The Standard For Accuracy
#186116
11/08/2017 2:22 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 189
spinsail
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 189 |
What is a reasonable expectation for accuracy of a standard factory revolver.
There are many variables so to simplify it, lets take a NIB Ruger in .44 magnum. I know Freedom Arms is not technically a custom firearm but it seems to be in a class of its own.
Lets assume it is for hunting purposes so lets say one is shooting close to maximum loads of hunting weight bullets and hunting type bullets and shooting from a ransom rest to remove shooter error.
What is a reasonable 5 shot group at 50 yards, and at 100 yards?
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: spinsail]
#186117
11/08/2017 3:07 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 306
BushytailBasher
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 306 |
I haven't shot a lot of revolvers and the ones I've owned have been rugers and they were both extremely accurate but id say 2 inches and 4 inches should be reasonable and if the ruger is like mine id say half that or less...
Last edited by BushytailBasher; 11/08/2017 3:08 AM.
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: BushytailBasher]
#186118
11/08/2017 3:10 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 306
BushytailBasher
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 306 |
You got to think you have 6 different chambers... My dad a a SBH in 44 mag and it would shoot 1 inch or less at 50 if you eliminated the one flyer it always sent...
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: BushytailBasher]
#186119
11/08/2017 3:58 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,020
tradmark
Shooting Expert
|
Shooting Expert
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,020 |
For me To consider accuracy. U need to eliminate as many variables as possible so a scope is necessary. I feel anything i consider accurate should have the ability to find a load that will hit 1? or less at 50 from a rest.
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: tradmark]
#186128
11/08/2017 10:30 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 649
dhom
addict
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 649 |
My personal standards for accuracy would be under 2" @ 50 yds and under 4" @ 100 yds. I say this using my hunting set ups. Actually that is how I determine what I will use at what distances. With good loads I have shot better groups with the same guns but not every time. The loads I am using are all minute of deer. So, what I choose is the one I have the most confidence in for that application.
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: dhom]
#186129
11/08/2017 11:12 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 128
Subsciber
member
|
member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 128 |
This is gonna get interesting.
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: Subsciber]
#186130
11/08/2017 12:34 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 189
spinsail
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 189 |
Yeah, I hope so.
If you only sought accuracy you could modify the revolver and the sighting system and the load in a way that would not be practical for hunting. Look at the various shooting competitions where that occurs. But for a practical, stock revolver and load, I am curious what the experienced hands here think.
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: Subsciber]
#186131
11/08/2017 12:54 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 142
Teep
member
|
member
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 142 |
This is gonna get interesting. I really hope some good shooter show their groups. I'm fairly new to shooting revolvers, started again after many years away from them. I find that I can shoot better than 2" groups at 50 yards with a S&W 617 .22 and a S&W 686 .357 both with 6" barrels and 3 mil dot red dot sights. I'm sure these guns can do better, I remember reading in the past that some hand gunners considered the .44 Magnum to be one of the most accurate of the big bores.
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: Teep]
#186132
11/08/2017 1:47 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836
Whitworth
Shootist
|
Shootist
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836 |
For me I want to see 1-inch or less at 50 yards. That is my expectation. I have had many revolvers that will do that from a variety of manufacturers. I usually use a red dot sight to achieve these goals, and if a revolver won't get there, I will typically send it down the road. The most consistently accurate revolvers I have seen of late are the BFRs.
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: Whitworth]
#186133
11/08/2017 1:57 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 189
spinsail
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 189 |
Whitworth, I've read your book so I know you generally don't hunt with a scope on your revolver but those that will do 1" at 50 with a red dot, do you know what they can do with a scope?
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: spinsail]
#186134
11/08/2017 2:02 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836
Whitworth
Shootist
|
Shootist
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836 |
Whitworth, I've read your book so I know you generally don't hunt with a scope on your revolver but those that will do 1" at 50 with a red dot, do you know what they can do with a scope? I don't expect to do much better (in my case) as I don't really shoot groups better with a scope -- or rather I haven't experienced much of an improvement switching to a scope. To be fair, however, I haven't switched to a scope on many of my big-bores to see if things will improve. I can imagine that with a rest, most folks will shoot tighter groups with a scope. I tend to shoot tighter groups with a red dot for some unexplainable and probably illogical reason. Which one of my books did you read?
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: Whitworth]
#186135
11/08/2017 2:16 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 189
spinsail
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 189 |
The "Gun Digest Book Of Hunting Revolvers".
It got me so excited I bought a SW 629 .44 magnum revolver. Then I put a red dot on it (which I hunted with yesterday).
Talk about unexplainable and illogical stuff, I seem to be in a trend of selling off long guns and buying handguns suitable for hunting, including single shots. I want a single action next in 45 Colt but I want an accurate one and can't spend what a FA costs.
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: spinsail]
#186137
11/08/2017 2:27 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 306
BushytailBasher
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 306 |
Adding to what I said before if I can't get 1 inch groups at 50 yards with almost any handgun I lose interest and will probably sale it.... I like accuracy and if I don't have minute of Pepsi can absolute minimum then im good
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: spinsail]
#186138
11/08/2017 2:30 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836
Whitworth
Shootist
|
Shootist
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836 |
The "Gun Digest Book Of Hunting Revolvers".
It got me so excited I bought a SW 629 .44 magnum revolver. Then I put a red dot on it (which I hunted with yesterday).
Talk about unexplainable and illogical stuff, I seem to be in a trend of selling off long guns and buying handguns suitable for hunting, including single shots. I want a single action next in 45 Colt but I want an accurate one and can't spend what a FA costs. I would consider a BFR in your case. Priced right and typically accurate to a fault.
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: Whitworth]
#186143
11/08/2017 5:15 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,669
Chance Weldon
Distinguished Expert
|
Distinguished Expert
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,669 |
My S&W Model 460 surprised me the last time I shot it: Five shots, .910" at 100 yards off a benchrest. The load was 200 grain Barnes XPBs over 46.0 grains of Accurate No.9. I would have been perfectly content with a group twice that size at that range. This probably isn't the best standard to hold a revolver to, though. My 460 is more akin to a specialty pistol than a revolver in terms of size and shooting requirements.
Formerly TN Lone Wolf
"We are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided." - J.K. Rowling
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: Chance Weldon]
#186158
11/09/2017 1:03 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 189
spinsail
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 189 |
Whitworth, I may be jumping to conclusions, but from the photos in your book it seems you may favor shorter barrels on your revolvers. Do you find this helps with the good accuracy you get?
If I can go a little off topic on my own thread, what are the factors that lead you to decide on a particular barrel length?
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: spinsail]
#186164
11/09/2017 4:13 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 306
BushytailBasher
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 306 |
Well I can't answer for Whit but mine is legality which is minimum 5 inches here and how it carries and handles. Personally I like the feel and packing of 4 5/8 and it still shoots plenty good but its not legal for deer here. If you need barrel length solely for power you need a bigger cartridge...
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: spinsail]
#186169
11/09/2017 1:52 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836
Whitworth
Shootist
|
Shootist
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836 |
Whitworth, I may be jumping to conclusions, but from the photos in your book it seems you may favor shorter barrels on your revolvers. Do you find this helps with the good accuracy you get?
If I can go a little off topic on my own thread, what are the factors that lead you to decide on a particular barrel length? Even when I have an optic on a revolver, I prefer a shorter barrel. I like 5 1/2-inches and shorter on a single-action. For me, it still needs to be packable and is the whole essence of handgun hunting. The shorter barrels have no bearing on accuracy. Some folks have trouble with the shorter sight radius when using open irons, but there is nothing inherently less accurate about a shorter barrel.
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: Chance Weldon]
#186170
11/09/2017 1:53 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836
Whitworth
Shootist
|
Shootist
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836 |
My S&W Model 460 surprised me the last time I shot it: Five shots, .910" at 100 yards off a benchrest. The load was 200 grain Barnes XPBs over 46.0 grains of Accurate No.9. I would have been perfectly content with a group twice that size at that range. This probably isn't the best standard to hold a revolver to, though. My 460 is more akin to a specialty pistol than a revolver in terms of size and shooting requirements. That's just a really accurate revolver, an accurate load, and great shooting. All the necessary elements are aligned here. You've done really well - keep it up!
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: spinsail]
#186180
11/09/2017 11:32 PM
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,502
reflex264
Gun Slinger
|
Gun Slinger
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,502 |
Last edited by reflex264; 11/09/2017 11:34 PM.
"A quiet hit in the right place is better than a loud miss in the wrong place followed by 10 more shots on the run"
I was a handgun hunter, when handgun wasn't cool.....
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: reflex264]
#186182
11/10/2017 12:36 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 189
spinsail
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 189 |
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: Chance Weldon]
#186206
11/10/2017 3:10 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,608
s4s4u
Shootist
|
Shootist
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,608 |
Five shots, .910" at 100 yards off a benchrest. That's some fine shootin', Chance.
Rod, too.
Short cuts often lead to long recoveries.
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: s4s4u]
#186208
11/10/2017 4:45 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,155
Gregg Richter
Distinguished Expert
|
Distinguished Expert
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,155 |
Five shots, .910" at 100 yards off a benchrest. That's some fine shootin', Chance. X2!
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: reflex264]
#186213
11/10/2017 10:25 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,608
s4s4u
Shootist
|
Shootist
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,608 |
Nice shootin' with the shortie, reflex!
Rod, too.
Short cuts often lead to long recoveries.
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: s4s4u]
#186214
11/10/2017 11:15 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,512
Ernie
Distinguished Master
|
Distinguished Master
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,512 |
Sub MOA at with a revolver at 100 yards is always awesome.
Ernie the Un-Tactical
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: Ernie]
#186219
11/11/2017 2:43 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 189
spinsail
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 189 |
Reflex, what model scope mount and rings do you have on that revolver?
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: spinsail]
#186245
11/12/2017 5:34 PM
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,502
reflex264
Gun Slinger
|
Gun Slinger
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,502 |
Leupold mount and rings and a Leupold m8-2.5 EER scope. My eyes have become a little weaker since I shot that group. I am switching over to 2.5x8 scopes.
"A quiet hit in the right place is better than a loud miss in the wrong place followed by 10 more shots on the run"
I was a handgun hunter, when handgun wasn't cool.....
|
|
|
Re: The Standard For Accuracy
[Re: reflex264]
#186920
11/28/2017 8:33 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,757
cottonstalk
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,757 |
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence,try orderin' someone else's dog around" unknown cowboy
|
|
|
|
0 registered members (),
76
guests, and 3
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|