Which is more accurate?

[Rugerbilly]

I am in search of an accurate Ruger revolver or pistol in .22 LR.
I have no use for a SingleSix convertable, as .22 Mag is of no use to me.
I am calling upon all of you RugerForum members who have benchrest experience with these two guns - - -

In your informed opinion, which is more accurate?
A Ruger Mark III semiauto pistol, 6" barrel, adjustable sights?
Or, a Ruger Single Ten SA Revolver, 5.5" barrel?

The capacity of the the firearms is the same. Ten shots.

Which would you buy, if your primary objective was accuracy and accuracy alone?

 

[wwb]

It's always possible to encounter an exceptionally accurate revolver or an exceptionally poor autoloader, but for 99.999% of all the pistols out there, the autoloader will be inherently more accurate than the revolver.

Don't know about the 6" barrel with adjustable sights... from the factory, anyhow. The LPA sight is always available, though.

 

[WIL TERRY]

BET THE RANCH ON THE RUGER AUTOLOADING PISTOL IN AN ALL-OUT SHOOTOUT !!!
On the other hand my remuda of SS and Super SS sixguns will ALL shoot under 1.00" at 25 yards with six rounds of their preferred ammunition.
ALL my current MKII 22 pistols will do that with ten shots and my pistolsmith put forty rounds from the MKII 5 1/4" TARGET inside a one inch paster at 25 yards; NOTE, that is inside without a shot on an edge.
ON the other hand that same MKII 5 1/4" is the snootiest, snottiest 22 pistol I've ever seen or owned as it flattout quits working at all when it gets dirty from as little as 2-3000 rounds. That is to say, it flattout will NOT fire; clickclickclickclick until it is completely stripped and cleaned.

 

[Rugerbilly]

The new, Single Ten SA Revolver, Model# 8100 has adjustable, yellow/green fiber optic sights!
Still think the Mark III semiauto is more accurate?

 

[Dan in MI]

It's always possible to encounter an exceptionally accurate revolver or an exceptionally poor autoloader, but for 99.999% of all the pistols out there, the autoloader will be inherently more accurate than the revolver.

+1

I believe the single ten still uses a .22 Mag bore dia. That would be a strike against accuracy.

25+ years of silhouette has taught me for absolute accuracy you're gonna want black sights, not a glowing fiber optic.

 

[Snake45]

It's always possible to encounter an exceptionally accurate revolver or an exceptionally poor autoloader, but for 99.999% of all the pistols out there, the autoloader will be inherently more accurate than the revolver.

+1

I believe the single ten still uses a .22 Mag bore dia. That would be a strike against accuracy.

25+ years of silhouette has taught me for absolute accuracy you're gonna want black sights, not a glowing fiber optic.

And + another 1. :wink:

 

[Snake45]

The new, Single Ten SA Revolver, Model# 8100 has adjustable, yellow/green fiber optic sights!
Still think the Mark III semiauto is more accurate?

You are kidding, right? Right? :?

 

[mattsbox99]

Here's what my MKIII 5 1/2" slabside Gov't competition can do:

I'd love to see any single six do that. I really do mean that.

 

[1gunsnotenough]

Or you might want to look for a Mark II Government Target.

 

[Motex66]

Yes the Mark III will still be more accurate I think. The Mark III has a barrel bored for the 22LR, not an in betweener. The case is better supported. A better trigger. An adjustable sights. While I don't own one but that is what I think. After shooting many thousands of rounds in 22 IHMSA competition.
I own two accurate 22LR revolvers. A Dan Wesson 10" Silhouette and a Freedom Arms 252 Casull 10" both with match chambers. It is expensive to make an accurate 22LR revolver
That said you can get lucky with the gun and ammo coming together just right.
Feel lucky or make your own luck with the right equipment and practice.
John

 

[blume357]

My vote is for the MKIII with a longer target barrel and fiber optic sights.... with the right ammo it should nail tacks at 50ft...

I have very limited experience with the Ruger 22 revolvers... only own a single six and it is the least accurate of any of my handguns excluding a Berreta bobcat...

The thing I really don't like about 22lr revolvers, at least in single action, is they are a pain to load and unload.

 

[wwb]

The new, Single Ten SA Revolver, Model# 8100 has adjustable, yellow/green fiber optic sights!
Still think the Mark III semiauto is more accurate?

Your money, your choice, but if you want real accuracy, fiber optic sights are the last thing you want.

They may be okay for some folks to aid in quick target acquisition and sight alignment when "close enough" is all you need. I've tried them on a couple different friends' guns, and it was enough to convince me they weren't going to find a home on any of mine.

 

[contender]

Of the two options mentioned, I think most of us who have shot many, and own several of each type would agree that in general, the semi-auto is more accurate than the revolver. Look at the competition games, (even way back when Colt & High Standard were THE guns of choice,) and you'll see that the semi's ruled. Jim Clark took a Ruger and tweaked it & started winning a lot.
SIghts are a personal preferrence. I use a lot of fiber optic sights, and I also have several with iron sights. It has to do with they type of shooting AND your eyes and how they can see what you are aiming at. Different brands of fiber optics do look differently when using them. But mostly it's how YOUR eyes see things.

 

[CraigC]

A target style fixed barrel auto will almost always be more accurate than your average revolver. It is not a fair comparison. While a good revolver will shoot 1" at 25yds, I wouldn't keep a semi-auto that didn't at least halve that.

However, I really don't think the minute difference in bore size between the .22LR and .22Mag is enough to make the difference people think it does.

 

[Motex66]

CraigC your right. It's not just the bore size. Little things add up. The grip, the thin barrel, chambers made for easy loading, but it is a great plinking gun. Cheap to practice with great to get someone strated in the hobby with. Still minute of tin can. A fine small game gun.
John

 

[98_1LE]

My money is on the MkIII.

This was with match ammo, from a rest, with a rifle scope on top lol.

 

[louiethelump]

Another auto pistol vote here. I have 4 single six guns and love them to death, and they will do things the auto will not do. (shot rounds, keep the brass off the ground, etc) If I had to have just one or the other, I would keep the revolver as it is accurate enough for what I do.

BUT, you asked for accuracy, and the auto wins hands down. I have a few of the autos. 1 old std; 3 50th anniversary MKII's; 2 MKIII 22/45, and EVERY one of them will shoot tighter groups (including the 40 or so year old standard model with 4" barrel and fixed sights) than EVERY one of the Single Sixes. They are made to serve a different purpose, and the revolvers are more versatile and the 22 mag option makes them even more so.

You need at least one convertible Single Six and at least one MK auto pistol for targets and killing pine cones, golf balls, tin cans and shooting tiny little groups in targets. They are a BLAST!

Louie

 

[fyimo]

My Ruger mark II Target with bull barrel with a lot of valquartsen parts shot one hole and was the most accurate 22 I owned and like a kind fool I gave it me son.

 

[obdocab]

I vote for auto loader as well, but an understated condition is find the right cartridge! It may take a bit but find the one that your gun feeds best and shoots best. Not all 22rimfire is the same when you find something that gives you nice tight groups with miminal fliers, stock up on that lot number.

 

[D_Gunner]

The only factor on accuracy is the person behind the trigger

 

[wwb]

The only factor on accuracy is the person behind the trigger

The ONLY factor ??? Sorry, but I'm forced to take issue with that statement.

 

[Dan in MI]

The only factor on accuracy is the person behind the trigger

So the same person will be equally accurate with every gun he shoots?


(yes, there is sarcasm in that typed line)

 

[CraigC]

The only factor on accuracy is the person behind the trigger

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and does not withstand a bit of scrutiny but unfortunately, many shooters believe it.

You WILL shoot more accurately with a more accurate firearm. Period.

 

[Motex66]

Most guns have more potential than the shooter behind it, because they don't want to practice the amount required to become an accurate shooter. Read the books do the work
. You could also pay your money any get training but most of us here enjoy the effort an lack the money.
John

 

[CraigC]

Most guns have more potential than the shooter behind it.....

That is a given. However, take two identical guns, one a 3"@25yd gun the other shoots 1", one shooter and that shooter will shoot measurably better with the more accurate gun. You don't have to shoot close to the gun's potential on your hind legs to shoot a more accurate gun more accurately. You just need enough skill to shoot consistently.

I see this statement made often to arbitrarily dismiss any type of bench shooting. Those who make it clearly do not understand the importance of finding an accurate load and the only way to find what YOUR GUN likes, is to bench test. Or use a Ransom rest. This is one area where I have to fervently disagree with YouTube celebrity Hickok45. If you do not bench test and you do not use loads that shoot the most accurately in your particular firearm, you will never "be all you can be".

You will also shoot more accurately with better sights. Better fitting grips. A longer sight radius. A light, crisp and predictable trigger, etc., etc., etc.. All of which have nothing to do with the shooter or his skill but have everything to do with how that shooter interfaces with his firearm. As with most things in this life, it's all about balance.

 

[Motex66]

Most guns have more potential than the shooter behind it, because they don't want to practice the amount required to become an accurate shooter. Read the books do the work
. You could also pay your money any get training but most of us here enjoy the effort an lack the money.
John

 

[wwb]

Most guns have more potential than the shooter behind it........

If that's the case, then why, when I'm shooting my 96/44, can't I match the 3/8 inch 5-shot groups that I shoot with my bull-barrel Savage .223 ?

I guess I lack the skill to bring out the best in the 96/44......

 

[Kevin]

98-1LE: that is some fine shooting.

wwb: is it possible you haven't found the correct load for your 96-44? Which is why you shoot the 223 better?

Back to the original post my money is on the Mark III.

I've got a Mark II, Browning Buckmark contour 7.5 and a Smith and Wesson 41. The latter being by far the most accurate. However I can't wait to buy a Mark III.

 

[Rick Courtright]

The only factor on accuracy is the person behind the trigger

Hi,

Dunno if I'd say "only" but there's a valid question in that statement: how good a pistol shot ARE you?

For example, a buddy is a pretty decent shot, used to shoot revolvers in IMHSA competition, and has a beautiful old Smith K-22 that makes me drool every time he takes it out of the case.

He can shoot that revolver better than I--a not so good pistol shot--can shoot my Mk II (5.5" bull bbl). He's got a virtually identical Mk II, 'cept for the grips. But even though he's good w/ it, he can't shoot the revolver better than either his or my autoloader!

It's pretty hard to get each chamber in a cylinder to line up w/ the barrel the exact same way as every other one, while the autoloader STARTS w/ that problem solved right out of the box. From there, who knows? Ever see Olympic wheelguns? Maybe the question answers itself?

So, for accuracy, my vote's for the auto... w/ sights YOU like. Circus colors don't help me. Maybe they do others...

Rick C

 

[Motex66]

I haven't owned a Ruger 22 pistol since 1972 and gave it to my older brother because I was being sent to Germany. Still vote for the MKIII. High Standards an a lonely S&W 41 that just sets in its box.
John