Point of aim

[bearhunter]

This just IMHO but it really depends on the firearm and its intended purpose in the field.

Derringers have "sights" do they indicate point of impact, other than a general area at anything but point blank ranges? IMHO, no.

LawrenceN, your 44 Russian S&W seems to shoot pretty well but you don't indicate what you call good accuracy.

I fully believe you developed a load your pistol liked or it was one of those "jewels" that just shot well.

I've had several of them over the years and most of them shot into 6 inches at 25 yds, no matter the load or bullet diameters, or even the cylinder throat diameters. A couple just shot anything put into them into sub three inch groups at 25yds, which, again IMHO, was quite good accuracy for these lovely revolvers.

Today, I'm more into antique Webly revolvers. One RIC shoots OK, 4 inches at 25yds with careful shooting. The 380 Webly, with a 1.5 in bbl would be considered lucky to shoot 12 in groups at that range but at 7 yds or less, it shoots into 4 inches.

On all of these revolvers, the sights indicate a general area of impact, rather than a specific "point" of impact.

Maybe it's my shooting technique, but this is pretty much a norm and with the one muzzle loading double barrel, smooth bore, percussion pistol, it follows right along the general indication.

This doesn't mean these firearms weren't capable of their intended purposes by any means, but so called "tack drivers" were the exception rather than the norm in my limited experience.

 

[Valiant]

I've had several of them over the years and most of them shot into 6 inches at 25 yds, no matter the load or bullet diameters, or even the cylinder throat diameters. A couple just shot anything put into them into sub three inch groups at 25yds, which, again IMHO, was quite good accuracy for these lovely revolvers

So you are talking about Smith and Wesson revolvers? Which models? What you think the problem was?chambers odd size to bore or way it was chambered? Timing? Has to be something. What calibers?

 

[bearhunter]

It was mostly the 44 Russian models which shot the best.

Bores tend to be a bit sloppy on all of these revolvers

All of them are well built and tight if maintained properly.

I have a Webley MkIII chambered for 476/455 which will shoot any hollow base 455-476 hollow base bullet I cast from SOFT LEAD and lots of lube well as long as the cartridges are loaded with black powder.

I also have a Webley No2, chambered for the 380 CF which shoots well with SOFT LEAD bullets out to 4-5 yards at most, but that's the range it was intended to shoot at a maximum.

An 1877 9.4mm, Belgian Nagant, which looks like two remington rolling block pistols, with double barrels and hammers shoots heeled bullets quite well out to 5-7 yards but again, with SOFT LEAD bullets and black powder.

A Webly RIC chambered for 455 also like cast soft lead bullets with hollow bases but isn't fussy one way or the other about the powder. However it is very fussy about bullet lubricant. I only shoot powder coated bullets through this revolver, over smokeless powder.

15 yards would be maximum for good accuracy but minute of center mass would be doable to 20 or so yards.

IMHO, powder, lube and hardness of the bullet are the biggest factors in how well these revolvers perform.

Most folks expect them to perform as well as later, stronger, more precision utilized, revolvers. They mostly don't. They weren't built to.

Another thing, most of them were built to utilize black powder and that's evident by the depth of the rifling.

All of the above firearms are in at least VG or better condition on their exterior with excellent internals.

With antique firearms, condition goes a long way in predicting how well they will shoot when they are fed ammunition they like.

 

[Valiant]

It was mostly the 44 Russian models which shot the best.

Bores tend to be a bit sloppy on all of these revolvers

All of them are well built and tight if maintained properly.

I have a Webley MkIII chambered for 476/455 which will shoot any hollow base 455-476 hollow base bullet I cast from SOFT LEAD and lots of lube well as long as the cartridges are loaded with black powder.

I also have a Webley No2, chambered for the 380 CF which shoots well with SOFT LEAD bullets out to 4-5 yards at most, but that's the range it was intended to shoot at a maximum.

An 1877 9.4mm, Belgian Nagant, which looks like two remington rolling block pistols, with double barrels and hammers shoots heeled bullets quite well out to 5-7 yards but again, with SOFT LEAD bullets and black powder.

A Webly RIC chambered for 455 also like cast soft lead bullets with hollow bases but isn't fussy one way or the other about the powder. However it is very fussy about bullet lubricant. I only shoot powder coated bullets through this revolver, over smokeless powder.

15 yards would be maximum for good accuracy but minute of center mass would be doable to 20 or so yards.

IMHO, powder, lube and hardness of the bullet are the biggest factors in how well these revolvers perform.

Most folks expect them to perform as well as later, stronger, more precision utilized, revolvers. They mostly don't. They weren't built to.

Another thing, most of them were built to utilize black powder and that's evident by the depth of the rifling.

All of the above firearms are in at least VG or better condition on their exterior with excellent internals.

With antique firearms, condition goes a long way in predicting how well they will shoot when they are fed ammunition they like.

If you need Minnie style bullet and black powder to bump it up to get accuracy it sounds to me that chambers not matching bore.

 

[bearhunter]

The chambers are very good, both in dimensions and finish.

These pistols were designed for the conditions of their day. Not the conditions we enjoy today or even fifty years after they were built.

They were built to utilize soft lead, hollow base bullets to overcome manufacturing discrepancies and it works.

Bullets cast from #2 Alloy, do not work nearly as well.

 

[Valiant]

The chambers are very good, both in dimensions and finish.

These pistols were designed for the conditions of their day. Not the conditions we enjoy today or even fifty years after they were built.

They were built to utilize soft lead, hollow base bullets to overcome manufacturing discrepancies and it works.

Bullets cast from #2 Alloy, do not work nearly as well.

If you slug your barrel and measure it. A normal cast bullet a thousandth or so oversize should shoot accurately unless chamber really oversized or possibly undersized enough you couldn't chamber it. I would measure chamber mouths as well. If timing good it should shoot accurately.
Sounds like you are using black powder lube so fouling shouldn't be part of this.

 

[bearhunter]

Valiant, I hear where you're coming from.

If these were one of my S&W or Coldt wheelguns, I would uniform the chamber mouths to be .002 over the bore diameters and cut a 30 degree forcing cone.

I've measured the chamber mouths on a few of these revolvers and there were inconsistencies between the chamber mouth diameters on the same cylinder.

That's the way they were built, and even though I agree with your assessment on how to get good accuracy, I just prefer to leave them as they are and continue using the hollow base bullets, over black powder, then shooting them within the parameters they were built for.

The Webly No2 needed a proprietary mold as the bore diameter isn't a normal .358. I don't remember the measurements, but the bullet is also heeled, and I made up a bottom cone for the mold, so I wouldn't have to fool around with cutting them on the lathe later.

I like shooting these old revolvers.

They offer a lot of inspiration for me to make parts to get them functional again or repair the worn parts, which are no longer available or at prohibitive prices.

The cost of these pieces has gone off the affordability scale for most shooter and they can only dream of owning one.

Lots "bubbaed" antique revolvers out there, so I'll leave these unmolested.

 

[Valiant]

Valiant, I hear where you're coming from.

If these were one of my S&W or Coldt wheelguns, I would uniform the chamber mouths to be .002 over the bore diameters and cut a 30 degree forcing cone.

I've measured the chamber mouths on a few of these revolvers and there were inconsistencies between the chamber mouth diameters on the same cylinder.

That's the way they were built, and even though I agree with your assessment on how to get good accuracy, I just prefer to leave them as they are and continue using the hollow base bullets, over black powder, then shooting them within the parameters they were built for.

The Webly No2 needed a proprietary mold as the bore diameter isn't a normal .358. I don't remember the measurements, but the bullet is also heeled, and I made up a bottom cone for the mold, so I wouldn't have to fool around with cutting them on the lathe later.

I like shooting these old revolvers.

They offer a lot of inspiration for me to make parts to get them functional again or repair the worn parts, which are no longer available or at prohibitive prices.

The cost of these pieces has gone off the affordability scale for most shooter and they can only dream of owning one.

Lots "bubbaed" antique revolvers out there, so I'll leave these unmolested.

I get you. Not much fun in a new gun that you can just buy off shelf with factory ammo and that's it. No history or bloodlines either. With new you have the same as everybody else.

 

[Old Guns Canada]

So nobody on this forum owns a colt,webley,Smith wesson or Remington antique status revolver that hits point of aim or even hits center for windage at 25 yards?

I have shot many a fixed-sight antique, and at 25 yards they are about as accurate as I can get them to be (I'm not a crack shot...). The S&W No. 3 frames with a six or 6 1/2-inch barrel are exceptionally accurate. Even the famous Chevalier Ira Paine swore by the "Russian Model" S&W with fixed sights. 19th century target shooters placed more importance on ammunition type and load to attain accuracy. Ira Paine travelled to France and consulted the famous French maker Gastinne Renette for the most suitable revolver to incorporate into his shooting show - Paine would shoot glass balls out of his wife's hands. Renette and Paine experimented with all the most modern handguns of the day - Colt, Remington, S&W, Webley, Adams, Tranter, and I'm sure a few Frenchies as well. They concluded that the S&W Russian Model with a six 1/2 inch barrel was the most accurate at 50 yards. They even tested it at 100 yards, and found it to be accurate enough to hit the center mass of a man-sized target...
Of the many fixed-sight revolvers I have shot, some had been modified by filing down the front sight, probably to compensate for shooting low. I would be hesitant to make any permanent changes because, as A.C. Gould states in his 1894 book "Modern American Pistols & Revolvers" accuracy is affected by ammunition brand, bullet weight and powder charge. Another factor, especially in antiques, is the amount of play in the cylinder lock-up, and the condition of the bore.

 

[Monster Mike]

My S&W Double Action First Model 44 Russian shoots 7" high & 4" left at 10 meters. ~ugh~

 

[wr.sainsbury]

With an original 1858 Remington .45 the civil war instruction was "shoot the belt buckle" and center of mass was assured- typically 8" high at 20-25 yds. At least that is how mine shoots.

 

[NorthWoods22]

For people who complain they shoot high at distances of <10m, remember these were sighted in at the factory typically at 50 yards. For the Colt Single Action Army, the zeroing elevation was at 100 yards.




As for accuracy, this book published in 1888 shows recorded accuracy tests at distances from 12-50 yards. https://archive.org/details/modernamericanpi01goul/page/104/mode/2up

 

[Valiant]

I have an excellent S&W double action in .44 Russian. Using the sights, it hit high and left no matter the bullet or charge. I fabricated an oversized foresight and when I had it installed I went to the range. From a rest, I'd take a shot (using the sights) and then file it. Take another shot, see where I hit, file it some more. Shoot and repeat until I had the point of impact was my point of aim. Pic one is the unfiled sight installed and pic two is the finished product.

How hard was it to remove the original front sight after you took the pin out and what method did you use?

 

[LawrenceN]

How hard was it to remove the original front sight after you took the pin out and what method did you use?

I have an ultra fine punch that I used to drift out the pin. I used a thick elastic to pad the jaws of a pair of vise grips and grabbed the foresight blade. I wrapped piece of heavy 1" dowel with thick flannel and tapped the barrel down while pulling up on the foresight blade. I forgot to mention that I had my brother over and he tapped the barrel while I immobilized the foresight.

 

[Brian James]

I have not found many antique revolvers shoot POA, but there are so many factors: the load, grip, who’s “worked” on the revolver before me, etc…

I’ve always been more focused in precision shooting so I will replace the original sight and adjust the replacement to meet by specific needs.

After 10 years of serious muzzleloading competitions, I’m still astonished by the accuracy from percussion pistols and revolvers and how I shoot them as well or better than modern target pistols.

This winter I’m working on my Remington1858 and will use it next season to see if I can shoot better scores than my R&S.

 

[Valiant]

If your s&w nm3 shoots way high and left. A prewar round nickle makes a really nice sight. Done right you will have king on one side looking forward and beaver on the other. Mount nickle as low as you can and still see the king. Once filed down to point of aim the king will still have top of his head.
The nickle is wider and much easier to see than original. Colt SAA style suits me.
The new sight isn't that much taller than original. You can bend it slightly for windage.
To get old sight out. Smooth vise grips and a hammer after you take out pin. Pin is directional to so keep track of which side is which.

 

[Valiant]

I have not found many antique revolvers shoot POA, but there are so many factors: the load, grip, who’s “worked” on the revolver before me, etc…

I’ve always been more focused in precision shooting so I will replace the original sight and adjust the replacement to meet by specific needs.

After 10 years of serious muzzleloading competitions, I’m still astonished by the accuracy from percussion pistols and revolvers and how I shoot them as well or better than modern target pistols.

This winter I’m working on my Remington1858 and will use it next season to see if I can shoot better scores than my R&S.

I think the biggest reason for inaccurate cap and ball is some don't expect much from them. Out of the box,they play a bit and figure oh well that's all they had years ago.

 

[Painkillers]

I have an excellent S&W double action in .44 Russian. Using the sights, it hit high and left no matter the bullet or charge. I fabricated an oversized foresight and when I had it installed I went to the range. From a rest, I'd take a shot (using the sights) and then file it. Take another shot, see where I hit, file it some more. Shoot and repeat until I had the point of impact was my point of aim. Pic one is the unfiled sight installed and pic two is the finished product.

I wonder, as I've never shot it; is .44 Russian an arguable equivalent of .44 special?

 

[Monster Mike]

I wonder, as I've never shot it; is .44 Russian an arguable equivalent of .44 special?

No, factory loading is less. Of course handloading with modern poweders will improve both calibres but the .44 Special will still have higher velocities. Of course we are talking safe loads...right?