Most accurate? Revolver or pistol?

[jmorris]

My most accurate pistols are single shot, bolt action and break open.

After that here are some 50 yd groups from my most accurate semiauto. In 45 it shoots slightly better groups than when set up for 9mm.

 

[JimPGov]

I VOTED FOR THE SEMI AUTO.
20 YEARS AGO I WOULD NEVER HAVE DONE THAT. BUT TIME AND TECHNOLOGY MARCHES ON. BELOW ARE BOTH A REVOLVER AND SEMI AUTO WITH 24 SHOT 50YD GROUPS. I KNOW THE STANDARD IS 10SHOTS BUT IN THE COMPETITION I SHOOT ITS A 24SHOT 50YD STAGE. THESE ARE NOT TEST TARGETS SUPPLIED BY THE BUILDERS. THESE ARE TARGETS FIRED BY ME. JIM P

REVOLVER


SEMI AUTO LEFT TARGET 10 RDS RIGHT TARGET 24 RDS.

 

[SleazyRider]

Seems to me that the auto-loader ought to be inherently more accurate because the chamber is an integral part of the bore, no? It's not subject to bore-to-cylinder misalignment of a revolver due to machining tolerances. Of course, this advantage is lost in the hands of mediocre shooters like me. But in theory, I'm thinkin' the auto should be more accurate.

 

[CraigC]

I VOTED FOR THE SEMI AUTO.

And how much did that accurized 1911 set you back?

You guys need to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You can't compare a $2000+ custom 1911 to a factory $500 revolver. Because a $2000 Freedom Arms will easily halve those groups.

Seems to me that the auto-loader ought to be inherently more accurate because the chamber is an integral part of the bore, no?

Yes but how is that barrel attached? How much flopping around does it do during cycling? The issue is that a semi-auto will always have to have a little bit of play for reliable operation. Including the chamber. A revolver's chambers can be as tight and straight as physically possible and reliability remain unaffected. Unless it's line-bored, a revolver's slight looseness can actually enhance accuracy, due to inherent minute alignment issues.

 

[Geckgo]

Silly conversation to me, but I don't like bench resting my pistols. I prefer shooting them offhand, and offhand, it is 100% the indian and not the arrow.

I shot a friend's 38 spl a couple weeks ago and found the grips downright offensive. I own all autos and practice with them. I can actually cut little 1-1/2 to 2" groups with my .22lr pocket pistol at 25yrds. That fullsize 38spl, I was having trouble hitting the paper.

IMHO, There are bigger considerations to accuracy when it comes to pistol shooting than which action is more accurate. That is just silly. The barrel moves around a little on an auto, and revolvers, when not perfectly aligned, can deform the bullet ever so slightly as it enters the barrel. We can make these silly arguments all day, but unless you are acostomed to punching little one hole groups at 40yrds with your pistol, it isn't going to matter much.

 

[CraigC]

Silly conversation to me...That is just silly....We can make these silly arguments all day...it isn't going to matter much.

If it's sooooo silly and doesn't matter then why are you here??? I reckon it's not important if all you do is make noise at the range.

...and offhand, it is 100% the indian and not the arrow.

And the indian will always shoot better with a better arrow.

I don't like bench resting my pistols.

Then you have nothing to offer the discussion. Except to tell us all how silly it is.

If it is all indian, not the arrow, then how do you know which is the most accurate load in your particular firearm? Oh nevermind.....

 

[Geckgo]

not going to pitch in the dirt, just offering my opinion. I don't believe a match shooter would ever need to ask which is more accurate.

 

[Germster]

Revolvers fit deeper in my grip. I run my thumb alongside and apply pressure which I balance with my knuckle on the trigger finger on the other side. It's kinda like my personal vice. Using this method I can shoot a revolver very accurately off hand, or even one handed. I was captain of the 91 Division Pistol Team decades ago.

Pistols stick up higher in my hand and therefore have a higher center of gravity and just aren't as firm in my grip. While I can shoot them fine, my Smith and Wesson Model 25 with light loads and a worked trigger prints better than my 1911 or High Power.

I shoot one handed, generally, and find that I can do it as well as with two. One handed the pistol is farther away and the sight picture is more clear to my ageing eyes. Sight picture is very important when shooting handguns. However at 100 or 200 yds I shoot with two and do better. For long range pistol shooting I place the front sight higher in the rear sight's "U". I find this easy to gauge after one sighting shot.

Personally, I dislike scopes. The magnification also magnifies the wiggle.

For any kind of accuracy I dislike high powered rounds. I'd rather push the bullet out rather than blast it down range. When shooting a 1911 or High Power I tolerate the recoil and it doesn't bother me....much... I shoot a .357 with .38's. Unless I want to kill something.

While I'm creeping up to 70, my wrist does not bother me, but if I was shooting a 454 I'll bet it would. Nor do I shoot a .44 Mag. I love a heavy .357 with .38 wad cutters. I'll shoot a Ruger MK I with bull barrel all day long.

 

[451 Detonics]

Here's a 4" revolver, a 629MG to be exact. It shoots into 2"@50yds if I do my part. Now show me a $500 service auto that does the same.

Show me a $500 dollar S&W 629 these days...lol....

When I spoke of shooting under 1 1/2 inches at 50 yards with my customs I was not talking bench but me holding them in my hands without artificial support and making the time limits set by the course of fire.

 

[ATLDave]

It absolutely does matter. I see statements like this all the time and it makes zero sense. All things being equal, the shooter will always shoot more accurately with a more accurate weapon. Period. End of story. If one firearm is capable of 1" at 25yds and another is only capable of 3" at 25yds, you will definitely shoot more accurately with the former than the latter.

I don't know. Take a combination of a 3" shooter, and a 3" gun. Now image a shot where the shooter's true point-of-aim is 3" left of center; the shot could go 6" left because of combined error, but it could also go dead-center. Over a large enough sample size, you're quite right that the group would spread out more with the combined errors stretching the group size, and average miss distance would also be larger. But for the 3/5/10 shot strings that people shoot as proof of accuracy, and with "flyers" typically excluded as being some shooter's error, I think there's a decent chance (around 25%, I think) a non-perfect shooter could end up shooting "more accurately" (meaning more hits on the x, or smaller overall group) with a less accurate gun.

In short, you're right from an aggregate perspective. But, like most truths, it requires a large enough sample size and a consistent enough methodology to really manifest itself. In the small sample sizes that people create/encounter in the real world, the chance outcome may come out the other way.

So, if by "definitely," you mean "in every case," I'd disagree. If, OTOH, "definitely" means "over the long run," then I'd agree.

 

[The_Armed_Therapist]

I haven't noticed any overall difference...Obviously my Kel-Tec is less accurate, but my Glock is the most accurate I've ever shot. Second is probably the Smith 686(?)... the med-frame .357.

 

[jad0110]

Your typical, average revolver is probably a touch more accurate mechanically, but the vast majority of us aren't good enough to ever notice the difference. Practical accuracy (how the gun works for you) is far more important IMO.

 

[Dr_B]

My smith and wesson 686 pistol single action is like a laser beam.

Mr. Blue said it, and I agree: revolver. Just like his, my 686 is ridiculously accurate. Single action, any distance up to 30 yards (and I haven't tried it beyond that) it's a hit every time. It's like I don't even have to really aim the thing.

 

[Jath]

I think a Browning Hi-Power is close to being the most accurate pistol ever made.

 

[Wishoot]

My GP100 is insanely accurate. Especially when shooting in SA.

DA is another story.

 

[Steve CT]

Seems to me that the auto-loader ought to be inherently more accurate because the chamber is an integral part of the bore, no? It's not subject to bore-to-cylinder misalignment of a revolver due to machining tolerances. Of course, this advantage is lost in the hands of mediocre shooters like me. But in theory, I'm thinkin' the auto should be more accurate.

This was my thought too, it seems like the auto should be inherently more accurate.

 

[kozak6]

Why don't any Olympic target shooters use revolvers anymore?

Seems to me that the auto-loader ought to be inherently more accurate because the chamber is an integral part of the bore, no? It's not subject to bore-to-cylinder misalignment of a revolver due to machining tolerances.

For most centerfire semiautomatics, the barrel sits in the slide, which sits on the frame.

Now, instead of aligning two parts, three parts must be aligned. A conventional centerfire semiatuto isn't subject to barrel-cylinder misalignment, but is subject to barrel-slide-frame misalignment.

A well made revolver or semiauto will be fitted well enough that it doesn't really matter.

 

[JohnBT]

"You can't compare a $2000+ custom 1911 to a factory $500 revolver."

Sure you can, why not? The original question was revolver or pistol, not what kind. Now show me a really accurate new $500 revolver.

 

[Geckgo]

^-- exzachary

 

[CraigC]

Sure you can, why not? The original question was revolver or pistol, not what kind. Now show me a really accurate new $500 revolver.

Well, I reckon you can because it takes a $2000 automatic to shoot with a $500 revolver. But then again, when you level the economic playing field, the automatic loses.

Here's two Rugers that shoot 2"@50yds. One cost $360 in 1998, the other $400 in 2001. Either can be had in the $500 range at present. Both have had custom work done, the stainless 4 5/8" has had zero accuracy work done. The blued/case hardened 7½" has had accuracy work done but shot just as well when box-stock.





This 6" 29-3 which I paid $400 for back in 2002, is another 1"@25yd shooter.



This K-38, which cost me all of $265 back in 1999, is also a 1"@25yd shooter.



Now, once again, let's see those $500 service pistols that shoot 1"@25yds or 2"@50yds!!!

 

[CraigC]

While far from a $500 new gun ($700 in 1998), this 3rd generation Colt New Frontier .45Colt shoots into an inch at 25yds with preferred loads. Despite its cavernous .457" throats.

 

[lucky-gunner]

Fixed barrel, single action trigger, perfect balance (for me 5"). I really like the Performance Center S&W 327 I have.

For auto's the 1911 and Sphinx are very close to a revolver for me. I would say that which ever you practice with the most, will be the best for you.

__________________
38 spl ammo

 

[303tom]

I thought a revolver was a pistol ?

 

[makarovnik]

Autos all the way.

Revolvers have their advantages too but nice accurate triggers seem to cost more on revolvers. I can shoot even cheap autos with crappy triggers better than a revolver in double action. It could just be me though.

 

[Morgo]

My Sig P210 and S&W 52 are very accurate autos.