Does your 22lr semi-auto shoot better than your revolver?

[tazman]

I have a couple of 22lr semi-auto pistols that are entry level target pistols. I also have a couple of 22lr revolvers, both of which are target grade revolvers.
Both are S&W. The pistols are model 22A-1 and the revolvers are models 17 and 617. All the guns have longer barrels and target sights.
I have noticed that the pistols seem to shoot slightly better groups than the revolvers do.
Not by a lot but noticeable.
The pistols have fixed barrels as do the revolvers so we are not comparing apples and oranges here. The triggers on the revolvers(in single action mode) are better than the triggers on the pistols even though I tend to shoot the pistols better.
Anybody else have this experience?

[photomicftn]

My S&W M41 shoots x-ring groups at 50 feet if I can keep them there on the slow fire bullseye target with standard velocity match (redundant) ammo, and it has a great trigger and sights. I've never fired any other kind of ammo in it, or even at any other distance. My S&W M17 gets used for all other purposes, as it will shoot all the other ammo I have pretty well (mostly), especially the 'quiet' loads that I plink with to avoid attention, and also has a great trigger and sights. I haven't yet tried the M17 on the bullseye course.

[dverna]

Makes sense....only one chamber and likely less bullet jump.

My old High Standard Military would put 50 rounds into less than 1.5” at 50 yards from a Ransom Rest. My .22 revolvers are Rugers...so not high end and I have never tested them the same way. They were fun plinkers until .22 ammunition got to $5/box.

It will be interesting what others report.

[Ithaca Gunner]

The best I was ever able to do with with a .22 handgun was with an 8-3/8'' S&W from the 50's. I'll admit to never having fired a true .22 target auto like a S&W M-41 or High Standard match gun. That 50's S&W shot like a rifle and was a joy in the field shooting small stones at out to 50yds. and would take a groundhog with a head shot at that range.

[NSB]

tazman, to some extent you are comparing apples and oranges here. I own the same guns you have and it’s not at all unusual for the auto to shoot better than the revolvers. In fact, it’s more common for the auto to shoot better. The biggest reason for that is that the auto is stripping a round off a magazine and feeding it into the barrel chamber. The revolver must feed six rounds from six different chambers. With a revolver accuracy is compromised by the fact that each chamber can be just slightly different than the others. You might find that if you mark/number your chambers and then shoot groups from each chamber they may not all print to the same POI. I’ve sent revolvers back to the factory simply for this reason. Triggers aren’t a huge determining factor regarding accuracy either. Good triggers are better than bad triggers, but they don’t make the groups significantly better or worse in most cases. I’ve owned two SW model 41’s and my 22A shoots as good as either of the 41’s I owned. What’s really different between the two guns is fit and finish. In spite of the 22A being obviously inferior in fit and finish, the quality of the barrel (at least on my gun) is equal to the 41’s barrel. Back when I was shooting a lot of IHMSA Silhouette, revolvers in general shot lower scores than the auto’s did. I fired many 40x40 and 60x60 scores with my Browning Buckmarks and never fired even one 40x40 with my revolvers. I did have a Ruger Single Six that I shot a 77x80 with at the IHMSA Internations with. It had a lousy trigger, long hammer fall, and poor sights. However, each chamber was cut to perfection after sending it back to Ruger after providing evidence that my original cylinder was terrible. It really is apples to oranges.

[tazman]

NSB--- I hadn't considered that part or realized it made that much difference. Thanks for pointing that out.

Also nice to know the barrel in my 22a is on par with the model 41. I always wondered about that but I can't afford a 41.

[georgerkahn]

I have a 617 (6" barrel, target trigger) and a 41 -- a very early model. I never considered using the revolver for anything other than "revolver matches" in the competition arena! Admittedly a lousy shot, I once (only once, mind you!) got 9 of 10 shots in the black centre spot with the 41. Never ever came close to that with the revolver. I so appreciate NSB's analysis. I have a (real, by Mr. Clark) Clark tuned trigger on the 41, and reckoned it was the difference between this gnat's wing sensitive trigger and that -- crisp, but more like a mouse's butt than a fly wing -- trigger on the 617.
geo

[Forrest r]

I have a couple of 22lr semi-auto pistols that are entry level target pistols.

The only reason they are entry level target pistols is because you view them that way.

Semi-auto's are not any more accurate then revolvers in general. Semi-auto's are easier to make/less parts that have to fit & line up. This is what makes the semi-auto's appear more accurate and typically easier to make an accurate firearm.

Revolvers have to have the cylinders even, line up true to the bbl, the forcing cone cut even along with the crown. Semi-auto's need the chamber cut true to the bore and a good crown.

I used to go thru a lot of 22lr revolvers trying to find 1 with "good bones", built strait/true. Just to send them off to a gunsmith to have them refined. A pair of k-22's that would hold +/- 1" 10-shot groups @ 50yds (4-screw & 5-screw). Went thru buying/selling a bunch of k-22's to find them.
[https://i.imgur.com/QlxJgXf.jpg

A nib model 17-3 that didn't make the grade, down the road it went.
https://i.imgur.com/E2PbVd8.jpg

The 617-1 shot lights out for years. Had the action re-worked 2 times in the decade+ that I owned it. Eventually the cylinder holes started to etch/erode, ended up trading it off.
https://i.imgur.com/ylFcSGY.jpg

Even bought an ultra rare s&w 35-1 just to see how accurate it was. The 35-1 is a I-frame made for small hands. Too small for me but I was cerous about the accuracy of these small revolvers. A picture of the adjustable sight of the 35-1 compared to a k22 (k22 left/35-1 right).
https://i.imgur.com/mVZEG8v.jpg

Ran a model 41 for years with a 5.5" and 7" bbl's. Both bbl's flat out shot bugholes @ 50yds.
https://i.imgur.com/0ClcIbC.jpg

My marvel conversion kit for the 1911 was just as accurate as the model 41. Ended up selling the 41 simply because I could use 1911 (45acp) and the marvel kit on the same frame/same trigger. Eventually sold the marvel kit, just didn't use it anymore.
https://i.imgur.com/HSWrGAR.jpg

At the end of the day all the moving parts have to be right and tight. I've showed this picture before, it's nothing more than a test target using power pistol powder and 2 different bullets/standard pressure 44spl loads in a ca bulldog (target on right)
https://i.imgur.com/ld6RTZd.jpg

The left target was me playing around with 2 different semi-auto target grade 22lr pistols. A old izh-35m 25m sport pistol and a new ruger MK IV 5.5" bull bbl'd pistol. I put a redodt on each of them and was sighting them in. The inner white circle is 1". I was using old russian Vostok 22lr ammo in the 25m sport pistol that was made in 1981. The low grade target ammo/Vostok ammo used a black axle grease as a lube on the bullets. That grease dried up and has been rock hard ever since I bought it back in 2004/2005? The ruger was using blazer ammo (cci made/not federal).

If you look closely at the ruger MK IV target you can see 4 shots in a group and a flier down by the writing 50ft. I got the redots close by shooting junk laying in the berm and then shot that left target shooting the top bullseye 1st. I adjusted both reddots and then shot the bottom targets. As you can see the ruger had a 4 shot group and a flier again.

I have already sent the MK IV back to ruger because of lite fp hits/inconsistent ignition issues. This is what I'm getting with the MK IV after it came back from ruger. Haven't made up my mind yet, either going to put aftermarket springs in it or sell it.

Anyway, semi-auto's are easier to make with unskilled labor/less labor/less fitting of parts. This makes your chances of getting a more accurate firearm lean towards a semi-auto. After that it becomes a $$$ game.

[NSB]

For all the reasons listed above, that’s why semi-auto rimfire pistols are more accurate than revolvers. Basically, the barrels are equal but everything else a revolver does degrades the accuracy. I once went to the IHMSA Internationals where there were over 1600 scores posted for all five classes of rimfire handguns. The semi-auto scores were hugely higher than the revolver scores…..by a mile. No comparison at all. In ten years of shooting rimfire IHMSA silhouette, I never once saw a perfect revolver score fired. It’s been done, but it is a rarity. At the Region 1 shoot there were no perfect revolver scores shot, but there were quite a few perfect semi-auto scores fired. For shoot off targets at that shoot they used ten NRA rimfire rifle chickens at 100 yards. Those targets are 5/8” wide and 3/4” high. No scopes allowed in IHMSA back then. One person shot a 9x10 shoot off targets using a stock Browning Buckmark. That’s at 100 yards! You can pour a ton of money into a revolver to get it to shoot much better than it came “out of the box”, but in general it’s just got inherently different problems due to its design. Semi-autos are going to be more accurate.

[ShooterAZ]

My Marvel 1911 conversion will outshoot all my other 22 revolvers hands down, and also my other 3 semi-autos. It won't outshoot my 22LR Match Contender though, but that's a whole other ball of wax. My Old Model Ruger Single Six is minute of bunny rabbit with the 22 LR cylinder, and that's all I can really ask of it. It's significantly more accurate with the 22 Mag cylinder, but it's also a lot more expensive to shoot magnums. For serious target work I always go with the Marvel conversion.

[GhostHawk]

The most accurate handgun I own is actually a pair of Ruger Mk III 22/45's with Red Dot sights mounted.

At 20 feet they will if I can hold up my end put 10 rounds into a 1 inch circle. And they do it again, and again, and again.

My Heritage Rough Rider convertible .22lr/.22mag is a close second. But it is more like a 1.5" group at the same distance.

Barrel lengths are approximately the same.

[tazman]

Forrest r quote.......The only reason they are entry level target pistols is because you view them that way.

I presented them that way because that is the way S&W presented them.
The thing is this. I would not shoot a Model 41 any better than I do the 22a-1. I am not a good enough shot to make use of any difference in accuracy.
Just knowing the pistol I have is capable of the same level of accuracy as a Model 41 is a great thing to know.

[AZ Pete]

to your original question, no. I have a Model 18 that shoots just as well as my semi autos. Put them in a ransom rest and try a wide variety of target ammo and you will likely have one come out on top. But not shooting off hand with bulk ammo.

[ulav8r]

With my finger on the trigger there is not much difference.

[Forrest r]

Forrest r quote.......The only reason they are entry level target pistols is because you view them that way.

I presented them that way because that is the way S&W presented them.
The thing is this. I would not shoot a Model 41 any better than I do the 22a-1. I am not a good enough shot to make use of any difference in accuracy.
Just knowing the pistol I have is capable of the same level of accuracy as a Model 41 is a great thing to know.

Not trying to argue buttttt,
I could of swore s&w was talking about $$$/price point/priced for entry level needs.

What s&w actually says about the 22a:
"Priced for entry level needs up to the serious shooter, there's no better choice in rimfire than Smith & Wesson. "

[tazman]

Not trying to argue buttttt,
I could of swore s&w was talking about $$$/price point/priced for entry level needs.

What s&w actually says about the 22a:
"Priced for entry level needs up to the serious shooter, there's no better choice in rimfire than Smith & Wesson. "

That is what they say NOW. They were saying it a bit differently back when I purchased mine.
You don't price a gun 60 percent lower than your top of the line and expect anyone to think it is going to be just as good.
Not a problem. I can't afford their top of the line in any case. As I stated previously, I can't shoot well enough to make use of any difference in accuracy anyway.

[Rodfac]

Better accuracy with my S&W M-41 and a vintage Ruger Mkll than with my Single Six, and 4" Colt Diamondback, but not by much...and really, to see the difference, I'd have to demonstrate it off a sandbag rest.

I also have a Smith M-18 (4"), and a Colt New Frontiers 6" that are a bit more accurate than the Single Six and Diamondback, but not in the same league as the M-41.

Lastly, I also play with a M-63 Smith with a 3" bbl...that's not nearly as good as any of the above. It's got the trigger, at least in SA mode, but the fiber optic front sight that S&W cursed it with is a big limitation. Why anyone with some sense would put a defensive handgun sight on what could have been a nearly ideal trail/fishing gun is beyond me. Too, the damned thing is sighted 1+" low at 10 yds if you use the top of the front sight post as the desired impact point. In use, I hold high or cover the intended target with that big ugly red dot and hope for the best...this all with the rear sight blade at its highest position...GRRRRRRR.

As always, ammunition suited to the individual gun matters greatly in all of the above. YMMv Rod

[Bill*B]

I like revolvers. But when it comes to punching paper - nothing that I have found comes anywhere close to a Smith 41. Target shooting perfection.

[Winger Ed.]

Years ago, somebody in one of the gun comic books addressed this issue.
I can't remember which hand guns he used, but they were just good quality off the shelf ones and not some high end race guns.

In his tests, he got as good of groups with a revolver as a semi-auto and found out if there was a issue of cylinder alignment
on different chambers of the cylinder. He did it by firing his 5-6 shots groups out of the same chamber on the revolver.

[tazman]

Given that you have 6-10 chances for the timing of the cylinder to be off, I expect that would be the best way to do it.

What would be the best way to find the one chamber with the best alignment with the barrel?

[Winger Ed.]

What would be the best way to find the one chamber with the best alignment with the barrel?

Without some very precise rods to drop in from the front,
I guess you'd have to do the test by firing groups from each cylinder,
Or put each shot on six different targets, and keep track of which shot from each chamber goes on the correct target.

[Rich/WIS]

There are fewer variables in the auto with only one chamber versus the revolver with six. Another factor for a lot of shooters is ergonomics of the gun, they can grip and hold an auto better than a revolver. Have a S&W M17 that is as accurate as can be expected but offhand the grip and balance can't compete with either a long gone Hi-Standard Victor or my current plinker, a Kimber conversion on a dedicated 1911 frame., or long gone Ruger MKIII 22.45 and Walther/Colt 1911 Target.

[Daekar]

This is a really interesting thread to me, because it emphasizes how much the nut behind the trigger affects accuracy.

For years, we have had a Ruger MKIV Hunter (6-7/8"). It's a beautiful gun with a great trigger and an impeccable pedigree that I have been consistently unable to shoot well regardless of what ammo I put through it. Others seem to have no problems at all. However, I have a S&W M63 (3") which I can shoot far better, consistently, even in double-action. I was absolutely shocked at my ability with it to hit what I was aiming for after years of frustrating (even embrassing) inconsistency in my performance with the Ruger. The Ruger is by all accounts a far more accurate gun - longer barrel, longer sight radius, simpler construction, better trigger. I have no explanation for my experience.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

A range rod will tell you if any are out of alignment. Other than that, very extensive testing using a Ransom Rest and repeatedly firing from only one chamber at a time. However, you'd likely get different results from different ammo, so you'd have to use one lot of one brand of ammo throughout the test.

DG

[tazman]

This is a really interesting thread to me, because it emphasizes how much the nut behind the trigger affects accuracy.

For years, we have had a Ruger MKIV Hunter (6-7/8"). It's a beautiful gun with a great trigger and an impeccable pedigree that I have been consistently unable to shoot well regardless of what ammo I put through it. Others seem to have no problems at all. However, I have a S&W M63 (3") which I can shoot far better, consistently, even in double-action. I was absolutely shocked at my ability with it to hit what I was aiming for after years of frustrating (even embrassing) inconsistency in my performance with the Ruger. The Ruger is by all accounts a far more accurate gun - longer barrel, longer sight radius, simpler construction, better trigger. I have no explanation for my experience.

I had a similar experience with a Ruger MKII target compared to my S&W 22a-1. I finally found that the grip angle just didn't work for me. It may have been because of my familiarity with other firearms that have grip angles the same as 1911 pistols or something in my physical makeup. I just could not make it work and was uncomfortable when shooting it.
I tested it with a scope and a rest. It was as accurate as my S&W 22a-1. I simply could not make it work.

I have considered getting one of the Ruger pistols that mimic the grip of a 1911 but do not want to spend the money currently.

[Andyd]

No big difference between a high end match pistol and a great rimfire revolver. They both perform equally well from a rest or offhand. After I retired from active competitions the Hammerli International was changed from its 208 configuration to a 211 with some custom Nill grips that I have since given to one of my sons.

https://i.postimg.cc/nznCwQyX/Hammerli-Grips.jpg (https://postimg.cc/B8wSjtQ3)
https://i.postimg.cc/V6nLZ48K/Korth-26.jpg (https://postimg.cc/jwqbLHCf)

[tazman]

Those grips on the pistol are exquisite. I have never seen a set that nice.

I have also never seen a Korth revolver before.

[Eddie Southgate]

I only own 2 .22 handguns anymore . #1 is a S&W Kit Gun I have had for 25 or 30 years . #2 is a Colt Pre Woodsman Target I bought about 2 years ago . The Colt will outshoot the S&W by a good margin . My youngest son owns a Woodsman Target from the 20's that almost shoots itself . Either Colt will shoot dimes all day long at 15-25 yards , 15 in my hand and 25 in his . I'm climbing my sixties and he turns 28 in May.I have owned other .22 pistols but none shot as well for me as the early Woodsman . I can't hit anything with the second model Woodsmans, Huntsmans, or the Rugers . Never shot a Smith automatic or the Browning but have handled both and neither grip suits my hands. My Pre Woodsman has both the HS and Standard mainspring housing and likes the HS stuff the best . Parkers shoots standard better than the HS stuff .

[Eddie Southgate]

This is a really interesting thread to me, because it emphasizes how much the nut behind the trigger affects accuracy.

For years, we have had a Ruger MKIV Hunter (6-7/8"). It's a beautiful gun with a great trigger and an impeccable pedigree that I have been consistently unable to shoot well regardless of what ammo I put through it. Others seem to have no problems at all. However, I have a S&W M63 (3") which I can shoot far better, consistently, even in double-action. I was absolutely shocked at my ability with it to hit what I was aiming for after years of frustrating (even embrassing) inconsistency in my performance with the Ruger. The Ruger is by all accounts a far more accurate gun - longer barrel, longer sight radius, simpler construction, better trigger. I have no explanation for my experience.

Probably the same issue I have , wrong grip angle . I never could hit anything with a Luger either .

[high standard 40]

My 22 semi auto is a High Standard Trophy. My revolver is a Single Six. The revolver is nowhere near as accurate as the High Standard. Not even close.

[Bmi48219]

The three 22 handguns I own: a Benelli MP 95 w/ Olympic Wrap around grips. A S&W 2206 T and a early 1960’s Colt Officers Model Match, as listed in order of my ability to shoot. The Colt (my father’s) and the 2206 are both exceptional shooters. The Benelli is far and away better. I always wanted a S&W 41 or 46 but glad I got the Benelli instead. The trigger can be adjusted 4 ways. Travel, trigger pull, reset and you can angle the face of the trigger to your finger.

[Hays47]

For plinking absolutely loved the stainless Ruger Super Six. If shooting for money or serious hunt High Stanard Trophymatic Military was absolutely lights out. Smallest group contest had to be the Contender 14 inch 22 match barrel. That Thompson was just unbelievable.

[farmbif]

old stainless ruger 22/45 target model, more accurate than I am

[John Guedry]

I can't shoot worth a flip so I'm happy with minute of can accuracy. Got a ruger single 6 and a mk4. Happy w/both.

[rintinglen]

If my Woodsman target had a trigger as nice as my Officers Model Match, I think there would be no contest, the auto would win hands down. But that 3/4 pound difference in trigger weight is just enough to make it an even money bet which one I'll shoot better on any given day. Likewise, my M-52-2 will out shoot any 38 I own, but it doesn't run anywhere near as reliably.