I don’t have one of the long tubes, but my 6” M28-2 is a tack driver. If the shooter does his job .......
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
most accurate .357 revolver
- Thread starter robvasi
- Start date
Scharfschuetzer
Member
Lots of factors to consider other than the chamber-throat-barrel-rifling twist factors.
Trigger pull (DA & SA) as well as how well the grip fits and if there is any looseness in an adjustable sight. Barrel length is definitely a factor, especially for older eyes as well as if the front sight reflects light in the sun, thus disturbing your sight picture.
With all that said, my two favorite and accurate 357 revolvers were a 6" Model 19 and my current 6" Model 27.
My 4" Model 19 and my 6" Model 27. Both targets were shot at 25 yards from the weaver stance double action. The weight of the 27 really helps keep it steady on target.
Trigger pull (DA & SA) as well as how well the grip fits and if there is any looseness in an adjustable sight. Barrel length is definitely a factor, especially for older eyes as well as if the front sight reflects light in the sun, thus disturbing your sight picture.
With all that said, my two favorite and accurate 357 revolvers were a 6" Model 19 and my current 6" Model 27.
My 4" Model 19 and my 6" Model 27. Both targets were shot at 25 yards from the weaver stance double action. The weight of the 27 really helps keep it steady on target.
Attachments
BigBill
Absent Comrade
My 6” python with my 140gr JHP reloads at 100yds I could ping any small rock on the berm. I never tried my reloads in my other 357 magnums yet.
bluetopper
Member
From my experience older model 27's are very accurate only with jacketed full charge 357 loads. With downloaded 357's and 38's, K frames will out shoot them handily.
My 6" Model 19 and 6" Model 66 both compare well to my Model 17-3 and K-22 Pre-Model 17.
That however is based on shooting from a standing position at targets from 25 to 100 yards. I've never compared them shooting from a rest.
The actual differences are in terms of the load and the recoil.
You need a lot of practice with a revolver to be really good with it from an unsupported position. When the recoil is significant, you need even more practice and some additional care not to start anticipating the shot. .22 LR is a lot less expensive than .357 Magnum (or .38 Special), so most shooters will shoot a Model 17 a lot more than a Model 19 or Model 66, and the almost zero recoil with .22 LR makes it an excellent round for training purposes when the goal is developing the sight alignment, grip and trigger control needed for long range accuracy.
It's also easier to find an accurate .22 LR load than it is to find or develop a really accurate .357 Magnum load. Most folks looking for accuracy are more likely to shoot a .38 Special target load, and .38 Special tends to be a little easier to develop for target load purposes.
But, at the end of the day, you have to become a really good revolver shooter before you stop being the limiting factor in accuracy.
That however is based on shooting from a standing position at targets from 25 to 100 yards. I've never compared them shooting from a rest.
The actual differences are in terms of the load and the recoil.
You need a lot of practice with a revolver to be really good with it from an unsupported position. When the recoil is significant, you need even more practice and some additional care not to start anticipating the shot. .22 LR is a lot less expensive than .357 Magnum (or .38 Special), so most shooters will shoot a Model 17 a lot more than a Model 19 or Model 66, and the almost zero recoil with .22 LR makes it an excellent round for training purposes when the goal is developing the sight alignment, grip and trigger control needed for long range accuracy.
It's also easier to find an accurate .22 LR load than it is to find or develop a really accurate .357 Magnum load. Most folks looking for accuracy are more likely to shoot a .38 Special target load, and .38 Special tends to be a little easier to develop for target load purposes.
But, at the end of the day, you have to become a really good revolver shooter before you stop being the limiting factor in accuracy.
BigBill
Absent Comrade
I tried every 38 cal bullet weight and load. The 2400 powder with the 140gr JHP was the most accurate in my 6” python. I still have some of these loads left I must try them in my m27-2, m28-0 and m28-2. I hope the s&w will surprise me.
gfors
SWCA Member
Preface: I am just a guy, who likes to shoot, having no formal training, but having launched several thousand rounds (7000-ish, WAG) of .38 and .357 store bought target ammo down range (yes it’s time to start reloading). Never shot a Korth, or Dan Wesson...
As others have noted, the human being holding the gun is the biggest accuracy component. Certainly, some guns are built to be more accurate, but it’s the mental and physical human interface, with the tool that is most critical to me, when I’m trying to put holes in paper 25 yards away. My 6” 27-2 may well be the most accurate of them all, from a Ransom rest or a bench, who knows? Maybe it’s one of the 28-2 4”-ers, or the 686-6+ 6”...
These two here are the ones I shoot best, because I shoot them the most.
This 2 1/2” 19-5 is best of my bunch, when it comes to shooting 158 grain .357’s. I think the short barrel is a benefit. Sure, there’s the 10 foot fireball and the dust-tornadoes it sends down range...FUN! But I think the shorter recoil moment helps it’s accuracy, out to 25 yards, never shot it further, but i would think 50 is a stretch.
This 4” Model 66 is a former LE gun. It, too, likes 158 grain .357’s, but it really shines, with 158 grain .38 Specials.
If I do my part, I can get close to 3” groups, 2 hand double-action, or one hand, single action, not great, but getting better...when I start making 1 1/2” clover leafs, at 25 yards, it will be time, for me, to revisit “which gun is the most accurate?”
As others have noted, the human being holding the gun is the biggest accuracy component. Certainly, some guns are built to be more accurate, but it’s the mental and physical human interface, with the tool that is most critical to me, when I’m trying to put holes in paper 25 yards away. My 6” 27-2 may well be the most accurate of them all, from a Ransom rest or a bench, who knows? Maybe it’s one of the 28-2 4”-ers, or the 686-6+ 6”...
These two here are the ones I shoot best, because I shoot them the most.
This 2 1/2” 19-5 is best of my bunch, when it comes to shooting 158 grain .357’s. I think the short barrel is a benefit. Sure, there’s the 10 foot fireball and the dust-tornadoes it sends down range...FUN! But I think the shorter recoil moment helps it’s accuracy, out to 25 yards, never shot it further, but i would think 50 is a stretch.
This 4” Model 66 is a former LE gun. It, too, likes 158 grain .357’s, but it really shines, with 158 grain .38 Specials.
If I do my part, I can get close to 3” groups, 2 hand double-action, or one hand, single action, not great, but getting better...when I start making 1 1/2” clover leafs, at 25 yards, it will be time, for me, to revisit “which gun is the most accurate?”
Attachments
oddshooter
Member
Now days at 70, I shoot a lot of scoped revolvers testing my handloads.
The scopes, bench rested, takes the shooter out of the equation as much as possible. This exercise tells me which ammo shoots well in general and which ones in a particular gun.
Until you can take the shooter and the ammo out of the equation, you'll never know accurate the gun is.
I think it was David Bradshaw who said shooting silhouette at 100 yards is when you find out how accurate a gun is; or something similar. I tend to agree.
If you're not a national champion; standing, shooting off hand is testing the shooter, not the gun.
For an exercise, I would love for someone to take (10) 357's and shoot the same ammo through them all for group size.
Then take the worst 357 gun from the first test and test it with different ammo until you found the best combo.
I'm not sure the worst gun matched with it's best ammo might not equal the first winner.
I've had revolvers at 25 yards that shot 4" groups to start and when I found their ammo match I was getting under 1" groups.
In other words, I'm not sure that the best accuracy is achieved by buying the most accurate gun. We may be better off spending our time and money on finding the right ammo for the one you have.
Prescut
My most accurate 357 is a Ruger Maximum and a Dan Wesson SuperMag. Does that count?
The scopes, bench rested, takes the shooter out of the equation as much as possible. This exercise tells me which ammo shoots well in general and which ones in a particular gun.
Until you can take the shooter and the ammo out of the equation, you'll never know accurate the gun is.
I think it was David Bradshaw who said shooting silhouette at 100 yards is when you find out how accurate a gun is; or something similar. I tend to agree.
If you're not a national champion; standing, shooting off hand is testing the shooter, not the gun.
For an exercise, I would love for someone to take (10) 357's and shoot the same ammo through them all for group size.
Then take the worst 357 gun from the first test and test it with different ammo until you found the best combo.
I'm not sure the worst gun matched with it's best ammo might not equal the first winner.
I've had revolvers at 25 yards that shot 4" groups to start and when I found their ammo match I was getting under 1" groups.
In other words, I'm not sure that the best accuracy is achieved by buying the most accurate gun. We may be better off spending our time and money on finding the right ammo for the one you have.
Prescut
My most accurate 357 is a Ruger Maximum and a Dan Wesson SuperMag. Does that count?
Last edited:
gman51
Member
For me it isn't which gun is most accurate. It is which gun am I most accurate shooting with. Mine is my S&W 627-5 .357.
There was so much hupla about how accurate the FN 5-7 is but I was lucky to hit the side of the barn with mine. It might have been because the gun was so light in weight. It felt sort of like a squirt gun in hand. For me I think it depends a lot how a gun fits my hand for trigger reach.
Over the years I was often buying guns due to the hoopla about how accurate they were. Ha! I sold most of those guns. I agree it isn't so much the arrow as it is the Indian. I think in the old days I might have been very thin without a grocery store to buy my meat.
There was so much hupla about how accurate the FN 5-7 is but I was lucky to hit the side of the barn with mine. It might have been because the gun was so light in weight. It felt sort of like a squirt gun in hand. For me I think it depends a lot how a gun fits my hand for trigger reach.
Over the years I was often buying guns due to the hoopla about how accurate they were. Ha! I sold most of those guns. I agree it isn't so much the arrow as it is the Indian. I think in the old days I might have been very thin without a grocery store to buy my meat.
Last edited:
mike campbell
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 542
- Reaction score
- 1,560
Practicing for IHMSA competition in the 80's I shot a 5-shot, 5" group on a paper ram @ 220 yds with an 8" Python....with iron sights.
Last summer, with eyes that are now 40 years older, I decided to take the Indian out of the equation and do some Ransom testing.
This 4" model 66 shot several 10 shot groups of <2" @ 50 yards.
All with the dreaded 125HP.
Last summer, with eyes that are now 40 years older, I decided to take the Indian out of the equation and do some Ransom testing.
This 4" model 66 shot several 10 shot groups of <2" @ 50 yards.
All with the dreaded 125HP.
My model 17-6 is a full lug, so I'd like to have a revolver in .357 that is also full lug, in an L frame.
gfors
SWCA Member
Get a 586 if you want them to "match", or a 686, if it will be in the elements a lot.
The 617 6" that I just bought yesterday feels very similar to my 686-6+ 6", weight-wise.
For me it was a 2.5” 19-4 that shot like a laser. I have several that shoot VERY well, but this was exceptional. Stupid me traded it for a nice rifle I no longer have.
Funny you should say that. When I first saw my 4” 17-6 sitting in the used gun case at Scheels I thought it was a 586.
Attachments
Since I plan to use my 17-6 and the .357 for target shooting, they don't have to match in color. Weight and feel are more important.
So, I like your idea of a 686.
Thank you!
SLT223
Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 3,447
- Reaction score
- 5,371
The 620 has a strong reputation for being very accurate. I have have two large safes full of S&W's from the 50's to today. It's the most accurate in the collection that I can tell. The 620 is the gun I use for accuracy testing handloads. I actually rely on it as a tool for this purpose, and thus have a second one LNIB for back up.
3rdgeargrndrr
Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,162
- Reaction score
- 1,193
The Indians who couldn't master the bow and arrow were called ' Vegans'
I am not a 'Vegan'... enough said.
Reminds me of the comedian who said,
“We are an entitled welfare generation. Our forefathers were cruel *******s. If you were hungry they gave you a gun. If you were homeless they gave you an axe. Try that today ”
Similar threads
