Real world accuracy tests-Volquartsen barrels vs stock

[kayakingsteve]

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.

What was your technique for rapid fire? I feel like I have no time to focus on my sight picture and trigger squeeze and cock the hammer for single action all in that 2-3 seconds... When I went to a less accurate Colt Targetsman versus my K22 8-3/8" I could finally clean targets. If it wasn't for rapid fire I could do timed and slow with revolvers and would be a lot happier actually.

[oldcaster]

I don't remember any revolvers except Smiths. This was because it is what we had but all the Colts that I have tried are harder to cock with one hand. The hammer feels too slick and isn't quite in the right place.

When you are 24 years old and your incentive is that you will no longer be on the team if you do poorly, you shoot 6 days a week with unlimited ammo, and have the best coaches in the world I think it was easy. The difference between the best and the poorest on average was not great and was pretty consistent. It was rare for someone to really mess up.

All of us were taught to focus on the front sight and ignore the target. We would make sure the front sight was in the middle of the rear and at the proper level but would not focus on the rear at all. When you are young, it is easy to change focus from one to the other but it was definitely better to not do this.

Some days we would fire rapid all day long and when you do this you get a rhythm and everyone's rhythm was very close to the same. The stiffer you hold your wrist, the easier it is to recover and your arm kind of goes up and left without the wrist moving so when the arm goes back down, the sights are pretty much aligned. In other words, only your shoulder joint should move.

Your mind says that the gun has to go off every two seconds regardless or you will be late and wind up panicking at the end. The quicker you get your first shot off, the longer between shots you have. I guess just practice and constantly think about what you might be doing wrong. We had sergeants to tell us when we did which makes it easy because it might be hard for a person to tell what they personally are doing wrong. You can dry fire rapid for hours if you are willing and it will help immensely.

We had all sorts of people there and it was quite noticeable that some were just better at the long line and others were better at the short line nut no matter how many x's you shoot compared to your opponent at the short line, a 10 counts the same when you drop more points on the long line.

[kayakingsteve]

I don't remember any revolvers except Smiths. This was because it is what we had but all the Colts that I have tried are harder to cock with one hand. The hammer feels too slick and isn't quite in the right place.

When you are 24 years old and your incentive is that you will no longer be on the team if you do poorly, you shoot 6 days a week with unlimited ammo, and have the best coaches in the world I think it was easy. The difference between the best and the poorest on average was not great and was pretty consistent. It was rare for someone to really mess up.

All of us were taught to focus on the front sight and ignore the target. We would make sure the front sight was in the middle of the rear and at the proper level but would not focus on the rear at all. When you are young, it is easy to change focus from one to the other but it was definitely better to not do this.

Some days we would fire rapid all day long and when you do this you get a rhythm and everyone's rhythm was very close to the same. The stiffer you hold your wrist, the easier it is to recover and your arm kind of goes up and left without the wrist moving so when the arm goes back down, the sights are pretty much aligned. In other words, only your shoulder joint should move.

Your mind says that the gun has to go off every two seconds regardless or you will be late and wind up panicking at the end. The quicker you get your first shot off, the longer between shots you have. I guess just practice and constantly think about what you might be doing wrong. We had sergeants to tell us when we did which makes it easy because it might be hard for a person to tell what they personally are doing wrong. You can dry fire rapid for hours if you are willing and it will help immensely.

We had all sorts of people there and it was quite noticeable that some were just better at the long line and others were better at the short line nut no matter how many x's you shoot compared to your opponent at the short line, a 10 counts the same when you drop more points on the long line.

It is good motivation to hear how much work you guys put into practicing. So, if I understand correctly; you guys were using a revolver for all centerfire including the .45 ACP, so a Smith model 25?

Good incentive practice more. Do you think optics are really necessary if a shooter still has better than 20/20 vision? Would you have used a red-dot given the choice back when you first started?

[Isabel1130]

No, optics are not really necessary, and for those working on Distinguished, shooting irons through the match is not a bad idea.

However, where it becomes problematic is at indoor ranges with poor lighting conditions. I can see the Iron sights fine at Camp Perry, not so well at an indoor range with poor overhead or poor target lighting.

However, if the AMU and Marine Corps teams were getting higher scores with irons, they would be shooting them. The fact that they are not, tells you something.

[kayakingsteve]

No, optics are not really necessary, and for those working on Distinguished, shooting irons through the match is not a bad idea.

However, where it becomes problematic is at indoor ranges with poor lighting conditions. I can see the Iron sights fine at Camp Perry, not so well at an indoor range with poor overhead or poor target lighting.

However, if the AMU and Marine Corps teams were getting higher scores with irons, they would be shooting them. The fact that they are not, tells you something.

I will have to do some searching and read about what some of these teams are using. (not that any of it applies to me directly). I'll just keep practicing with iron sight revolvers here until I finally decide what to do about a .45 ACP.

I figure if you have a solid foundation in revolvers with iron sights, it can only help anyway.

[kle]

I will have to do some searching and read about what some of these teams are using. (not that any of it applies to me directly). I'll just keep practicing with iron sight revolvers here until I finally decide what to do about a .45 ACP.

If you can find an Aimtech or a Weaver clamp-type mount for a K-frame, you can use whatever red dot sight you want on your K22. If you find a S&W 625-4 (or later; current production is 625-8), it will already be drilled-and-tapped for a scope rail. Pictured below are my S&W Model 17 (no dash) with a Weaver mount and my S&W 625-6 with a Weigand Combat rail, both with Ultradot 4moa/25mm dot sights. I used these last August to win the Mid-Atlantic Revolver Regional Championship match:

I figure if you have a solid foundation in revolvers with iron sights, it can only help anyway.

Definitely. When I switched to shooting primarily semi-autos a couple years ago, things felt effortless. The necessary and constant application of good triggering and followthrough techniques when shooting revolvers with high precision definitely carried over to shooting semi-autos, and I made Indoor High Master after just one season of my local .22 league (scores didn't get reported until the very end of the season). I also found that I didn't need to practice as much to maintain my skill level after I switched - though I still consider all the practicing and training I did to get there to be necessary.

So definitely keep up with your wheelgun!

[kayakingsteve]

I will have to do some searching and read about what some of these teams are using. (not that any of it applies to me directly). I'll just keep practicing with iron sight revolvers here until I finally decide what to do about a .45 ACP.

If you can find an Aimtech or a Weaver clamp-type mount for a K-frame, you can use whatever red dot sight you want on your K22. If you find a S&W 625-4 (or later; current production is 625-8), it will already be drilled-and-tapped for a scope rail. Pictured below are my S&W Model 17 (no dash) with a Weaver mount and my S&W 625-6 with a Weigand Combat rail, both with Ultradot 4moa/25mm dot sights. I used these last August to win the Mid-Atlantic Revolver Regional Championship match:

I figure if you have a solid foundation in revolvers with iron sights, it can only help anyway.

Definitely. When I switched to shooting primarily semi-autos a couple years ago, things felt effortless. The necessary and constant application of good triggering and followthrough techniques when shooting revolvers with high precision definitely carried over to shooting semi-autos, and I made Indoor High Master after just one season of my local .22 league (scores didn't get reported until the very end of the season). I also found that I didn't need to practice as much to maintain my skill level after I switched - though I still consider all the practicing and training I did to get there to be necessary.

So definitely keep up with your wheelgun!

That is awesome! beautiful guns too! I don't want to Mod my K22 but that mount looks like a neat idea.

Do you think your optics help with quicker follow up shots in rapid fire versus iron sights to a significant degree?

If it was as "simple" (meaning no new platform to learn) as just practicing with a model 625 I already know Smith's very well and my 627 would like a "big" brother. :)

[kle]

That is awesome! beautiful guns too! I don't want to Mod my K22 but that mount looks like a neat idea.

Do you think your optics help with quicker follow up shots in rapid fire versus iron sights to a significant degree?

If it was as simple as just practicing with a model 625 I already know Smith's very well and my 627 would like a "big" brother. :)

Hmm. I haven't really considered the difference, but perhaps I do get quicker sights-to-target alignment with the red dot than with iron sights - the advantage of having just two things to line up (dot and target) vs. three (rear sight, front sight, target) is certainly there. But the first time I had ever cleaned a rapid fire target was in a Distinguished Revolver match with an iron sighted Model 14 in .38. Certainly, people shot well with iron sights and revolvers until the semi-autos and red dots came to prominence.

[kayakingsteve]

Hmm. I haven't really considered the difference, but perhaps I do get quicker sights-to-target alignment with the red dot than with iron sights - the advantage of having just two things to line up (dot and target) vs. three (rear sight, front sight, target) is certainly there. But the first time I had ever cleaned a rapid fire target was in a Distinguished Revolver match with an iron sighted Model 14 in .38. Certainly, people shot well with iron sights and revolvers until the semi-autos and red dots came to prominence.

I notice your grips with both guns, who makes them? Is that some grip-tape on the palm of the 22? The biggest problem I've had with the K22 is that I feel like I have to re-grip each time I cock the hammer, which is killing my technique, maybe some different geometry target grips would help with that (and lots more practice).

High Master with revolvers! Great goal for me one day! :)

[Isabel1130]

Hmm. I haven't really considered the difference, but perhaps I do get quicker sights-to-target alignment with the red dot than with iron sights - the advantage of having just two things to line up (dot and target) vs. three (rear sight, front sight, target) is certainly there. But the first time I had ever cleaned a rapid fire target was in a Distinguished Revolver match with an iron sighted Model 14 in .38. Certainly, people shot well with iron sights and revolvers until the semi-autos and red dots came to prominence.

I notice your grips with both guns, who makes them? Is that some grip-tape on the palm of the 22? The biggest problem I've had with the K22 is that I feel like I have to re-grip each time I cock the hammer, which is killing my technique, maybe some different geometry target grips would help with that (and lots more practice).

High Master with revolvers! Great goal for me one day! :)

Great practice for the Harry Reeves match, and also Distinguised revolver.

[kle]

I notice your grips with both guns, who makes them? Is that some grip-tape on the palm of the 22? The biggest problem I've had with the K22 is that I feel like I have to re-grip each time I cock the hammer, which is killing my technique, maybe some different geometry target grips would help with that (and lots more practice).

The grips on the 625 (stainless, right) are a set of Nill Grips "Philip Hemphill" for round-butt S&W N-Frame with full stippling, flared base, closed top-rear, and finger-grooves. It 'straightens' out the grip to make it more semi-auto-like, while still allowing my thumb enough dexterity to cock the hammer. I find my hand doesn't shift around in rapid-fire with these.

The grips on the 17 (blued, left) are a set of Kim Ahrends "Tactical Finger Groove" grips in Moradillo wood. I added a chunk of black FIMO oven-hardening clay to the back, and made it easily removable by taking the brass spring out of a 5.56 NATO stripper clip to attach it to the gun like a Tyler T-grip. I rigged that up as a quick prototype and then shot the Revolver Regional with it, but since it's formed to the particular grips/gun, it didn't work so well when I tried it on my Model 14 (even with the same grips) - the higher recoil and poor fit caused the thing to crack (which was repaired with super glue).

Both grips increase the reach to the trigger (which puts my trigger finger in the correct position), and also increases the reach to the hammer -- which also puts my thumb in the correct position to cock the hammer during sustained fire without needing to shift my grip, since I fire single-action through all stages when I shoot revolvers.

High Master with revolvers! Great goal for me one day! :)

Me too; I didn't make HM until after I switched to semi-autos =)

[kle]

So, umm, I think the discussion has strayed quite a bit from the original question, which was essentially:

Has anyone compared a Ruger Mk. II to any of the higher-end pistols?

Yes, I have. While I haven't shot the Volquartsen uppers/pistols, I do own and have owned several Ruger Mk. pistols, a couple Hammerli space pistols (280, SP20), a S&W Model 41, a Beretta 87 Target, a bunch of .22 revolvers (Ruger Single Six, S&W 17, S&W 617, S&W 18, S&W 34), and even owned some lower end pistols like the S&W 22A and the Beretta Neos. With a couple exceptions I find/found them all to be entirely suitable for Bullseye shooting. Some are/were more forgiving than others; all have/had their quirks and preferences and limitations.

I shot my first ever Bullseye match with a Ruger Mk. II with the 4-3/4" tapered barrel and fixed sights. I switched to a S&W 617-6 for a while, then a 17-8, then to a 617-4 for a few years...then to a S&W 41, the Hammerli 280, then the SP-20, back to the 41. My S&W 41 is my 'go to' .22 if I'm going to a once-a-year "A-Match" (and I only feed it CCI Standard Velocity); my Beretta 87T is the gun I use for my weekly .22 league matches (since I feed it cheap, bulk ammo; I still shoot 97% or better with it).

Certainly, the Ruger Mk. II is a well-regarded pistol, and the "Target" version with adjustable sights and either the 5-1/2" bull barrel or the 6-7/8" tapered barrel is probably the best all-round version for Bullseye shooting. Even better if you have one that is or can be drilled-and-tapped to mount a red dot on top. As is commonly said about these guns, they're accurate enough and easy enough to shoot that they'll take the shooter well into the Master classification (and beyond; my shooting mentor shoots a Mk. II Target and was a High Master with it a decade ago, though he's beginning to slow down in his older age - he still has a good night every now and then and shoots a 585/600 with it). Most of the other guns will shoot just as well. Part of growing with the sport is learning your own quirks and preferences and limitations, and finding a pistol that matches you.

[kayakingsteve]

So, umm, I think the discussion has strayed quite a bit from the original question, which was essentially:

Has anyone compared a Ruger Mk. II to any of the higher-end pistols?

Yes, I have. While I haven't shot the Volquartsen uppers/pistols, I do own and have owned several Ruger Mk. pistols, a couple Hammerli space pistols (280, SP20), a S&W Model 41, a Beretta 87 Target, a bunch of .22 revolvers (Ruger Single Six, S&W 17, S&W 617, S&W 18, S&W 34), and even owned some lower end pistols like the S&W 22A and the Beretta Neos. With a couple exceptions I find/found them all to be entirely suitable for Bullseye shooting. Some are/were more forgiving than others; all have/had their quirks and preferences and limitations.

I shot my first ever Bullseye match with a Ruger Mk. II with the 4-3/4" tapered barrel and fixed sights. I switched to a S&W 617-6 for a while, then a 17-8, then to a 617-4 for a few years...then to a S&W 41, the Hammerli 280, then the SP-20, back to the 41. My S&W 41 is my 'go to' .22 if I'm going to a once-a-year "A-Match" (and I only feed it CCI Standard Velocity); my Beretta 87T is the gun I use for my weekly .22 league matches (since I feed it cheap, bulk ammo; I still shoot 97% or better with it).

Certainly, the Ruger Mk. II is a well-regarded pistol, and the "Target" version with adjustable sights and either the 5-1/2" bull barrel or the 6-7/8" tapered barrel is probably the best all-round version for Bullseye shooting. Even better if you have one that is or can be drilled-and-tapped to mount a red dot on top. As is commonly said about these guns, they're accurate enough and easy enough to shoot that they'll take the shooter well into the Master classification (and beyond; my shooting mentor shoots a Mk. II Target and was a High Master with it a decade ago, though he's beginning to slow down in his older age - he still has a good night every now and then and shoots a 585/600 with it). Most of the other guns will shoot just as well. Part of growing with the sport is learning your own quirks and preferences and limitations, and finding a pistol that matches you.

I was just thinking that! (that this strayed a bit from the original, but it's a fun read so I was enjoying it all the same) :)

Funny, that you should mention it; the best shooter that I know is in his 60's (or more, hehe, he might be reading this) and he uses a 22/45 now and shot 297/300 with it in one portion of a match, even though he also has a 41 etc...

How old are you if you don't mind me asking? I'm 39 going on 40 and wish I'd been exposed to this as a kid or gone the military route (not to say I would've made it onto a shooting team). Still, my eyes remain better than 20/20 and this is a great hobby now that due to injuries I have to lay off some of the other stuff I used to do a bit. Were you a team shooter in the service?

also, thanks for the info on the grips... right now I feel like I am over-reaching the trigger and hammer just as you mentioned and have to re-grip too much in rapid fire. Those grips aren't cheap but I might invest in some.

I can't find a Weaver 307 mount anywhere though for the K22 (looks like they don't make them now) any advice on where to find one?

[kle]

How old are you if you don't mind me asking? I'm 39 going on 40 and wish I'd been exposed to this as a kid or gone the military route (not to say I would've made it onto a shooting team). Still, my eyes remain better than 20/20 and this is a great hobby now that due to injuries I have to lay off some of the other stuff I used to do a bit. Were you a team shooter in the service?

I'm 31, going to be 32 in May. I started shooting Bullseye in Spring, 2008, started shooting 2700 matches and chasing the Master card in 2009 after having shot a season and a half of my local .22 Pistol League. I haven't served in any military branch or in any law enforcement -- I first shot a gun in 2006 when I was 23, and then took up Bullseye when I wanted something more structured and focused than just turning money into noise every other week. I started shooting revolvers in Bullseye because the FAQ on my league's website claimed they were harder to shoot (and I had always seemed to gravitate towards them); I like to think I'm the reason that the wording has been revised on the FAQ =)

also, thanks for the info on the grips... right now I feel like I am over-reaching the trigger and hammer just as you mentioned and have to re-grip too much in rapid fire. Those grips aren't cheap but I might invest in some.

What I used to do before I wised up and adapted my grips to my shooting style was to adapt my gripping technique instead - I would grip a bit further down (exposing the double-action 'knuckle' or 'hump' of the frame by about a quarter-inch or so) to increase trigger- and hammer-reach. However, this requires a LOT of gripping force and would actually result in the finish being worn smooth on several of my grips. I favored the Ahrends grips because their shape helped me apply a lot of front-to-back pressure with little side-to-side pressure, which I felt helped keep my grip consistent.

I actually emailed S&W once to see if I could get them to add serrations/grooves to the backstraps of my stainless revolvers if I were to send them in (like the backstrap of your K22 and my Model 17) so I could get more grip, but they said they wouldn't do it since the gun didn't ship in that configuration. Bummer. But - in my dabblings with modifying a grip for an air pistol several months ago, I learned how to apply stippling to wood/wood-like grips (just a hammer and a nail and a lot of tapping), so I think I'd be able to stipple the back parts of the Ahrends grips for more traction...hmm.

I can't find a Weaver 307 mount anywhere though for the K22 (looks like they don't make them now) any advice on where to find one?

Yeah, I believe the #307 is discontinued. Honestly, though, I think having the gun drilled-and-tapped is the most-secure, least-clunky way to go. The Weaver on my Model 17 does mar the finish a bit on the frame where the 'clamp' goes around the barrel-frame area. It seems that the Aimtech sideplate mount is discontinued, as is the B-Square mount; I don't know of any other "no gunsmithing" mounts. Hmm...what to do...

[Jerry Keefer]

Jack Weigand makes very high quality mounts.. I have installed a ton of them.. Excellent drill and tap mounts.. Machined to fit factory screw hole centers.
Google will take you to his site..

[kayakingsteve]

Jack Weigand makes very high quality mounts.. I have installed a ton of them.. Excellent drill and tap mounts.. Machined to fit factory screw hole centers.
Google will take you to his site..

Hey thanks! I couldn't find any to fit the older K frame Smiths but saw some really nice ones for the newer ones... I might get one for my 627 or if I go with a 625 for bullseye...

[kayakingsteve]

I'm 31, going to be 32 in May. I started shooting Bullseye in Spring, 2008, started shooting 2700 matches and chasing the Master card in 2009 after having shot a season and a half of my local .22 Pistol League. I haven't served in any military branch or in any law enforcement -- I first shot a gun in 2006 when I was 23, and then took up Bullseye when I wanted something more structured and focused than just turning money into noise every other week. I started shooting revolvers in Bullseye because the FAQ on my league's website claimed they were harder to shoot (and I had always seemed to gravitate towards them); I like to think I'm the reason that the wording has been revised on the FAQ =)

Excellent! You should have a lot of years ahead of you, good eyes and minimal if any tremor in your hold. :) Glad to hear they had to change the FAQ because of ya... hehehe...

I actually emailed S&W once to see if I could get them to add serrations/grooves to the backstraps of my stainless revolvers if I were to send them in (like the backstrap of your K22 and my Model 17) so I could get more grip, but they said they wouldn't do it since the gun didn't ship in that configuration. Bummer. But - in my dabblings with modifying a grip for an air pistol several months ago, I learned how to apply stippling to wood/wood-like grips (just a hammer and a nail and a lot of tapping), so I think I'd be able to stipple the back parts of the Ahrends grips for more traction...hmm.


Yeah, I believe the #307 is discontinued. Honestly, though, I think having the gun drilled-and-tapped is the most-secure, least-clunky way to go. The Weaver on my Model 17 does mar the finish a bit on the frame where the 'clamp' goes around the barrel-frame area. It seems that the Aimtech sideplate mount is discontinued, as is the B-Square mount; I don't know of any other "no gunsmithing" mounts. Hmm...what to do...

I ordered a #307 off of Gunbroker today. I hate to mar up the finish on the K22 but also hate the idea of drilling and tapping it, although it should really have no impact on cosmetics if done properly. I figured I would use a very thin layer of some type of tape or even paper between the gun frame and the mount to keep it from wearing the bluing, but figure that might wind up being a pipe dream. I may take it to a smith for drilling and tapping soon if that doesn't prove stable.

also, my buddy that does some really ornate wood working uses a dental drill (like a small Dremel) to create stippling or textures in stuff he makes, that would work for hard wood, but definitely practice a bit on a piece you don't value before you try it on 100-200 dollar grips!

Cheers,
Steve

[sobakavitch]

. . . .

[6string]

Hi Steve,

I wanted to get back to you on that book I mentioned:
"U.S. military match and marksmanship automatic pistols" by Bill Jenkins.
It's a bit pricey with a list of $50, but I've seen it discounted online. There's lots of great info on all the classic 22s and the development of the match gunsmithing techniques for the 1911. If you like the classic pistols and are interested in Bullseye, it is a great book to have.
By the way, if you are considering the revolver route for 45, I'll offer a caveat regarding the 25-2, and a bit of an anecdote. My first centerfire pistol was a S&W 2nd model Hand Ejector in 455 Eley (N frame, fixed sights). I lived in Canada then, and these were fairly common. It was totally stock, excepting a slightly lowered front sight. Despite being a WWI surplus firearm intended for trench fighting, the workmanship, finish and trigger were incredible. It also turned out to be fantastically accurate, when properly loaded. It had a .455" bore and cylinder throats measuring .456". I used a lathe to turn my own brass from 45 Long Colt (very long story!), to make cylinder gauges to measure chamber throats, and to modify existing reloading dies (including fabricating a special neck flaring tool). I had a mold that dropped .454" light wadcutters. So, I lapped it in the lathe with a slug and lapping compound to drop .456" bullets. The end result was a classic revolver in an obsolete chambering that shot comfortably into 2" at 50 yds.
Anyhow, after a few years of constant use, I got a bit nervous about those very thin cylinder chamber walls, especially for that age of steel and lack of modern heat treatment. So, I figured something like a 25-2 would be a better choice. The common logic at the time was that this was, after all, designed to be a match ready revolver. Well, there was a new "old stock" one available in a local shop for $500 (a lot of cash in the early 80s!). But, my brother bought it before I could! Nonetheless, we worked with it and it just wouldn't shoot! To be specific, it could barely hold 2-2.5" at 25 yds, and at 50 yds. the smallest groups were 5-6", with random fliers, etc.
The barrel slugged at .451", with a bit of constriction where it threads into the frame. I thought this might be the problem, and figured we could just lap the bore to fix it. Well, before we did that, I grabbed some of my cylinder throat gauges. They all just wiggled loose and fell out, including the .456" gauge! That's a big problem: .457"+ cylinder throats with a .451" bore! It turns out that many of the 25-2s are like this. If you were to buy off of Gunbroker, or the like, it would be virtually impossible to be sure you got a good one.
The 625s seem like a better choice. However, there is reputed to be a number of different rifling styles used over the years, with some working well with cast bullets and others not.

By the way, I am quite impressed with the number of members here that are dedicated revolver shooters!

Best Regards,
Jim

PS: this has certainly strayed from the original post, but what a lot of good things on here!!

[Jerry Keefer]

(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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.. Ruger MK I and II were really big at one time in this area.. One police catagory shooter won Perry two years in a row shooting a Ruger in expert class, scoring in the 2570s if I recall correctly. But that gun had a match barrel and much work on the trigger parts...
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.. In fact I have cut numerous barrels in half length ways, just to get a microscopic /measureable look at the rifling and chamber dimension.. Of all the barrels, Ruger is by far the worst in quality control..Old High Standards were true match quality.. I don't know about the new ones..41s were not impressive at all..
The 22 claiber projectile is very forgiving, and shots better than it should from some really low quality barrels..but it takes a good barrel when going under the inch mark..There were no SAMMI specs for the cartridge until 1976..so the chambers are all over the map.. There are at least 20+ variations. I am a huge proponent of Pardini.. because it usually shoots well under an inch right out of the box. Barrels are easily made should the need arise. Virtually trouble for many years...
Jerry)