Real world accuracy tests-Volquartsen barrels vs stock

[kayakingsteve]

(Edited for sake of clarity)

Does anyone here have first-hand experience with stock Ruger pistols and rested accuracy versus those modified with Volquartsen barrels and triggers?

Better yet, has anyone here done some good rested tests of say a Ruger Mark II bull barrel stock, versus modified with Volq, versus some of the higher end stuff like some of the Hammerli or Pardini offerings?

Any real world info greatly appreciated! I'm trying to determine what investment to make as I'm getting more seriously into bullseye now... I would rather spend 1500 dollars on a gun now and use it for the next 20 years. If a Ruger with Volquartsen upgrades or even a stock Ruger can print a rested group to match a more expensive gun, then I would be happy with that, knowing that I was the weak link. I can be the weak link for less money if the accuracy is the same. :)

[Jerry Keefer]

I'll create some controversy... It would definitely be better than stock...

[Rover]

I have no idea whether a Volquartsen barrel will help you out, but I certainly would recommend using their trigger set-up. I have never heard anyone complain about Ruger accuracy, but I doubt you're at a level where improved accuracy would matter. Why don't you test your gun and see what is REALLY happening before you drop the bucks. One of my annoying little sayings is, "You can't buy points."

If you decide to put your money into this, you might consider the short barrel with iron sights so you might use the gun in International style competition down the road. The shorter sight radius won't matter if you put a red dot on.

[Isabel1130]

(Edited for sake of clarity)

Does anyone here have first-hand experience with stock Ruger pistols and rested accuracy versus those modified with Volquartsen barrels and triggers?

Better yet, has anyone here done some good rested tests of say a Ruger Mark II bull barrel stock, versus modified with Volq, versus some of the higher end stuff like some of the Hammerli or Pardini offerings?

Any real world info greatly appreciated! I'm trying to determine what investment to make as I'm getting more seriously into bullseye now... I would rather spend 1500 dollars on a gun now and use it for the next 20 years. If a Ruger with Volquartsen upgrades or even a stock Ruger can print a rested group to match a more expensive gun, then I would be happy with that, knowing that I was the weak link. I can be the weak link for less money if the accuracy is the same. :)

It took me a long time to learn that it's not the gun.

The reason to select a 22 is not because it shoots a quarter inch group rather than a one inch group at fifty yards, on a given day, with a particular ammo. The reason to select a 22 is because you can shoot it well, and it is reliable

If you plan on shooting real Bullseye by that I mean complete 2700's one of the biggest factors to consider is how compatible is the grip and the trigger with what ever gun(s) you are using for the latter 2/3ds of the match.
If your 22 is way different, either in setup, grip or trigger length, it is going to hurt your total scores, especially when you get good enough to notice the difference.
You will notice that a lot of top shooters have gone to the 1911 platform for the entire match.
A good conversion unit should theoretically shoot very well, and also help your scores for the rest of the match.

[kayakingsteve]

I have no idea whether a Volquartsen barrel will help you out, but I certainly would recommend using their trigger set-up. I have never heard anyone complain about Ruger accuracy, but I doubt you're at a level where improved accuracy would matter. Why don't you test your gun and see what is REALLY happening before you drop the bucks. One of my annoying little sayings is, "You can't buy points."

If you decide to put your money into this, you might consider the short barrel with iron sights so you might use the gun in International style competition down the road. The shorter sight radius won't matter if you put a red dot on.

Good points all.

I've been practicing with a K22 with iron sights and a Colt Targetsman. The K22 8-3/8" barrel is a beautiful gun but I don't want to modify it to use an optic. It can shoot beautiful groups rested at 50 yards but being a revolver really hinders me in rapid fire. The Colt Targetsman prints larger groups at 50, but I am beginning to clean some of the timed and rapid fire targets with it in practice (not in an event yet), but I don't want to drill and tap the beautiful old gun as my grandfather gave it to my dad etc...

So part of the investment is just to use a newer platform that has abundant extra parts and I'm not afraid to tap for mounts. So far I've heard 22/45 or .22lr conversion 1911... Just wondering about the usefulness of the Volq barrel etc in real life...

[kayakingsteve]

(Edited for sake of clarity)

Does anyone here have first-hand experience with stock Ruger pistols and rested accuracy versus those modified with Volquartsen barrels and triggers?

Better yet, has anyone here done some good rested tests of say a Ruger Mark II bull barrel stock, versus modified with Volq, versus some of the higher end stuff like some of the Hammerli or Pardini offerings?

Any real world info greatly appreciated! I'm trying to determine what investment to make as I'm getting more seriously into bullseye now... I would rather spend 1500 dollars on a gun now and use it for the next 20 years. If a Ruger with Volquartsen upgrades or even a stock Ruger can print a rested group to match a more expensive gun, then I would be happy with that, knowing that I was the weak link. I can be the weak link for less money if the accuracy is the same. :)

It took me a long time to learn that it's not the gun.


The reason to select a 22 is not because it shoots a quarter inch group rather than a one inch group at fifty yards, on a given day, with a particular ammo. The reason to select a 22 is because you can shoot it well, and it is reliable

If you plan on shooting real Bullseye by that I mean complete 2700's one of the biggest factors to consider is how compatible is the grip and the trigger with what ever gun(s) you are using for the latter 2/3ds of the match.
If your 22 is way different, either in setup, grip or trigger length, it is going to hurt your total scores, especially when you get good enough to notice the difference.
You will notice that a lot of top shooters have gone to the 1911 platform for the entire match.
A good conversion unit should theoretically shoot very well, and also help your scores for the rest of the match.

More food for thought!

I'm frankly baffled by the 1911 world (I've always been a revolver guy or have only used a Colt Targetsman of late). The more I read about 1911's, the more confused I get as the loyalties and opinions run towards the intense and highly varied type in the forums that I've read so far. :)

So far on an entry level Bullseye 1911 I've heard, 1. Range Officer 2. Kimber (but then hear lots of people bashing Kimber), or just buy a 3k gun...

About the only thing I do know about 1911's so far is that if you want to spend lots of money on one, you sure can. :) Any pointers on a basic, durable and accurate production model 1911 .45 and/or who makes accurate conversions? (It would have to stand up to lots of use as I practice frequently)

[Isabel1130]

There are two ways to go. Buy a Springfield Range officer, have a trigger job done, and possibly a new Kart match barrel, or find a used competiton 1911 for sale on a Bullseye competition web site, or from a friend. You should be able to get a real decent used gun for around 1500 dollars.
Both of these options will be better than a Kimber.
A lot of people love their Kimbers, I know, but my gunsmithing friends are very unhappy with the quality of the steel, and the general part fitting of the Kimbers.

The Nelson conversion units have a very good reputation. I have also been very happy with Marvel Precision.

[kayakingsteve]

There are two ways to go. Buy a Springfield Range officer, have a trigger job done, and possibly a new Kart match barrel, or find a used competiton 1911 for sale on a Bullseye competition web site, or from a friend. You should be able to get a real decent used gun for around 1500 dollars.
Both of these options will be better than a Kimber.
A lot of people love their Kimbers, I know, but my gunsmithing friends are very unhappy with the quality of the steel, and the general part fitting of the Kimbers.

The Nelson conversion units have a very good reputation. I have also been very happy with Marvel Precision.

Thanks for the good advice, I'm happy to hear the Range Officer keeps coming up and it is not a pricey gun. Durability is much more important to me than initial cost. I've owned one Taurus revolver that was just as accurate as a nice older Smith, but after 5k rounds or so the metallurgy was a problem (weak ratchets deforming) etc... so when I hear "bad metallurgy" I run.

Glad I'm starting to see a pattern here and finding a starting point! Thanks!


p.s. I know Springfield is made in South America, as is Taurus, but of course that may be the only similarity, are there any issues with Springfield metallurgy to be aware of?

[Rover]

Springfield hasn't shown me anything. Buy something used from "that guy at the range". You'll be happier (and with more beer money).

[6string]

To kayakingsteve,

You mention your old K22 and Colt 22, and seem to have a knowledge and appreciation for their true value. So, if you decide to go the 1911 route skip the Springfield, Kimber, new Remingtons, etc. Just go find a nice used Colt 1911 series 70, or better yet, earlier Gov't model that's already been set up for bullseye. The collectors don't want them, since they're not stock, so you can often find a good one for as little as $700-800, maybe more for one worked over by a "name" gunsmith.
As far as metallurgy goes, I know a few older guys that have shot as much as 250,000 rounds through their old Colts and they're still ticking!

Best regards,
Jim

[kayakingsteve]

To kayakingsteve,

You mention your old K22 and Colt 22, and seem to have a knowledge and appreciation for their true value. So, if you decide to go the 1911 route skip the Springfield, Kimber, new Remingtons, etc. Just go find a nice used Colt 1911 series 70, or better yet, earlier Gov't model that's already been set up for bullseye. The collectors don't want them, since they're not stock, so you can often find a good one for as little as $700-800, maybe more for one worked over by a "name" gunsmith.
As far as metallurgy goes, I know a few older guys that have shot as much as 250,000 rounds through their old Colts and they're still ticking!

Best regards,
Jim

Jim,

Thanks for the good advice. I prefer "classic" guns with the most solid mechanics possible. I know some of the Colts needed some smithing to get setup for Bullseye, and for a long time that was the _only_ gun available. What years of Colts in the 70 series would be considered accurate bullseye shooters in general? What absolutely needed to be done to to the earlier Government models to get them up to snuff?

Steve

p.s. thanks for the nod on the Targetsman and the K22. If I had to choose one gun to own the rest of my life it would be the K22 with the 8-3/8" barrel, but for bullseye I view my next investments as sports equipment, so I don't want to be afraid to get one to drill and tap for optics etc... even though I will take great care of it, it's going to get used a lot! :)

[6string]

Hi Steve,

My personal preference is for Colt 1911s from the 1950s and 60s. I would generally pass on Gold Cups and the Colt branded National Match models in favor of the basic Government model. Nothing wrong with the former, but generally they go for more money yet all need the same accuracy work to be competitive (tighten slide-frame, NM bushing, weld & fit barrel hood/lugs... Or NM barrel, trigger work).
You may get lucky in your search and find one of the many 1911s turned out by the various service armories during the 60s. There's an interesting book on the subject. I'll try to dig up my copy and pass on the info.
It may be worth it to find one with a full length Bomar rib. That way you can use the iron sights on the rib, or drop on a Clark slide mount for optics. The Clark mount holes specifically align with the Bomar holes! Some really fine smiths turned out great work but with few identifying marks. If you do so research, you can find some nice pieces out there! Look for gunsmiths like Giles, Clark, Dinan, Nygord, Chow, and Day, to name a few.

Best Regards,
Jim

[kayakingsteve]

Hi Steve,

My personal preference is for Colt 1911s from the 1950s and 60s. I would generally pass on Gold Cups and the Colt branded National Match models in favor of the basic Government model. Nothing wrong with the former, but generally they go for more money yet all need the same accuracy work to be competitive (tighten slide-frame, NM bushing, weld & fit barrel hood/lugs... Or NM barrel, trigger work).
You may get lucky in your search and find one of the many 1911s turned out by the various service armories during the 60s. There's an interesting book on the subject. I'll try to dig up my copy and pass on the info.
It may be worth it to find one with a full length Bomar rib. That way you can use the iron sights on the rib, or drop on a Clark slide mount for optics. The Clark mount holes specifically align with the Bomar holes! Some really fine smiths turned out great work but with few identifying marks. If you do so research, you can find some nice pieces out there! Look for gunsmiths like Giles, Clark, Dinan, Nygord, Chow, and Day, to name a few.

Best Regards,
Jim

Lots of good info here. I have the good luck of having a few older friends who have been shooting for years, one of whom told me about Colt being the only option out there for years and that was where people had to really put effort in to get accuracy out of those guns.

If you had to quantify what the differences are between the fit, durability, metallurgy and mechanics overall between some of the production guns now like the Springfields and Kimbers versus one of the older Colts (before and after smithing), how would you describe them to someone who has never held them and shot them?

(for instance, an older Jeep is pretty much all metal, wires, glass and rubber, no plastic mounts for any body work, no plastic brackets, whereas as much as I love Tacomas, they have a lot of plastic brackets and aren't as durable) What's a good metaphor for someone who never had the luck of growing up around these guns? I think the neophytes like me have a hard time finding a frame of reference for all these new brands compared to the classic stuff.

[6string]

Hi Steve,

Yes, Colt was the main player for quite a while, although there were plenty of Remington-Rands that were excellent platforms for a target gun. You'll also see a few "mixmasters" like Colt slides on Remington frames, etc. These can work out quite well, as many smiths, especially service armorers, could mix and match parts for best fitting. If you happen upon one cheap (and they do come up) they can be a great bargain, especially if a lot of the target work is already done.
The older Colts respond well to the slide rail fitting, which is really the biggest amount of fitting work. If you're shooting wadcutter loads the fit will hold up a long time. If you shoot full power hardball, they need periodic touch up. The metal seems to have that good combination of being tough but not brittle.
The grain of the steel seems to be such to allow a tight fit with a liquid-like smoothness.
I don't think it would be too cost effective to get a stock Colt and have it reworked, at least when there seems to be a reasonable supply of used, modified ones that are pretty much ready to shoot.
I know one older guy who has a WWI era Colt that was accurized and sold match ready by the NRA in the 1950s. He paid $15 for it and used it for as long as he competed.
I can't speak of the current Kimbers, but the ones that first came out (without the "II" designation for the new safety trigger) were really, really nice. The steel was incredibly tough. The fit was also quite good out of the box. A lot of the stock parts (sear, hammer, barrel) were fully usable for serious target work with just a bit of tweaking and polishing. With most of the Springfields, you end up scrapping literally everything besides the frame and slide. That might be OK with one of their base models where you've only got $450 invested, but for one of the more expensive ones, you can end up spending $900 for what is, honestly, an Imbel brand frame and slide from Brazil. But, a lot of people find the higher end ones are close enough to what they eventually want that they use themand upgrade as they go.
As for other new production 1911s, a lot of people like Les Baer on the high end of the price scale. Some people are happy with their match guns as is, others feel they still need a bit of trigger work to get them to their liking.

I should probably mention that if you're looking at older, used guns, you may want to handle a few nice ones so you can get an idea of how a good one should be fitted. For all the praise I've heaped on the classics, there are some turkeys out there that have been goofed up by amateurs.

Best Regards,
Jim

[Isabel1130]

Just wanted to mention that if your quest is for a Series 70 with good steel, don't turn up your nose if someone offers to sell you a Caspian accurized or built by a good 1911 gunsmith.
That is what I shoot, and I have been extremely satisfied.

[kayakingsteve]

Lots of good advice here, thanks everyone!

Just to play devil's advocate here, could I be looking at this too narrowly? Since there are a lot of .45 ACP platforms out there now, could something other than a 1911 be just as accurate for bullseye shooting?

[Isabel1130]

Lots of good advice here, thanks everyone!

Just to play devil's advocate here, could I be looking at this too narrowly? Since there are a lot of .45 ACP platforms out there now, could something other than a 1911 be just as accurate for bullseye shooting?

Of course, but why throw away a hundred years of development of a gun that will shoot well, with readily available parts, and hundreds of gunsmiths who can repair, and accurize it for several years of trial and error with another platform?

As some of my friends say, do you want to shoot or do you have more fun collecting and playing with your guns?
Nothing wrong with the later. Just that it is hard to do both well.

[kle]

could I be looking at this too narrowly? Since there are a lot of .45 ACP platforms out there now, could something other than a 1911 be just as accurate for bullseye shooting?

Of course, but why throw away a hundred years of development of a gun that will shoot well, with readily available parts, and hundreds of gunsmiths who can repair, and accurize it for several years of trial and error with another platform?

As some of my friends say, do you want to shoot or do you have more fun collecting and playing with your guns?
Nothing wrong with the later. Just that it is hard to do both well.

S&W Model 25/625:
100 years of development: check
Readily available parts: check
Hundreds of gunsmiths who can repair and accurize it: check

I made Master with a S&W 625 (and a S&W 617 to match). It was accurate right out of the box, easy to mount an UltraDot, and had a trigger that I contend rivals the best 1911 I've ever experienced.

To caveat: I think the other part of the question, kayakingsteve, is "how easy is a particular platform to shoot?" Crankin' and Yankin' a wheelgun is well and good if you can get a good rhythm/process going, but requires a lot of dedication to shoot well. My pursuit of the Master classification (from Marksman) with my wheelguns took me about three years of constant shooting, visiting the range about five times per week and going through about 100 rounds of ammo per visit. I do acknowledge that my experience is something of an exception nowadays.

I agree that the 1911 is probably the best way to go right now.

[kayakingsteve]

could I be looking at this too narrowly? Since there are a lot of .45 ACP platforms out there now, could something other than a 1911 be just as accurate for bullseye shooting?

Of course, but why throw away a hundred years of development of a gun that will shoot well, with readily available parts, and hundreds of gunsmiths who can repair, and accurize it for several years of trial and error with another platform?

As some of my friends say, do you want to shoot or do you have more fun collecting and playing with your guns?
Nothing wrong with the later. Just that it is hard to do both well.

S&W Model 25/625:
100 years of development: check
Readily available parts: check
Hundreds of gunsmiths who can repair and accurize it: check

I made Master with a S&W 625 (and a S&W 617 to match). It was accurate right out of the box, easy to mount an UltraDot, and had a trigger that I contend rivals the best 1911 I've ever experienced.

To caveat: I think the other part of the question, kayakingsteve, is "how easy is a particular platform to shoot?" Crankin' and Yankin' a wheelgun is well and good if you can get a good rhythm/process going, but requires a lot of dedication to shoot well. My pursuit of the Master classification (from Marksman) with my wheelguns took me about three years of constant shooting, visiting the range about five times per week and going through about 100 rounds of ammo per visit. I do acknowledge that my experience is something of an exception nowadays.

I agree that the 1911 is probably the best way to go right now.

That is some dedication there!

Honestly, I prefer revolvers and always will. My K22 at 50 yards for slow fire is as accurate as anything I've ever shot. (I had a 617 and the ratchets kept wearing out and it went out of time too easily so I will never go back to a Smith 10 shot, even though it was a very nice gun)

I've been practicing for about a year now seriously but I just lose too much in the rapid fire portions with the revolver... :( I have had great smithing done on my K22 also, it has a great trigger, but the rapid fire mechanics of either manually cocking it or double action make it tough. I realized I am fighting nature when I took my Dad's old Colt Targetsman out of the safe and within a few weeks could score some 100's in rapid fire with it in practice...

If it wasn't for rapid fire I would use a 625 and my K22 and be done with it. :)

No offense to any semi-auto enthusiasts, but I will never carry a semi-auto for defense nor enjoy one as much as a revolver, but I am addicted to bullseye now. :)

[oldcaster]

When I shot bullseye in the army in the middle 60's most of us shot revolvers particularly in the centerfire portion because 1911's were not as accurate in those days. Every one generally cleaned the timed and rapid targets unless the group was off center so slow fire was the deciding factor. You have heard of win in slow fire - lose in timed and rapid. The 22's all of us shot were High Standards but there was talk of how great the Ruger Mark 1 was and it was said that Blankenship was using one and getting great results. They never really caught on for some reason and I don't know why because they are quite accurate. Now I think the best gun for you to choose is the one that you seem to be able to shoot better. Grip size, grip angle, forward weight, long barrel, short barrel, light with scope in the rear or whatever. Most people will let you at least try their gun so you can get an idea of what you like best. I think I shoot my Marvel the best of all and it is probably the least accurate of them all but of course accuracy is not nearly as important to me as it would have been 50 years ago. Buy yourself a Les Baer 45 because then the resale value is always high and they are excellent guns.