldn't trust a 4 lb trigger under such conditions, myself. I might shoot someone when I really didn't want to. With the KT or a revolver, I have to WANT to shoot before I shoot it.

All the speculation is one thing, but until you've been there, you probably couldn't relate to what I'm saying. I'll keep my DAs and revolvers, thanks. What works in games don't always relate to the real world.

BTW, one shot, didn't miss, stopped the attack.

precisionshootist
September 6, 2007, 05:52 AM
Rufus Pisanus,

I'm not trying to get your feathers ruffled man, I just like talkin gun stuff.

1. linear momentum is conserved at all times so if the bullet moves something else has to move backwards. You don't see the slide moving because it moves with much lower speed (inversely proportional to the ratio of the two masses.)


You are correct but itís the entire gun that is moving, not the action of the firearm separate from the frame/receiver. The Slide in a 1911 for example is locked up tight as the bullet moves down the barrel and itís not until after the bullet is in flight before the pressure drops then the slide unlocks and begins to move. The inherent accuracy edge goes to the revolver because the barrel is fixed to the frame whereas the 1911 barrel moves a great deal and has to be locked back in place after each shot.

2. If what moves does so after the bullet has left the barrel, having an improper grip would not impact your accuracy but it would just make you take more time to get back to the aiming position. Whatever you do after the bullet has left the barrel doesn't affect where said bullet is going to hit. Try my suggested experiment with a 44 magnum: there it is not subtle trigger effects at play there it is just pure and simple recoil.

A light grip will not affect accuracy as long as itís done consistently shot to shot. It will however cause a shift in POI and as you have observed. POI will be higher because of the effects of recoil.

Stainz
September 6, 2007, 07:17 AM
Back to the original problem...

A pocketable .38 is a 'Doomsday Gun'. It was never meant to be a target piece - or a 'plinker'. If ever used as it was intended, it will be from 3-7yd... and adrenalin will mask the 'rough' or 'stiff' trigger. I, and many others, believe that the best way to train is as you may have to use it - DA only. Start at 3 and progress to 7 yd as you start hitting a 'bad guy' target properly in the torso. Load only three or four rounds per cylinder... you'll 'see' if your trigger pull really upsets the revolver. The real key is whether or not you can draw from concealment and hit those torso targets - with your 'carry' rounds. Just be very careful!

I have found - from some of the really nice folks at "The 642 Club" thread - that the fine folks at Georgia Arms load a bit harder lead +P 158gr LHPSWC than the Remington R38S12 version I carry - as their #G38E - $17/100 in reloaded Ni plated brass. It has nearly the same stats as the $30/50 Remington load, but is much more reasonably priced to practice with. It has the same bark and bite as the Remingtons.

Have a good shooter - hopefully someone with a 642 you can 'try' - check your Taurus for accuracy and trigger effort. Make no mistake - your Taurus is a lot higher quality than the 'earlier examples' - but still no S&W. It really could have an internal lockwork problem - or mis-aligned barrel. The S&W 642, their best selling revolver, is a better quality gun, for sure. But, any J-frame S&W, like the 642, will never be as good, trigger-wise, as a K,L, or N frame S&W. Get a larger revolver - with a big boy grip - for a proper plinker... and shoot the snot out of it! It's been over nine years since I traded away my Glock 21... and I have never missed it - revolvers are great!

Stainz

precisionshootist
September 6, 2007, 07:43 AM
p89cajun,

As many posters have said, try a larger revolver. If you completely write off revolvers now you will be missing out on some very capable handguns. Handguns with abilities not available or practical in an auto. For instance
With a few rare exceptions, cartridges .357 or larger can't be had in auto's. Revolvers can also be fantastic long range shooters.

MCgunner
September 6, 2007, 12:21 PM
A pocketable .38 is a 'Doomsday Gun'. It was never meant to be a target piece - or a 'plinker'. If ever used as it was intended, it will be from 3-7yd...

While I do most of my shooting inside 25 yards DA, please don't tell my .38 Taurus M85 2" it's not good for plinking. You might give it a complex. It really enjoys ringing that 15" gong at 100 yards. :D It's about as fun a plinker as it gets IMHO. In fact, long range capability is why I like a revolver that CAN be fired SA, well, that and I've taken rabbits with a snub before. They have more jobs in MY collection than just 3 yard desperation self defense. It is that capability that I appreciate in a snubby over a compact auto which truly IS a one dimensional gun, pure self defense. My .380 is worthless as anything, but a defense gun, but that's why I have one I suppose.

I most often prefer carrying either my KT P11 or a revolver, though.

Combine a .454 Casull with a carriable sized Freedom Arms or Ruger Redhawk or Raging Bull. Can you get THAT kind of power and accuracy from an autochucker? I think not. Revolvers have it all over autoloaders for a lot of applications and they ain't dead yet as fighting guns. The .357 is still an awesome fighting caliber in a compact gun like my SP101.

campbell
September 6, 2007, 02:29 PM
The bullet's long gone by the time the muzzle starts to rise. The inaccuracy you're describing's likely due to the shooter anticipating the recoil & muzzle blast.

There is in fact some effect due to recoil. Heavier bullets in the same gun have a higher POI. They're leaving the muzzle at a higher angle. That's why you see extra tall front sights being sold for shooting heavy bullet hunting loads.

Tom Servo
September 6, 2007, 02:38 PM
Elmer Keith, who was a darned good shot
That, sir, is the understatement of the day :)

campbell
September 6, 2007, 02:42 PM
he inherent accuracy edge goes to the revolver because the barrel is fixed to the frame whereas the 1911 barrel moves a great deal and has to be locked back in place after each shot.

True, but the auto has the advantage of having the barrel and chamber being a single piece. No gap to jump, no alignment problems, etc. That being said, all this tends to be moot as these days there's lots of factory guns in both styles capable of better groups than the shooter.

RPCVYemen
September 6, 2007, 03:04 PM
The currently made S&W revolvers have better internal fitting and machining than those post war. There were almost no machining marks in the contemporary revolvers, unlike 1960s and 1970s vintage guns.

That's interesting. I suspected that it was true, but I haven't compared them. Gun seem to be solidly stuck in "Things used to be great - now they are going to hell!" world view - a opposed to "Things used to be bad - now they are getting better every day."

I have to believe that there have been advances in metallurgy and machining in the last half century. I think our understanding of the structure of metals has changed quite a bit.

Mike

buttrap
September 7, 2007, 05:11 AM
We are getting a bit off topic but after the last post I have to mention that back in the late 60s and the 70s the Bangor Punta revolvers that are so hunted and drooled over now where looked at like the new MIM and keyhole guns are now. Every single new one I got back then had issues, mainly the actions where full of metal chips from the frame machine work. The 28s where really bad on that as they where a cut price gun then but look at what one sells for now.

Picknlittle
September 7, 2007, 09:34 AM
It may be a moot point, and more illusion than fact, but the thing that keeps me from buying a revolver is the barrel length disparity.

Given two guns, approximately the same length, one a semi auto, the other a revolver. The barrel length of the semi is nearly twice a long. Granted, (and this may be where the illusion comes into play) the cylinder does extend the revolver barrel a bit, but the cylinder is in front of the grip. The semi barrel begins above the grip. Accuracy is affected by barrel length, isn't it?

This isn't a big deal for target /hunting handguns, but is for a carry piece.

Yes, a 2" barrel is likely accurate enough when an attacker is threatening you, otherwise he/she wouldn't be an attacker.

gandog56
September 7, 2007, 01:53 PM
Don't get me wrong, but I'll never buy Taurus.
Most Taurus revolver are cheap copy of Smith & Wesson.


My 21 year old Taurus Model 66 .357 Magnum begs to differ. It still shoots as good as the day I bought it, which is darned good. It is probably without a doubt the best valued gun I have ever bought. I only wish I would have had the 40 bucks more for the stainless version. It is capable of one ragged hole groups at 25 feet. I put an entire box of fifty 38 special wadcutters into a three inch target dot not too long ago.

Art Eatman
September 7, 2007, 03:37 PM
Picknlittle, barrel length and accuracy don't go together with handguns. The deal is, shorter barrels mean shorter sight radii. A short sight radius means that the gun is more difficult to shoot accurately. You put the critter in a vise, and you'll commonly get tight groups.

Barrel length affects muzzle velocity, is about all.

And for a snubbie, what difference does it make? What you want is minute of torso, not MOA.

:), Art

YosemiteSam357
September 7, 2007, 03:52 PM
Re: gandog56 - Don't let it get to you. There are some folks here that just can't resist slagging off on Taurus every time the name is mentioned.

I like the analogy that "S&W is a cheap copy of S&W these days", myself...

-- Sam

If you enjoyed reading about "Finally bought a revolver and I hate it" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!