How accurate should a 4 inch revolver be?

[tacotime]

Some recent outings with a 4 inch 15-6 (the wide groups troubling me currently) brings up the question of what groups should a 4 inch revolver be able to do at 15 yards, or 25?

I said the 15-6 was disappointing me with 3.5 inch groups at 15 yards. Someone replied that it was a combat revolver, implying I was expecting too much. Why should a combat revolver be any less accurate at short range?

What group size should an average 4 inch S&W revolver print at 15 or 25?

Thanks.

 

[SixGunHunter]

How are you "testing" the accuarcy?

Are you holding the revolver and firing or from a rest?

Let's not forget Ammo! Huge difference here!

 

[redbos]

Try different ammo, fire from a rest. One of my 4 inch Model 66's makes me look like a pro, I am def not!.......

 

[18DAI]

I've got three 4 inch K-frames that will print 1" groups at 15 yards. My 4" 66-2 will put all 6 rounds on one of those nickle sized bullet patches for a Shoot-N-See target.

As far as 25 yards goes, I don't see that well to shoot teeny tiny groups at that range. During qualifications I put all 12 rounds into under 3 inches at 25 yards. Thats my bad eyes though, no fault of the guns.

So, depending on the shooter, I'd say 2" or less at 15 yards and 3 inches or less at 25 yards with any 4 inch service revolver using factory ammunition is what I would expect.

I would use some JB Borebright and clean the bore real well on that model 15. Check your barrel cylinder gap too. Should be about .006

Then I'd try some accurate ammunition like Remington or Speer and see how it does then. Good luck! Hope this helps! Regards 18DAI

 

[Az. revolver fan]

I have a .357 "Mountain Gun" ('99 model, no lock, 7-shooter w/ half lug)
that will group under 2"@ 25yds. w/ a variety of .38 and .357 loads from a sandbag rest. I have had two 4" Model 19's and a 4" 629 that would print under 3"@ 25yds. w/ loads they liked from a sandbag rest. All three of those guns were of early '90's manufacture.

 

[Revolver-time]

I had a 2 1/2 inch 15 that grouped as well as my 25-2 6". My most accurate revolver isn't a Smith but a 4 5/8 inch Ruger Blackhawk. To be fair though, the Ruger has had some work done.

 

[tacotime]

Method is single action, no rest, two handed hold at 15 yards. About 8 different loads tried. I think it should be able to do 1.5 to 1.75, at least under 2 inches.

 

[scooter123]

Try this. Take the barrel in one hand and the frame in the other and see if you can wiggle the barrel in the frame. Next, take a close look at the crown of the muzzle, specifically look for damage caused by it being dropped. If you can't wiggle the barrel or don't see any damage to the crown IMO you can expect group sizes of 1.5 inch or less at 15 yards. If you can find some 147 gr. wadcutters you can probably cut that group size in half. If your groups are larger than this, you can expect that the problem is with the person holding the gun.

 

[arjay]

That's not bad shooting,but it tells you little about the gun itself.A good solid rest and a variety of quality ammo will tell you more,and then practice,practice and more practice.

 

[AveragEd]

The primary difference between a 4" gun and one with a longer barrel is the longer barrel's increased sight radius. Simply put, the longer that radius, the less a slight sight misalignment will affect the point of impact. So you can say that both guns are equally accurate from a strictly mechanical perspective.

Now this may be perceived as bragging, but back in the mid-70s, I bought my first handgun of any kind, a 4" S&W Model 19 with target trigger, hammer and stocks. I was a LOT younger then and had good eyes. I went to my club's 25-yard indoor range three nights each week for a winter with the goal being keeping 50 shots in the black of a regulation 25-yard slow-fire pistol target offhand with 148-grain LHBWC handloads. I did that twice with that Model 19 and had six or fewer flyers countless times. Long story short, those 4" suckers will shoot if you can point them right!

Now my centerfire bullseye gun is a 6" Model 66-2 with the "three-Ts" and a Millett rear sight but for some reason, it isn't as accurate as that old Model 19.

You don't think it could be the shooter, do you?

Ed

 

[mbliss57]

I wish I could do that with any factory revolver off hand at 15 yards. The middle 6" of the target at 15 yards with those sights is completely covered by the front post. I have the same gun in Model 67. How are you expecting better results without a rest? I think your gun and ammo are fine. If you want better results you need different sights or different expectations or a target revolver. It's a "Combat Masterpiece" It's intended use is close quarter combat not target competition. JMO

 

[BubbaBlades]

S&W model15 vs dot.MOV - YouTube
The above Youtube link shows me shooting my unmodified S&W Model 15 at a 1" shoot'n'see dot at a distance of 25 yards. One of my other videos on Youtube show me shooting a S&W Model 29 at a 1/2" dot also at 25 yards. It has been my experience (having shot more than 100 different S&W revolvers) that most S&W revolvers are capable of shooting groups far smaller than most people believe possible. As others have said, shorter barrel length is not a major accuracy concern other than making sight alignment more difficult.

Mark

 

[Dave Nash]

Some recent outings with a 4 inch 15-6 (the wide groups troubling me currently) brings up the question of what groups should a 4 inch revolver be able to do at 15 yards, or 25?

I said the 15-6 was disappointing me with 3.5 inch groups at 15 yards. Someone replied that it was a combat revolver, implying I was expecting too much. Why should a combat revolver be any less accurate at short range?

What group size should an average 4 inch S&W revolver print at 15 or 25?

Thanks.

“tacotime”

First, I should tell you that I am pretty much in agreement with most (but certainly not all) of what has been said here so far.

However, there are a few other things to consider.

I would assume that you are asking this question because you are not an experienced revolver shooter. There is certainly nothing wrong with that as everybody has to start somewhere but it brings up your skill level as a bigger part of this equation than it might be otherwise.

If you are a regular shooter of another single projectile firearm, then perhaps you understand what “grouping” is all about. If not, then that’s OK too but if you do, are you getting some sort of clustering here with some number of flyers per cylinder. Or are the shots within the 3½” “groups” that you mention always just a random scattering on the target?

If there is nothing resembling a cluster within that 3½” “group”, then to be honest, it could be the gun, the ammo or you.

If you don’t shoot a handgun (of any kind) very much and are lucky to have a friend that does (and who is someone who doesn’t just send lead downrange but is something of a fair or decent shot), I would have him or her shoot the gun “as is” with the same ammo, at the same distance, with the same targets, and under the same conditions in terms of lighting and weather (if you are outside).

If they can normally group their shots well and if they are a revolver shooter, weigh their performance against yours and decide if it is you or the gun or the ammo.

Personally, I think that you should be getting groups with a gun like yours that hover around half or, in most cases, less-than-half of what you reported. You are firing .38’s in a gun chambered for .38’s and not .357’s (in theory, a good thing) and you have adjustable sights. The sights don’t make the gun any more accurate mechanically but (again, in theory), they offer many people a crisper or more defined picture on the target than seen in many (not all) fixed sighted revolvers.

Interesting to me (and with all due respect to “mbliss57” as well) is the remark you said was made by “someone” (and the perception it reflects) implying that as a “combat revolver”, all one could expect was “combat accuracy”. In its infancy within the marketplace, your gun was referred to as a “Combat Masterpiece” as a nod toward its potential use as a “fighting” rather than a “target” weapon. It was a marketing term; not a defining one in terms of performance. It was a way of explaining the use for the modifications made to what had been primarily a competition gun.

However, in more recent years as pistols (not revolvers) have worked their way into daily use (for defense, for plinking, for target shooting, whatever) from their original roles as fighting or “combat” guns first, the word has taken on a slightly different meaning. And, at the same time, the concept of "service" pistols or “service” weapons in general (that is, guns pressed into Law Enforcement or Military “Service”) often began to mean guns with only “service accuracy” (often thought of as something informally approaching 3-4” at 25 yards).

But to be honest, even that is better than what you are reporting. So again, I think that by design (not necessarily manufacture) the revolver you have is capable of far better accuracy than you are experiencing.

(A side note at this point, if I might: you described those 3½” "groups" as “wide groups”. Are they? Or is that just a figure of speech? Are they routinely and regularly wider than they are taller? Or again, are the shots merely a random scattering on the paper? Such things (and other ways of recognizing and reading anything resembling a “pattern” within the “groups” you mention) can be helpful in diagnosing this issue.

Additionally, and as you can probably tell by now, if you (or a friend that you can press into service) are not known to be capable of holding (at a minimum) 2” at 15 yards with a gun like this, then I am afraid that “resting” the gun (normally a great option for wringing out a gun in terms of potential accuracy) isn’t something that will easily help you in determining what is going on here either; especially if you don’t already know how to do it. For there are various ways to “rest” a gun: some good and some bad; and there are a lot of mistakes to be made either way. If you don’t know “how” to do this, then now is not the time to learn.

If under the same shooting conditions that you have used in the past, your friend gets significantly better “groups” with the same gun and ammo, then you can almost assume that the issue lies with you. But if he or she gets the same results you do, I would try different ammo (again under the same conditions). And I would buy something decent, not “surplus” and probably from a domestic manufacturer. I would also stick with something resembling a target load in either (or both) 148gr and 158gr lead bullet configurations. And I would also try different makers for there can be group-affecting qualities from one brand to the next. Also, if at any time, you buy multiple boxes of the same ammo, I would check the packaging so as to stay within the same “lot” number, as there can be variations in this regard too.

That said, looking at what you are experiencing (3½” “groups” at 15 yards), if it is not you, then I’m afraid that I really don’t think that the ammo will make that much of a difference. For again, this group size seems a little extreme to me. Still, at this point, it is worth a try in what is still a process of elimination. Next, if you are sure that it is not you and if you (or your skilled friend) don’t see any difference with different ammo, then it could be the gun.

I am not disputing any of the gun-related suggestions made by others so far in this thread but it can be far more complex than has been indicated in those other posts.

As to the barrel alone, it could not only be damage to the muzzle causing problems but it could be an incorrectly held bore diameter, out of spec rifling dimensions, a poor rifling profile, a lack of concentricity between the bore and the rifling centerlines, or more. Another interesting problem can be a mismatch (for a variety of reasons) of the diameter of the barrel (and its threads) and the hole in the frame into which it mounts (and its threads). Not only can the barrel be loose (as was suggested previously by someone else) but in some cases, it can actually be “crushed” at that point causing the bullet to be swaged to an undersized dimension to then rattle its way down the barrel rather than be stabilized by it.

And as long as we’re at that end of things, there can be numerous issues with the forcing cone alone, as well as with it and the barrel being square to the cylinder.

The cylinder can be a problem too for not only are there all kinds of machining and assembly issues related to each of the chamber centerlines being properly lined up with centerline of the bore (and yes, the forcing cone can make up for some mismatching in that regard) but if the ball end of each chamber is not of the right dimension or if it is out of spec, there can be all kinds of issues of the bullet either leaving the cylinder in an uncontrolled manner or, conversely, being swaged down to an undersized-for-the-bore diameter and not being properly stabilized by the rifling in the barrel.

There can also be issues of timing where (when generally, but not always, firing double action) the hammer falls and the bullet is subsequently launched before the chamber “times up” in line with the barrel.

There is more, but I think that you get the idea.

So, if it was me, and if I felt that I either couldn’t tell if I or the gun was causing the problem (or if I knew for sure that it was the gun that was at issue), I would send it back to the factory and not only have them look at it but whether they work on it or not, supply you with a representative test target shot after you explained the matter to them.

Either they will see a problem with it or they might see the problem lies with you. Either way, you’ll know and can take action to have things “fixed” (either by working on the gun or on your personal skills).

[You might also want to take a look at this post for it talks about the accuracy seen in what, in essence is merely a heavy-barreled 6” version of your gun with a still slightly more perceptible (to some people) front sight: “Origins of the Model 14 Full Lug & An Introduction to the SWCA”. Mechanically, the two are pretty much the same thing so while the features it has might make that gun a bit more user friendly in terms of the accuracy the user can obtain from it, physically (in regard to how it is made and the dimensions and relationships I discussed earlier) they are very much alike. Just a thought in maybe helping you see the big picture here.]

I hope all of this helps.

 

[AveragEd]

I didn't read all of Dave's post above, so he may have covered this. You mentioned the front sight blocks most of the target's bull - try using a "6:00 hold" where you place the bull on top of the aligned sights. That's how I was taught to shoot and I use that method today with all open sights. That way, the intended target is never out of your view or blocked by anything.

Ed

 

[tacotime]

I go back to 1978 with revolvers, including a good many hits on a soda can at 100 yards with my old Colt 22 Diamondback, so I feel like I should be able to get at least average accuracy out of this 15-6 at 15 yards.

Groups are scattered but generally more horizontal than vertical as I recall (the targets were left somewhere else last weekend).

Not finished testing yet. I'll be sure any lead is out and try some
more factory 158 LRN, since they were best so far, but not by much from the other 7 or 8 loads tested.

I can't find any mechanical or machining issues, so back to the range, but now I have the opinions I was looking for that this 15-6 should do much better than it did last weekend. The investigation continues...

Thanks.

 

[fighter62]

My three inch 65 and one of my three inch CS-1's ( thats for sale ) will do A-ZONE hits everytime when I do my part.

 

[oldafsp]

2 inch group, firing two hand hold, single action at 15 yds...

I don't see a problem. Why the concern? That tells me that you have more than just basic skills with a handgun.

Do you feel confident enough with it in your hand to stop an attacker at 15 yds if your life depended on it? If yes, good. If no,then buy a K-38 6 inch, load up match grade ammo and have fun.

That gun will do the job. You've already proven that in my book.

 

[Dave Nash]

I go back to 1978 with revolvers, including a good many hits on a soda can at 100 yards with my old Colt 22 Diamondback, so I feel like I should be able to get at least average accuracy out of this 15-6 at 15 yards.

Groups are scattered but generally more horizontal than vertical as I recall (the targets were left somewhere else last weekend).

Not finished testing yet. I'll be sure any lead is out and try some
more factory 158 LRN, since they were best so far, but not by much from the other 7 or 8 loads tested.

I can't find any mechanical or machining issues, so back to the range, but now I have the opinions I was looking for that this 15-6 should do much better than it did last weekend. The investigation continues...

Thanks.

If you have been shooting revolvers since 1978, then you should have some idea of not only your own skill level but also what “average accuracy out of this 15-6 at 15 yards” really should be and again, I don’t think that you’re getting anywhere close to it.

And while horizontal rather than vertical stringing can sometimes be more indicative of shooter-induced conditions (pushing the gun to the side either as an act of pressing the trigger or in the course of following through after it breaks), if the widening appears to be a consistent thing (again something that yields routine clustering rather than random patterning), it could still be an issue with the gun.

If you are capable with other guns (other revolvers) of 2” or smaller groups at 15 yards, then I would point to the gun as the problem and send it back as I recommended.

And if you are not sure if it is you or the gun, I would still send it back and let the factory (by means of what they feel is a satisfactory test target) show you what the gun is capable of doing “as is” and or after they have addressed any issues they might find.

Finally, and in regard to the testing you have yet to complete…
Again, if you know that with other revolvers that you can achieve at least 2” groups (smaller, much smaller, is better) at 15 yards, I would try a simple (but unfortunately time consuming and perhaps tedious to some) test.
Use a grease pencil (or something or someway of not permanently marking the gun or interfering with its operation) and number or indicate the individual chambers in the cylinder.
Then, one at a time, load and fire five or six rounds out of chamber Number One ONLY into a fresh target.
Then, one at a time, load and fire five or six rounds out of chamber Number Two ONLY into a second fresh target.
And so on, until you have done this with all six chambers.
Some people will use more than six rounds per chamber but that is up to you, your skill level and your patience.
Compare the six targets and see if one or more of the chambers might be causing the overall group sizes that you experienced previously with normal loading and firing.
What you might find is that certain chambers group tightly as expected but that others might scatter their shots or, perhaps, routinely send them to somewhere other than the same point of aim (and resulting point of impact) than the rest.
This won’t “fix” the problem but if it is merely one chamber, you can always learn to live with it and if it is either one or more, it is something you can include in your report when you send the gun back to the factory.

Note that all of this is predicated on my failing to understand (or ask) the first time around as to how many rounds you fired each time to got those original 3½” groups at 15 yards. Was it merely six rounds (as it should have been) or did you fire multiple cylinders-full into the paper before measuring (which could have introduced other issues into the mix). If you can, let me know that. And if you can, try this one chamber-at-a-time test.

But again remember (and at no time am I trying to be insulting here), all of this is based on your ability to shoot well enough (yourself) to actually be able to wring out the potential I believe a gun like this should present if nothing is wrong with it (or the ammo you are using).

Hope this helps and I really respect your interest in getting to the bottom of this for the gun should shoot a lot better than it appears to be at the moment.

 

[BobC357]

I use hand loads for accuracy. Every round is the same and the powder selected to fill the case so there is no powder slope (burn the same). Use a rest or gun vise to insure no gun movemment. If its ok that way, its not the gun.

 

[tacotime]

No insult, good information, appreciated for sure.

All the groups were 6 shots, fully independent of the others.

By the way, what is the preferred method of casual rest shooting? I'm on a pasture range, not indoor, but I can get up a bench. I'm all for eliminating as many external variables as possible.

I had been thinking of the one-cylinder test already because the extractor looks slightly funny to me on this gun. At least four of the crescent edges by the case rim show a little indent, either worn in or machined, to varying depths and distance around the rim, and two positions have little if any indent. But the gun doesn't show much firing to me, so I doubt the worn-in possibility. Maybe just a poorly machined extractor hub.

On those with a visible indent, the indent is not necessarily concentric with the edge itself. The indent is not very deep - not as if the extractor was for a recessed cylinder.

I need to see about posting a photo.

There is a little bit of play in the extractor, allowing a very slight rotation of the hub, but more than I recall on some other guns.

B/C gap is .007 and total headspace appears to be .068. Timing seems perfect. Cylinder-barrel alignment seems visually ok. Lockup seems average to good. Notches, hand, stop and windows appear straight and not marred. B/C gap looks uniform and straight as the cylinder spins. Cone and crown undamaged. No barrel bulge.

Maybe I could "slug" the barrel to check for a crushed cone?

On a few rounds, a little lead was seen on the frame just right of the cone. Not much of a deposit on the top strap after 50 rounds.

Comments are welcome, and I will be on the range this weekend and update the findings...

Thanks!