Are revolvers and then the Makarov inherently more accurate

[BJung]

I've been reloading to find accuracy loads and have found it easier to find an accuracy load for my revolver than my automatics. And so, I did a search about the comparison and the apparently the fixed barrel helps. If so, then a makarov should be inherently more accurate as well. Is this so?

 

[JohnKSa]

Fixed barrel automatics tend to be pretty accurate. You really have several classes of handguns from the perspective of sights and barrel arrangements.

1. Fixed barrel with both sights also fixed to the barrel/receiver. The Browning Buckmark is an example of this. This is going to be the most inherently accurate setup.

2. Fixed barrel with one sight on the barrel and the other on a recoiling slide. The Desert Eagle is an example of this. This can be a very accurate setup, but obviously there's going to be some play between the barrel & front sight and the rear sight that's on the recoiling slide bolt. That said, these guns can be very accurate.

3. Fixed barrel with both sights on a recoiling slide. The Makarov is an example of this. These guns can be very accurate, but since the sights are mounted on a moving part that's independent of the barrel, there does need to be attention paid to keeping the slide play to a minimum.

4. Floating barrel with both sights on a separate recoiling slide. Most centerfire handguns above .380ACP caliber are this configuration if they are not gas operated or gas locked. There are some significant challenges in making a gun like this accurate while also keeping things loose enough to be reliable. There are makers who are up to the challenge, but getting a gun in this configuration to be as accurate as a gun in configuration 1 will likely mean that the expenditure will be much higher for this configuration.

5. Multi-chamber firearm with a fixed barrel and both sights also fixed to the barrel/receiver/frame. Revolvers are an example of this. In this case, the accuracy issues tend to come from differences in the alignment of the various chambers to the barrel, not so much issues with keeping the sights and barrel lined up.

If quality is generally similar:

Type 1 autos beat Type 2, 3 and 4 autos for accuracy.

Type 2 autos tend to beat type 3 and 4 autos but this is a tough one because type 2s are kind of rare.

Type 3 autos tend to beat type 4 autos.

It's hard to do comparisons between revolvers and the other guns because revolver prices tend to be pretty different from autopistol prices for reasons that go beyond quality variation. So when I say I'm comparing one of the autopistol types to a revolver of similar quality, I don't mean that the prices are similar. Folks who tend to think of quality and price as being more synonymous, might see some of this differently.

If you compare an autopistol of type 4 with a revolver of similar quality, the revolver should win.

If you compare a type 1 autopistol with a revolver of similar quality the type 1 autopistol probably wins.

There aren't that many type 2 autopistols out there--the DEs I've shot were very accurate--but also very expensive and large. So it's hard to do a comparison with revolvers that seems like a fair comparison. At least for me.

The type 3 autopistols I've shot have tended to be pretty accurate, so I think I might give them an accuracy edge over a revolver of similar quality.

 

[LaneP]

The design may have more inherent accuracy potential, but in the best examples, a well executed tilting barrel design will shoot just as well or better IMHO. This comes from a long time shooter of several Mk series Ruger .22's and a Russian Mak I bought in the early 90's. Granted I've never loaded for the Mak and have only shot Russian and Chicom FMJ ball, but it doesn't produce stellar groups with either.

 

[Seymour380]

I've been reloading to find accuracy loads and have found it easier to find an accuracy load for my revolver than my automatics. And so, I did a search about the comparison and the apparently the fixed barrel helps. If so, then a makarov should be inherently more accurate as well. Is this so?

I no longer have a Makarov, but my experience with the Mak and other fixed-barrel semi-autos like the Mak, Bersa Thunder, and Walther PPKs is that they were the most accurate pistols I have owned. One 9x18 Bulgarian Makarov I had was a tack-driver.

 

[Slamfire]

I remember pulling targets with an Army Reserve Shooter before the internet was a thing. The shooter described the exact steps and sequence it took to make a 1911 a match accurate pistol. The 1911 is of course, a titling barrel pistol. This was also before the semi conductor changed manufacturing, the only good 1911's were Colts, and they were made on single step machines, and a new Colt rattled if you shook it. A gunsmith had to peen the frame rails, to make them over sized, and then the slide rails were slathered with grinding compound, and beat back and forth until enough material had been removed from the frame rails that the slide movement was smooth, but not loose. Fitting the barrel lug, barrel fit in ejection port and barrel busing were all similarly involved. A huge amount of work went into filing and grinding over sized parts so the frame, barrel, were tight and always in the same position on lockup. And it cost a lot of money to have a match accurate 1911 built. And the things wore. The metals used in WW2 era 1911 were cheap, plain carbon steels, and I am sure Colt kept using them for as long as Colt could.





With today's multitool, multistage CNC machining, even cheap 1911's are as tight as the hand built match pistols. And the steels are far better, such as 4140 slides and frames.

This is as tight as an old Colt NM 1911, is built of better materials, and was $425 at the local gunstore. Things have changed.



It is obvious that a barrel fixed to the frame will be more inherently accurate, all things considered. The very best target pistols are built this way. The barrels stay fixed as the slide moves.

Examples



The M41/M46, the barrel is mechanically fixed in the frame when firing. Dropping the trigger guard allows the barrel to be removed



These pistols are blow backs, and the slide can be made heavy enough, that there does not need to be a dwell period before unlock. And I am very sure that is the same as the Makarov.

More powerful rounds require a dwell period, a movement of the barrel typically, where breech pressures drop to an acceptable level before unlock. This dwell period, and how if functions, makes a huge difference in what sort of mechanism is used. For pistols, the typical action is locked breech delayed blowback. This link has a very good explaination of how the 1911 works.

https://www.m1911.org//1911desc.htm

this is a P38 mechanism, and it fires a 9mm. The barrel and slide move back this far, before the slide is unlocked from the barrel. This is distance/time needed to allow pressures to drop below 650 psia (approx) which is less than the rupture strength of the brass case




this chart from Chinn The Machine Gun Vol IV more or less shows the typical sort of timing, dwell, needed before unlock



a squeeze cocker was an innovative 9mm design with a fixed barrel. It used gas pressure to keep the slide fixed in place. I wish I have purchased one of these when they were cheap at $1000! Now they are worth thousands. This design is not flexible, rounds have to be kept near maximum or the slide won't function, but it is very inherently accurate. And god awful expensive.

 

[Jim Watson]

This is as tight as an old Colt NM 1911, is built of better materials, and was $425 at the local gunstore. Things have changed.

But will it hold the ten ring?

I never heard of a Makarov in a Ransom Rest. Might be fun.

The Laugo Alien is the current model of fixed barrel, gas retardation design. It ought to do well, but I haven't heard of one of those in a Ransom Rest, either.

 

[Tallball]

I think that for actual shooting by humans, what matters most is how well does it fit your hands, how light is the trigger, how big are the sights, etc.

If I shot a bunch of my pistols freehand and then put them in a Ransom Rest, the ones I shot best freehand probably wouldn't even be the most inherently accurate (as shown by shooting them all from a Ransom Rest afterwards).

All of my halfway decent handguns are way more accurate than I am. My part of shooting well is all about affecting the pistol's accuracy as little as possible.

That being said, I don't have any trouble shooting my Makarov or Buck Mark well.

Maybe the Russian "commercial" Makarov is a case in point. Do I shoot it relatively well because of the fixed barrel, or is it because it has a less powerful cartridge and better sights than most duty pistols its size? I suspect it's the latter.

Makarov Target

• Tallball
• Aug 11, 2018

 

[Slamfire]

But will it hold the ten ring?

I never heard of a Makarov in a Ransom Rest. Might be fun.

The Laugo Alien is the current model of fixed barrel, gas retardation design. It ought to do well, but I haven't heard of one of those in a Ransom Rest, either.

The NRA ten ring is about 3.5 inches at 25 yards. This guy claims he can keep them all within 2 inches at 7 yards

https://internationalsportsman.com/ati-fx-military-1911-review/

I was keeping them all inside an eight inch paper plate at 15 yards. I am not going to be able to keep any iron sighted pistol in the ten ring at 25 yards, not anymore. I am happy to keep them in the black.

 

[Jim Watson]

The NRA ten ring is about 3.5 inches at 25 yards.

That is the rapid fire target, same as the 50 yard slow fire target; the 25 yard slow fire target ten ring is 1.5"

This guy claims he can keep them all within 2 inches at 7 yards

I was able to maintain around 2-inch groups at 7 yards from the standing position with the FX 1911, but I am far from an expert handgunner.

I am not an expert handgunner any more, either. Never was a bullseye shooter and I am 40 years from doing well at PPC on the B27 "man target" with 4x6" ten ring. But 2 inches at 7 yards is not a positive report.

The "most accurate 9mm" thread got divided between accurate guns and accurate shooters. We need to be sure which we are talking about.

 

[BJung]

I shoot my handgun testloads at 18 yards or so from a sandbag. What is an acceptable group from a skilled hangunner with a factory handgun? 9mm, etc? I see some amazing groups but then, maybe these guns have been modified.

 

[FL-NC]

Not for me. I just don't shoot revolvers that well, or nearly as fast as an auto. I suppose I could get better if I invested the resources into it, but I wouldn't because I don't care for them.

 

[Monac]

The barrel of the Makarov is fixed, but the sights are not attached to it. They are attached to the slide, which is a moving piece that much have clearance to move. I think that might eliminate claims of superior accuracy. With revolvers, the barrel and sights are part of one rigid unit. I don't know what influence the moving cylinder has on the equation, but I think it would still have some claim to superiority in principle to the Makarov. The real fixed barrel automatic to look at would be a Ruger Standard Model or its target model variations, where the whole system is one piece at the moment of firing.

The Browning Buckmark is also, of course, an example of this as JohnKSa points out. The Ruger just seems more rigid to me, like a swing-out cylinder or SAA style revolver compared to a top-break.

 

[derek45]

A 1911 with a hand fitted barrel is very accurate.




.
.
.
.
.
hell,.....I cheap M&P with a hand fitted barrel is very accurate.

 

[Gerd33]

I don't know if it's inherently more accurate, but I do seem to shoot my CZ 82 (9 Mak) as well or better than anything else.
I think the fit and feel has a lot to do with it, as the CZ just seems to fit me well.

 

[JTHunter]

After reading these posts, I have a better understanding of my old Astra Constable .380. It is also a fixed barrel and, with my reloads, I had no trouble getting all the shots in the 10 ring at 10 yds. And this is using "mixed ammo", ranging from 90 gr. JHP to 95 gr. FMJ-FP and 100 gr. FMJ-RN.

 

[Tallball]

My handgun accuracy:

1) Browning Buck Mark and Ruger Marks
2) K22
3) other very good revolvers
4) Everything else
5) NAA mini revolver

It sort of fits the theory.

 

[balin]

It was pointed out to me some time ago that you don't really see revolvers at bullseye shooting events. So that seems to say that autos are more accurate. A well known gunsmith wrote one of the reasons autos are better is that there is no big heavy hammer falling to mess with the accuracy

 

[Jim Watson]

You don't see revolvers at bullseye matches because they must be cocked.
Time and grip disturbance are their weak point, not any lack of mechanical accuracy.

 

[PzGren]

A S&W model 14 still holds the revolver Bullseye record and the Hammerli International has set a record in ISSF that is still unbroken, over 30 years later.

 

[tark]

The Browning Buckmark is an example of this.

And the C-96 Mauser.

 

[JohnKSa]

The Swedish Lahti is another--the entire barrel/receiver unit recoils slightly before the bolt is unlocked and proceeds back on its own. So although the barrel isn't fixed to the frame, the barrel/receiver and sights are all fixed together and if any one of them moves, the whole unit does.

By the way, just in case it's not clear, I just arbitrarily assigned those type numbers to make it easier for me to compose a response. I don't want anyone to think that I followed any kind of convention there.