I have been thinking about this for weeks and is really bugging me.
With my 22lr pistol (S&W SW22 Victory) I can easily get groups under 1” at 25Y. With the same pistol, people are getting groups under 1” at 50Y.
With my centerfire pistols, I don’t even come close to this level of accuracy. But at the same time, I’m using open sights with the centerfire pistols vs red dot with the 22lr.
I’m sure if I put a red dot on my G35 or Sig P226, they won’t be as accurate as the 22lr pistol.
You can probably find centerfire pistols that will be as accurate as a 22LR, but you’ll have to get one from a custom shop and it will cost several thousand dollars.

So, what’s the deal? Why is making an accurate centerfire pistols more difficult than a 22lr pistol?
For rifle, it’s the opposite. It’s pretty easy to find a sub MOA centerfire rifles. It’s a little challenging to find a sub MOA 22lr rifle.

While I can't share your opinion on CF handguns not being accurate, I am sure the optic on the .22 is helping.
I own very accurate factory CF handguns.

If you put a red dot on a Glock, are you going to get groups under 1" like the ones I'm getting with the cheap 22lr pistol?

It's not that a centerfire pistol is less accurate. In the right hands both can be shot just as well as the other. Rimfires are just easier to control and shoot for the average person in my opinion. Maintaining and controlling your grip, sight alignment, trigger discipline and muzzle flip are much easier on a handgun without much recoil. All of these equate to better and more consistent accuracy. Most of the folks who can shoot centerfire pistols extremely well probably got there at the expense of a lot of spent brass, and a lot of time practicing the fundamentals.

^^^This. Recoil being the biggest culprit.

I tend to agree CF handguns can be just as accurate or even more so than rimfire.

The most accurate handgun in my hands is a S&W 629 from the performance center.

Can you guys show me a handgun expert that, with a red dot and shooting from a rest, can get consistent 1” groups at 25Y? Let alone 50Y.
BTW, my main focus is pistols. I’m sure revolvers can be more accurate.

Jerry Miculek.

Centerfire handguns are NOT easy to shoot. For me, the problem is failure to relax while squeezing the trigger but it's overcome with lots of practice. One of the best ways I know to deal with it is shooting revolvers, and loading five of the six chambers but closing the cylinder without watching where the empty chamber is. It forces you to concentrate on trigger technique, and for me it works...but it takes constant practice to remain "current" once I get there. I am speaking of off-hand shooting, though. Shooting off a rest is considerably easier, but still requires lots of discipline. I'd have to say I don't REALLY KNOW how accurate my centerfire handguns are. That would be one reason to get a Ransom rest---something I will probably never do.

Haven't shot it in quite a few years but the SIG Hammerili when I had a 2X scope on it was a 1 to 1.25 inch shooter from a rest at 50 yards. Shot it a lot in 1999 and 2000 and 10 shot groups in that size range were the norm, at least with ammo it liked.

Could I do that now, I doubt it but with a little practice might could if my eyes let me.

Don't know. Never owned a Glock and probably never will. Glocks, like a lot of plastic pistols such as the MP which I own 3 of, are designed to go bang every time at fighting distances. I would submit that 50 yards is way out of that range and 25 yards is pushing it. They aren't target pistols.

I have a Sig 1911 that can put 8 rounds into a ragged hole slow fire off hand (probably an inch to inch and a half) at 15 yards. Haven't tried it at 25. Don't know I can see good enough to ironsight it to 25 yards.

Not sure about the Glock , but you should be able to shoot that 226 with the better trigger

Wish I could answer your question. I simply don't know. Each range session whether it be a .22 or .45ACP, I continually try to do better, irregardless of sites or optics. Had one instructor who pushed us to shoot a 10 inch steel plate @ 50 yards.

At the time, was shooting a FS M&P in 9mm. Personally, I thought that exercise was stupid. Out of 10 rounds, 5 of mine hit. I was happy. Instructor wasn't. Haven't seen him since and never will.

More often than not we are, our own worst critic. Shoot what you enjoy. Enjoy what you shoot. If someone shoot's better than you, congratulate them. It gives you something to look forward to and strive for.

Well Said

I agree, well said. Intrinsic accuracy may be the same but for me practical accuracy is much better with my Buck Mark than with any of my centerfire handguns.

Not too many autos out there with that type of accuracy, maybe sig 210, customs?

Exactly my point. Thank you. I don't know why others keep talking about training and mastering a pistol without ever acknowledging (or understanding?) that the inherent accuracy of a factory produced centerfire pistol is NOT 1" at 50Y or even 1" at 25Y.



I gave it some more thoughts and I think I know why a cheap 22lr is so much more accurate than a typical centerfire pistol. I think it's because of the heavy barrel that doesn't move in relation to the rest of the gun. In a centerfire pistol, the barrel is typically moving during the firing cycle. To get maximum accuracy, you need very tight tolerances that will cost a lot.

I don't understand why you would ever have a need for a pistol that shoots 1" at 50 yards off bags? 99.9% of pistol shooters aren't capable of getting that sort of accuracy out of it anyway.

It's like trying to find out how fast a 3/4 ton truck could run a racetrack? Just seems to me like you're doing a poor job of pairing the tool with the job.

.22lr pistols have, for all intents and purposes, very heavy barrels when compared to a typical centerfire pistol. - I'm talking about the thickness of steel surrounding the bore here, in relation to the bore size.

You may be surprised to discover that Elmer Kieth's signature pistol as a young man was a 7.5" Colt single-action Army in 32-20 caliber. This was his handgun of choice in that era. Why the 32-20 instead of 44-40 or 45LC?
Kieth had discovered that the exterior barrel dimension of all SAA models were the same, regardless of caliber. The 32-20 model then effectively had a much heavier barrel than any of the others, and so had a distinct accuracy advantage. Many Cowboy Action shooters today go for .357 SAA pistols for the same reason, shooting .38spl mouse loads through them. The .357's have a reputation for finer accuracy than the 45 Long Colts with their very thin barrels, among the action shooters.

As noted above, recoil is also a factor. So is barrel diameter in relation to bore size. A heavy barrel is going to shoot better, all things considered.

I've been thinking of buying a new Cimarron model P Colt SAA clone, and have decided on getting 7.5" 32-20 for this very reason. The old design will not "shoot loose" so fast, will be more accurate, and will make a much better bludgeon for those occasions where it might be indiscreet to discharge a firearm.

A lot of the .22lr's reputation for fine accuracy stems from the relatively heavy barrels that they all tend to have.

The only pistols I really try to shoot for accuracy is either a GP100 or a Blackhawk 45 Colt. Every once in a while I'll try to stretch out my FNP 45 Competition, but it really can't keep up with the revolvers. I've never really had a nice 22lr pistol.

The most accurate centerfire pistols that I have ever owned, bar none, have been the Thompson-Center single-shots.