Accuracy - 3 inch 1911 vs 2 inch 38 snubby?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lightsped

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
1,241
Location
Kennesaw, Georgia
Are the 3 inch 1911s a good deal more accurate than the 2 inch 38 snubbies? I realize that the short barreled 38 snubbies are for extreme close range, but what is the ideal range for a 3 inch 1911 fired by the same shooter in the same situation?
 
My 3" Springfield loaded Micro-Compact is more accurate than any 2" J-frame I've ever shot: .32 Long, .38 spl, 9x19 or .357 magnum. OTOH, it cost a heck of a lot more, too.
 
Opinion based on some experience.

Accuracy of gun.
Run of the mill 2" revolver generally tighter (better) than non-target (combat) revolver.

Accuracy of gun/shooter combo...generally few folks can shoot the little snubbies nearly as well as the bottom feeders.

To a good wheel man who is also good with snubbies...25 yards is close.

Sooo...like life, tis relative.

Sam
 
Neither are target guns.

Neither one is going to win you a bullseye match, fwiw. Frankly, lightsped, I don't think there's a heck of a difference. (I logged back on to tell you this, btw.) At 10 yds, you're looking at <3" groups fired slow, probably >.5", with just about any ammo.
 
Interesting comparison. If you discount the unrifled chamber of the 1911 you end up with the same 2" of rifled bore the .38 has.

I would think even the shortest quality revolver would have an advantage over a typical combat auto. The barrel is fixed to the frame and sights.
 
It depends on the gun and shooter.

I had a CTC lasergrip on my SP. It group'd 5/8" at 20 yds from a rest with the laser. 5 rnds of full house ammo also. If you take the small sight radius out of the picture...they are amazing.

The 1911 could do the same thing.....again depending on the gun.

Shoot well
 
I have a Detective Special worked over by a master until it feels and shoots like a Python and it CAN put 148grain wadcutters in 1.5" from a Ransom rest. My stock Cobra can do 3" from same rest. I don't have a Jframe rest insert but I don't think they are quite as accurate as the Cobra , the 3" ones definately are, but you said 2". I have an old 2" Model 15 that is 2.5" from ransom rest. I have an 3.5" Officers Colt.45 (now two) that do about 3-4" from ransom rest with a proven H&G #68 and 231 Win load that does "1.5 inches in custom Goldcup . All distances at measured 25yds. Fired from Ransom rest with remote trigger :D
 
Well, the short 1911 MAY be easier for the "average" shooter to shoot "more accurately" ...

But ... all things being equal in quality and mechanical condition of the guns involved, I'd be of the opinion that optimal "accuracy" would be more a matter of the skill of the shooter.

Never underestimate the ability of a skilled revolver shooter to amaze and delight you, especially with short barreled wheelguns ... ;)
 
Mechanical accuracy out of a 2" snub is actually pretty good. A person taking their time and who knows what they are doing will get some impressive groups.

However, with the tiny stocks one will usually find on J-Frames (and the like), the snubby 1911's are WAY more accurate from a practicle stand point.
 
Watched a guy knock down 5 bowling pins at 40 yards with a two-inch model 60 from the rollover prone position. He took his time and thumbcocked before firing each shot. Hit 'em all. Not bad for a snubby.
 
For me at least, the reduced sight radius of either gun makes the shooter the limiting factor in accuracy.

Under ideal conditions, fired from a Ransom rest, etc., the revolver is probably more accurate. But who would buy either gun just to fire it from a rest?
 
Maybe it's just my inexperiance with revolvers, but i just don't shoot them as well as automatics.

Found something interesting when i was shooting my friends .38 snubbie. At 10 yards i shot better point shooting then aimed fire. Maybe someone can figure out what i was doing wrong.
 
Clubsoda22: I'll bet you were single action shooting in 'aimed fire' and double action shooting in 'point shooting'. The double action pull helps many get tighter groups once mastered. The reason is it provides a 'surprise break' . When you master double action pull you actually pull thru while attaining sight picture with the staging of trigger telling you when the final alignment is made. You pull through however, not stopping for the staging as that would defeat the purpose. I learned this in PPC shooting in earlier 70's. I shot bullseye single action before that. I was surprised at the groups I could get double action with the .38 spls I had been shooting single action! Later of course went to refined 'pin guns' similar to what they shoot today.:)
 
Sights may be a factor. A lot of the makers of shrunken 1911s are retaining good three-dot sights - DOVETAILED, so improvements are available.

The snubs are too often a step behind...the pinned fronts on the S&Ws and Ruger SP101s are a start but don't address the rear sight issues.

Some company will make a mint if they can figure out how to put GOOD sights on the snubs.
 
Not a combat expert by any stretch, but ...

... as a person interested in hitting exactly where I want under a variety of lighting conditions, and sometimes doing so in a hurry, there's just one issue ...

Sights, sights, sights. I am a proponent of aimed fire even at close range.

Everything else about the gun, be it auto or revolver, can be overcome, but a lack of good sights will always cause hitting to suffer. Put differently, not being able to see your sights makes you more dependent on LUCK than skill to hit your opponent.

In fact, even just having a Patridge front sight improves my hitting dramatically. If you don't want to take time to aim precisely, you can still dump lotsa lead downrange with a gun having good sights.

Consequently, the other day I sold my last snubby and now carry a 3 3/4" .45, which isn't too different from what you are considering. Snubby sights, unless it's an adjustable, are miserable when you're in a hurry and under speed and stress. They aren't even that great when you're shooting bullseye in broad daylight. I hated even the adjustables, since they still used ramp front sights that washed out for me in certain types of lighting. By contrast, my .45 has big bold Novak's with a post front sight.

Incidentally, my groups with the .45, though it's more difficult to shoot, are MUCH more consistent than when using a too-cramped ramp/shallow-notch, which would give me point-of-impact changes I never experienced with target sights. Musta been the lighting changes.

Don't mean to sound preachy, but this is just the way it is according to MY EXPERIENCE from years of targetry. It's probably worth exactly what you paid for it.
 
that could be it gordon, however, i wasn't flinching or anything. The shots were all high in fact. When i was point shooting i wasn't even using the sights. i just brought the gun up to level and starting shooting. Got a decent grouping. I probably just need practice, the revolvers grip angle is so different than the autoloaders i'm used to that i was probably holding it wrong.
 
I used to have a Kimber Ultra Carry that I found far more accurate to shoot than my 442. The combination of lighter recoil, better sights and ergonomics, and far superior trigger explain the differences.
 
My 2 cents:

I have a Kimber Ultra CDP and 2 S&W snubbies (M36 & M642). Slow-fire, in broad daylight, I can knock the steel plates over at 25 yards with any of them. Rapid-fire, from-the-leather, and/or low-light? No contest; the Kimber .45 wins hands-down (in my hands)!

I attribute this to better ergonomics, high-visibility sights, and superb trigger. As an old DA revolver shooter (PPC competitor, in fact), I think the high-visibility sights are the main factor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top