Revolver vs semi auto - yet again - accuracy

[Hal]

As far as mechanical accuracy goes, it would be difficult to scale. Would you compare two guns from the same manufacturer at the same price point? Or maybe shoot a bunch of different guns and find that good shooting revolvers or semis cost far more than the other.

Either or.
Or even category to category.

Say machine rest 100 S&W M10's and 100 Glock 17's or 19's.

Or machine rest 100 Ruger GP 100's and whatever Ruger model 9mm would correspond to that.

It'd be interesting to see which one has the mechanical edge - if any.

Years ago, shortly after I bought my Kimber Target for ~ $700, I bought a used but unfired S&W M19-3 for $265.
The Kimber was/is everything said about Kimber and accurate - but - the old simple & much cheaper S&W was far and away more accurate.

 

[WVsig]

Years ago, shortly after I bought my Kimber Target for ~ $700, I bought a used but unfired S&W M19-3 for $265.
The Kimber was/is everything said about Kimber and accurate - but - the old simple & much cheaper S&W was far and away more accurate.

From a mechanical rest or in your hands?

 

[WIN1886]

I have yet to shoot anything that is as consistently accurate as my old S&W Model 41 semi automatic .22 pistol !

 

[Hal]

Hands - but - there's no question the S&W is the more accurate of the two.
I suppose I could put both into a rest to prove a point, but, I just accept it as the way things are.

 

[Don P]

A .38 snubbie isn't particularly accurate. I'd bet a Hi-Point can beat the pants off of the little snub nose.

I'll take the third slot in line for this one
It all comes down to WHO is holding the gun in hand, tell Jerry Miculek the above.

 

[AK103K]

From a mechanical rest or in your hands?

Im not sure that really matters here, unless youre simply trying to find if one specific gun is mechanically more accurate than another.

I was under the impression here, the question was referring to the "in your hands" part.


Some people seem to shoot better with different types of guns, for what ever reason. One of the two guns "may" be more accurate, but maybe not necessarily for them.

Even with the same model gun, but set up slightly different, like a DA S&W revolver vs a DAO S&W revolver, both of compareable accuracy, just how its shot can make a big difference in how it shoots for someone who isnt a DAO shooter, and cant thumb cock it.

 

[steyr36]

I agree with the OP and find the same results...

My S&W 610 with 6.5" barrel is very accurate, love shooting it on the 100m range at milk jugs and clays. My other favourite accurate pistols are: S&W Model 41 and P7M8 (still very sorry I sold it!). That being said, all are fixed barrels and I believe that contributes to quite a bit of increased accuracy over non-fixed barrels.

The other major contributing factor being the part between the ground and the pistol.

(Yes, I'm new on here, but have been shooting and reloading over 20 years, been on Canadiangunnutz since 2006. Love shooting and hope to bring experience and extra insight for anyone willing to ask and listen )

 

[WVsig]

Im not sure that really matters here, unless youre simply trying to find if one specific gun is mechanically more accurate than another.

I was under the impression here, the question was referring to the "in your hands" part.


Some people seem to shoot better with different types of guns, for what ever reason. One of the two guns "may" be more accurate, but maybe not necessarily for them.

Even with the same model gun, but set up slightly different, like a DA S&W revolver vs a DAO S&W revolver, both of compareable accuracy, just how its shot can make a big difference in how it shoots for someone who isnt a DAO shooter, and cant thumb cock it.

The point I am attempting to make is that if you are shooting off hand then the results are primary based on what the OP, or you or I shoot better. It has very little to do with the gun itself. Therefore the answers are rendered meaningless beyond the individual stating them since I do not shoot with your hands and more than you shoot with mine. LOL

If we are talking about off hand shooting then it is really not a question about which is more accurate. The question becomes which one do you shoot better. As a result the answers become too subjective to be meaningful. IMHO If we are talking about off hand shooting and not a mechanical rest then the majority of the variables that make one gun more accurate than another "in my hand" have more to do with me as the shooter than the gun itself. Again it is all about the Indian not the arrow.

That is why I understood the question to be asking which is inherently more accurate. Which causes one to look at things like fixed barrels, sights fixed to that barrel, sight radius, weight of the gun, caliber, bullet weight etc...... These are meaningful data points. They can be measured quantified and reproduced. I personally do not care much about mechanical accuracy because I do not have stationary metal vices for hands. The gun in my hands is almost never the weakest link in the chain.

For me it is all about the subjective. It is all about what do I shoot best. For example it is meaningless to me if you shoot the CZ75 B better than any other gun on the planet. I cannot reach the stock trigger without adjusting my grip in the DA mode. So I do not shoot it as well as say a BHP. It does not mean the CZ75 is inherently an accurate or inaccurate gun for "me" it is not the best choice. Does that mean I cannot shoot it with decent accuracy? By all means no but there are better "subjective" choices for me and of course YMMV.

Stating I shoot a 1911 better than I shoot a S&W M19-3 does not really mean much to another shooter. I did not cut my teeth on revolvers. I spent a lot of time on DA/SA triggers and then moved on to SA triggers like the 1911 and BHP. My ability to shoot a gun off hand accurately is more based on that then the inherent accuracy of the gun in my hand. Again we are back to the Indian not the arrow.

So to the OP and others which are we talking about. Are we talking about inherent mechanical accuracy or are we talking about more accurate in "my hands"?

 

[Hal]

So to the OP and others which are we talking about. Are we talking about inherent mechanical accuracy or are we talking about more accurate in "my hands"?

I was actually speaking of mechanically in the original post.

I don't believe it really matters though.

An accurate gun is an accurate gun.

 

[Guv]

Revolver may have sights fixed to the same plane as the barrel, but the chamber is not. This is all very interesting, maybe some body with an old S&W 52 and a S&W M15 can add some to this disscusion? Gold Cup vs S&W M25?

 

[mavracer]

If we are talking about off hand shooting then it is really not a question about which is more accurate. The question becomes which one do you shoot better. As a result the answers become too subjective to be meaningful. IMHO If we are talking about off hand shooting and not a mechanical rest then the majority of the variables that make one gun more accurate than another "in my hand" have more to do with me as the shooter than the gun itself. Again it is all about the Indian not the arrow.

In so much as there is more variation between shooters than there is between guns you are 1/2 correct.
To a shooter who can barely stay on a pie plate at 25 yards there is little difference between a gun that is capable of 3" groups from a machine rest and one that shoots 4" groups, however to a shooter who is capable of shooting groups in the 2 1/2" to 3" range on a regular basis I can tell you there is a huge difference between a gun that'll only do 4" groups from a machine rest and one capable of shooting 3"

Revolver may have sights fixed to the same plane as the barrel, but the chamber is not. This is all very interesting, maybe some body with an old S&W 52 and a S&W M15 can add some to this disscusion? Gold Cup vs S&W M25?

Gold Cups and M52s aren't exactly average out of the box autos that the OP referenced.

 

[WVsig]

Revolver may have sights fixed to the same plane as the barrel, but the chamber is not. This is all very interesting, maybe some body with an old S&W 52 and a S&W M15 can add some to this disscusion? Gold Cup vs S&W M25?

This is a good thread from over on the High Road...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=597486

To Hal:

I think that if you are talking about mid priced service semi-autos vs mid-priced revolvers the revolvers will come out on top for mechanical accuracy. This does not mean every shooter will shoot them better in every situation. In real world shooting the individual shooting the gun will be a huge determining factor in the bullets hitting paper.

I think there is also a generational gap between those who shoot revolvers better than semi-autos. There is a whole generation of new shooters that have very little or no time on revolvers while in the past everyone started with revolvers.

The avg semi- auto service pistol these days is not designed for accuracy. That is not its intended purpose. It is intended to be accurate enough at combat distances. They can be tighten up but at a cost but the constraints in your OP restrict that.

When people talk about accuracy I think it is important to distinguish between mechanical accuracy tests from a mechanical rest and "what I shoot best". People who are very accurate shooters too often assume that their experiences and interactions with a particular gun are universal. IMHO each shooter is bringing a ton of subjective variables to the table which contribute to or take away from statements about "what I shoot best".

 

[WVsig]

In so much as there is more variation between shooters than there is between guns you are 1/2 correct.
To a shooter who can barely stay on a pie plate at 25 yards there is little difference between a gun that is capable of 3" groups from a machine rest and one that shoots 4" groups, however to a shooter who is capable of shooting groups in the 2 1/2" to 3" range on a regular basis I can tell you there is a huge difference between a gun that'll only do 4" groups from a machine rest and one capable of shooting 3"

I think I am more than 1/2 way correct. Can you give me 70% LOL.

Agreed an accurate tool in a proficient shooters hands will help produce good groups. I however think that there is a flaw in your statement. I would argue that there are very few quality service guns in a mid priced range that cannot mechanically produce a 3" group at 25 yards unless it is defective.

That does not mean you can shoot 3" groups with it because the trigger is not what you are used to, the grip sucks, reach is too long for you, grip angle is bad for you etc....

Again just because the gun is capable of 3" accuracy does not mean a human being can do it. The interaction between the gun and the person make it much harder because you have not introduced variables.

Gold Cups and M52s aren't exactly average out of the box autos that the OP referenced.

Either are HK P series guns but people keep bringing those up....

 

[Jim March]

Add another factor - the quality of the trigger feel.

In a semi you need a linkage between the trigger and the hammer, to go around the mag well. Different guns handle this differently - the 1911 ingeniously has a trigger that is all one piece of long metal surrounding the mag well and going back to the sear so the linkage effect is greatly reduced. But there's still friction as that long weird trigger slides on stuff and an intermediate sear needed to keep it from going full burst by accident.

A revolver's trigger and hammer are all "right there" with no sear in the middle...straight connections, no linkage, nothing in the way.

 

[Guv]

Mavracer,

I used the S&W 15 and 25 as a example with the thought that they too would have been considered target grade revolvers. Nice sights, triggers, hammers and 6 1/2' barrels.

 

[mavracer]

I think I am more than 1/2 way correct. Can you give me 70% LOL.

Heck given what I see on the range now days you may be closer to 90% lol.

I however think that there is a flaw in your statement. I would argue that there are very few quality service guns in a mid priced range that cannot mechanically produce a 3" group at 25 yards unless it is defective.

I used 3 and 4 just cause it makes the math easy. Could just as easily said 2 and 3".
I have owned well over 100 handguns and have put many thousand rounds down range. I've seen quite a few service autos that wouldn't consistantly shoot 3" or less at 25 while the average service revolvers will consistantly shoot 2".

The interaction between the gun and the person make it much harder because you have not introduced variables.

The difference between a good shot and a poor one is the good shot removes the variables

 

[44 AMP]

Hands down I've found Smith and Wesson revolvers to be far more accurate than any semi auto.

That's a fine statement, and I'm sure fully true and accurate, for the guns you have tested. But there are a lot of guns out there you have not tested, I'm sure.

"any auto pistol" covers a really large range of guns. There's a LOT more gun designs out there than just the variations of the Browning tilt barrel service pistols.

And, as others have discussed, there is a difference between how accurate a given gun/load is, and how accurately the shooter can be with it.

2.5" group size was the magic number for many years. Revolvers that would shoot 2.5" or less, at 25yds were pronounced "accurate". Service class auto pistols that would do that were said to have match grade accuracy (and they were uncommon).

A low end target .22LR (like a Ruger Mk I with the "target barrel & sights) would usually shoot a smaller group than either a "match grade accurate service auto" or an "accurate" revolver.

I've got a Govt model .45ACP that, with the right ammo, will put 5 shots in 2.5" @25yds (when I do my part right). But that 2.5" is also one ragged hole. I consider this accurate, for the type & caliber of gun it is. 5 overlapping shots from that Ruger .22 is a much smaller group size, but its the same degree of accuracy, or is it?

I have even gotten a 5 shot 1.25" 25yd group from one (fully stock, not tuned in any way) centerfire autopistol I own. And it's one I'm fairly confident you have never tested. .44 cal, and not a tilt barrel design.

"any autopistol" covers a LOT of ground....

 

[mavracer]

I used the S&W 15 and 25 as a example with the thought that they too would have been considered target grade revolvers. Nice sights, triggers, hammers and 6 1/2' barrels.

You bring up a good point actually the 15 is the service gun and a 14 is the target gun with a model 10 being the fixed sight service gun.
There will be little to no difference in the mechanical accuracy between these models.
But there will be between a Gold Cup National match and a govt model and there's a big difference between a 39 and a 52

 

[Guv]

Was the 14 SA only?

 

[mavracer]

Was the 14 SA only?

They made a few SA only 14s but most are DA.
Most of your 15s were 4" and shorter and they had a ramp front sight, 14s were usually 6 or 8 3/8" and have a patridge.
But to answer your original question
My 14 isn't exactly a great example it has a lot of wear and it's been refinished but it'll still out shoot most service autos today.
If I compare my 686 SSR, my 52, my Gold Cup and my daughters 5" 625 even throwing in a 4" Python.
There is more deviation from what each will do than difference between them.