You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Revolver vs semi auto - yet again - accuracy
- Thread starter Hal
- Start date
I can only judge from what I've shot first hand.
I have had excellent results from the S&W medium frame (1 K and 1 L frame) revolvers that I have, and since those are the ONLY revolvers I have ever owned, I have to limit my response to those only regarding revolver accuracy.
That said, I've also had very good results from a couple of bottom feeders, neither of which were anything but box-stock and were not intended for match quality. Those 2 are a Bersa Thunder .380 (believe it or not) and a 6" S&W 422. While both of those have sights that are either completely on the slide (the .380) or the rear sight being on the slide (the 422). That doesn't really seem to hurt them too much in the accuracy department. Honestly, both of them shoot better than I can, and I'm not bad. What they both have in common is: Fixed Barrels. I've got a couple of full size 9mms that are no slouches, for that matter.
In general, I've found that the revolvers I own shoot better than I can. And WELL CONSTRUCTED (but not necessarily high dollar) bottom feeders also shoot better than I can. Again, keeping in mind that I'm a pretty good shot, and all of the handguns being considered are box-stock.
I have had excellent results from the S&W medium frame (1 K and 1 L frame) revolvers that I have, and since those are the ONLY revolvers I have ever owned, I have to limit my response to those only regarding revolver accuracy.
That said, I've also had very good results from a couple of bottom feeders, neither of which were anything but box-stock and were not intended for match quality. Those 2 are a Bersa Thunder .380 (believe it or not) and a 6" S&W 422. While both of those have sights that are either completely on the slide (the .380) or the rear sight being on the slide (the 422). That doesn't really seem to hurt them too much in the accuracy department. Honestly, both of them shoot better than I can, and I'm not bad. What they both have in common is: Fixed Barrels. I've got a couple of full size 9mms that are no slouches, for that matter.
In general, I've found that the revolvers I own shoot better than I can. And WELL CONSTRUCTED (but not necessarily high dollar) bottom feeders also shoot better than I can. Again, keeping in mind that I'm a pretty good shot, and all of the handguns being considered are box-stock.
massmanute
Inactive
Warning: Zombie thread coming back to life.
I'm no expert, but my money would be on a Manurhin MR73 revolver vs. most any autoloader when it comes to accuracy.
I'm no expert, but my money would be on a Manurhin MR73 revolver vs. most any autoloader when it comes to accuracy.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Once I would have wholly supported this statement, but now I have to say kind of. In most defensive applications the required MOA is absurd. 30 MOA will be fine at ten yards.In 99% of off hand applications it will be all about the Indian not the arrow... Most guns are mechanically more accurate than the shooter.
A factory glock meets that demand with ease and I used to think I could not out shoot my Glock without a set-up not practical for carry. Large contoured target grips on a match .22 type set-ups. Then I bought a Kahr T9. I can definitely out shoot a stock Glock. I am not that good of a shooter. I'm probably above average, but any serious IDPA or similar competition shooter can run circles around me.
When you get into really high level competition the revolver has an inherent disadvantage. It has six chambers that are not identically machined or aligned. Even on the most expensive guns. This will cause some variation. Until you get to that point I don't think there is much difference.
massmanute
Inactive
pete2, I wonder if the reason the .22 semi-autos perform well is because they are typically blow-back actions, so the barrel is fixed. That removes at least one moving part and associated tolerances from the accuracy equation. What do you think?
If that is so then Hi-Point semi-autos in various calibers might also have pretty good accuracy potential, and some Hi-Point users do report good accuracy. Hi-Point semi-autos use blow-back actions.
If that is so then Hi-Point semi-autos in various calibers might also have pretty good accuracy potential, and some Hi-Point users do report good accuracy. Hi-Point semi-autos use blow-back actions.
I wonder if the reason the .22 semi-autos perform well is because they are typically blow-back actions, so the barrel is fixed. That removes at least one moving part and associated tolerances from the accuracy equation. What do you think?
You can pretty much stop wondering. It's a long established fact that guns which have barrels that are fixed (in relation to the sights) have a higher potential for accuracy.
The potential may, or may not be realized, other factors play a part. Potentially, a barrel that does not move, in relation to the sights is more accurate than one that does.
The Luger (P.08) pistol has a barrel that is fixed, in relation to the sights. It has the potential to be very accurate. However, the rather coarse sights and generally crappy trigger pull mean very few people are able to utilize that potential.
I am middle-aged. I have been shooting handguns regularly since I was a teenager. I own dozens of semiautomatics and dozens of revolvers. Other than my Browning Buck Mark in 22lr, I do not own a semiautomatic that I can personally shoot better than my best half dozen or so revolvers.
I own examples of each that are not competition class, but are about as good as you can get out of the box.
It may be that it's the Indian and not the arrow, but that's my experience.
I own examples of each that are not competition class, but are about as good as you can get out of the box.
It may be that it's the Indian and not the arrow, but that's my experience.
Holy old thread Batman!
From my experience, the 3 most accurate handguns I've shot are a Ruger Mark I, a Browning Buckmark, and a S&W 617. All 22's. 2 semi's, one revolver. I couldn't tell a difference in accuracy between them using iron sights. Now that the Buckmark wears a red dot I'm much more accurate with it, at least at distances further than 15 yards.
For larger calibers, I think I shoot my SR1911 and my CZ75b pretty well. But I shoot my S&W Model 19 and 66 just as well. The 19 might have a slight advantage over the rest, but only because of it's 6" barrel and increased sight radius, I highly doubt it's any more accurate than the other 3.
With carry guns, my P938 does shoot a tad better than my 442, but I bet if I had an all steel j-frame with adjustable sights they'd be dead even.
From my experience, the 3 most accurate handguns I've shot are a Ruger Mark I, a Browning Buckmark, and a S&W 617. All 22's. 2 semi's, one revolver. I couldn't tell a difference in accuracy between them using iron sights. Now that the Buckmark wears a red dot I'm much more accurate with it, at least at distances further than 15 yards.
For larger calibers, I think I shoot my SR1911 and my CZ75b pretty well. But I shoot my S&W Model 19 and 66 just as well. The 19 might have a slight advantage over the rest, but only because of it's 6" barrel and increased sight radius, I highly doubt it's any more accurate than the other 3.
With carry guns, my P938 does shoot a tad better than my 442, but I bet if I had an all steel j-frame with adjustable sights they'd be dead even.
Doc Holliday 1950
New member
The funny thing about shooting, for me, is sometimes I can shoot my Glocks and be super right on.
Then sometimes, when I shoot my 686 plus S&W I'm super right on.
I went to my range Tuesday and shot each of my Glocks & my 686 plus. I had not gone to my range in over a month and was very relaxed. My point is that for a lot of shooters the state of the mind is a major factor in shooting.
To answer the OP question, I find that I'm more accurate with my S&W more than I am with my Glocks.
Then sometimes, when I shoot my 686 plus S&W I'm super right on.
I went to my range Tuesday and shot each of my Glocks & my 686 plus. I had not gone to my range in over a month and was very relaxed. My point is that for a lot of shooters the state of the mind is a major factor in shooting.
To answer the OP question, I find that I'm more accurate with my S&W more than I am with my Glocks.
My Dan Wesson 715 with the 6" VH barrel is my most accurate handgun. The DW 15-2 with the same barrel config is not quite as accurate. My 6" S&W 28 follows, then my SAR sr38 4" trails the S&W, barely. In Semis, the most accurate .45 I have is the Sar K2 45, followed by my Sig P220. In 9mm, I can't see any difference between my Sig P226, my Tanfoglio "Mossad" full size, and my other Tanfoglio full sized 9mm. In the hand, I shoot the DWs the best of all, with the P220, and the Tanfoglios next. I have improved my shooting back to the point I feel confident I can hit what I'm shooting at with any of my guns, but I would like to be better. If I could be back to what I was at 25, I would be beyond thrilled. But that was 36 years ago, and it's not going to happen, just because of my eyes alone.