TargetTalk

Far and away, the biggest variable is the trigger puller. The best shooter can probably win with the lowest quality gun.

The rest of us ... are still the rest of us no matter what we're shooting.

Practice doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent. Perfect practice makes perfect.

I previously mentioned reaming the cylinder throats. Another big problem is that there is a constriction where the barrel screws into the frame; found in most revolvers.

This can be cleaned up with a good fire-lapping program. Basically, this involves impregnating your fat lead bullets with Clover 320 grit valve grinding compound and shooting them with air pistol velocity loads until the barrel throat is cleaned up.

Guaranteed to improve accuracy, but I don't know of anyone who does this. It's all on you, my friend.

Rover wrote:I previously mentioned reaming the cylinder throats. Another big problem is that there is a constriction where the barrel screws into the frame; found in most revolvers.

Clover 320 grit valve grinding compound and shooting them with air pistol velocity loads until the barrel throat is cleaned up.

Guaranteed to improve accuracy, but I don't know of anyone who does this. It's all on you, my friend.

I don't know any sane person who would run 320 Clover thru the bore either..

The most important thing about which gun to pick in this discipline is which one fits best. I personally prefer an N frame gun but I can't get them to shoot as accurately and I have had several. My next pick is any of the smaller S&W's and then I have to have the right grips or my middle finger knuckle hits on the trigger frame and it bothers me after a while. Would like to use the standard S&W target grips and they work fine on the N but not the K's but that is just for me so check to see if it will bother you.

Typically I can get my Python to get good groups more easily than a Smith but the K frames will shoot fine when you come up with the right bullet. I can shoot virtually any HBWC out of the Python and get a good group but out of my Smith 14 I have to use a 158 and have the best results with a RCBS 150 cast bullet of fairly soft lead and soft lube.

I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get a model 66 Smith to shoot well (around 3000 rounds off a Ransom rest) with all kinds of bought loaded bullets because they had to be commercial in those days and I just did not get good results. I finally sold it and got the 14 and found the same problem until I started using my own cast with soft lead and soft lube which became legal at the time. I did try some Lyman 358477 bullets and they worked fairly well but the mold is not as good of quality as the RCBS but is at least 4 cavity. I wish I still had the 66 because I feel that with the right bullet it would do fine because it certainly was not as bad as the N's.

I have a 6 inch 27 and 28 plus a 5 inch 28 and none of the three will produce the same accuracy as my Python or 14 and I wish they did because it so much easier to shoot rapid fire with the N's. Bear in mind though that it is because my hand fits them so well. A friend of mine who is a lot smaller loves the Colts because they fit him perfectly. When I try to shoot the Python my thumb is just in the wrong place which is the same thing he says about the Smiths. I tried someone's Ruger and I felt the same way but this will be person specific.

If you get proficient and the gun fits, you will rarely drop points in timed and rapid because it isn't that hard and the 50 yard line is where you win or lose. In the 60's when I was in the AMU the European championship center fire slow fire match was won by a friend of mine with a back to back 95. Everyone down the line was amazed at the accuracy of his gun which was a model 14 with the long barrel. I was shooting a 28 at the time and was happy with the high 80's in slow. Typically this match was always won by a revolver because of the superior accuracy compared with a 45 at the time which shows that you can only lose at the short line and not win.

Bottom line is make sure to pick the gun that is easy for you to cock in T & R.

Well it has been my opinion that any revolver will work well enough to win DR points and a HR t-shirt. It is all the trigger squeezer. I'm a DA squeezer. I cock and fire in slow but for Timed and Rapid I shoot DA. Use the squeeze to drive your sights into perfection.

If you want one gun to do both it has to be a .38 or .357 no accuracy difference between the deeper .357 chamber that I've been able to detect.

A wolf spring kit will help your double action pull. I like Ruger Revolvers because they "fit" me better. I did try many different grips and gun combinations, Colt, S&W, Ruger, Gripper/Hogue, wood, etc. What scored best for me was the GP100 with stock wood and rubber grips. Some of my points came from a model 14 smith with Pachmayr Gripper grips.

Ammo is a bit tricky. Here are my conclusions. If you are shooting hard cast bullets. They need to go near the top end of load data to be accurate at 50yd. If you are shooting soft swaged bullets they can be downloaded and remain accurate. I coat all my .38 bullets with Lee Liquid Alox tumble lube (even if it already has the wax lube groove) I got good groups, consistent point of aim and no leading with this combination. Hard cast bullets could work but leading occurred without the LLA tumble lube.

I think it makes a better seal consistent shot to shot. My best target loads are with Zero 158 SWC and the LLA tumble lube. Sort brass by head stamp, I use federal primers. Seat off the shoulder rather than the nose of the bullet.

Factory ammo that was better than any of my reloads except the swaged Zero load was Remington 158 SWC or the Federal American Eagle 158 LRN. The Federal is hotter than the Remington. Both cause leading in the barrel after 100 rounds or so. Lewis Lead remover was the best way to remove lead build up.

My humble opinion, Double action squeeze is the only way to go. Cocking and shooting technique encourages flinch or trigger stab.

Training, 4 empty cases, 2 live rounds mixed and not same orientation. Do one and two shot drills. 1 shot/1 second. 2 shot/3 seconds. Mixing live and empties will allow you to evaluate how your trigger squeeze drives the sights.

For Harry Reeves I use a .45ACP with a red dot scope. Gun is a butter smooth work of art. I'd recommend the gunsmith but he died a few years ago.

If it works for you Dan, great but not a single Bullseye shooter in the AMU ever even thought of shooting double action and we had our own gunsmiths who made everything as smooth as silk so anything would have been possible for us. I remember the first time I shot a 285 with my revolver and one of the other newbies told the Master Sargent about it and his answer was, "Don't worry, he will get there". It was a 85 slow fire and 200 T&R.

Motorcycle Dan,
I agree with you. Double Action is the only way to go for the reasons you stated. I'm going to get some 158grn Zero's. I shoot their 185's in my .45 and have been very happy. I like your 6-shot live/dry drill too. Great Post!
DAF

Well Jerry, since you ask....

http://www.davidtubb.com/final-finish-bullet-kits

http://www.lbtmolds.com/books.shtml

And saving best for last:
https://beartoothbullets.com/bulletsele ... n=book.htm


...for a start. Also I'm sure you've heard of custom barrel makers hand lapping their barrels. Want to guess what they use?

Keep in mind that you're only abrading the narrowest part of the bore, not the entire length of it. That tends to make it uniform.

Rover it makes me wonder if one of the N frame guns could be made to shoot decently doing either what you were talking about or possibly making the chambers bigger. I have heard a lot about doing both but succumbed to just not using them instead. I have never measured them but the N's fit me so much better I probably should.

Keep in mind that this is much more effective if shooting lead bullets.

If you wish to play with this, I highly recommend this book; it will save you endless screw-ups:
https://beartoothbullets.com/bulletsele ... n=book.htm

It worked on my M19 S&W, hugely reducing group size. While I didn't go quite so far with my M29, it still helped.

I've also done my M41 .22 short barrel and my TOZ FP with good results.

I will look into it. If the chambers are tighter on the N frame guns as is often said, that might be why it is so important to keep bullets as soft as possible for accuracy and when the average person is buying commercial they will be hard because they don't want them banged up in shipping plus the average individual today has their mind made up that they have to be hard. I have also noticed that if I speed the bullets close to max when they are hard, accuracy may well improve but this is not what I want for Bullseye.

The best bet for a commercial soft bullet is of course a swaged bullet but I tested some lately and they were BHN 10 - 11. In the old days the very excellent 45 185 grain bullet measured 5 because it was pure lead. It may be too expensive for commercial outfits to get pure anymore.

If by 'tight chambers' you mean cylinder throats: http://4-dproducts.com/products/reamer- ... -throater/

I've read about this and thought about it before but also read a lot of bad reviews concerning it not working properly. I have no idea whether the people involved just weren't skilled to do the job or if it is just very difficult to do it right, because of tools or whatever, and that is why I just took the easy route and shot my 14 instead. A gunsmith somewhere did a lot of these jobs and people were complaining about results so much that he quit doing it. It is quite possible though that the Smith did excellent jobs but enough of the people were so inept at either reloading or shooting that complaints were rampant. I personally seldom shoot my revolver anymore though because I only shoot indoors and I can't see the sights well enough to be efficient any longer.

oldcaster wrote:If it works for you Dan, great but not a single Bullseye shooter in the AMU ever even thought of shooting double action and we had our own gunsmiths who made everything as smooth as silk so anything would have been possible for us.

I agree with everything you said but the AMU and the team don't train for wheelguns. With the switch to Bianchi style and action pistol competition they may slide that way. I am curious how many Regular team members are NRA distinguished revolver? How many team members brought home a Reeves T-shirt? Either way will work it is what the shooter is comfortable with. I'd say the AMU folks have enough training and trigger time to know how to cock and then fire without disturbing the sights. I still contend that the double action method is easier to teach when starting out. It allows you to watch your sight through trigger squeeze rather than get sight alignment then squeeze. I switched to a GP100 because I could watch the front sight slide left and kiss the left side of the rear notch then drift right back to center just at hammer release. Felt like throwing a curve ball with my trigger finger steering the front sight. Not trying to imply my way is the only way but my testing and score evaluation showed that double action was the best for me.

Opening the chamber throats to slightly greater than bore diameter is a good idea. Unfortunately, it is not enough if you have a constriction where the barrel is screwed into the frame. That must be opened as well.

I don't have personal knowledge of this, but Rugers are reputed to be really bad in this respect.

Dan, It was in the middle 60's when I was competing in the AMU. Just about everyone at that time was shooting a revolver in the AMU primarily because the 1911 just didn't stack up to the accuracy levels needed at 50 yards. There were people who would go through all kinds of contortions on their 1911 and then just sight it in and shoot in a match so it wouldn't be worn. They wouldn't stay accurate long enough, if they really were accurate in the beginning. People would brag they had a 3 inch gun and then splatter the bullets out in the 8 ring and saying; But it shot good when I sighted it in. Someone with a revolver was going to beat them in slow fire and timed and rapid couldn't save them. With a revolver you could use the 8 inch barrel model 14 which was a great advantage for slow fire with iron sights. Non of us newbies had a 45 revolver but my center fire revolver scores always beat my 1911 45 scores by quite a bit and so did everyone's.

In the AMU, within a couple of months you better be shooting very high scores or you are gone, but when you practice 6 hours a day for 6 days a week and you are in your middle twenties plus not wanting to do anything else, it's not too hard.

When we practiced timed or rapid fire and had probably 20 people on the line all with revolvers it was interesting how the timing of the people was so consistent that you pretty much only hear 5 shots because they were all fired in the same sequence. This was done all day long with someone watching over your shoulder to make sure you weren't making any mistakes so you get pretty consistent. You were told to think in timed fire "sight alignment squeeze" and for rapid, "sight alignment mash."

I left the Army the same time as another friend of mine and our team leader told us that we should both immediately go to Perry and become Distinguished with the 45. We both said that just going home would make us Distinguished enough and neither of us ever went.

I don't know when the Distinguished Revolver or Harry Reeves matches started but I never heard of them at that time. I continually used a revolver to shoot Bullseye all the way up to around 1985 or 90 when I bought one of the Les Baer 1911's. Wow, do I wish I had had one of them in those days.

Everyone in the group when shooting center fire would average around 288 to 293 so becoming Distinguished if you still practiced the way we did would be simple. The big thing was shooting the 93 slow fire instead of the 92 because x's don't matter then.

-- Bill --

Rover, Can you think of any reason that a N frame might be more likely to have a barrel restriction problem. Certainly they are done on different machinery because all the K's seem to do reasonably well while none of my N's will so I am guessing that the chamber throats are tighter. Now I have myself excited about pursuing this even though there is no point but just wondering what is up. I guess I will soon go and measure the throats and see if that is the problem.

I can't think of a reason the N frame would be MORE likely to have a barrel restriction. I don't doubt that it might.

Really, buy the book. It's cheap and will answer ALL your questions. It really is quite good.

Someone mentioned Wolff springs. Good product, not legal in DR.

I can't think of a reason the N frame would be MORE likely to have a barrel restriction.

It is the method Smith used to set the barrel. Originally they tightened it then drove a pin through the barrel and frame to lock it down. Now it is just locked with a locking compound and a LOT of torque. Tends to stretch the threads and can cause some unusual metal fatigue in the throat area. But it is much less manual labor intensive to install them at the factory. So Pinned and recessed guns are older. Better??? Not really sure. I had a new one fitted with a new barrel. When the smith fitted it, he drilled the frame and top of the barrel to accommodate a pin. My Harry Reeves gun started life as a 629 with 8-3/8 barrel. Found an unfluted .45 ACP cylinder then ordered a 5" barrel. Had the Smith remove the .44 mag stuff then install the .45 and tune the double action pull. Most awesome machine. The frame was pre-drilled for a weaver mount so it sports a 1" silver ultra dot. One fine piece of machinery.