What handgun isn't accurate

L_Killkenny

I see your point. You're right, you don't need 2" at 25 for SD. I don't look at my guns for SD.


Well, I live in wonderful Las Vegas, not a low crime city overall. My area isn't to bad, but you never know, that's my "main" reason I own handguns for SD/HD. It's a little easier than a rifle/shotgun to carry. If I have to go past 15-25 yards I have an M44 nagant 7.62X54.

Home invasions are on the rise, and I don't want to get caught with my pants down.

PS: The first time I shot an M1 Garant (newer) at 50 yards, I got 1.5-2" group free hand with iron sights. Boy that gun is heavy!

I believe the Liberator was a truly inaccurate firearm....

Not at two feet, which it was more or less designed for. Better than a knife!:rolleyes:
 
This is not to bad ,S&W 38Spl model 10-7

What do you think .... Accurate? 20 meters.

2112768800103886237S500x500Q85.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

2533238920103886237S500x500Q85.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

Luis
 
My S&W M63 .22 caliber revolver is the most inaccurate handgun I have ever owned. It is incapable of keeping six shots on a paper plate FROM A REST at 25 yards. Tried every .22 ammo under the sun, even expensive target ammo. Gun is tight, no wobble all normal tolerances. It just can't shoot straight. And many of tried it to the same result.
 
Last edited:
For me it was a Ruger Single Six couldn't hit anything with it. I tried everything I spent about 6 months shooting it and never got better. Was it the gun NO it was me, hand it to someone else and they could shoot the center of the target out. I just got rid of it but I do own three Blackhawks and have no problems shooting them:)
 
Handguns can surprise you. I've kept a few selected targets over the years, as a reminders. I added red circles to the mixed photos to identify the bullet outlines. The first group below is the first handgun rest group I shot from my Goldcup immediately I finished fitting it up for the second time (so it was very tight, mechanically). Based on the faint outlines on the paper left by the bullets (not visible in the photo; you have to angle to the light just right to see them), was 0.37" CTC at 25 yards between the two furthest spaced holes. The same gun, a month later, was shooting cast bullets to about 1" at the same distance (second target).

The third group was from my Redhawk at 50 yards. It has one chamber that always throws that low and right hole that opens the group to about 1.6". I've thought about reaming it, but don't want to risk upsetting the success of the other chambers with too much fiddling. If I include only the 5 chambers that threw the connecting holes, that portion of the group is about 0.72" C-T-C. So, about like the Goldcup at 25 yards.

The fourth group is a 1.51" group from the .44 Bulldog, with 3" barrel and standard sights firing a pipsqueak load of 2.9 grains of Bullseye under the Hornady 240 grain swaged SWC; that gun's favorite. The rear notch in the frame didn't quite center its groups, but it was always a fun gun to shoot.

handguntargets.gif
 
To all the people telling how accurate (except for the P38 had a rebuttal answer) there gun is, you need to go reread the OP.:rolleyes:

ViperJon:

My S&W M63 .22 caliber revolver is the most inaccurate handgun I have ever owned. It is incapable of keeping six shots on a paper plate FROM A REST at 25 yards. Tried every .22 ammo under the sun, even expensive target ammo. Gun is tight, no wobble all normal tolerances. It just can't shoot straight. And many of tried it to the same result.

Are you saying the M63 is an inaccurate gun, or are you saying just your M63 is inaccurate?

Somebody else said there Glock 19 was inaccurate, but we all know G19s are very accurate.
 
Are you saying the M63 is an inaccurate gun, or are you saying just your M63 is inaccurate?

I had a Smith 63 and got rid of it for the same reason; The accuracy was, in my opinion, very poor. (3-4" groups at 15 feet from a rest.)
 
My Uncle's friend had an extremely old and badly made 7 shot .22lr revolver. And it was terrible. If I had tried to shoot myself in the head with it, I would probably have missed. That, IMO, was the least accurate firearm I have ever shot. :barf:
 
Elvishead's last post brought up the crux of the matter for which there will seldom be any qualified answer except from factory or military testing. That is, the distinction between an individual gun, which may simply be defective, and a design that is inherently imprecise. The reason nobody here can present a qualified answer is our experiences are almost certainly all anecdotal. It seems unlikely that any one of us has owned and shot statistically significant numbers of any one particular model of gun on a personal basis. Perhaps as part of a government or commercial testing program, but not at home on our own. The industrial statistician at my old job would have said 30 samples would be the minimum required for that, and they would have to be samples carefully chosen to ensure they were random, and not a serial set of samples that came off the assembly line in order. I own several 1911's, but no two are identical and none are out-of-box examples, so they don't count for evaluating a particular factory 1911.

Most mass-produced guns have good and bad examples. The Redhawk whose 50 yard group I had in the third photo from left in my second post is an out-of-the-box factory gun except for the trigger job. A friend of mine bought the same model, but his copy would not hold 6" at 25 yards off bags. We returned it to Ruger. They sent it back 5 weeks later with a note stating they had reamed the chambers. Sure enough, it shot dramatically better. Not quite up to mine, but close to it. So, was the gun imprecise? Yes, relative to mine, as it came, it was. Would it still have shot minute of bad guy at 7 yards? Yes, it was nowhere near too imprecise for that. Is the design inherently too imprecise for good accuracy? No, mine proved it is not, since even one exception disproves a rule. Is the manufacturing imprecise? The two revolvers taken together tell us it is less precise on some copies than on others, but what the statistical average result is, I have no idea without randomly sampling at least 30 of them. Which out-of-box level of precision can you expect, on average? Same answer.
 
IMO, any modern handgun using modern ammunition of any caliber has to be capable of keeping six shots in the black on a standard NRA slow fire 25 yard pistol target at 25 yards. And that is being generous. If it can not do that from a rest, it is inaccurate and probably has a manufacturing defect.

My M63 most certainly could not.
 
I own handguns for SD/HD.
Different needs, different purposes, different sets of parameters.


To all the people telling how accurate (except for the P38 had a rebuttal answer) there gun is, you need to go reread the OP.
Uh, didn't you ask for it??? :rolleyes:

I guess I'll have to take your Internet word on those 2" groups at 25-50 yards. I'd have to see that!
 
P.38's are generally regarded as having mediocre accuracy.

:D First I've read that. Some were not as well made as others, for sure!

Here's my 1944 Spreewerk P.38, with its original frosted barrel; rifling is good. Now, I'm not the world's best shot, but I don't feel that this performance at 33 feet was even close to what that old pistol can do. I just don't shoot it a lot so I don't get much better at shooting it. The grips suck from a shooter's standpoint but the pistol points nicely and for me its well balanced; as you can see, it will group okey-dokey. I was particularly happy with the three in the bull. I'm not sure where the 18th round went...maybe in the topmost group? Anyway, I'm happy with how the old gal spits lead, although I would agree the trigger might be a little heavy even in SA

P38green.jpg
 
Last edited:
My NAA 22 revolver in nasty inaccurate. But I don't think it was ment to be a tack driver. Would probably get some laughs if I shot it from the bags!
 
Several have commented on the relative inaccuracy of the S&W Model 63 (including me), and I am wondering if this issue has something to do with rate of twist. Years ago I had a Smith Model 48 .22 magnum combo (extra cylinder/crane assembly in .22 lr), and while it was dead nuts on in .22 mag., I couldn't hit the proverbial broadside of a barn with .22 lr. After measuring the rate of twist and comparing it with one my Model 17s I realized that there is a definite difference in that the magnum had a slower rate than the .22 lr., thus enabling the much faster .22 mag bullet to be stabilized, and, conversely not stabilizing the slower .22 lr bullet.

I do believe, at one time, S&W offered extra cylinder/crane assemblies for the 63 in .22 magnum, and I wonder if anyone has had experience with one of those. Did it deliver better accuracy?
 
Back
Top