Gilt Edged Accuracy - the Bullet or the Gun?

[BigG]

I am curious to know what you think about this -

Target shooters use the 38 Special wadcutter and 45 ACP here in the USA. Is there any special advantage to the cartridges themselves in terms of inherent accuracy as compared to other cartridges? I am specifically thinking of 9mm Luger which has as long a history as any modern handgun cartridge. Any incremental improvements that have occurred to the USA cartridges in terms of bullet design or whatnot have had time to occur to the 9mm. Is an equal quality 9mm pistol as accurate as a 45 ACP? If not, why not? Discuss.

TIA

 

[Chipperman]

I think the main advantage is ease of measuring b/c they make nice holes.

 

[Jim March]

There's more to it than that.

Wadcutters maximize the amount of bullet that "rub" against the barrel. Full wadcutters do that best, semi-wads still better than roundnose and will work in semi-autos.

 

[Majic]

The .38sp is a true target round in it's wadcutter form. So is the .32 and the .44sp. The .45acp became a target round because it was the only pistol chambering for the service pistol class.
Bullets are very basic and a design works well across the caliber spectrum. The wadcutter offers the most bearing surface and the round nose offers the most reliable feeding. The modification of the platforms is where you begin to utilize the accuracy potential of a bullet.

 

[BigG]

OK, lets compare a 38 Midrange Wadcutter autoloader like a Colt or S&W 52 to a similar gun like a S&W 952 in 9mm. Is that apples to apples?

 

[Black Snowman]

Is that apples to apples?

Not quite. The 9mm has case capacity and pressure going against it. If you made a gun in 9mm to compete with a .38 special wadcutter auto you'd end up with something pretty much identical to the wadcutter auto but with the wadcutter protruding from the brass.

In it's stock form the 9mm just wasn't intended as a target round. Can it be accurate? Heck ya. Can it be more accurate than some .38 spl pistols? definately. Can it be as accurate as the MOST ACCURATE .38 spl pistols? Probably not and if it could, it would be with very custom ammo, probably shot from a very expensive revolver with moon clips.

So factors working against the 9mm as a target load:
Low case capacity
High operating pressures
Bullet design that functions in guns chambered for it not as inherantly accurate as a wad-cutter.

.45 ACP suffers from the bullet design issue but has lower pressures, better case capacity, and more bearing surface.

 

[Majic]

OK, lets compare a 38 Midrange Wadcutter autoloader like a Colt or S&W 52 to a similar gun like a S&W 952 in 9mm. Is that apples to apples?

As the M52 uses the wadcutter, with it's full length bearing surface, it should out shoot the M952 because the 9mm gives up a lot of it's bearing surface to form it's long nose. Platforms would be about the same, but the difference would show up in the differing bullet designs.

 

[Justin]

It has more to do with the rules of the game than any actual inherent accuracy of the cartridges. NRA style bullseye mandates use of 3 different handguns:

.22, centerfire of your choice, and .45 ACP. Note that you can choose to shoot .45 ACP for both centerfire events. That is what most Bullseye shooters do, to keep down costs, and so they don't have to practice with three different guns.

Those who do opt to shoot something other than the .45 for the second event usually go with .32 Long, or .38 Spl wadcutters. S&W had a .38 Spl. autoloading target pistol that they made. Though I forget the model number.

 

[ClarkEMyers]

Try the 9mm Federal

Remember the Pachmayr full house on the 1911 included a spring loaded ball - vaguely resembling the post 64 bolt rifle ejector - on the breechface to push the rimless .45 ACP forward, if possible, for consistent positioning. Most .45 ACP cases are really a little short for the chamber and it's maybe not a good idea to go for cases that precisely fill the chamber no clearance at all when headspaced on the mouth - wait for one to be just a tad long and jam the throat or.........

It's hard for a 9mm to headspace as precisely as a rimmed cartridge - see e.g. the various tool for measuring rim thickness on the .22 rimfire for an argument that this matters - because the 9mm might headspace on the extractor in a 1911 - compare this with the .38 Super which does much better headspacing on the case mouth than trying to headspace on the rim using the barrel hood alone to seat the rim - or the 9mm might headspace on the taper - until the firing pin drives it forward - or the mouth. Consider the taper crimp on the auto pistol loads to preserve headspacing on the mouth as opposed to the roll crimp.

Part of the point of the wadcutter is to reduce case capacity so as to keep the powder from being spread all over a large volume - this in an effort to make ignition more consistent.

It all makes a difference - and then specify conditions - the .177 pellet is as accurate as it gets 10 meter range indoors but nobody would shoot it on the 50 yard line - in fact the .32 S&W long wadcutter is often chosen for 25 yards seldom for 50. Same with free pistols. So as always it depends.

 

[Standing Wolf]

S&W had a .38 Spl. autoloading target pistol that they made. Though I forget the model number.

That was the model 52, one of the most undependable firearms ever made.

 

[ClarkEMyers]

Notice Layne Simpson's praise for .38 Super

Layne Simpson says he asked 5 top pistolsmiths

If you were to build a custom Government Model comp gun that would be pitted against custom guns built by other pistolsmiths and the builder of the most accurate gun would win a million dollars, what caliber would it be?

The answer in all cases, remember this is a comp gun, was "the .38 Super" - so there may well be differences.

Personally I'd throw a Marvel top end on a good trigger and add Marvel's own comp but that's probably not what Mr. Simpson meant.

 

[BigG]

To clarify, I'm talking about shooting the tightest groups, not cleaning a IPSC stage.

To eliminate another variable, let's assume we have a rigidly mounted bolt action test gun with changeable bbls. If we fired 45 ACP and 9mm Luger, which would produce the tightest groups? There has to be a target version of each cartridge, so it should be theoretically =.

 

[ClarkEMyers]

OK you want a pressure gun?

Something with Mann barrels, sometimes an oddball action to facilitate changing barrels but let that go. Shooting in a tunnel, mostly to test bullets as at a manufacturer?

In that case I suspect it would indeed come down to testing bullets - I'd give an edge to the .45 ACP on the refinement and less impact for the same size imperfection on a larger bullet.

Assume really good bullets and I think you'd have to fire an incredible number of shots to get statistically meaningful results and this would be in the laws of large numbers area where you actually pick a winner even though true odds are 50/50.

This is moving away from the original "in pistols of equal quality" questio and I read Layne Simpson's question as referring to bullseye or Ransom Rest rather than race guns in a run and gun timed contest.

On the other hand to touch on the few things still unspecified I could still game the test by setting the distance to some time after the 9mm goes subsonic but the .45 ACP is subsonic all the way - compare again with subsonic .22 rimfire pistol match which so far at least will in practice group better than centerfires at gallery distances. Or maybe use a subsonic all the way 9mm and expect results to be rather hard to distinguish from the .38 Special again.

For myself again, I'd go with a .45 for gallery pistol over a 9mm every time and a 9mm over a .45 for field work at unknown ranges - as e.g. shooting ground squirrels. Then too I'll go with a 9x23 over either to do everything.

Be curious to know whether long run bullet testing from any of the majors really does show a difference but I'd bet it doesn't for the best lots of bullets.

 

[BigG]

Thanks, Clark. I was trying to get it down to the comparison between the calibers themselves - i.e., is there such a thing as inherent accuracy where one cartridge is more accurate than another?

I thought a comp gun was one of those IPSC race guns, sorry!

I can buy the thought that a larger bullet would be less sensitive to a given size defect, therefore the 45 ACP would be superior to 9mm in that respect.

If you shot at a fixed distance like 50 yards using a fixed bolt action gun would there be a difference attributable to the calibers themselves?

You answered it as good as it can be, imho.

 

[Quantrill]

Some folks have maintained that there IS inherent accuracy in certain calibers but others have rationalized that it is which calibers have been around longer with more accurate pistols (rifles) to shoot them and longer to refine the cartridges themselves. Good discussion in this thread on a good question. Quantrill

 

[ClarkEMyers]

Neal Knox put a .220 Swift in a rail gun

Neal Knox put a .220 Swift in a rail gun a long time ago in the days when he was actually setting a record at NBRSA. He wrote it up and concluded that a .220 Swift could shoot as well as anything but not for very long. Part of the point was to borescope regularly of course and watch the barrel throat erode like the Paris gun in miniature.

On a purely theoretical basis, I like short necks and low muzzle pressure myself.

In a bullet testing setup I 'd expect to not be able to distinguish a series of groups fired .38 Special with normal loads and .357 Max with normal loads when the Max barrel was new but I expect I'd soon see a difference.

 

[mete]

When handgun target shooting first started in the 1870s the cartridge that was considered the most accurate ,and had broken more records was the 44Russian. That was then replaced by the 44 special when that was introduced. The round following the 44special was the 44 Mag also high on the accuracy list and was the favorite in metallic silhouette until replaced by various single shot handguns [ ???].

 

[Island Beretta]

Isn't it true that the .45 would be subjected to more tumbling in flight than 9mm and so not as inherently accurate going longer distances (50 yds.) than the 9mm?