Monkeyleg
Member.
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?
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?