Revolvers and pistols - ammo sensitivity and accuracy

R

Radny97

New member
I went to the range today to test a few different types of ammo against my regular load that I use for practice and target shooting and competitive shooting. I wanted to see if what I am currently using stacks up well against some premium factory ammo.
I was shooting both revolvers and pistols, and I noticed something very interesting. I found that my regular load in my revolvers was doing a great job and was actually more accurate than any of the premium ammo that I purchased and tried out. However in my pistols I noticed that their accuracy was widely different from ammo type to ammo type and I was not getting great performance out of my current load. The big surprise however was that some of my pistols wouldn't shoot worth beans on some premium ammo. Also no ammo was consistently good in any of the pistols. In other words one brand or load was fantastic in one pistol and not good in another and another brand would shoot very well in one, not good another. No brand shot well in all pistols across tne board. This was not true with the revolvers. If the brand shot well in one revolver it shot well out of all of my revolvers.
Wondering if anyone else has seen this type of difference.
I was shooting 38 special and 9mm.
I have not mentioned the actual brands of ammo or guns because that's not the point of the post.
 
Last edited:
That is consistent with my experience. The .38 spl seems to be an inherently accurate cartridge. The 9mm not so much. It might be that rifling/bores/chambers/throats are just more consistent brand to brand than they are in 9mm.
 
Were all the revolvers made by the same manufacturer? When were the revolvers made (pre-wwII, post WWII, 60s, 70s, 80s, etc.)?

Same question(s) about the automatics.

You don't mention the calibers involved, but I would find it easy to believe that 9mm pistols with .3565" bores will shoot differently than one with a .3545" bore. If any of them were made outside the U.S., I would expect variations in bore and other tolerances to be all over the place. For some reason, I don't find such variations in pistols chambered for .45 ACP, which seems pretty uniformly .452".
 
Good questions. All guns were manufactured 2010 or later. Pistols were all of European manufacture (though many ofthe european gun makers have us factories so they could be American too) revolvers all American and same manufacturer.
 
I think Walnut 1704 is on to something. The 9mm has been adopted for use by countries as diverse as Alban ia to Zimbabwe, and often with slightly different operating specifications. The .38 Special is pretty much an American round, with no national border involved to slightly alter its specifications. If the .38 Special is "an inherently accurate cartridge", it probably owes its accuracy to a narrowly held set of manufacturing specs, for both ammo and gun. If the 9x19 is "an inherently accurate cartridge", the accuracy is lost amid the varying specs used to manufacture guns vs. specs used to manufacture ammunition.

I've seen instances of outstanding, even match-level accuracy from 9mm pistols, but almost never with factory ammunition. It usually involved slugging the bore, casting projectiles, sorting and weighing cases and settling for velocities somewhat shy of maximum. Neither the .38 special nor the .45 ACP require so much trouble to obtain comparable accuracy.

You mention that the auto pistols were all of European manufacture. Were they made by the same manufacturer? Or might one of them have been Cz, another SiG, and the third an FN for example? If all were from different manufacturers, then slugging their barrels might be edifying.
 
I'd like to see your results using a 9mm revolver.

I think for this to be a fair comparison, you need to compare apples to apples.
 
The pistols were by FN Glock Sig and Canik.
I wasn't really trying to do a definitive test for this post. My point was to validate or test the ammunition that I've been using in my guns as an acceptably accurate load. I only noticed the disparity as I was doing my testing which led to this post.
One of the interesting things was that one of the 9 mm ammo loads which was a factory load hit consistently left of the bull's-eye by about 3 inches at 20 yards from each gun. The groupings also weren't acceptable from that load either.
I think we may have hit upon the difference. It seems to me that 9 mm is so bulk made that different guns shoot different loads differently with different specs and it's very hard without handloading to come up with a truly accurate load for all guns from the 9 mm.
I think one would have to develop a load for a particular gun which is kind of a pain in the butt. Makes me less inclined towards the 9 mm for competition, even though it is cheaper.
 
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that any 9mm with a movable barrel is going to give varied results gun to gun. The only 9mm I have ever shot that I consider match accurate was a Model 1940 Swedish Lahti (D series) that shot one hole groups at 75' off a bench rest. The Lahti barrel is fixed in the upper receiver.
 
Its not just the 9mm. Autoloading pistols, of all calibers, essentially "come apart" to eject the empties and rely on their springs and parts tolerances to put them back together again.

AND, while they go back together well enough to shoot, they don't always go back together consistently.

It has long been recognized that when fired from a Ransom rest (or similar) the first round (the one stripped from the mag by hand) often has a slightly different point of impact than the rest of the rounds, the ones loaded by the action of firing.

The guns that use the Browning tilt barrel lock up are the ones that show the most variation, overall. Pistols who's barrels only move in one plane, or are fixed don't show nearly the variation (meaning they are more accurate).

Handgun accuracy is two basic things, the ability of the gun & ammo to be consistent, and the ability of the shooter to do likewise. Every shot the same as the one before in all possible particulars.

Minute differences can have noticeable, sometimes significant effects.
 
Excellent information 44amp. I watched a video of Massad Ayoub (sp?) test firing a Cank tp9sa in which he explained that 'first cartridge chambers a little differently' principle and then showed it in action with the point of impact. What I didn't understand was that this might have different effects depending on the barrel/slide mechanism and design. Ever since I saw that video I try to chamber a round using the slide release rather than cycling the slide with my hand in hopes that using the slide release makes the round chamber in a manner at least somewhat more similar to a full cycle. I have noticed a difference/improvement with that.
Let me ask a follow up question. Other than a fixed barrel what do you think is the most accurate barrel slide set up? Also which barrel/slide design is more accurate in your opinion? 1911 or CZ?
 
Let me ask a follow up question. Other than a fixed barrel what do you think is the most accurate barrel slide set up? Also which barrel/slide design is more accurate in your opinion? 1911 or CZ?
Click to expand...

follow up answer:

It depends on many things.

For the gun to have its maximum accuracy potential, the relationship between the sights and the bore, at the moment of firing, must be the same. If either moves during the operating cycle, they must come back to the same place, exactly the same place, every time. Any variation of the alignment of parts, even tiny ten thousandths of an inch, can have an effect.

The more planes of movement and amount of movement involved, the greater the odds on not being consistent.

Common defensive pistols using the tilt barrel system are not designed or built to be the most accurate pistols possible. They are built to be the most accurate pistol practical, for the job they are intended to do.

Practical accuracy involves much more than just the design of the gun's locking system. Sights and trigger pull (the shooter's ability to use them well) matter. I have a couple of semi autos where the barrel only moves in one plane (straight back and forth). One of them has both front and rear sights as part of the barrel assembly, the other does not. One has excellent adjustable sights and an excellent trigger pull, the other has fairly crude fixed sights and the trigger pull is on the poor side of "fair". Any guesses which one is more accurate in my hands???

As to which slide design is more accurate, 1911 or CZ, I have no idea. Does "1911" include the linkless and or bushingless variants (such as SIG?) ?

I think variations in the individual guns (and ammo) are a larger factor than the differences in some designs. I don't have a CZ pattern gun, but I have had many 1911s and variants on that style. With the best of them, I can put 5 shots in one ragged hole at 25 yards (rested). With some of them, I can put 5 shots on the paper at 25 yards (rested). Most fall somewhere inbetween for me.
 
This is a question not an argument.

Does the across-different-manufacturers variation in accuracy also exist for the .38 Super, like I suspect it does for the 9x19? I've shot one 1911A1 "Race Gun", which was probably tuned like a concert piano to deliver its level of performance, an Astra (which didn't seem to like being fed 38 Super), an EAA witness, and a 1960's era Colt Commander. The accuracy among them was all over the place, and the 1911A1 based weapons head-spaced differently, which may be an experimental confound.

Concerning the fixed barrel vs. tilt-barrel accuracy potential, the only 9mm blowback (thus fixed barrel) I know of offhand is the Hi-Point, which may not be a fair comparison to the (probably) more precisely made tilt-barrel 9mms on the market. Are there other 9s in fairly common use that are built with fixed barrel?
 
Good revolvers (often) are simply more accurate than semis. Simple as that. They also tend to be much less fussy about different loads.

For example, in my 38's, I shoot a variety of bullets and bullet weights. I even load "9mm" bullets (leftovers from when I loaded for 9mm pistols)....yet I get great accuracy with all of them. I actually tend to use the same powder and charge weight for each load, regardless of the bullet type & weight. Amazingly, the loads all seem to shoot pretty much to the same POI, at least at 10 yards (which is the most common distance at which I shoot).

Try that with ANY semi-auto. Won't work - I can virtually guarantee that.
 
44amp, you make some good points about how my question is broad enough that it's hard to answer very definitively, so let me see if I can narrow it slightly.
I'm talking about 1911s with bushings etc. I also want to be clear that I'm trying to focus the question on mechanical accuracy not shootability and practical accuracy (i.e. trigger pull, sights, ergonomics; all of which are very important).
In other words, looking at designs that use many of the important aspects needed for a mechanically accurate pistol (bushings, locking lugs, etc.) which of the barrel designs is more accurate on average?
I'm not trying to compare brands necessarily but applying the question to actual designs on the market think in terms of STI, Dan Wesson and Les Baer versus an SP01 accu-shadow or a Witness Elite Limited.

Wpsdlrg, I agree with you for the most part. Semis *can* be made to be as accurate as revolvers but it takes a lot of work and money. A $500 revolver will be more mechanically accurate than a $500 semi almost every time. However, with enough money, the right platform, etc., a semi can become amazingly accurate. Shootability is also important and most people find semis more shootable. (I'm not necessarily one of them)

Kosh75287, I don't know of any either. I'm not as familiar with semis as I am with revolvers.
 
Last edited:
Semis *can* be made to be as accurate as revolvers but it takes a lot of work and money. A $500 revolver will be more mechanically accurate than a $500 semi almost every time
Click to expand...

I would like to point out that this is essentially true for centerfire semis. Rimfire semiautos are a whole different matter, and often match or even out perform revolvers right out of the box.

The .38 Super is an old round, and as originally designed, headspaces on the small "semi rim" of the case. Guns built this way (virtually everything before the 80s) are notorious for ..erratic accuracy.

When the .38 Super found favor with the race gun crowd, they found chambering the barrels to headspace on the case mouth, like the 9mm and .45ACP led to better accuracy with the .38 Super. I do not know know who uses which method in today's production guns, sorry.

Are there other 9s in fairly common use that are built with fixed barrel?
Click to expand...

Astra 400 (or 600 I always get the numbers confused..:o one is 9mm Luger, the other 9mm Largo, which handles .38 Super, usually)

These are straight blowback, fixed barrels. Report, and recoil from one is different (louder & more perceived recoil) than conventional tilt barrel locking guns. I have shot one, its an interesting experience.

Also, the SMG look alikes in 9mm (MAC, Cobray, Tec 9, etc) are fixed barrel and technically handguns.

as to which
mechanically accurate pistol (bushings, locking lugs, etc.) which of the barrel designs is more accurate..
Click to expand...

I can't say with any certainty, I have heard that the designs that use a cam, instead of a link, and use the entire ejection port for lockup have the potential to be more accurate, but I think individual parts tolerances in individual guns is a greater factor. Just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it.
 
I agree rimfire semis are very accurate. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this is due in no small part to their barrel design. They are generally fixed barrel blowback bolt designs.
Also, I have found it ironic that rimfire revolvers are not always accurate. The cylinder gap and cylinder/barrel alignment has to be very good or you get lots of fouling in the barrel and some lead spitting.
 
The rimfire semis in the "sport pistol" class are generally very accurate, primarily, I think, due to the fixed barrel. Also note that a lot of the designes ALSO have rear sights that do not move.

As to revolvers, the surprising thing is not inaccuracy, but the fact that so many are as accurate as they are! Think about it, one fixed barrel, but 6 (usually) separate chambers, each of which has to line up "perfectly" for maximum accuracy.

Most of the time it isn't perfect, but good enough for usual pistol ranges. Also common is for one chamber to "shoot away" from the rest. Again, not usually a problem at close range, but at long range it can be quite different.

One of my favorite Rugers has one chamber a little bit "out". Less than an inch at close range, but a couple of feet at 200yards. The other 5 ALL go in the same place. ACTUALLY rather amazing, when you consider all the possible tolerances and the differences they can make.
 
Originally posted by 44AMP
The rimfire semis in the "sport pistol" class are generally very accurate, primarily, I think, due to the fixed barrel. Also note that a lot of the designes ALSO have rear sights that do not move.
Click to expand...

It's not just rimfires that are made this way, there are some purpose-built centerfire target semi-autos which are also designed this way (usually chambered for .32 S&W Long Wadcutters). Examples include the Benelli MP90S, Walther GSP, Pardini SP/HP, and Hammerli 280.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top