Accurate " Production Revolver ", 38/357 cal.

CZ93X62

CZ93X62

Official forum enigma
I haven't been heretical for close to a week now, so I'm WAY overdue.

I mentioned the S&W Model 16-4 x 6" a couple months back in this thread. I understand that Ben's original thrust was "Accurate 38 Spec/357 Mag revolvers", but if I was to seek out a centerfire revolver caliber for maximized intrinsic accuracy, I would look at the 32 S&W Long or the 32 H&R Magnum.

(You all knew I would post this. Admit it)

In terms of rounds fired per caliber, I have almost as many 32 Long and 32 H&R Mag under my belt as I do 38 Special and 357 Magnum. Before my eyesight went KAPUT, that Model 16-4 loaded with the RCBS #32-98-SWC to 900-950 FPS could capably cut 1"-1.3" 25 yard groups all day long, and it is box-stock. Powder doesn't matter, though it is usually WW-231 at that load level. The most accurate handgun I have ever fired? Walther GSP-C in 32 S&W Long wadcutter, both Fiocchi factory loads and my handloads with the now-defunct Hornady HBWC. Lyman #313492 shot almost as well at similar speeds (700-725 FPS).

I have fired tons of very accurate 38 Specials, to include a couple S&W Model 52s with W-W Super Match wadcutters. They shoot quite well, but not quite as well as the 32s do. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
 
P

Petrol & Powder

Well-Known Member
No heresy, just reality.
The 38 Special is capable of excellent accuracy but the millions of rounds fired may warp perception a bit. (particularly in the U.S.A.)
The 30 caliber handgun rounds (and that includes .308" to around .314" diameters and many cartridge types) is also well proven.

I've always found it interesting that the 30 caliber family of handgun cartridges enjoyed such a strong existence in the early smokeless powder days. The 32 ACP, 32 S&W long, 7.62 Nagant, the 7.62 Mauser and Tokarev and many others enjoy strong followings until post WWII. I think the larger 38 Special cartridge was an equally excellent cartridge but its sheer numbers and incredibly widespread acceptance simply overwhelmed the smaller 30 caliber handgun cartridges in the world of public opinion.
 
Bret4207

Bret4207

At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Gotta agree with Deputy Al. The 32's can shoot in a decent revolver. The 32 S+W Long has got to be one of the most under rated cartridges out there. Of course finding a 32 in a quality make is the hard part! Shooting them is easy.
 
Ben

Ben

Moderator
Staff member
I don't have a .32 Revolver, I do have a T/C Contender with a heavy barrel chambered in 32 H & R.
I shoot a lot of 32 Long in the barrel. Nail driving accurate.
I realize this thread is supposed to be about accurate revolvers, but I just thought I'd toss this out regarding the .32 cal. handguns.

Ben

Capturemmn.jpg


 
Last edited:
Missionary

Missionary

Well-Known Member
Or you can scrap the whole caliber .35 idea and move on to the caliber .41 We have yet to own a .41 that would not shoot accurately.
And again our DW 41 is the most accurate revolver we have yet to own.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ian
Glaciers

Glaciers

Alaska Land of the Midnight Sun
Yeah but you would have to own a 41 caliber. Not happening here. 38’s, 44’s, and 45 calibers. Just not room.

Now my brother is a 41 nut and he can shoot circles around me.
 
Rick

Rick

Moderator
Staff member
Glaciers said:
Now my brother is a 41 nut and he can shoot circles around me.
Click to expand...

:headscratch:Does this suggest anything to you? Just wondering . . .

With all the long-range revolver testing I've done the single most accurate revolver was the 41 mag. Now that begs the question . . . Was it the caliber? Dunno but I can sure state that it didn't hurt.
 
J

Jeff H

NW Ohio
I can't/won't claim that the Ruger Security/Service/Speed Six series is the most accurate f production revolvers, but Every one I've had was capable of excellent accuracy - 1.5" to 1.0" for five at twenty five, if I'd done due diligence as I dropped the hammer.

To be fair, I've shot, but never owned a Colt revolver, and I've only owned two Smiths. Both the Smiths were N-Frames - 44 Special and 45 Colt and they both shot very well - small, round clusters when I was "feelin' it." I'm no master pistolero either, but have recently realized I was pretty good, especially compared to how I shoot these days, due to mostly lack of practice, distractions and eyesight.

So, THE most accurate production revolver I've ever owned was a Bicentennial, 4" blued Security Six, which I am certain someone of great skill "worked on," as it became my benchmark thereafter as to how one of that series should feel and shoot. It shot all holes touching reliably and consistently, with seemingly little effort o my part. I could do no wrong with that revolver regarding bullet or load, my mood or the weather or distance.

Many years ago, I participated weekly in an informal "turkey shoot" with a handful of fellow revolver guys. We shot off-hand at 25 yards. That Ruger had a reputation and one fella brought a new $700 Python one Saturday with the intent to put my "cheap Ruger" in its rightful place. We shot and tied, so he challenged me to shoot at a hundred yards, standing, with our wrists rested like a "field position." The target (I know this is wrong) was a dead car battery sitting atop an old car lying on its side. I smacked the small end of it five out of five times without taking much time. If I remember correctly, he "forfeited" by quietly returning his Python to the case and going home. We never spoke of it after that.

Not bragging. It wasn't that much of a shooting feat, but it wasn't luck either. That "cheap Ruger" ($150, used, but pristine) was like it had a wil of its own to steer bullets into exactly where I wanted them to go.
 
Rick

Rick

Moderator
Staff member
Why did you feel the need to defend Ruger? There are of course fine shooting Rugers.

What caliber?
 
Glaciers

Glaciers

Alaska Land of the Midnight Sun
Rick said:
:headscratch:Does this suggest anything to you? Just wondering . . .

With all the long-range revolver testing I've done the single most accurate revolver was the 41 mag. Now that begs the question . . . Was it the caliber? Dunno but I can sure state that it didn't hurt.
Click to expand...

I’m sure the 41’s are great. I just already have calibers 32, 38, 44, 45, and 480. I don’t need to expand the caliber selection. All the calibers and guns I have are far more accurate than I am, so I gain nothing with a 41.
My brother can shoot circles around me with long guns as well. He’s good. I’m average.
 
Glaciers

Glaciers

Alaska Land of the Midnight Sun
Well the K-14, 6” 24 and the 625 Smith’s are certainly fun because they shoot well for me. The 625 and the K-14 are very accurate even in my hands. Size, weight, and trigger with the 38 K-14’s are simply a pleasure to shoot. Easy to get golf balls dancing.
While the 41’s maybe more accurate, those golf balls are just as dead with the K-14.
 
W

Walks

Well-Known Member
We used to use tennis balls, at 25yrds they were easy enough to hit and bounced farther, for that longer shot. All kidding aside,
My Dad was a heck of a shot with a "short gun" as He called them. Shot lots of Pistol with the old LA Revolver ( I think ) Club. used an early Post-war Colt Officer's Model Match - 6" HB. H&G #50 or Lyman #358395 over 2.7grs of Bullseye in Remington match cases, can't remember the primer brand. One-Hand Bullseye 6 O'clock hold. I do remember those one hole groups though. Most under an inch. Had a target framed and signed by a lot of folks Hung it on his office wall. 6X's at 50yrds.

For Me, I've a 48 yr old Ruger NM Blackhawk 6 1/2" that would put 6 max loaded #358156 into a one hole group all day at 25yrds.
 
M

Mainiac

Well-Known Member
I have a 586 smith that is extremely accurate,may be my most accurate handgun.
It wears a 8 3/8ths barrell,,think this is one reason.
 
P

Petrol & Powder

Well-Known Member
I'm going to build a little on Jeff H's comments.
When people disparage Ruger DA revolvers, particularly the DA Six series guns and the GP-100 series, I tend to be rather suspect of those opinions.
The DA Rugers are excellent guns. Yes, sometimes they need a little tweaking, but the basic DNA is there. I look at Ruger DA Six's and GP-100's a little like I look at Perazzi M8 shotguns. The M8 doesn't throw shot any better than a cheap shotgun but they are strong. Having a gun that can shoot tens of thousands of rounds, year, after year, after year.....without breaking; gives you the ability to "become one with the gun". (sorry for the Zen Buddha like theme, but it's real)
The strength of a Ruger is, quite literally, Its strength!
I've seen Rugers that shoot very well. But more important, I've seen Rugers that shoot for a Long Time.
There is some real value in that longevity. Beware of the man with one gun - He probably knows how to use it!
 
Last edited:
Rick

Rick

Moderator
Staff member
Petrol & Powder said:
When people disparage Ruger DA revolvers, particularly the DA Six series guns and the GP-100 series, I tend to be rather suspect of those opinions.
Click to expand...

That comment got me curious so I scanned back through this thread. Didn't see anyone disparaging Ruger in any way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.