Gun Digest 2011. Dan ShidelerЧитать онлайн книгу.

      Commercial .455 Mark II ammunition used in the range tests included Fiocchi, Hornady and Kynoch brands. Also shown are a string-tied 2-pack of military .455 Mark II ammunition, dated 1922 and a World War II box of.455 Mark VI Ammo, both of Canadian manufacture. The front row comprises assorted military & commercial rounds.

      For the tests, each revolver was clamped into the Ransom Rest and a dozen rounds were run through the gun to settle it into the grip inserts. Once the revolver was solidly secured in the machine rest, 18 rounds (three cylinders full) of each brand of ammunition were fired in the gun. Accuracy was determined by measuring the extreme spread of each six shot group, center-to-center, and then calculating the three-group averages.

      The testing process began with the .455 First Model. Eighteen rounds each of Fiocchi, Hornady and Kynoch ammunition were fired in the gun. While the Hornady product delivered the smallest average group size of 2.81 inches, it also turned in the lowest velocity, clocking an average 566 fps from the Triple Lock. preserve my small remaining stock of Kynoch .455 ammunition, only Fiocchi and Hornady brands were tested in the Second Model Hand Ejector. The Fiocchi ammo produced the smaller average group size of 4.56 inches, as well as the higher velocity, averaging 615 fps.

      An older box of commercial Remington-Peters 230-grain, .45 ACP ball ammo was used in testing the Model 1917. The rounds were loaded into half-moon clips, much the same as ammunition used by American Doughboys in World War One. The three group average for the Model 1917 measured 4.49 inches and bullet speed averaged 807 fps.

      Full results of the 25 yard range tests are listed in the accompanying table:

       Ballistics Test Results

      Upon completion of the Ransom Rest tests, I decided to try a little off-hand shooting before leaving the range. The gun selected was the .455 Second Model, as I was curious to see how the revolver might have felt to Lt. Martin Bluethner 90 years ago. Filling the cylinder with a half-dozen rounds of the Fiocchi ammo, I took a six o’clock hold on a 10-inch-tall rock about 35 yards out. The rock, which was located at the base of a safe, earthen backstop, approximated the size of a man’s head. Shooting was done from a standing position, using a two hand grip, firing single-action (probably not the way Lt. Bluethner was taught). Despite the narrow, rounded front sight blade, I had little trouble keeping all my shots on the rock. This would seem contrary to the showing the gun had just given from the machine rest. I can’t explain it, but that’s what happened.

      In addition to being pleasantly surprised at the off-hand accuracy of the gun, I was favorably impressed by how mild the recoil of a 262-grain bullet traveling at 600 fps feels when fired from a 37-ounce revolver. Light recoil means faster recovery time between shots, a definite plus in short-range fighting. The British may have had something after all, with their affinity for heavy, slow-moving bullets.

      Though I tried to approach the range session objectively, with no preconceived notions or expectations, the test results proved somewhat surprising. Perhaps subconsciously I assumed the old Hand Ejectors would deliver better accuracy than they did. Prior to this, the only .45 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver I had tried in the Ransom Rest was my Model 25-2 chambered in .45 ACP. With select loads, that gun will regularly group under 1-1/2 inches at 25 yards. Past experience with the Model 25-2 may have influenced my thinking, creating unrealistic expectations of the vintage Smiths.

      I suppose it’s possible that the.455 Mark II service ammunition issued in the First World War might have shot better in one or both of my .455 revolvers than the commercial ammo used in these informal tests. In regard to the Model 1917, limiting the test to a single brand of .45 ACP ball certainly limits the validity of the findings as well. It is not at all unusual for a handgun to shoot admirably with one brand of ammunition and abysmally with another.

      Still, the lackluster performance of the three Hand Ejectors prompted a search for information about the handgun accuracy standards of either the British, or U.S. Armies during World War One. Checking the assorted reference material on my bookshelves proved relatively unproductive. Charles Pate’s excellent and very comprehensive book, U.S.Handguns of World War II, contains copies of United States Army specifications for secondary pistols and revolvers used in the Second World War. The accuracy requirements for .38 caliber revolvers, both .38 Special and .38-200, are described in a memorandum dated January 26, 1944. The memo reads: “Revolvers shall be tested for accuracy by firing six shots at a 2-¾ inch bull’s-eye, 15 yards from the muzzle. An arm rest shall be used, and sights held at six o’clock. All the shots shall be in or cutting the bull’s-eye. Full loads shall be used.”

      While this circa 1944 memo was helpful, it didn’t address the question of military handgun accuracy standards during the First World War. Failing to find reference to the subject in my resources, I consulted one of the foremost authorities on such matters, firearms historian and author, again Charles Pate. Mr. Pate graciously informed me that in all of his research he had never come across any documentation dealing with World War One military standards of handgun accuracy for either revolvers, or the Model 1911 pistol. I asked him if the U.S. Army had a set of criteria for rejecting Model 1911s. He said they did, but poor accuracy wasn’t one of them.

      From all indications, in 1917 the United States Army wasn’t overly concerned about pin-point accuracy from their sidearms. Apparently, if a handgun could reliably place a disabling hit on a man-size target at trench-fighting distances, it was considered acceptable. There is no question that the three World War