.22-caliber accuracy

New or used?

Colt has the new King Cobra in .22 and S&W has the 617. Those both run around $1,000.

Older Colt's include Official Police, Officer Model Match, Police Positive. Older S&W's include K-22's model 17's, etc. All those are generally regarded as being pretty accurate.

From what I have heard the Freedom Arms model 97 is probably the most accurate of all if you've got $3,000 to spend.

There is no such thing to be able to define such a revolver.
Ask 10 people get 100 answers

@Rule3 has it right. You can't just go into the gun shop, plunk down your cash for Brand Whatever, and walk out with the "most accurate revolver".

(@reddog81 kind of has it right too, though: the FA 97 is pretty likely to outshoot just about any .22 on the line...)

There are a few models which aren't always as accurate as we'd want. Bottom end stuff - like Ruger's Wrangler, Heritage's Rough Rider, etc. - are going to be pretty hit-or-miss. Some will be fine and others will be real dogs, so someone looking for top accuracy would do well to spend a bit more money. Otherwise, almost any good .22 revolver is going to outshoot almost any human. Unless you are putting a scope on the thing and benchresting it out to 50+ yards, just about any of them will work as well as anything else.

If I were to buy a NEW revolver it would be the SW M617 4 or 6 inch is up to you.

So much depends on the trigger (you need to get it tuned) and the ammo used.

How it shoots is determined by the person behind the trigger.

Deserthunter said:

I'm not trying to start an argument, know the answer to my question is a judgment call, and appreciate your candor, but surely some revolvers are more accurate than others.

Click to expand...

Realistically, It's a question that is impossible to answer.

What does general target shooting mean? Are you looking for a cheap $150 plinker that's "accurate", or looking for something that will shoot tiny groups at 50 yards?

What's your budget? New or used?

Deserthunter said:

I'm not trying to start an argument, know the answer to my question is a judgment call, and appreciate your candor, but surely some revolvers are more accurate than others.

Click to expand...

On the whole, I have had very good luck with older S&W double actions. Of all the K22s I have played with, the only one that wouldn't outshoot me had been screwed with by somewhat who thought he knew more than he did. So my very general recommendation would be to keep an eye out for an unmolested K22.

My Ruger Single Sixes have always been way more accurate than I am - they have nice triggers and nice big adjustable sights. Most of my cheaper SA 22 revolvers shot okay, but the small sights really limited whatever accuracy was there.

I've had a bunch of DA 22 revolvers. Most were junk. My S&W K22 is awesome. The current model is 617, I think.

Unless you're going to use a Ransom Rest for some kind of technical experiment, the thing that is going to make a revolver shoot accurately is the shooter. Generally speaking, a scope or a red-dot sight is going to give most shooters better results than open sights, especially at longer ranges (20 to 50 yards). This is true regardless of how the revolver is shot.

Fundamentals of marksmanship include sight alignment and sight picture which are both made easier with optical sights. It also includes trigger control. Many people find single-action trigger control easier than double-action. However, singe-action revolvers have longer lock times. Double-action revolvers fired in single-action have shorter lock times and are easier for most people to hold accurately after the trigger press. On the other hand, people's particular goals may favor a certain kind of action. Someone might want to shoot double-action to improve that skill. Another person may favor single-action revolvers because they like western movies or want to do cowboy action shooting or they want to handgun hunt with a single-action big-bore magnum. Accuracy can be attained with either the double-action trigger or the single-action gun if the shooter makes the effort to learn those skills. With skill, they will not be at any disadvantage. But it is easier for an unskilled person to be accurate with a double-action revolver fired in single-action.

For me, I find the longer barrel revolvers with a black patridge front sight to be the easiest to shoot accurately. For me I can't shoot well with fiber front sights, good sights make a big difference. I mostly shoot speed sports like steel plates and bowling pins, my 617's are my favorite for that. I put a 3 MOA Burris FFIII on my GP100 .22 and it now shoots great out to 75 yards, the massive heavy frame makes it very stable. Light weight revolvers are really hard to shoot accurately, grips that fit you also make a big diffference.

.38 Special said:

On the whole, I have had very good luck with older S&W double actions. Of all the K22s I have played with, the only one that wouldn't outshoot me had been screwed with by somewhat who thought he knew more than he did. So my very general recommendation would be to keep an eye out for an unmolested K22.

Click to expand...

This.

Older Smith &Wessons (1950s-70s) can be found for well under $1000 in a variety of barrel lengths. There is a reason they were popular for bullseye competitions, particularly the 6" to 8 3/8" lengths. Take one to the range with some CCI or Federal standard speed ammo. If you miss, it's you, not the gun.

Remember, in general we get what we pay for, and there is no such thing as a free lunch.

I have a Ruger Mark ll with a bull barrel and a 1954 S&W K22 Masterpiece. The K22 is more accurate than the Ruger. I think S&W had an accuracy guarantee on the K22's back in the day.

Deserthunter said:

I'm not trying to start an argument, know the answer to my question is a judgment call, and appreciate your candor, but surely some revolvers are more accurate than others.

Click to expand...

Yes but manufacturing tolerance being what it is there's no telling if that new Smith in the counter will out shoot the new Colt or Ruger or for that fact which of the stack of Smiths they have in the back will be the best shooter.
Next we can get into ammo preferences 22s tend to be an enigma what shoots the best in one may not shoot well in another.

Ammo is important. 22 ammo purchased in 5 gallon buckets tends not to be very accurate in my experience.

Revolvers...I've had a variety of S&W's over the years and with one solitary exception, all were accurate with open sights, and all would produce sub-2" groups at 25yds if the shooter knew what he was doing.

If we're talking about now, today...I'll say that my M-18 Smith and my current (as in less than six months ago), Colt King Cobra .22 Target are neck in neck for accuracy. As a dyed in the wool Smith guy, it pains me to say that he Colt has a better DA trigger pull...tho the Smith still wins in SA. I've not shot either with really high grade target ammunition to date, but with CCI standards or Mini-Mags, either will hold sub-2" at 25 yds on demand. In a word, they are superb.

If we're including autos in the accuracy standings, the M-41 Smith is #1, with the Smith and Colt revolvers mentioned above a very close, miniscule actually, difference. I have a Ruger Standard of ~2010 vintage, skinny 4.5" bbl. that'll do nearly as well and with the cheaper ammunition too. Same with a 4.5" bbl'd Colt Woodsman...A trio of Ruger Single Sixes are not really in the same league; they're good, but suffer from a heavy hammer fall and non-distinguished triggers.

All of the above applies to sand bagged accuracy. For field use with offhand shooting the rule, all are plenty accurate in my hands to 25 yds for head shots on rabbits. For fun shooting, old style, the Single Sixes are really nice.

Given the choice of them all...it'd be close, but at this point in time it's the Smith M-18 by the barest of margins. But note that the new Colt King Cobra .22's are very well made...& for new out of the box, they'd be my choice as the M-18's are getting very hard to find in almost new condition. Regards, Rod....Pic below of five of my .22's. Colt King Cobra: 2nd from left, and the M-18 at the very bottom. Rod

Deserthunter said:

I'm not trying to start an argument, know the answer to my question is a judgment call, and appreciate your candor, but surely some revolvers are more accurate than others.

Click to expand...

Of mine, in my hands, the S&W Model 17 is King, followed by the Colt OMM. I've struggled a bit with my Dan Wesson 22 and the poor Ruger is pretty much a shotgun.....

YMMV, of course.

1954 S&W K22 Masterpiece with after market Altamont target grips. AKA S&W Model 17. Inherited form my dear late father-in-law. They were guaranteed to shoot 2" groups at 50 yards in 1954. Mine hasn't voided it's warranty yet.

My most accurate has been my 6 inch Model 617 for these past 20 years. Groups under an inch with CCI SV at 25 yards from a rest. Double action is set to 7 pounds and is 100 % reliable with Remington Bucket - Of - Bullets.

You're probably looking at a 617 then, though the 6" King Cobra could be a contender with sight and grip upgrades. You might get lucky with the Ruger GP rimfire, but they have a hit-or-miss (lol) reputation for accuracy and availability is spotty.

My most accurate .22 revolvers are my 50’s era S&W pre-18 masterpiece and 6” Colt King Cobra. Even with the 4” barrel and relatively light weight, the S&W will do under an inch at 25 yards with a steady rest and good ammo. Next up is my new Colt King Cobra 6”. Out of the box it would do 2” offhand and 1” or less from a rest. A few days ago I upgraded it with the Kensight Elliason rear, which offers a much improved sight picture at the cost of a bit of bulk. That doesn’t bother me as I don’t carry it. With bigger, better grips, I think I could shoot it even better. I think the new 617s or the classic 17 would be great choices too; I have been underwhelmed by the triggers in recent production S&Ws though so I would not buy one I couldn’t handle first. Hope this helps!

vanfunk said:

My most accurate .22 revolvers are my 50’s era S&W pre-18 masterpiece. Even with the 4” barrel and relatively light weight, it’ll do under an inch at 25 yards with a steady rest and good ammo. Next up is my new Colt King Cobra 6”. Out of the box it would do 2” offhand and 1” or less from a rest. A few days ago I upgraded it with the Kensight Elliason rear, which offers a much improved sight picture at the cost of a bit of bulk. That doesn’t bother me as I don’t carry it. With bigger, better grips, I think I could shoot it even better. I think the new 617s or the classic 17 would be great choices too; I have been underwhelmed by the triggers in recent production S&Ws though so I would not buy one I couldn’t handle first. Hope this helps!
View attachment 1197228

View attachment 1197229

View attachment 1197230

Click to expand...

Gorgeous revolvers!

frogfurr said:

I have a Ruger Mark ll with a bull barrel and a 1954 S&W K22 Masterpiece. The K22 is more accurate than the Ruger. I think S&W had an accuracy guarantee on the K22's back in the day.

Click to expand...

Ruger MII is a semi auto. (I have several and they are one of the best ever)

Deserthunter said:

I'm not trying to start an argument, know the answer to my question is a judgment call, and appreciate your candor, but surely some revolvers are more accurate than others.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are some that are better than others. Not many quality revolvers out there. SW, Colt. I posted my suggestion. There are many other semi autos,
If you are gonna buy one I would get the SW