| > Still pistols have some barrel so they should be vastly more accurate at range. Way misguided here. Pistol accuracy has almost nothing to do with the barrel. Not in the sense that you think. Accuracy is repeatability. That means tolerances. The bore, rifling, the chamber dimension, the jump distance from the bullet to the rifling in the chamber, the natural resonances… but then just or more importantly is your ammo. You have you ogive (“oh-jive”) of the bullet, the sectional density, the tail shape, it’s ballistic coefficient (actual, not G1 or G7 artillery guesses), your powder burn rate, consistency of the powder, amount obviously, the case neck tension and length, primer hole and primer consistency… Then you get into dwell time of the action and all the user variables you can’t account for without bolting the gun to a frame. … so as to pistol accuracy, you can have the world’s most accurate pistol and barrel ever made, and still have shit long distance accuracy. A barrel isn’t going to help you. Pistol bullets are bricks compared to rifle bullets. A ballistic coefficient of .1 is just never going to be very consistent because at distance it’s dumped so much of it’s speed via air resistance that it’s supersonic time is limited and will enter transonic and subsonic quickly. This isn’t what pistol rounds are designed for. You want bricks with high sectional density for shooting things up close. |
Also depends on your definition of "at range". 300m? 1000m?