|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 12, 2013, 02:44 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,123
|
Ruger Single Six vs 22/45 and MKs for accuracy
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... |
April 12, 2013, 07:47 AM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 7, 2009
Location: Western New York
Posts: 2,736
|
Quote:
|
|
April 13, 2013, 03:11 AM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,123
|
NoSecondBest
Thanks for the info!
Anyone else? Quote:
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation... Elementary Education. Now, go figure... |
|
April 13, 2013, 09:33 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 15, 2009
Location: Minnesota CZ fan
Posts: 902
|
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. |
April 13, 2013, 07:10 PM | #5 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
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. |
April 14, 2013, 08:21 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 19, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,323
|
Tis why semi-auto's are preferred to revolvers these days for small bore.
|
April 14, 2013, 01:44 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 12, 2005
Location: North central Ohio
Posts: 7,486
|
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.
__________________
ONLY AN ARMED PEOPLE CAN BE TRULY FREE ; ONLY AN UNARMED PEOPLE CAN EVER BE ENSLAVED ...Aristotle NRA Benefactor Life Member |
April 14, 2013, 03:54 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 7, 2007
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 151
|
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.
__________________
A couple of DT 158 GDs will do it! |
April 14, 2013, 04:07 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 12, 2005
Location: North central Ohio
Posts: 7,486
|
Quote:
__________________
ONLY AN ARMED PEOPLE CAN BE TRULY FREE ; ONLY AN UNARMED PEOPLE CAN EVER BE ENSLAVED ...Aristotle NRA Benefactor Life Member |
|
April 15, 2013, 01:18 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 4, 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 3,656
|
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.
__________________
E-Shock rounds are engineered to expend maximum energy into soft targets, turning the density mass into an expanding rotational cone of NyTrilium matrix particles, causing neurological collapse to the central nervous system.- Yeah I can do that. I guarantee you will know it if a bicyclist hits your house going 1000 mph. -Smaug |
April 15, 2013, 09:11 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 7, 2009
Location: Western New York
Posts: 2,736
|
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.
|
April 15, 2013, 07:11 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 4, 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 3,656
|
Quote:
__________________
E-Shock rounds are engineered to expend maximum energy into soft targets, turning the density mass into an expanding rotational cone of NyTrilium matrix particles, causing neurological collapse to the central nervous system.- Yeah I can do that. I guarantee you will know it if a bicyclist hits your house going 1000 mph. -Smaug |
|
April 15, 2013, 07:17 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 20, 2009
Location: Helena, AL
Posts: 4,424
|
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.
|
April 15, 2013, 08:56 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 7, 2009
Location: Western New York
Posts: 2,736
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 09:17 PM | #15 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
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 |
April 15, 2013, 09:18 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 2,989
|
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 |
April 15, 2013, 10:51 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Quote:
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. |
|
April 16, 2013, 01:50 AM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 4, 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 3,656
|
Quote:
__________________
E-Shock rounds are engineered to expend maximum energy into soft targets, turning the density mass into an expanding rotational cone of NyTrilium matrix particles, causing neurological collapse to the central nervous system.- Yeah I can do that. I guarantee you will know it if a bicyclist hits your house going 1000 mph. -Smaug |
|
April 16, 2013, 04:34 AM | #19 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Posts: 921
|
`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. Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 16, 2013, 07:10 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 12, 2005
Location: North central Ohio
Posts: 7,486
|
Quote:
__________________
ONLY AN ARMED PEOPLE CAN BE TRULY FREE ; ONLY AN UNARMED PEOPLE CAN EVER BE ENSLAVED ...Aristotle NRA Benefactor Life Member |
|
April 16, 2013, 10:42 PM | #21 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Posts: 921
|
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 11:48 AM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 12, 2005
Location: North central Ohio
Posts: 7,486
|
Quote:
__________________
ONLY AN ARMED PEOPLE CAN BE TRULY FREE ; ONLY AN UNARMED PEOPLE CAN EVER BE ENSLAVED ...Aristotle NRA Benefactor Life Member |
|
April 17, 2013, 01:31 PM | #23 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Posts: 921
|
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.
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 04:42 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 12, 2005
Location: North central Ohio
Posts: 7,486
|
Quote:
__________________
ONLY AN ARMED PEOPLE CAN BE TRULY FREE ; ONLY AN UNARMED PEOPLE CAN EVER BE ENSLAVED ...Aristotle NRA Benefactor Life Member |
|
April 17, 2013, 05:07 PM | #25 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Posts: 921
|
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. |
|
|