newfrontier45
Moderator
Hardly. I've never seen a DA shoot 1" groups at 100yds. There is no double action that can compete with a Freedom Arms or custom linebored Ruger. The fact that they don't shoot them at Camp Perry is irrelevant.
Ruger Single Six vs 22/45 and MKs for accuracy
- Thread starter AZAK
- Start date
newfrontier45
Moderator
The fact that they don't shoot SA's in bullseye competition is irrelevant to my comment and this discussion. Which is about like saying Contenders can't be more accurate than 1911's because they don't shoot them in IPSC. 
That's rather simplistic anyway. Do they not have rapid fire stages? Then I guess rate of fire is relevant as well.
A Bullseye match at places like Camp Perry typically have three stages of fire: rapid fire (5 shots in 10 seconds, shot one-handed @ 25 yards); timed fire (5 shots in 20 seconds, shot one-handed @ 25 yards) and slow fire (10 shots in 10 minutes, shot one-handed @ 50 yards-a TC Contender would be plenty fast in this stage
). Shooters competing with a revolver generally shoot in the sa mode using da revolvers, regardless of the time constraints imposed with each stage of fire. In terms of who wins, the most shots closest to the x-ring (accuracy) is the only thing that counts. Sorry if this sounds "simplistic" to you but it is what it is.newfrontier45
Moderator
None of which has a damn thing to do with what I said. An FA 83 is going to be more accurate than ANY revolver used in a bullseye match. The fact that they do not use them in bullseye shooting is entirely irrelevant.
For argument's sake, show me a bullseye DA that is more accurate.
For argument's sake, show me a bullseye DA that is more accurate.
NoSecondBest
New member
You've expressed an opinion. Now show the proof.
newfrontier45
Moderator
25yrs of shooting, buying, selling and testing revolvers and extensive research. Like I said, I've never seen a factory DA that will shoot 1-2 MOA. If they did, we wouldn't be sinking $2000 into FA's or $2500 into full custom Rugers. S&W and Colt DA's are chambered conventionally and while they have decent barrels, they are simply not the precision engineered machines FA's are. They do not linebore their chambers. Cylinders are not fitted particularly tight either. Anybody with more than a thimbleful of knowledge about revolvers knows that nothing compares to an FA. They are as close to perfect as a revolver can be and still be affordable. So all the wishful thinking and bullseye scores in the world aren't going to change that. If all you can say is that "they don't shoot them at Camp Perry", you don't have much to say and are probably making a lot of ignorant assumptions.
I could have cited my fifty years or so of sending hundreds of pounds of lead down-range, competing in many diversified shooting disciplines (including Bullseye matches, re-qualification drills, various "combat" course of fires and trap shooting) as evidence that I know what I'm talking about, but I didn't because "argument by experience" has been defined as a "false argument". Just because you do a lot of things a lot of times doesn't necessarily translate into the rightness of your position. Experience is a valuable asset when it comes to adopting an opinion but it's not definitive in and of itself. Logic and empirical data best supports a case.
NoSecondBest posted "You've expressed an opinion. Now show the proof". Proof, not your opinions, of which includes this unsupported claim: "Anybody with a thimbleful of knowledge about revolvers knows that nothing compares to an FA." Prove it-and not with anecdotal hearsay nor your beliefs predicated on "experience". Prove your assertions with objective verifications.
Serious Bullseye competitors at the Masters level think nothing of sinking thousands of dollars into equipment that they feel will help them win a match. There's not a whole lot of difference in terms of scores (generally decided by who has the most x's) between winners and runner-ups. If most any of them thought that shooting an FA revolver would enhance their scores, even a little bit, you'd see a lot of FAs on the line. But, of course, you don't...
newfrontier45
Moderator
So based on that, you conclude that accuracy is THE factor? So you are basically saying that a box stock double action is just as accurate as a Freedom Arms? Okay, prove it. Explain to all us dummies exactly what it is that makes a $500 double action just as accurate as a linebored FA with a premium barrel. Then tell us exactly what makes the FA less accurate? Surely you must know why all those FA shooters have wasted their money. Surely you are not basing your opinion on the absence of FA's on the firing line in bullseye competition??? This is silly beyond measure.
I know of no credible authority on this subject who would agree with you. If you can provide one, I'm all ears.
Here's a quip from John Taffin, who has owned and tested more revolvers than anyone here sans none:
"THE ONLY .22 SIXGUN MORE ACCURATE THAN THE FA 97 IS THE FA M83."
If you can produce a DA that shoots this well out of the box, I'd love to see it.
http://www.sixguns.com/range/fa353.htm
http://www.sixguns.com/range/Fa45.htm
Plenty of discussion and test results here:
http://singleactions.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=sas&thread=5272&page=1
Yes, I'm sure S&W's do this all the time. Trouble is, I've never seen one do it or even heard of such a critter. FA's do it all the time.
This one shoots 5/8"@100yds.
http://www.gunblast.com/Freedom97-224-32.htm
This one under an inch at 25yds.
http://www.gunblast.com/Freedom_500WE-2.htm
This one 3/8"@25yds.
http://www.gunblast.com/Freedom_83-475.htm
This one 1/4"@50yds.
http://www.gunblast.com/Freedom97-17.htm
This one 9/16"@25yds.
http://www.gunblast.com/Freedom_97-32.htm
This one did 3/16"@25yds with cheap Federal Champion and a worst of 13/16", still better than 99% of factory double actions.
http://www.gunblast.com/Freedom_97-22.htm
This is about the worst you'll see one shoot, even for a short barrel model but still superb at 1¼"@25yds.
http://www.gunblast.com/Freedom_97-22.htm
I've never read a report or heard of a single FA 252 that didn't shoot MOA at 100yds.
Yes, you are wrong.
I know of no credible authority on this subject who would agree with you. If you can provide one, I'm all ears.
Here's a quip from John Taffin, who has owned and tested more revolvers than anyone here sans none:
"THE ONLY .22 SIXGUN MORE ACCURATE THAN THE FA 97 IS THE FA M83."
If you can produce a DA that shoots this well out of the box, I'd love to see it.
http://www.sixguns.com/range/fa353.htm
http://www.sixguns.com/range/Fa45.htm
Plenty of discussion and test results here:
http://singleactions.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=sas&thread=5272&page=1
Yes, I'm sure S&W's do this all the time. Trouble is, I've never seen one do it or even heard of such a critter. FA's do it all the time.
This one shoots 5/8"@100yds.
http://www.gunblast.com/Freedom97-224-32.htm
This one under an inch at 25yds.
http://www.gunblast.com/Freedom_500WE-2.htm
This one 3/8"@25yds.
http://www.gunblast.com/Freedom_83-475.htm
This one 1/4"@50yds.
http://www.gunblast.com/Freedom97-17.htm
This one 9/16"@25yds.
http://www.gunblast.com/Freedom_97-32.htm
This one did 3/16"@25yds with cheap Federal Champion and a worst of 13/16", still better than 99% of factory double actions.
http://www.gunblast.com/Freedom_97-22.htm
This is about the worst you'll see one shoot, even for a short barrel model but still superb at 1¼"@25yds.
http://www.gunblast.com/Freedom_97-22.htm
I've never read a report or heard of a single FA 252 that didn't shoot MOA at 100yds.
Yes, you are wrong.
The op expressed an interest in the inherent accuracy differences between a Ruger single-action, .22 revolver and a Ruger MK .22 semi-auto. You eventually made the claim: "For those that dog the single action for locktime, bear in mind that the most accurate revolvers in the world are single actions." without offering any supportive evidence. No one has argued that Freedom Arms doesn't make an accurate revolver. No one has said that FA buyers have "wasted their money". But when you claim that FA makes the "most accurate revolvers in the world", you not only went way beyond the parameters posed by the op but you left yourself open to skepticism from those of us who aren't wedded to the notion that single-action revolvers, even in the guise of Freedom Arms, are inherently more accurate than all other revolvers in the world-and the claim begs for verification.
My contention is that, everything else being equal (that is, just as much money and attention given to a da revolver as that given to a FA revolver), there is no intrinsic potential accuracy differences between any da revolver or any sa revolver. My point also is that the reason you find da revolvers (being shot in the sa mode) on the line at Bullseye matches and virtually no sa revolvers, is due to their superior sa trigger pulls in terms of lock-time, as acknowledged by James K: "...Some revolvers might shoot better than some autos, but IMHO, the SS is not in that category. One problem with all SA revolvers is the long hammer fall and the less than sterling trigger pull..."
I will put the scores and experiences of shooters like Bill Blankenship, Harry Reeves, Paul Weston and Bill Toney up against the likes of long-time sa proponent John Taffin any day of the year (and I'm a big fan of Mr. Taffin as a gun writer).
Really? Is thinking you are right and having others see you that way so important to you? Personally, I think this discussion has regressed to the bicker stage (and, yes, I've been a party to it
) and I'm sure I've said all I "needed" to say.
My contention is that, everything else being equal (that is, just as much money and attention given to a da revolver as that given to a FA revolver), there is no intrinsic potential accuracy differences between any da revolver or any sa revolver. My point also is that the reason you find da revolvers (being shot in the sa mode) on the line at Bullseye matches and virtually no sa revolvers, is due to their superior sa trigger pulls in terms of lock-time, as acknowledged by James K: "...Some revolvers might shoot better than some autos, but IMHO, the SS is not in that category. One problem with all SA revolvers is the long hammer fall and the less than sterling trigger pull..."
I will put the scores and experiences of shooters like Bill Blankenship, Harry Reeves, Paul Weston and Bill Toney up against the likes of long-time sa proponent John Taffin any day of the year (and I'm a big fan of Mr. Taffin as a gun writer).
Really? Is thinking you are right and having others see you that way so important to you? Personally, I think this discussion has regressed to the bicker stage (and, yes, I've been a party to it
) and I'm sure I've said all I "needed" to say.newfrontier45
Moderator
That's an interesting stipulation to finally inject into the discussion. Fact is, there are no DA's built like FA builds their SA's. If there were, they would surely be part of this discussion. Fact remains, there are NO DA's that are as accurate as FA because no one builds them as precisely.
The biggest difference is that you're talking about accurate shooters shooting off their hind legs and I'm talking about accurate guns.
I stand firmly behind what I said and not because I'm a fan of single action revolvers but because it is true. Despite what you 'think' can be discerned from bullseye scores. I put testing done by Taffin on a higher level than your bullseye scores because he is testing the guns with as little human factor involved as possible. The GunBlast guys test theirs from a Ransom Rest.
A tuned SA trigger gives up nothing to a tuned DA trigger, period.
I am right and I have proven it. I could care less what anybody thinks. The truth is more important to me than any popularity contest. Personally, I think you have made your comments because you don't know any better.
If this has degraded to the bicker stage it's because you refuse to actually engage in the discussion with anything to support your argument. Sorry but "I'm right and you're wrong" ain't good enough. I've given more than enough and you've provided nothing but your uneducated opinion. Because if you think that a box stock DA can shoot alongside an FA, you're just wrong. Everybody knows it but you.
newfrontier45
Moderator
Since you're a long time bullseye shooter, surely you can provide pics or at least anecdotal testimony proving a DA or two that shoots as well or better than the several FA's I provided. I provided ten links and two pics. I don't think this is an unreasonable request.
Are they shooting custom linebored DA's at Camp Perry? What guns are doing the most winning and what modifications do they have? Come on man, provide something.....anything.
Are they shooting custom linebored DA's at Camp Perry? What guns are doing the most winning and what modifications do they have? Come on man, provide something.....anything.
Not to try and put the thread back on track or anything, but *personal* experience has indicated that I shoot more accurately with a Mark III, then a Mark II, then the Single Six.
That said, I tend to look like a shotgun splatter every time I shoot a group of 10. The Mark III keeps within 3" groups, the Mark II spreads to about 4" and the Single Six is generally kept within the 8 ring.
That said, the Mark III has a VQ sear and trigger. The Mark II has a VQ sear and has possibly had some work done to the sear by the previous owner. The Single Six is stock.
That said, I tend to look like a shotgun splatter every time I shoot a group of 10. The Mark III keeps within 3" groups, the Mark II spreads to about 4" and the Single Six is generally kept within the 8 ring.
That said, the Mark III has a VQ sear and trigger. The Mark II has a VQ sear and has possibly had some work done to the sear by the previous owner. The Single Six is stock.
the357plan
New member
All this arguing about accuracy...
People please tell me, just where can I get a factory handgun that would be as accurate as my FA 97? You say S&W? Well it'll be hard to convince me of that, since I've owned a boat-load of them and have yet to find one as accurate. Colt? Haven't found one there either. Admittedly, I haven't tried a Python, but if someone will send me one, I'll try it... Ruger? Have several on hand, been through plenty more, nothing doing there. Browning? Kimber? So-on and etc., no cigar. I've had a couple of Contender barrels hit the mark, but that's it over the past 30 years of owning and shooting handguns. I've had some come close, but nothing has equaled my FA 97 (off a rest).
So you might think the FA 97 is my favorite. Not so! I'm a Smith fan. Nothing shoots better (off-hand) in my hands than a medium frame, 6 inch barreled Smith/Colt/Ruger double action revolver (fired single action). They just fit my hand very nicely and in general, I can shoot them off hand accurately without much practice. So that's what I would choose if I were to compete. However, every once in a blue moon, the FA 97 will amaze me (that's a cylinder into a dime @ 16 yards, off hand).
Back to the Op's question, I would never buy a Single Six with the intention of competing against a Mark II. I've generally shot my Mark IIs better than my Single Sixes, but I've had more fun with my Single Sixes. Fun is chasing little critters through the briars, brush and such with a Smith or Ruger strapped onto my side (to include hiking and plinking). I'll not do that with a FA!
Lately, those fiber optic Stainless Single Sixes have been calling out to me at the gun shows, temptation, temptation...
People please tell me, just where can I get a factory handgun that would be as accurate as my FA 97? You say S&W? Well it'll be hard to convince me of that, since I've owned a boat-load of them and have yet to find one as accurate. Colt? Haven't found one there either. Admittedly, I haven't tried a Python, but if someone will send me one, I'll try it... Ruger? Have several on hand, been through plenty more, nothing doing there. Browning? Kimber? So-on and etc., no cigar. I've had a couple of Contender barrels hit the mark, but that's it over the past 30 years of owning and shooting handguns. I've had some come close, but nothing has equaled my FA 97 (off a rest).
So you might think the FA 97 is my favorite. Not so! I'm a Smith fan. Nothing shoots better (off-hand) in my hands than a medium frame, 6 inch barreled Smith/Colt/Ruger double action revolver (fired single action). They just fit my hand very nicely and in general, I can shoot them off hand accurately without much practice. So that's what I would choose if I were to compete. However, every once in a blue moon, the FA 97 will amaze me (that's a cylinder into a dime @ 16 yards, off hand).
Back to the Op's question, I would never buy a Single Six with the intention of competing against a Mark II. I've generally shot my Mark IIs better than my Single Sixes, but I've had more fun with my Single Sixes. Fun is chasing little critters through the briars, brush and such with a Smith or Ruger strapped onto my side (to include hiking and plinking). I'll not do that with a FA!
Lately, those fiber optic Stainless Single Sixes have been calling out to me at the gun shows, temptation, temptation...
Last edited:
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
My single six is tons more fun than a MKII. I used to shoot my MKII a ton, but now it seems almost like work compared to shooting my single six.
I am no revolver expert, but I was under the impression a Korth revolver is roughly equivelant to a FA. Of course, I have never been in the same room as a Korth, let alone shot one, so what do I know.
I am no revolver expert, but I was under the impression a Korth revolver is roughly equivelant to a FA. Of course, I have never been in the same room as a Korth, let alone shot one, so what do I know.
silvermane_1
New member
i only care is my MK III 6" Standard is sub-MOA of badguy's chest, cuz remember folks statistically more folks are killed per year with .22lr than any other caliber. 
Ruger Single Six Accuracy
I was out working up loads for my .327 and I took the single six along just to see what it would do. I had a few different types of .22 LR but I did not shoot fouling shots, wait for the wind, etc, etc so this should be easy to duplicate if not do better. These were all shot at 50 yards with the best being Aguila Golden Eagle and the worst was some RWS target rifle. They all did okay with the Aguila just over 1" and the RWS at 1 9/16". I have no doubt you could get it under 1" at 50 being more careful. I have tested Ruger MKIIs and IIIs with the best coming in more or less around 0.7 - 0.8" at 50. YMMV. Hope this helps.
I was out working up loads for my .327 and I took the single six along just to see what it would do. I had a few different types of .22 LR but I did not shoot fouling shots, wait for the wind, etc, etc so this should be easy to duplicate if not do better. These were all shot at 50 yards with the best being Aguila Golden Eagle and the worst was some RWS target rifle. They all did okay with the Aguila just over 1" and the RWS at 1 9/16". I have no doubt you could get it under 1" at 50 being more careful. I have tested Ruger MKIIs and IIIs with the best coming in more or less around 0.7 - 0.8" at 50. YMMV. Hope this helps.