Are Solid Frame Revolvers Really More Accurate????

[Southron Sr.]

The "traditional wisdom" is that solid frame revolvers (like the Remmie and Whitney revolvers) are more accurate than the Colt "open top" revolvers.

Apparently, this belief goes back to at least the late 1860's-early 1870's because when Colt submitted an open top, metallic cartridge firing, revolver to the Ordnance Department's trials for a new revolver in the early 1870's, the Ordnance Department told Colt that they wanted a "solid frame" revolver and nothing else.

Hence, Colt hurriedly designed their famous "Peacemaker" and that is the one that was submitted to the Ordnance Department trials and subsequently adopted by the army in 1873.

It would be interesting if someone with access to a Ranson Rest were to test three replica "open top revolvers" and three "solid frame" revolvers and see which group gave the tightest groups.

Such a teat would confirm IF solid frame revolvers were more or less accurate than open top revolvers.

Inquiring minds would like to know!

What do you think?

[Maillemaker]

I've got (or had) several reproduction revolvers. I currently have a stainless 1858 (I think it is Uberti), a Pietta 1860, a Pietta Spiller and Burr, a Pietta 1851, a Uberti Walker. I had a pair of brass-framed .44 "1851" revolvers, which I sold, and I had a blued Uberti 1858 which I sent out for accurizing and never got it back.

I have not really been impressed with the out-of-the-box accuracy of any of them, despite bench load workup work. But, I don't feel like I have done enough exhaustive load workup work. For example, I once got a clover-leaf group out of the Walker, but have not been able to duplicate it.

That said, my first and only National medals were with a bone stock Pietta 1860, and I took local medals with it including a 48 at 50 yards at Eva a few weekends ago. The load is 18 grains 3F Goex with a .457 cast (Lee) round ball, shot sprue-up. .454 will shave lead; I just shoot .457 because the Walker needs it and it's easier to stock one size.

I think the key to any firearm's reproducible accuracy is mechanical integrity. If you have a properly-sized arbor that bottoms out where it should, then an open-top revolver should be able to have good mechanical integrity. However, I think the solid-framed revolver is naturally more mechanically stable by design.

Steve

[Jim Wimbish, 10395]

There are a lot of differences between the open tops and the solid frame guns that would make it challenging to set up such a test. I, for one, am not interested in how well a gun shoots from a rest but from how well it shoots in your hand. The open frame revolvers that I have shot were Colts that have the rear sight notch cut into the hammer. So when you pull the trigger, your rear sight picture disappears. Using target loads with an open frame revolver would probably not put any real stress on the frame, where full service loads like 30 grains with a conical bullet might. With the Colt revolvers you have a wedge that must be adjusted properly for the correct gap between the barrel and the cylinder. Also, you would probably want to load the open top revolver on a stand since you don't want to keep taking the wedge in and out.

I have owned 4 repro Colts including a Walker, 3rd Dragoon, 1860 Army, and 1851 Navy. I still have the Uberti Dragoon, but haven't shot it in a long time. It is just too heavy for enjoyable one hand shooting and I am currently focused on trying to get better with some other pistols shooting with one hand. The Pietta Navy Colt clearly needed some work as the chambers shot to different points, but it grouped very nicely with 4 of the 6. The Army, which was a second generation Colt had to go back to the factory for a repair immediately, but after that, it shot really well. It held beautifully, but the disappearing rear sight and loading were issues for competition. It was as accurate as any other CW pistol that I have shot.

With revolvers, what loads and shoots well for you is what is important. Both the open frame and solid frame guns should be accurate enough for competition if properly set up. The real issues are sighting, holding, and follow through. For me, the choice was a Remington. :)

[Don Dixon]

Yes.

Regards,
Don Dixon
2881V

[Mike McDaniel]

Let's think this through. A solid-frame revolver has the front sight, rear sight, and barrel mounted together in a fixed relationship to each other. An open-top revolver is relying on the mechanical fit of the barrel to the frame, and the hammer to the frame, to control the relative positions of front and rear sights.

Which is a lot trickier to get right. I know that Andy Baumkircher claims to be able to do it, but I'm sticking to my Remingtons for the time being.

[hobbler]

Well gee golly I wish I had the photograph of me (1977) holding up the field mouse shot at Gunsight, Texas with a Navy Arms 1861.
The running one shot kill of such dangerous game is testimony enough for me of Col. Colt's designs.
No doubt the heavy conicals being used assured penetration on that shoulder shot, dropping the beast in mid stride.

OK, all joking aside, a well built Colt will out shoot a well built Remington if (big word) it suits the shooter.
If the Remington suits the shooter then Remington it is. It's all a matter of common denominators.
But if I was creeping up on the east side of a cow pond trying to put a duck in the stew pot I'd rather have a Colt.

[bobanderson]

Well gee golly I wish I had the photograph of me (1977) holding up the field mouse shot at Gunsight, Texas with a Navy Arms 1861.
The running one shot kill of such dangerous game is testimony enough for me of Col. Colt's designs.
No doubt the heavy conicals being used assured penetration on that shoulder shot, dropping the beast in mid stride.


You do realize we all know YOU are the only one that knows where the sights were pointing when the shot dropped that beast.

Some people I know call it "As long as there is lead in the air, you've got a chance."

[John Holland]

In my opinion, the open top revolvers are made for the purpose of hitting body mass, not the X-Ring. Who wants to shoot for the X-Ring with a revolver whose rear sight disappears before the revolver goes off? That gives a whole new meaning to "follow-through"!

[Eggman]

Competing with Replica Arms .36 cal Navy, Fort Ridgely, Minnesota shoot 1972. Only took me six shots to get five counters. Tied for third. Some other guy got trophy -- some bizaaro rule about better group.

[John Holland]

WOW.......1972.......the 3rd quarter of the last Century! Seriously, nice shooting!

[Eggman]

Thanks John! Sorry about the blurry picture. Photography had just been invented.

[Fred Jr]

Did quite well with a R&S out of the box. That was shooting just the one chamber. When we started team shooting I had a gentleman, who goes by hp, set me up with a accurized R&S. Did quite well with that one also. I had Colts and Remmys but their grip just didn't fit my hand.

[Carolina Reb]

One of the guys on our team shoots a Replica Arms 61 Navy. It might be old, but it still shoots pretty good.