Accuracy: Revolvers vs. Semi-autos

[Research Nerd]

Went to the range saturday with my buddy who brought several revolvers. I brought my Sig P250 that I'm still getting used to.

I realized that I'm much more accurate shooting revolvers than I am semi-autos. I would pick up a revolver I haven't fired before and get some really nice groups. My P250, I enjoy, but I have to get used to the trigger.

I'm just curious, but do y'all feel like you have better accuracy with revolvers or semi-autos. I was taking my time, making sure I was aiming properly. Just seemed like it was much easier to shoot a "new" revolver than a "new" semi-auto.

Curious to see what the group thinks,

Thanks for your time,:confused

 

[quinn]

For me it depends solely on the gun... in large part the ergonomics (I think that is the correct term). Years ago I picked up a WWII vintage 32 Mauser that was like pointing a finger. It shot exactly where I looked. I have a Colt Woodsman that is the same way... it is instinctive. My 1911 Colt took lots of practice and still takes some concentration. Some revolvers are the same way. My 66 and 686 2.5" guns just won't miss while some other revolvers seem to have a steeper learning curve. In addition to the shape of the gun/grip/barrel I find certain sights easier and certain triggers more natural. My Sigs (239, 226, & 220) are kind of midway on the learning curve.
So, I don't think there is any right answer to your question. Go for the gun that feels natural to you and just wants to put 'em in the X ring to please you.

 

[InTheWoods]

Are you shooting the revolver single or double action? There is a big difference between the inherent accuracy of handguns and their 'shootability.' Much of this relates to trigger pull.

Most autos are hampered by their trigger pulls. I find it much easier to hit a small target at a distance with a revolver shooting it single action. I can shoot my 1911s almost as well because they are one of the few autos capable of having a finely tuned trigger (but not as good as a Smith and Wesson revolver).

I shoot revolvers double action about as well as I shoot most non-1911 autos. I hunt and hike with a revolver because I may get a medium to long shot at game and really like that crisp single-action trigger pull a Smith and Wesson revolver gives me. My Smith and Wesson 41 is my most accurate and most 'shootable' handgun I own, but it is a very 'target' orientated gun.

Almost all formal bullseye target shooting is done with autos, if that tells you anything. These particular guns, though, are often expensive and have very finely tuned triggers.

 

[Joe in SC]

A revolver is generally easier to learn to shoot well. There are some autos out there that are difficult because of their trigger system. The double action autos are in that class. Personally I believe the 1911 autos can be made more accurate than revolvers. It just costs more money to achieve this. Also, the single action rimfire target autos can be made more accurate than revolvers of the same caliber.

 

[M3Stuart]

For me, IMHO, etc, : I would say it depends on: Practice with THAT gun, sight radius, sights (AS or fixed), weight of the gun (esp. for extended shooting times), and trigger - in no particular order.
* Single action revolver, for me, is more accurate than SA Semi-auto. Forget those long DAO semi's - I can't shoot them any better than a revo in DA. That's the crisp S&W SA trigger IMHO.
* heavier gun = wobbly hand after an hour or two.
* longer sight radius = better accuracy for me.
* lightpost size Adj sights are more accurate for me vs. tiny dots or fixed revo sights. But hey, I'm old and my vision ain't so good...

All that being said; I have a gun with crummy fixed sights, short barrel, etc that I can hit 100% with at 7 yds because I've shot it so much for 15 years. So a couple thousand rounds through the gun probably offsets the inherent issues with the gun itself.

Edit: Hey, that was my 300th post. Do I win a prize?

 

[ckprax]

I have to agree with the above posts. Semi-autos are inherently more accurate than revolvers because there can be minor variations in each chamber of a revolver. A revolver is generally easier to shoot well because of the superior single action trigger, a 1911 is about the only semi-auto that can compare.

I have found that once I could shoot my revolvers well in DA I can pick up most any gun and shoot pretty well.

 

[686 SSR]

I originally had the same question as "Research Nerd." At the time I'd never owned a revolver. Then I made the "mistake" of buying a S&W 686SSR. We decided to take it to an indoor range along with a few semi-autos. Despite our bias to the theoretical accuracy of not having cylinder alignment differences with semi-autos, my wife and I proceeded to cut the center out of any target we attempted with that particular revolver. We both shot far better with the 686 than any pistol we tried, including a Ruger Mark II target!!!

The long and short of it is that I've adopted 686SSR as my log-in name and nearly all of my semi-autos have been traded or sold. This included an HK P7, a Sig 228, a 80 Series Colt Gold Cup, and a Kimber CDP II Pro. All were in pristine condition as they were purchased new and meticiously maintained. (The only semi-auto we've kept is a Kahr K9. It's really accurate and has never had a FTF or FTB. A wonderful pistol.)

The improved accuracy of the 686SSR, a 60 Pro and a Colt Diamondback 38 more than compensate for the exchanges. I cannot completely explain the improved results, but I suspect the revolvers' crisper triggers contributed to our greater accuracy with all of them. The 60 Pro has been the greatest surprise. We did not expect a 3-inch J-frame to be particularly accurate. We were wrong. Despite the stiff coil spring, it too is a great shooter.

Research Nerd - good luck with your decision. It's a tough one.

 

[fyimo]

Well I have both and it's really depends on the gun as I can shoot some of each type (revolver or semi auto) and get excellent results and others of each type not so much.

I will say the single action trigger on my 1911's a Sig P220 SAO carry are better then any other handgun trigger I own and that those triggers really help my shooting.

 

[riverrat38]

I don't have any bottom feeders, but the accuracy tests in the "American Rifleman" done on a Ransom Rest seem to show better accuracy for revolvers than semi's. These tests are usually preformed on factory guns. It may be a different story for guns that have gotten the "money is no object" gunsmith treatment.
I think this is especially true for "pocket carry guns". Some of the tests on small semi auto's showed results so poor that the editors had to change their testing protocol, and run them at 7 yards instead of the usual 25 yard handgun range.

rat

 

[Smith357]

For the same money revolvers win

I'm no expert, just a shooter. I have only been shooting for 35 years so I'm still sorta new at it. I have yet to find any semi automatic in the same price range as my used K38 masterpiece than can come close to to shooting as well. Yes there are a few super tuned race guns, custom built jobs that can keep up with my lowly stock out of the box S&W, but then they cost six to ten times as much. How much is a good shooter grade Model 14 these days? $4-500 ???, I dare you to find a $4-500 semi automatic that can keep up with a Model 14. Or how well could a revolver shoot if I were to drop 2-3k in custom gunsmithing for a pure purpose built hole puncher. The only out of the box semi I have shot that equals or possibly surpasses my M14 is a model 52, they are only double to triple the cost of a revolver.

I believe I have better accuracy with a firearm that has a barrel and sights fixed to the frame rather than a floating barrels and moving sights that may change position buy a half a thousandth between shots.

 

[stantheman86]

It's pretty much universally accepted that stock revolvers are more inherently accurate than stock autoloaders.........but the truth is, most shooters aren't good enough to even see a difference. Like was said above, I'm sure there are many tricked out $3,000 1911 race guns that will shoot rings around my super accurate prized 67-1 with a master action job that is scary accurate to me........but that 67-1 makes a stock Glock look like the barrel is worn out

A Glock 17 will put a 9mm center mass on a man-sized target as well as a S&W 15 can put a .38 slug at the 7-15 yard range most gunfights happen, so in the "real world" comparing a quality auto vs. a quality revolver is largely irrelevant.

The larger magazine capacity and faster reloading that are an advantage to military and LE personnel are worth the .5" groups size loss at 25 yards.

It's like comparing bolt rifles with semi-autos.

For example, military weapons such as M4 Carbines can shoot within a certain group size and still be deemed "serviceable" but these groups would disgust a bench rest shooter with a bolt action match grade rifle.

 

[ContinentalOp]

I'm not as well-versed in a variety of guns like many members here, but I've shot SA 1911s, a DA/SA Beretta 92FS (and the similar Taurus PT92), DA/SA Sigs (a P220 and a P228), a Glock 23 and a Glock 22, and S&W DA revolvers. Out of all those action types, I shot the DA revolver consistently better. I say consistently because I've shot a couple of great groups with the Beretta (including a 4-leaf clover at 25 yards and 4 rounds into the same hole at 5 yards rapid fire) that surpassed my best groups with revolvers, but they tended to be flukes.

When I worked as an armed guard I qualified on .38/357, 9mm, and .45ACP using my issued (and factory stock) S&W Model 10, a Beretta 92FS, and an accurized 1911, respectively. My highest scores were always with the DA revolver and it didn't matter if I shot it first or last. However, I never shot poorly with the semi-autos. IIRC I averaged about 90% with the semi-autos and about 95-96% with the DA revolvers. (I should probably note that at the time I was averaging about 1k rounds/month at the range and at least 3-4 hours of dry fire practice a week, far more than I can manage now.)

I never really understood why I shot the revolver better, even when I practiced 4 or 5 times as much with the semi-autos. My own theory is that the grip angle combined with the rolling trigger feel made it easier for me to get more of a surprise break than the other guns.

 

[chief38]

I have a lot of hand guns, don't exactly know how many at this moment, but the two guns I shoot the best and are most accurate for me are:

#1) Colt Gold Cup National Match Series 70 45 acp - A TRUE TACK DRIVER

#2) S&W Combat Masterpiece (pre M15) - ONE HOLE GROUPS AT 50 ft

There are guns in my collection that are suppose to be more accurate than the Combat Masterpiece like the M14, M19, M27. M586,etc. but for some reason I just shoot the 4" S&W better than I do the rest. Don't really know why, but it is what it is. I shoot the two guns listed above even better than my .22 - M41 Target Gun or the .22 High Standard for that matter as well.

Chief38

 

[TACC1]

Kinda like quinn said...

I am not a "serious" shooter, but have noticed with various
smaller, pocket-style guns, that some will immediately point where
I'm looking, while others are off in one direction or another. That
requires a lot of concentration to acquire and hold POA. Any time
I get in a hurry, you can bet the barrel points to its natural
direction between shots. I guess that would be the ergonomics?
If I've got this wrong, I receive instruction well. TACC1

 

[Snapping Twig]

In a revolver, nothing moves. What is stays that way.

Add to this the more powerful cartridges they will use and if your revolver is within spec for bore, cylinder, forcing cone and muzzle, and your bullets are properly sized - you're good to go.

The sights are typically better too. Made for hunting, whereas a semi isn't.

I'll hit game @ 100 yards all day long and bring it down with good shot placement using a revolver, but most - not all - semi autos won't.

YMMV.

 

[Stu Honea]

Like some others,I think it depends largely on the particular gun. All guns are inherantly accurate,but the gun itself may be a little more accurate than another identical one.

Feel is subjective,but how that gun "feels' to a particular shooter can also make a difference.Then there is the shooter's particular skill which is the biggest determining factor,actually.That skill is only aquired through continuous training and practice in most cases. I say most,because I do believe that there are some who just have a natural ability with firearms. I've seen it too often to question it.

 

[mbliss57]

I have shot a lot of different guns over the years from .22 auto target, 12 gauge slugs for deer, lots of different rifles including .50 cal machine guns... (155mm & 8" howitzers not included). As some have already posted.. for me it all depends on the gun and, usually comes down to "trigger pull and sights". I also agree with someone who said earlier in this post that there is a huge difference between double action vs single action shots for both revolvers and semi autos. When shooting most anything in single action my groupings will tighten up considerably. I took that "Baby Chief Spl" I just acquired last week and my S&W 500 to the range last night. At 25' I was just making the 1st hole bigger. When I switched and shot using double action my "groups" went to 6"plus. I have a Ruger SR9C that just happens to have a great "stock" trigger and I can shoot better groups than when using my S&W MP .45 auto. In fact I plan to do an Apex trigger job on my S&W 45. It's a great shooting gun but I like really smooth, light triggers. "Trigger and Sights" ...the rest is all me and how consistent I am or am not. Any way.. JMHO oh and a pic from lasts nights outing.."The long and Short of It"

 

[jspick]

For me the revolver is easier to shoot than a semi auto if they both are "new to me" guns.

Lots of good info here once again.

John

 

[Trifle]

Went to the range saturday with my buddy who brought several revolvers. I brought my Sig P250 that I'm still getting used to.

I realized that I'm much more accurate shooting revolvers than I am semi-autos. I would pick up a revolver I haven't fired before and get some really nice groups. My P250, I enjoy, but I have to get used to the trigger.

I'm just curious, but do y'all feel like you have better accuracy with revolvers or semi-autos. I was taking my time, making sure I was aiming properly. Just seemed like it was much easier to shoot a "new" revolver than a "new" semi-auto.

Curious to see what the group thinks,

Thanks for your time,:confused

I also had a Sig P250. It was the first gun I purchased after receiving my concealed carry permit. The gun is DAO. The sales rep must have thought I would be safer with it. Never got used to the trigger and could not hit the "broad side of a barn". Traded it in on a S&W 686+. Have both revolvers and semi-automatics. For the automatics my Les Baer .45 ACP and S&W Model 41 are real tack drivers.

 

[brucev]

Went to the range saturday with my buddy who brought several revolvers. I brought my Sig P250 that I'm still getting used to.

I realized that I'm much more accurate shooting revolvers than I am semi-autos. I would pick up a revolver I haven't fired before and get some really nice groups. My P250, I enjoy, but I have to get used to the trigger.

I'm just curious, but do y'all feel like you have better accuracy with revolvers or semi-autos. I was taking my time, making sure I was aiming properly. Just seemed like it was much easier to shoot a "new" revolver than a "new" semi-auto.

Curious to see what the group thinks,

Thanks for your time,:confused

I've been shooting revolvers and pistols for 30 years. In general I find that I can get better results on target with a revolver than I can with a pistol. Theoretically a pistol has a greater potential for accuracy. But in actual shooting, I get better results with revolvers.