Finally bought a revolver and I hate it

[Rufus Pisanus]

MrBorland said:

As far as the "mass in motion while the bullet is accelerating" argument, I've heard this before, and I'm skeptical. I used to think this was true as well, but then I saw a high-speed movie of a pistol being fired, and it was clear (from this movie, anyway), that the bullet clears the barrel long before the slide even begins to move. If this weren't true, semi-auto rifles, such as an AR15, would be more inherently inaccurate than pistols.

The movie is perhaps a good indication but I wonder whether it's really significant: the bullet is much lighter than the gun (or the slide) so by conserving momentum the gun (or slide) is going to move at a much lower speed and this might trick the eye in a movie. The gas in the barrel will complicate things but I don't think is going to change the picture. In any case try to shoot a SW 629 (44 magnum) with a soft grip and a solid one. In the first case the muzzle climb will be enormous and you'll see it's effect on the accuracy and point of impact. This tells me that the muzzle is actually raising while the bullet is still in the barrel.

In my opinion, the rifle case is very different in many respects, for instance the primary support (shoulder) is better aligned with the barrel than the grip of a pistol and this should guarantee a comparatively lower torque which will reduce muzzle climb and contribute to accuracy. Of course the overall stability of a rifle shooting position and the speed and spin of the bullet (and hence barrel rifling) matter as well.

 

[Frandy]

Finally bought a revolver and I hate it

You do know how to get to Carnegie Hall, right?

 

[Hawk]

The above statement implies big differences in inherent accuracy of the 2 platforms, which, isn't really that big.

The typical semi-auto centerfire has parts coming to rest after each shot which involve the sighting mechanism and barrel relationship. I would guess that this introduces more variability than simply having six different chambers, each machined just a bit differently.

However, not all semis are typical. Some are rimfire with fixed barrels and rear sight mounted on the frame.

This gives us Hammerli, Walther and Pardini Olympic target pistols among others. Also, a good supply of old High Standard Trophy Supermatics and Olympics.

I could be wrong, but I don't know of any Olympic grade target rimfire revolver. For every hundred target semis in Olympic competition there are exactly zero revolvers.

Not particularly relevant to the topic at hand but when absolute mechanical accuracy is the goal, revolvers are tossed overboard pretty early on... at least with rimfires, every four years.

 

[gezzer]

Taurus

There is the problem. Factory only repairs # 1 problem. Had a 22 hornet with the barrel off time by 15% or more 3 times back and still not on zero.

I DO NOT RECOMMENED THEIR PRODUCTS (STAND BY FOR FLAMES)

 

[precisionshootist]

Rufus Pisanus,

Revolvers and bolt action rifles are mechanically easier to make accurate not because of less parts or mass in motion as the bullet is accelerating down the barrel but because of less parts that move after the shot is fired. Semi auto's have much more complex moving parts in their actions that tend to not lock back together exactly the same shot to shot. There are no parts moving in a semi auto when the bullet is accelerating down the bore. The bullet is long gone before the action moves.

 

[Rufus Pisanus]

precision shootist:

Revolvers and bolt action rifles are mechanically easier to make accurate not because of less parts or mass in motion as the bullet is accelerating down the barrel but because of less parts that move after the shot is fired. Semi auto's have much more complex moving parts in their actions that tend to not lock back together exactly the same shot to shot. There are no parts moving in a semi auto when the bullet is accelerating down the bore. The bullet is long gone before the action moves.

I have two problems with this statement:

1. linear momentum is conserved at all times so if the bullet moves something else has to move backwards. You don't see the slide moving because it moves with much lower speed (inversely proportional to the ratio of the two masses.)

2. If what moves does so after the bullet has left the barrel, having an improper grip would not impact your accuracy but it would just make you take more time to get back to the aiming position. Whatever you do after the bullet has left the barrel doesn't affect where said bullet is going to hit. Try my suggested experiment with a 44 magnum: there it is not subtle trigger effects at play there it is just pure and simple recoil.

 

[MrBorland]

If what moves does so after the bullet has left the barrel, having an improper grip would not impact your accuracy but it would just make you take more time to get back to the aiming position. Whatever you do after the bullet has left the barrel doesn't affect where said bullet is going to hit. Try my suggested experiment with a 44 magnum: there it is not subtle trigger effects at play there it is just pure and simple recoil.

In fact, shooting a .44magnum with a relative loose grip and letting the muzzle to rise was the preferred method of Elmer Keith, who was a darned good shot and instrumental in the development of the .44magnum. The bullet's long gone by the time the muzzle starts to rise. The inaccuracy you're describing's likely due to the shooter anticipating the recoil & muzzle blast. A looser grip would to magnify the effect of the flinch. Besides, even with a tight grip, the muzzle still rises, and if what you describe is true, even a little muzzle rise would be enough to ruin accuracy.

 

[Rufus Pisanus]

Fine, since there is consensus that the laws of physics don't apply to handguns and linear momentum is conserved only after the bullet has left the barrel I quit. You guys win.

 

[wuchak]

My suggestion is to load up with snap-caps and try the wall drill. This will help you develop the hand muscles and grip feel required to pull the trigger on the snubbie without changing the sight picture.

Link to video of the wall drill
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid452320104/bclid459256134/bctid909886852

 

[MrBorland]

Fine, since there is consensus that the laws of physics don't apply to handguns and linear momentum is conserved only after the bullet has left the barrel I quit.

The laws of physics are still valid. Here's my take (if you're still reading): Once the powder detonates, a pressure wave builds over some short time period. Since the bullet is lighter than the combined weight of the slide and spring, the bullet is propelled relatively early. The pressure wave has to develop further develop the force needed to push the slide/spring back and/or flip the muzzle. By this time, the bullet's long gone. Newton's 3rd Law is still in effect, but so is the 2nd.

I think the thread's officially highjacked, but thanks all for some good discussion.

 

[glockman19]

Don't get me wrong, but I'll never buy Taurus.
Most Taurus revolver are cheap copy of Smith & Wesson.

eh hem....

Shoulda bought a smith & wesson. Then, you never would've started this thread

Mechanically, the snubbie is capable of pretty astounding accuracy. So unless there is something wrong with the gun, then it is the software in this case (no offense intended).

Agreed 100%

 

[Landlocked Pirate]

I have the same Taurus 650, and other than needing to send it back to Taurus to adjust the timing (before I even fired it) I've learned to really like the gun. It feels better in my hand and is easier to shoot than my son's S&W 640 or my wife's S&W 642, and has a slightly better trigger, too IMO. As far as accuracy, considering it's intended purpose and DAO trigger I don't have any complaints. All my other revolvers are S&W and I generally prefer them, but I'm not at all dissatisfied with my Taurus.

 

[MCgunner]

Quote:
The revolver is definately the looser in acuracy.


Is it the revolver or the shooter(s)? Not to be a wise guy, but if this is your 1st revolver, it may take some practice getting used to the trigger, though you didn't say if you were shooting in DA or SA. To test whether the gun's inherently inaccurate or not, shoot it from a rest in SA mode and compare it's accuracy to that of your other guns shot similarly. You might find you just need to practice. Could also be you got a dog.

My Taurus revolvers are the most inherently accurate weapons I own in category. My M85 is more accurate than any compact auto I've tried, shooting 3" at 25 yards off a rest. Try that with your average PPK. That's about as good as I can do with a two inch gun and iron sights. I think maybe my SP101 is a very little bit better, may be the heavier weight has something to do with it. My 4" 66 will put a cylinder full into an inch at 25 yards. I've never owned an autoloader that could do that. My M10 Smith can do almost as good as that Taurus M66 and will absolutely embarrass most service grade autos. For hunting, I'll take a revolver's accuracy any day of the week over a run of the mill autochucker. The desert eagle is the only auto I can think of with acceptable power and accuracy for hunting. I'd still rather have a blackhawk or 29 Smith or something to any DE, more compact gun with better accuracy on the average.

If the shooter cannot master the snubby revolver on first shooting, hey, that's not unusual. Took me a while. I'm by no means a master class shooter, but my revolvers are generally more accurate for me than autos I've shot or that I own. I shoot well with the little snub, but I'm not Jerry Miculek by any means. You don't have to be THAT good, just practice with the gun, that's all. Takes more than one range trip. If you ain't willin' to put in the effort, buy a Glock.

 

[halvey]

If you ain't willin' to put in the effort, buy a Glock.

Can everyone say AMEN! Now your making sense. Why buy a gun with a 500 round break in? Why buy a gun you have to "learn" to shoot?

Finally, someone is making sense!

 

[MCgunner]

Glocks appeal to people that can't shoot anything with a safe carry trigger (DA). To me, though, they resemble a single action with a lot of creep and I ain't really into carrying one condition one in a pocket. That's why I won't carry one. I ain't a highly trained DEA agent, ya know. I could modify one to work for me, put in an 8 lb trigger and use one of those safety dohickies that go behind the trigger, but there are better choices for me. Nothing wrong with a Glock for a gun, though, quite accurate as autos go out of the box and reliable as it gets for an autoloader. You hardly EVER see one jam at the matches, which cannot be said for even high dollar 1911s in the hands of those that can't feed them properly (FMJ only in some cases). The Glock is a good gun that is a bit nimrod friendly compared to a 1911 platform, but I'd rather tote my revolvers, thanks.

 

[halvey]

Well, unfortunately, most people live in the real world.

In a high stress situation, would you (or your family) rather work a 1911 and hope it works (assuming you "broke it in"), hope to stay on target with a 15 lb trigger on a revolver or a Kel Tec, or have a dummy proof gun like a Glock with a 5lb trigger, that is at least decent?

Seriously, when it really comes down to it, what do you want? I'm asking the original poster or people who really think about this stuff. Not your typical Monday morning armchair commando.

I resisted Glocks - and the 9mm - for years. Hated them both. Thing is, actually carrying a "plastic" gun is much more comfortable than a 40 oz. 1911.

And think mall shooting. What's better: 17+1 of 9mm or 5-6 shots of .38? Think if you were with your wife and kids.

Good luck "speed loading". And good luck working the safties. Go to any match and under the simple non threatening match stress you will see guys forget to work their safties.

 

[MCgunner]

I have some personal experience I really cannot elaborate on because of pending court action, but I can assure you that the 10 lb trigger (new ones are 8 lbs) of a Kel Tec P11 feels like a 3 lb SA trigger in the heat of things. Maybe it's the adrenalin, but I wouldn't trust a 4 lb trigger under such conditions, myself. I might shoot someone when I really didn't want to. With the KT or a revolver, I have to WANT to shoot before I shoot it.

All the speculation is one thing, but until you've been there, you probably couldn't relate to what I'm saying. I'll keep my DAs and revolvers, thanks. What works in games don't always relate to the real world.

BTW, one shot, didn't miss, stopped the attack.

 

[precisionshootist]

Rufus Pisanus,

I'm not trying to get your feathers ruffled man, I just like talkin gun stuff.

1. linear momentum is conserved at all times so if the bullet moves something else has to move backwards. You don't see the slide moving because it moves with much lower speed (inversely proportional to the ratio of the two masses.)

You are correct but it’s the entire gun that is moving, not the action of the firearm separate from the frame/receiver. The Slide in a 1911 for example is locked up tight as the bullet moves down the barrel and it’s not until after the bullet is in flight before the pressure drops then the slide unlocks and begins to move. The inherent accuracy edge goes to the revolver because the barrel is fixed to the frame whereas the 1911 barrel moves a great deal and has to be locked back in place after each shot.

2. If what moves does so after the bullet has left the barrel, having an improper grip would not impact your accuracy but it would just make you take more time to get back to the aiming position. Whatever you do after the bullet has left the barrel doesn't affect where said bullet is going to hit. Try my suggested experiment with a 44 magnum: there it is not subtle trigger effects at play there it is just pure and simple recoil.

A light grip will not affect accuracy as long as it’s done consistently shot to shot. It will however cause a shift in POI and as you have observed. POI will be higher because of the effects of recoil.

 

[Stainz]

Back to the original problem...

A pocketable .38 is a 'Doomsday Gun'. It was never meant to be a target piece - or a 'plinker'. If ever used as it was intended, it will be from 3-7yd... and adrenalin will mask the 'rough' or 'stiff' trigger. I, and many others, believe that the best way to train is as you may have to use it - DA only. Start at 3 and progress to 7 yd as you start hitting a 'bad guy' target properly in the torso. Load only three or four rounds per cylinder... you'll 'see' if your trigger pull really upsets the revolver. The real key is whether or not you can draw from concealment and hit those torso targets - with your 'carry' rounds. Just be very careful!

I have found - from some of the really nice folks at "The 642 Club" thread - that the fine folks at Georgia Arms load a bit harder lead +P 158gr LHPSWC than the Remington R38S12 version I carry - as their #G38E - $17/100 in reloaded Ni plated brass. It has nearly the same stats as the $30/50 Remington load, but is much more reasonably priced to practice with. It has the same bark and bite as the Remingtons.

Have a good shooter - hopefully someone with a 642 you can 'try' - check your Taurus for accuracy and trigger effort. Make no mistake - your Taurus is a lot higher quality than the 'earlier examples' - but still no S&W. It really could have an internal lockwork problem - or mis-aligned barrel. The S&W 642, their best selling revolver, is a better quality gun, for sure. But, any J-frame S&W, like the 642, will never be as good, trigger-wise, as a K,L, or N frame S&W. Get a larger revolver - with a big boy grip - for a proper plinker... and shoot the snot out of it! It's been over nine years since I traded away my Glock 21... and I have never missed it - revolvers are great!

Stainz

 

[precisionshootist]

p89cajun,

As many posters have said, try a larger revolver. If you completely write off revolvers now you will be missing out on some very capable handguns. Handguns with abilities not available or practical in an auto. For instance
With a few rare exceptions, cartridges .357 or larger can't be had in auto's. Revolvers can also be fantastic long range shooters.

 

[MCgunner]

A pocketable .38 is a 'Doomsday Gun'. It was never meant to be a target piece - or a 'plinker'. If ever used as it was intended, it will be from 3-7yd...

While I do most of my shooting inside 25 yards DA, please don't tell my .38 Taurus M85 2" it's not good for plinking. You might give it a complex. It really enjoys ringing that 15" gong at 100 yards. It's about as fun a plinker as it gets IMHO. In fact, long range capability is why I like a revolver that CAN be fired SA, well, that and I've taken rabbits with a snub before. They have more jobs in MY collection than just 3 yard desperation self defense. It is that capability that I appreciate in a snubby over a compact auto which truly IS a one dimensional gun, pure self defense. My .380 is worthless as anything, but a defense gun, but that's why I have one I suppose.

I most often prefer carrying either my KT P11 or a revolver, though.

Combine a .454 Casull with a carriable sized Freedom Arms or Ruger Redhawk or Raging Bull. Can you get THAT kind of power and accuracy from an autochucker? I think not. Revolvers have it all over autoloaders for a lot of applications and they ain't dead yet as fighting guns. The .357 is still an awesome fighting caliber in a compact gun like my SP101.

 

[campbell]

The bullet's long gone by the time the muzzle starts to rise. The inaccuracy you're describing's likely due to the shooter anticipating the recoil & muzzle blast.

There is in fact some effect due to recoil. Heavier bullets in the same gun have a higher POI. They're leaving the muzzle at a higher angle. That's why you see extra tall front sights being sold for shooting heavy bullet hunting loads.

 

[Tom Servo]

Elmer Keith, who was a darned good shot

That, sir, is the understatement of the day

 

[campbell]

he inherent accuracy edge goes to the revolver because the barrel is fixed to the frame whereas the 1911 barrel moves a great deal and has to be locked back in place after each shot.

True, but the auto has the advantage of having the barrel and chamber being a single piece. No gap to jump, no alignment problems, etc. That being said, all this tends to be moot as these days there's lots of factory guns in both styles capable of better groups than the shooter.

 

[RPCVYemen]

The currently made S&W revolvers have better internal fitting and machining than those post war. There were almost no machining marks in the contemporary revolvers, unlike 1960s and 1970s vintage guns.

That's interesting. I suspected that it was true, but I haven't compared them. Gun seem to be solidly stuck in "Things used to be great - now they are going to hell!" world view - a opposed to "Things used to be bad - now they are getting better every day."

I have to believe that there have been advances in metallurgy and machining in the last half century. I think our understanding of the structure of metals has changed quite a bit.

Mike