[Monkeyleg]

For a couple of years I've had friends at the range urge me to shoot revolvers instead of my 1911's, claiming that revolvers are more accurate. During that same time period I've read posts here and on TFL that debunked those claims.

Today I was out shooting my Kimber .45 for the first time in many weeks, and my targets reflected the lack of practice. One of the guys came over with his 6" barrelled S&W .45 acp, and suggested I try shooting my loads in that revolver. The first shot was in the 2" ring, the next was in the 1" x-ring, the third was just outside the 3" black, the fourth was in the x-ring, the fifth a bit high but in the 2" ring, and the sixth was a bit low and in the 2" ring. This was all at 50 feet, single-action, offhand and using the same handloads that I'd used in my Kimber.

Thinking perhaps there was something wrong with the Kimber, I shot it off of a pile of sandbags, and it gave me about a 1-1/4" group at 50 feet. The loads worked fine in the gun.

The guy then asked if he could try the Kimber with my loads. His seven shots were all over the bottom half of the paper; his "patterns" were even worse than mine.

So, is there any credence to the notion that revolvers shoot better than 1911's? Or are/were there other factors at play?

[Steve in PA]

Generally speaking.........revolvers are more accurate than semi-autos.

[firestar]

I can't say for certain if all revolvers are more accurate than all 1911s but it is very common for a good revolver to shoot as well or better than any 1911 out there.

You can buy a good used S&W revolver for $200-400 that will outshoot a $1000 1911. It is very common for this to happen and I think that is why there are so many revolver fans. You get more accuracy for the money with a revolver than most autos.

[Sean Smith]

You experience doesn't really show anything, except that shooter ability overwhelms all other accuracy variables. That said, on average revolvers are more accurate than semi-autos at the same price point, probalby because revolvers have fixed barrels.

[Chris Rhines]

Depends on what kind of accuracy we're talking about. Strict mechanical accuracy, locked into a Ransom Rest, maybe a good revolver will beat out a good 1911 at distance X. Practical accuracy? No way. Every once in a while, someone will shoot a revolver in the centerfire or .45 stage of an outdoor 2700 NRA Bullseye match. But you never see revolvers on the podium. If revolvers were easier to shoot tiny groups at fifty yards with, bullseye shooters would be using them.

That said, you still do see revolvers making a showing at pin shoots and in NRA Action Pistol. Less and less, though.

- Chris

[Art Eatman]

Check out the Barsto guarantees for accuracy of their 1911s, for the pistols intended for NRA-style bullseye competition. SAFIK, they'll always outdo revolvers. I've only shot IPSC, so that's about the extent of my competition knowledge...

Art

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

My recent experience with a friends new S&W revolver makes me wonder if something is going to hell with revolvers or late. In the past there was some truly stunning shooting being done with fairly standard revolvers. And there is nothing about a decent revovler's fixed barrel, sight radius or SA trigger that should prevent it from shooting as well or better at bullseye. But I didn't find the bench accuracy of that gun any better than a Sig.


Could it be that current bullseye shooters just tend to be better with the 1911 because of the service pistol part of the match, while the revolver guys just aren't as serious or have to switch off weapons?

[Mike Irwin]

Depends, of course, on many different factors.

But when I was with American Rifleman magazine, we had the two most accurate handguns we had ever tested come through the offices.

They were both Freedom Arms production revolvers, a .22 and a .38.

None of the other guns we had tested, including 1911s of all ilks, came even close.


As for practical accuracy, I can cut FAR tighter groups with my revolvers than I can with any of my semi-autos.

[Old Fuff]

If, and this is a big “IF” all of a revolver’s chambers lock up precisely aligned with the bore a revolver may outshoot all but the very best automatics. A pistol has one chamber, and it can’t get misaligned with the bore. A revolver normally has five or six chambers, all of which can easily be misaligned. On the other hand the revolvers sights are mounted securely to the frame and barrel. A pistol has its sights mounted to a slide, in which the barrel is mounted but moves. Accuracy is dependent on how much, if any the barrel can move after the slide locks into battery. As a rule of thumb, a well-fitted revolver (such as a Freedom Arms and some Dan Wesson’s) will outshoot most if not all “service grade” automatics that have to be loose enough to function in harsh environments. But a hand-built target pistol is another matter.

If bullseye target shooting was limited to slow fire more competitors might use revolvers. However when timed and rapid fire come into the picture pistols have an edge.

In Metallic Silhouette matches fast shooting isn’t an issue, but long-range accuracy is. In that game most competitors use single-shot pistols and revolvers.

[Monkeyleg]

Perhaps I should have added the fact that several weeks back we fired both the revolver and the 1911 off of good, solid sandbag rests. Both shot equally well. But the revolver--at least for me--was more accurate shooting offhand than the Kimber.

My range friend says that the large wooden grips on the S&W provide a more stable "platform" than does the rather thin grip frame of the 1911. On my 586, I long ago replaced the wooden grips with Pachmyr rubber grips, and shoot it just fine.

Could it just be a matter of the thickness of the grips on the Kimber?

[10-Ring]

Yup, I have found revolvers have the potential to be more accurate.

[YodaVader]

If revolvers were easier to shoot tiny groups at fifty yards with, bullseye shooters would be using them.

In Bullseye you have to shoot a timed and rapid fire stage as well at 25 yards with the same gun you used at 50 yards slowfire - the 1911 is far easier to manage than any revolver when you are shooting strings of 5 shots in 20 seconds (timed) and 10 seconds (rapid) , that is why you do not see revolvers used for the most part. If Bullseye only involved slowfire - 10 shots with a 10 minute time limit there would be revolvers used quite often.

There can be very accurate custom 1911 45s - owned a Clark Custom Combat and the test target was right under 2" at 50 yards for 10 shots. Les Baer advertises a 1.5" on some of their guns. Many good revolvers will do this or better right out of the box with no customizing.

When we talk stock or mass produced 1911s then there is usually no contest - I'll go with a good revolver.

[Hkmp5sd]

I think the revolver vs. pistol is essentially the same thing as the bolt action vs. autoloading sniper rifle debate. It is perceived that the movement of the action of the semi-automatic causes a decrease in the gun's accuracy.

In my case, the firearm is generally more accurate than my skill level. Spending thousands on a tricked out 1911 isn't going to make me shoot significantly better than my stock 1911. I feel I am most accurate with my 6" Ruger GP-100 over any other handgun I own, but not by much.

[Monkeyleg]

HKmp5sd: ordinarily I agree with just about all of your posts. But this issue truly has me flummoxed. I wasn't in a "revolver" mood or a "1911" mood. I don't even know that I was in any kind of mood at all. It was not a mental state at all.

The fact is that, after shooting sub-par targets with my Kimber, I picked up this revolver and shot what are for me great groups.

What's more, in comparing the two guns from rests, neither outperformed the other.

That's what has me wondering about a variety of issues, such as grip size, the distance from heel of hand to trigger, and a whole host of other variables.

Where the heck are Dean Speir or Charles Petty when you need them? ;)

[C.R.Sam]

That's what has me wondering about a variety of issues, such as grip size, the distance from heel of hand to trigger, and a whole host of other variables.

Yup.
All of the above.

Sam

[Mike Irwin]

"As a rule of thumb, a well-fitted revolver (such as a Freedom Arms and some Dan Wesson’s) will outshoot most if not all “service grade” automatics that have to be loose enough to function in harsh environments. But a hand-built target pistol is another matter."

Fluff,

Please note what I said about the two Freedom Arms revolvers that came through American Rifleman when I was there.

I didn't categorize it.

They WERE, by far, the most accurate handguns we had ever tested.

That INCLUDES many very high quality, VERY high cost target automatics owned by staff members -- guns build by some of the best .45 smiths to have ever picked up a pistol.

[Hkmp5sd]

Monkeyleg,

I'm not saying one is more accurate than the other, only that there are three groups. Those that think revolvers/bolt guns are more accurate, those that think autoloaders are more accurate and those that think there is no difference. I'm one of those that thinks there is no difference their accuracy.

It's like the 9mm vs 45, AR vs AK or Glock vs anything arguments. It's mostly folklore, prejudice or tradition over actual facts.

In my case, if my skill level only lets me shoot 1 MOA, having a gun that can shoot 1/2 MOA isn't going to help. Of the handguns I own, it is a revolver that I am most accurate with. Of rifles, it's an autoloader, the M1 Garand.

In your case, I think it was more the shooter than the gun. Your being rusty with your Kimber and then doing better with a never before shot revolver doesn't automatically mean there is a problem with your Kimber or a revolver is more accurate than an autoloader. There are, as you said, too many variables to make any such conclusion based on a single session.

[E357]

I have to back up Mike Irwin's comments about the accuracy of the FA revolvers. I used to shoot IHMSA Silhouette with my Smith revolvers (way more accurate than any under $1500 1911), but could not stay competitive with the guys who could afford the FA guns with factory triggers jobs.

My main bone of contention with the IHMSA leadership was that they even allowed these gun (FA revolvers) to be considered "PRODUCTION/Revolver" class guns, but if I put a Wolf spring in my S&W 29 it became a "CUSTOM/Unlimited" gun - which put me against the single shot bolt action guys.

I seen many FA (scoped) revolvers shoot one inch groups at 100 yards all day long. I hate these guns!

Elliot

[John Ross]

Quote: "I think the revolver vs. pistol is essentially the same thing as the bolt action vs. autoloading sniper rifle debate. It is perceived that the movement of the action of the semi-automatic causes a decrease in the gun's accuracy."

Er...not quite. It is easy to build a 3/8" @ 100 AR-15 varmint rifle. It takes lots and lots of money to make a 1911-style pistol *almost* as accurate as a garden-variety S&W .44 wheelgun.

The AR-15 and the S&W have the receiver, barrel, and sights as one rigid piece. The 1911 doesn't, and even with expensive hand fitting, they still have to have enough "slop" to function.

Scope both and shoot off sandbags @ 100 yards. The silhouette guys know that with proper bullet selection a really good revolver will shoot under 2 MOA. There is only one centerfire semi I've ever fired that could do this regularly: The original .357 or .44 Auto Mag. Its design used a solid barrel/receiver/sights setup.

Any good .22 semi, if scoped, can break eggs at 100 yards on no-wind days. I've won enough money doing this with my Buckmark Silhouette and 4x Leupold to pay for the gun. Rigid barrel/receiver/sight is the key.

A 4 MOA revolver is common, if the ammo is tailored to the gun. A 4 MOA centerfire semi is either a very expensive factory SIG P210, a very expensive custombuilt match gun, or a freak happenstance.

A 2 MOA revolver is either a Dan Wesson, an expensive factory gun (S&W 500, Freedom Arms), an expensive custom job (Linebaugh, Bowen) or about 20% of the Smith .44s currently being built. A 2 MOA centerfire semi that isn't one of Harry Sanford's original Auto Mags doesn't exist.

JR

[Old Fuff]

Mike:

I agree with you’re assessment of the accuracy potential of Freedom Arms revolvers. My experience parallels yours. But I wasn’t prepared to say that ALL revolvers from this admittedly outstanding manufacturer would ALWAYS outshoot a custom-assembled autoloader. Otherwise I fully agree with you.

[Chris Rhines]

In Bullseye you have to shoot a timed and rapid fire stage as well at 25 yards with the same gun you used at 50 yards slowfire - the 1911 is far easier to manage than any revolver when you are shooting strings of 5 shots in 20 seconds (timed) and 10 seconds (rapid) , that is why you do not see revolvers used for the most part. Yes, I'm aware of this, and I still stand by my statement. Practical accuracy includes shooting under time pressure (not that five shots in ten seconds is much time pressure; I've watched people shoot that with a revolver, thumb-cocking for each shot.)

All other factors being equal, semi-automatic pistols are generally easier to shoot accurately than revolvers. That's what I mean by practical accuracy.

It takes lots and lots of money to make a 1911-style pistol *almost* as accurate as a garden-variety S&W .44 wheelgun. Got to take exception to this. While one can certainly spend two grand on a Les Baer or RRA target pistol, it is neither necessary nor even the best way to go. A good Bullseye pistolsmith (Bob Marvel, Larry Leutenegger before he retired) can build a sub-4MOA 1911A1 for around $1200. Not exactly chump change, but in the realm of custom 1911s, not 'lots and lots' of money.

- Chris

[YodaVader]

"(not that five shots in ten seconds is much time pressure; I've watched people shoot that with a revolver, thumb-cocking for each shot.)"

Well , when you are on a full shooting line in a large sanctioned match and you are trying to one hand shoot all 10s or Xs to stay competitive I would have to disagree. To merely spray shots is another thing entirely.

All other factors being equal, semi-automatic pistols are generally easier to shoot accurately than revolvers.

Not having to thumb cock is one of the major reasons that the 1911 is easier to shoot where "fast" accurate shooting is required. But , I have to agree that when firing the revolver in double action mode I can fire a lot more accurately with a good 1911. A 3.5 - 4 pound 1911 trigger is lot easier to manage than a 10 or 12 pound long trigger pull of a DA revolver - at least for me. When firing one handed a 1911 has good balance to me where something like my 6" 686 is very muzzle heavy - although in slowfire I am still able to shoot better scores with my 686 as compared to the stock 1911s I have owned. When two hand shooting I have made far more longer range shots using revolvers - shots that I simply could not make with most stock 1911s.

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

As someone mentioned earlier, most autos require some "slop" to function, because there are some many major parts moving during the recoil cycle (most problematically, the barrel).

However, I don't really see why a fixed barrel auto, especially something like a Desert Eagle, couldn't rule the roost accuracy wise. It has one chamber, a fixed barrel and sights that are attached to the barrel (similar to a .22 autopistol, like a Ruger or Olympic match gun). Perhaps if a DE got the same barrel and trigger treatment the FA guys lavish on their product there would be no discernable difference?

[Chris Rhines]

Well , when you are on a full shooting line in a large sanctioned match and you are trying to one hand shoot all 10s or Xs to stay competitive I would have to disagree. To merely spray shots is another thing entirely. It was during a small sanctioned match, he was shooting offhand (I think it was a Smith and Wesson 625), and while he didn't hit all tens, he did keep nine shots out of ten in the black. I was impressed, to say the least. One of these days I'm going to take my Single-Six out to the range and try to replicate the feat.

A 3.5 - 4 pound 1911 trigger is lot easier to manage than a 10 or 12 pound long trigger pull of a DA revolver - at least for me. For most people, I think. Perhaps I should use the term 'shootability' in place of 'practical accuracy', i.e. the characteristics of a pistol that make it easy to shoot accurately. Semi-auto pistols are, for the most part, easier to shoot than revolvers, enough so that the mechanical accuracy advantage of a wheelgun is pretty much negated. Your mileage may vary, particularly if you do kinds of shooting that I don't.

- Chris

[P0832177]

Each one...

I have 45ACP's in 2 flavors of 625 and 2 flavors of USP. I am not the best shot in the world! But, for me either one is accurate. The USP is so accurate it scares me! The 625's are fun to shoot as there is no brass to chase down!. I shot Bullseyse league alternating Gold Cup with a Model of 1988 625 w/5". And, my centerfire scores did not change.

But, it is all in how a gun fits your needs! Heck I had a 686 6 inch with 148 gr DEWC and 3gr of 231 that was not fun too shoot! The bullets seemed to make one hole! Ufda that was accurate gun!

I shoot for enjoyment! And, I do not compete in much of anything! But, since going to a shooting school. I have burned up 3000 230gr FMJ out of the USP's and and equal amount or so of 230gr LRN in the 625's. Like the man said, "If they are not going in the same hole there is room for improvement."

[Jim March]

If you're on a BUDGET and want accuracy, you need a wheelgun. Period. A $350 Ruger GP100 will usually outshoot all but the best autos at any price point under a grand.

There's a caveat - a revolver can "go wrong" any number of ways that affect accuracy, such as a sloppy cylinder, bad timing or more. But it's possible to inspect for these without firing the gun - which is why the "checkout thread" is stickied at the top of the revolver forum :cool:.

Single Action revolvers are inherently more accurate than DAs, as there's no crane. On Ruger SAs, very simple mods like a base pin swap to the Belt Mountain goods nets big gains for $25 or less. See also the "Ruger SA parts thread":

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80872 (continues here on THR...)

One of the most enjoyable shooting sessions I've done was outdoors, at a small metal garbage can of about torso width at 50 yards with a group of friends. I hit it five for five - with my Charter Arms Undercover 2" barrel snub 38 :). Some dude with a full-sized Glock 40 opened up, and batted about .500 :D. So that was $186 worth of used gun (late 1970s production) with half the barrel length and power up against something worth about $500.

None of this is atypical in terms of price/performance.

As to FA: several independent testers have checked out the new 97 mid-frame in 22, and clocked sub-MOA results :eek:. Including those maniacs from Tennessee at Gunblast.com :p. (I like those dudes, even though they really "hammed it up" when testing some Cor-Bon ammo :scrutiny:.)

[Mike Irwin]

"Well , when you are on a full shooting line in a large sanctioned match and you are trying to one hand shoot all 10s or Xs to stay competitive I would have to disagree. To merely spray shots is another thing entirely."

I've seen a number of older rapid-fire bullseye shooters using that method, and doing as well, if not better, than the semi-auto shooters.

[Monkeyleg]

I'd hoped this thread wouldn't devolve into the decades-old "which is better: revolver vs. semi" argument. But it seems to have.

The question I'm still asking is this: two guns--one revolver, one 1911; same exact handloads; same group size when fired from a solid rest; same everything, yet one does better in my hand than the other. Why?

[Watchman]

Perhaps it's because one fits your hand a little better than the other.

The angle of the grips may make for a more natural alignment of the sights to the eye.

[Tamara]

One of the most enjoyable shooting sessions I've done was outdoors, at a small metal garbage can of about torso width at 50 yards with a group of friends. I hit it five for five - with my Charter Arms Undercover 2" barrel snub 38 :). Some dude with a full-sized Glock 40 opened up, and batted about .500 :D. So that was $186 worth of used gun (late 1970s production) with half the barrel length and power up against something worth about $500.

That particular incident had squat to do with the guns; there's no reason the Glock shouldn't have gone fifteen for fifteen.

[Old Fuff]

Monkeylegs:

I’m going to take a shot at you’re question. ….

Machine or bench-rested accuracy vs. hand-held accuracy are two different things. The former eliminate most or all of the human factors while in the latter this plays a major (and very difficult to define) part.

It may be that when you fired the mostly unfamiliar revolver you mentally concentrated more on what you were doing and that was reflected in you’re scores. Or the revolver’s crisper, no-take-up and no-backlash trigger pull may have played a part. Maybe the revolver’s more forward balance helped steady it in you’re hand. It may be that the grips happened to be especially “friendly” to you’re hand(s). None of these factors would have made much difference when you benched the gun.

Of course if you think about it you may come up with some more answers. Perhaps you should get together with you’re friend at the range more often and continue to experiment with his .45 revolver. You might also try some smaller ones in .38 Special or .357 Magnum and see if they are any different in the accuracy department. While we may debate endlessly about what makes the better weapon (pistols vs. revolvers) I think revolvers make great range & field guns, and if you remove the larger cartridge capacity and rapid fire issues I think many people can outshoot their pistol scores with a good revolver. Plus the revolver generally costs far less then an equally accurate pistol. It would be to you're advantage to try both.

[John Ross]

Monkeyleg: Now that you've clarified, this is a different question than the one it looked like you were asking in your original post and Old Fuff, with his twitchy apostrophe key, has nailed it.

Consider: A Ransom Rest doesn't care about the quality of the gun's trigger, and group size won't be affected. A human shooter can't shoot a gun with a bad trigger nearly as well as a gun with a good one. Groups ARE affected, a lot. Ditto recoil level, gun weight and balance, grip shape, grip angle, and a host of other things. Some are personal preference, but most have pretty tight parameters. When was the last time you saw a gun with a grip 90 degrees to the axis of the bore?

There have been many cases of ISU shooters being given a new gun measurably more accurate than the one they were using and being unable to match the scores they were accustomed to getting with the "inferior" gun.

Trying to figure all this stuff out and quantify it keeps gunmakers and custom gunsmiths in business.

JR

P.S. On my earlier post regarding the raw accuracy of centerfire semis, I did not mention the Desert Eagle. It should have potential exceeding revolvers, but I have no personal experience with it.

FYI the DE is built on the patent (which IMI bought) of Jon Powers' Magmatic, and is mechanically similar. Ufortunately, the grip angle is all wrong and the gun is a boat anchor. The Magmatic looked and felt like an enlarged Colt Woodsman, handled wonderfully, and was a tackdriver. When I picked up the first DE I was so disgusted with what IMI had done with Jon's design that I've never looked at another.

[bountyhunter]

Revolvers are more accurate. You can spend about $350 on a Taurus .38 that will shoot sub 2" groups all day long. It costs about 3X that much to get a 1911 that will also do it out of the box.

It ain't brain surgery: in the revolver, the barrel is bolted to the frame. In an auto, the barrel is loose in the slide which is loose on the frame. Which will inherently shoot tighter groups?

[Penforhire]

I think the difference, to Monkey, is the trigger motion. I'm better at SA shooting my 4" 686+ than my Series 70. My Series 70 shooting is, however, better than my P99 SA shooting. But my DA 686 shooting, well, stinks. And the entire difference is trigger pull (to me).

I'm surprised we haven't come up with a method to trigger our handguns with a remote in the off-hand.

[bountyhunter]

I'm surprised we haven't come up with a method to trigger our handguns with a remote in the off-hand.

Then we'd all have to learn to flinch left handed.:eek: