Accurate " Production Revolver ", 38/357 cal.

[Glaciers]

Cost is a factor for sure that’s why I went with the K series, I could afford one and for what they cost, they would shoot pretty good for this untrained plinker. As I said earlier I’m was never a paper shooter, so can’t speak to the fine points of accuracy, but I will speak to the fine points of fun guns and targets of opportunity.
For me a big part of shoot ability is personal fit and feel.

 

[RicinYakima]

The majority of the K-38's I owned where bought in the late 1970 when I tried my hand a International Pistol shooting, duel stage. This was not a good time to look for a K-38, as Bullseye shooting was no longer using revolvers for the centerfire stage. They were cheap and lots of people were using Keith's loads in them to make field guns out of them. End shake and cylinder rotation were always an issue with them. What I kept was a 1948 Combat Masterpiece four inch that was an ex-LE gun. Some holster wear but I don't think ever shot much, the two prior owners were local city jailers.

 

[Ben]

In revolvers , as to accuracy, it is hard to be on a Volkswagen budget and demand a Cadillac revolver . Usually takes $ to get precision.

 

[Glaciers]

Personally I’m good with Volkswagens but certainly appreciate a Cadillac

 

[Ben]

Both should get you there.

 

[JustJim]

Years ago--'84 or '85--I won a Python that had been tuned by Sadowski at 300 Gunsmith. In a Ransom, it was the most accurate .38 revolver I ever owned. Depending on the ammo lot etc, it would sometimes edge out the S&W 52 I was toying with at the time. I never really liked the Colt action, and soon passed it on to a friend. My Dan Wesson was nearly as accurate, and I enjoyed shooting it a lot more.

 

[Missionary]

I would join Fiver and say the Dan Wesson. Ours with the 10 Barrel and our 180 GC load would shoot 5" and less consistently at 200 Meters.
Our 41 Mag with the 8" barrel and our 220 grGC load is even better. 296 propelled both revolvers. Still does when there is a once forever shot.
Just saw Justjim also dropped a DW in there.
A better test would be "after firing 1,000 rounds of full power loads" which is still accurate.

 

[david s]

Out of five 38/357's a 2inch 642, four-inch nickel S&W model 10, four-inch Python, six-inch model S&W 28, and a seven and a half inch Colt Officers Model, the longest barrel wins. No Ransom rest was used though. The Officers Model is a 1911 vintage that has a terrible finish. But it's bore and cylinder are excellent with just a very little pitting on the cylinder face. I didn't think I would shoot it well with a rounded front sight and a U rear notch but oddly enough this works well.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Longer barrels equal longer sight radius.

Without a mechanical rest (like a Ransom Rest) to take the human factor out of the equation, the longer barrel may win simply because of the longer sight radius and not due to inherent accuracy of the gun itself.
The shorter the sight radius the more critical small sight alignment errors become.

If you are seeking to compare the inherent accuracy of a set of revolvers, a mechanical rest is needed for a fair test.

 

[david s]

I'll agree with everything Petrol & Powder posted but I've never set a pistol of mine in a Ransom rest so zero data that way.

 

[Bret4207]

To probe the experience bases and opinions of our forum members on accurate production revolvers in 38 Special or 357 magnum.

Okay, I didn't know if you were going to get Trevor into competitive handgun shooting or something.

 

[Bret4207]

Out of five 38/357's a 2inch 642, four-inch nickel S&W model 10, four-inch Python, six-inch model S&W 28, and a seven and a half inch Colt Officers Model, the longest barrel wins. No Ransom rest was used though. The Officers Model is a 1911 vintage that has a terrible finish. But it's bore and cylinder are excellent with just a very little pitting on the cylinder face. I didn't think I would shoot it well with a rounded front sight and a U rear notch but oddly enough this works well.

You and I must have twins OM!!! Mine also wears a Paine bead front and adjustable "U" rear. Very hard to get that combo to work good with my eyes.

 

[david s]

I didn't think a bead with a rear U would work for me either. It's only saving grace is it mimics the sights on my first 22 rifle. Thats my only explanation as to why it didn't cause me grief trying to shoot this revolver. Trying to find a consistent top elevation point like with a square partridge front is my biggest problem with the front bead.

 

[Ian]

Maaaann....this thread just got a lot shorter and a lot more interesting after selecting the "ignore" feature. Shoulda done that ages ago.

Anyway, I only have two .38 revolvers and the Model 36-3 (which is put together like it was made in Japan in the 1950s, or Taiwan in the '80s), outshines the K-38 Masterpiece Sauer copy by a little bit at 50 yards after I reamed the cylinder throats and bent the frame back straight with a bench vise (it had been twisted to shoot 9" right at ten yards by the ape who torqued the barrel at the factory).

 

[RBHarter]

Y'all ever read "why ballisticians get grey " in the Speer books ?

I don't a dog in the Colts v Smith it's about dead in the 1917s .
In 38s the old M10 is ........well it's a 50' pistol is all . I had a Colts probably a pre war poor care an oval chamber . The other 5 shot ok though same thing though , a 50' gun . Both were/are 6 hits on a standing 5 gallon bucket .
I'd have used the Sec 6 6" SS inside 40 yd as a primary but Mom's OM RBH at 5-5/8 is a vastly better shooter the right shot and 65 yd would be safe (assuming the loads were suited) .

The Colts in 38 is long gone .

 

[KeithB]

I remember reading somewhere about two types of accuracy - intrinsic and useable. Intrinsic accuracy refers to the mechanical performance with the human variable removed completely. The useable accuracy is how the gun performs in a system which includes a human being. I reread Ben's first post where he is asking about the intrinsic accuracy of a particular class of guns. A perfectly legitimate question to ask. Knowing a gun is capable of a certain level of mechanical performance can be a real confidence builder. But I contend that the useable accuracy of a gun is equally if not more important than the intrinsic accuracy. As others have pointed out here, longer barrels give a longer sight radius, something that only matters when a human is part of the system. Trigger pull quality is irrelevant if the gun is in a vise but it matters a whole lot when its in your fist. I'm sure most of you could cite other human - related factors that affect useable accuracy.

I'm sure I couldn't tell the difference in useable accuracy between a revo that has an intrinsic accuracy of 1" or 5" at 50 yds 'cuz I'm not a very good shot. But I'm sure I can put all of them in a coconut at 7 yards.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Yep, when the OP mentioned a Ransom Rest to remove the human element, I assumed he was talking about the intrinsic accuracy the gun itself was capable of.

 

[Bisley]

I didn't think a bead with a rear U would work for me either. It's only saving grace is it mimics the sights on my first 22 rifle. Thats my only explanation as to why it didn't cause me grief trying to shoot this revolver. Trying to find a consistent top elevation point like with a square partridge front is my biggest problem with the front bead.

So I see I'm not the only one! The rectangular partridge sights got tedious and so I had a gunsmith silver-solder a bead-and-u-notch sight arrangement on my Colt Officer's Model. It just shoots more intuitively that way. I still have the original parts in the original box, with papers.

Now, as for ammo, I recall having read factory wadcutter ammo in .38 Spec is not produced in sufficient quantities by the ammo companies to maintain highest quality. Since police departments no longer shoot wadcutters, and demand is not as high, there is no incentive for the ammo companies to continuously inspect HBWC .38 ammo for highest quality product. I could be all wet on that, but it made sense at the time I learned it.

 

[Bret4207]

Maaaann....this thread just got a lot shorter and a lot more interesting after selecting the "ignore" feature. Shoulda done that ages ago.

Anyway, I only have two .38 revolvers and the Model 36-3 (which is put together like it was made in Japan in the 1950s, or Taiwan in the '80s), outshines the K-38 Masterpiece Sauer copy by a little bit at 50 yards after I reamed the cylinder throats and bent the frame back straight with a bench vise (it had been twisted to shoot 9" right at ten yards by the ape who torqued the barrel at the factory).

Helps your belly handle whatever is in it much easier too!

 

[Wheelgunner57]

I like the vintage Smith's. I have a K-38 from 1956 and an S prefix 27-2 5-1/2" that really put them in there.