Ruger Single Six vs 22/45 and MKs for accuracy

[AZAK]

Has anyone compared these guns head to head in a test of accuracy?

Is there any noticeable difference in the convertible SS model compared to the dedicated one cylinder model?

I have owned many different MKs over the years, beginning with the Standard. I have a couple of 22/45s that are one hole machines; one scoped MKIII Hunter, and one MKII Target.

I am considering picking up a SS. Just wondering how it would measure up against its semi-auto cousins in the accuracy department.

And is there any reason to consider the older three screw models over the current production?

Any input regarding comparing the accuracy between these two animals would be appreciated.

[NoSecondBest]

Has anyone compared these guns head to head in a test of accuracy?

Is there any noticeable difference in the convertible SS model compared to the dedicated one cylinder model?

I have owned many different MKs over the years, beginning with the Standard. I have a couple of 22/45s that are one hole machines; one scoped MKIII Hunter, and one MKII Target.

I am considering picking up a SS. Just wondering how it would measure up against its semi-auto cousins in the accuracy department.

And is there any reason to consider the older three screw models over the current production?

Any input regarding comparing the accuracy between these two animals would be appreciated.
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation...
Elementary Education.

Now, go figure...

First off, I need to point out that my reply is based on an "average" production gun vs. another "average" production gun so that we are talking apples to apples so to speak. I've owned several Ruger Single Six's and three Ruger target auto's. A revolver will not shoot as well as an auto simply due to the fact that you are shooting bullets out of six different chambers. In an auto, every bullet enters one chamber and there is no gap to jump. Are there exceptions? Yes. I once owned a Ruger Single Six Convertible that I was using for Silhouette shooting that didn't shoot all that well. Two of the chambers shot to a different point of impact. I sent it back to Ruger and they returned it with a different cylinder for 22lr. I used that gun at the Internationals to shoot a 77x80 with. I also won several state and regional shoots with that revolver. Contrary to what you will hear about the difference in bore diameter, etc., both cylinders shot very well out of that gun. Some ammo runs larger and some runs smaller and the spec on both the ammo and bore will overlap. To answer your question though, in all probability the revolver will not out perform your auto. It's probably about 1000 to 1 that it will shoot as well.

[AZAK]

Thanks for the info!

Anyone else?

It's probably about 1000 to 1 that it will shoot as well.

Is this the basic consensus?

[LarryFlew]

Have had 3 single sixes with 3 different experiences. All where convertibles with both cylinders. First one was very good with magnum and so so with LR. 2nd one was the opposite. 3rd was a buntline and dead one with either cylinder. These where all older models from 1980 and b4. So, yes the chamber thing mentioned is certainly a factor.

Of course the nice buntline turned out to be stolen from Colorado when I had a LEO buddy check the serial. He arranged to have it returned and the owner sent what I paid for it from his insurance. 4 years after it was stolen.

[johnwilliamson062]

Agree with above and will add a few data points.
My single six is not as accurate as either of the target MK IIs I have owned. I have a buddy who has both also and he said the same when we discussed it.

[22-rimfire]

Tis why semi-auto's are preferred to revolvers these days for small bore.

[dgludwig]

Generally speaking, though it's not necessarily an indicator of intrinsic accuracy (say, as when these two types of handguns are compared head-to-head from a Ransom rest), I've always found my Ruger MK autos to have better trigger pulls than that on my Ruger Super Single Six revolver (which isn't to say that the MK triggers are all that good nor that the SSS trigger is all that bad). Better (in terms of lighter, smoother and creep-free) trigger pulls promote more accurate shooting because they enable the shooter to control his shots better. Individual specimens of each type of handgun could, of course, result in a different outcome than my experience with each might suggest.

[the357plan]

Over time, I've owned two Stainless Single Six Convertibles and two Stainless Mark IIs. My impression has been that the Mark IIs were generally more accurate than the Single Sixes. I've never tested them head-to-head because I've never owned any of them at the same time.

However, don't rule out revolvers in the accuracy department. In head-to-head testing of what I do have, my S&W 648 will keep up with my Mark II Government Target and my FA Model 97 will easily cut those groups in half or more (sometimes you get what you pay for).

As a note, I tend to find more deviation between ammunition brands and such than between the guns.

[dgludwig]

As a note, I tend to find more deviation between ammunition brands and such than between the guns.

That's a good point-to a point. But, once it's been determined as to what ammunition works best for each gun, the test of inherent accuracy between the two types can be empirically explored.

[Venom1956]

I have both and I can say you can ring 6" steel @ 100yards with iron sights on the Mk series. Just have to get hold over. Thinner front blade makes it alot easier as well.

As for the Single Six i'd say it is abit less accurate (bore) but honestly more so the most of those who shoot them. I will try and get some long range Single six shooting in this summer.

[NoSecondBest]

IHMSA Silhouette matches should tell you something. After shooting these matches for over ten years it was abundantly clear that the scores shot in revolver class were noticably lower than those shot in semi-automatic class. Revolvers simply do not shoot as well as auto's do on an apples to apples comparison. Those are facts backed up with a LOT of data.

[Venom1956]

IHMSA Silhouette matches should tell you something. After shooting these matches for over ten years it was abundantly clear that the scores shot in revolver class were noticably lower than those shot in semi-automatic class. Revolvers simply do not shoot as well as auto's do on an apples to apples comparison. Those are facts backed up with a LOT of data.

Like what data? Revolvers are just as accurate as autos some would even argue they are more so.

[GeauxTide]

I've had two Ruger Convertibles and no Ruger Autos; however, the RA is noted for superb target accuracy. I own the revolver because it's on my hip cutting the FIL acreage. I've had a trigger job, Millet sights, and Belt Mountain Base Pin and it shoots better than I can. I have potted a crow at 75 measured yards, so that's enough for me. If I wanted a target 22, it would be a RA.

[NoSecondBest]

Like what data? Revolvers are just as accurate as autos some would even argue they are more so.

You're sadly mistaken. The data is the scores shot at those matches. The revolver NEVER shoots as well as the auto's. Perfect scores are a rarity and perfect scores are common. You need to learn what you're saying making statements with no support.

[James K]

Some revolvers might shoot better than some autos, but IMHO, the SS is not in that category. One problem with all SA revolvers is the long hammer fall and the less than sterling trigger pull. Plus, Ruger does not consider the SS a target revolver and I strongly suspect does not put the care into them that has to go into a target pistol.

If you want a handgun for serious target work, you will have to spring for something more suitable than a Single Six (or similar guns).

Jim

[Bob Wright]

In my hands, and in my shooting, I've preferred the single action revolver. It is more natural in my hands and comes up more naturally when taking shots at squirrels. I haven't found an auto that points more naturally, in my hands.

Most matches now are timed events, and certainly the auto pistols shine in those cases, as the shooter does not have to thumb cock the hammer or deal with a heavier double action trigger pull.

But single action, slow fire, both revovlers and autos stand pretty equal. And in the fields or woods, its the revolver all the way for me.

Bob Wright

[Buzzcook]

It is more natural in my hands and comes up more naturally when taking shots at squirrels. I haven't found an auto that points more naturally, in my hands.

Bob makes an important point. Off a machine rest the Mk series will tend to be more accurate. But how the gun fits your hand can have an important effect on accuracy.

For my part the weight of the two guns makes a difference. The Single Six feels light in my hand while the Mk feels comfortably hefty.

[Venom1956]

You're sadly mistaken. The data is the scores shot at those matches. The revolver NEVER shoots as well as the auto's. Perfect scores are a rarity and perfect scores are common. You need to learn what you're saying making statements with no support.

Those scores show exactly ONE thing. The short comings of the shooter. Either pistol has the mechanical accuracy to hit consistently @ 100 yds.

[newfrontier45]

`Tis not a fair comparison. Revolvers should be compared to other revolvers, not fixed barrel autos. Any good revolver, rimfire or centerfire, will be able to shoot into 1" to 1½" at 25yds with preferred loads. A good fixed barrel auto (not centerfire service autos) like the Ruger MK-series or Browning Buckmark will easily halve that. Some even better. Something like a S&W 41 will shoot even better. A factory revolver, be it a nice K-22, Colt Officer's or the lowly Single Six simply cannot compete. The latter being lower on the totem pole because Ruger simply does not build them to be match accurate. You have to spend a lot of money to get a revolver to shoot like a good auto, meaning a half inch or better at 25yds. By a lot I mean a Freedom Arms or custom Ruger with a linebored cylinder and match barrel. We're talking about spending $2000 or more for a revolver to shoot as well as a $300 auto. As personal preference, I greatly prefer revolvers but the facts are what they are.

For those that dog the single action for locktime, bear in mind that the most accurate revolvers in the world are single actions.

Also bear in mind that none of this applies when we turn to centerfire service autos.

Is there any noticeable difference in the convertible SS model compared to the dedicated one cylinder model?

Not since 1968, when Ruger started using the same barrels for all the .22's, convertible or not. Personally, I think too much is made of this compromise bore issue. I believe that the way Ruger builds the cylinders has a much greater impact on velocity than the tiny difference in bore size. They make all their parts in batches and cut (or used to cut) all six chambers at once. Cylinders are just grabbed out of a bin and the keep trying until one fits. Very little hand-fitting going on. This is not conducive to a match accurate revolver like the S&W's and Colt's of old.

I strongly suspect does not put the care into them that has to go into a target pistol.

Ruger doesn't put any more or less care into either one. A fixed barrel auto is simply easier to build accurately at an affordable price than a revolver.

[dgludwig]

For those that dog the single action for locktime, bear in mind that the most accurate revolvers in the world are single actions.

A little bit disingenuous, I think. The most accurate revolvers in the world are double-action revolvers fired in the single-action mode. If you take exception to this, go to Camp Perry sometime and try counting single-action revolvers that are being shot by competitors (a good place to start would be the Harry Reeves revolver only course of fire). I'm pretty certain that your list will be a very short one. Actually, I'd be pretty surprised if you found even one.

[newfrontier45]

A little bit disingenuous, I think.

Hardly. I've never seen a DA shoot 1" groups at 100yds. There is no double action that can compete with a Freedom Arms or custom linebored Ruger. The fact that they don't shoot them at Camp Perry is irrelevant.

[dgludwig]

The fact that they don't shoot them at Camp Perry is irrelevant.

The only thing relevant at Camp Perry is accuracy.

[newfrontier45]

The fact that they don't shoot SA's in bullseye competition is irrelevant to my comment and this discussion. Which is about like saying Contenders can't be more accurate than 1911's because they don't shoot them in IPSC.

The only thing relevant at Camp Perry is accuracy.

That's rather simplistic anyway. Do they not have rapid fire stages? Then I guess rate of fire is relevant as well.

[dgludwig]

Quote:
The only thing relevant at Camp Perry is accuracy.

That's rather simplistic anyway. Do they not have rapid fire stages? Then I guess rate of fire is relevant as well.

A Bullseye match at places like Camp Perry typically have three stages of fire: rapid fire (5 shots in 10 seconds, shot one-handed @ 25 yards); timed fire (5 shots in 20 seconds, shot one-handed @ 25 yards) and slow fire (10 shots in 10 minutes, shot one-handed @ 50 yards-a TC Contender would be plenty fast in this stage ). Shooters competing with a revolver generally shoot in the sa mode using da revolvers, regardless of the time constraints imposed with each stage of fire. In terms of who wins, the most shots closest to the x-ring (accuracy) is the only thing that counts. Sorry if this sounds "simplistic" to you but it is what it is.

[newfrontier45]

None of which has a damn thing to do with what I said. An FA 83 is going to be more accurate than ANY revolver used in a bullseye match. The fact that they do not use them in bullseye shooting is entirely irrelevant.

For argument's sake, show me a bullseye DA that is more accurate.