Ubert vs Winchester accuracy

[Obie73]

Does anyone happen to know?

Is the Uberti 1873 rifle more or less accurate than the Miroku Winchester model 73, in .357 mag? Also, with these rifles, is there much difference in accuracy when using open sights between the 20" and 24" barrels, at maximum 100m range? Is the octagonal barrel more accurate?

Yes, I'm most interested in accuracy. I already know how well each rifle is made, and quality of materials.

[Obie73]

Whoops, typo. Meant to write "Uberti"

[Jackaroo]

I have both for Single Action and with open sights you're never going to be able to pick the more accurate rifle IMO over 100m.

Both mine are octagonal barrels as they just look great IMO.

The Uberti have the advantage of an enormous amount of aftermarket parts (and also just access to any parts) and accessories to slick them up over the Miroku.

My Uberti is slicked up (by me) and I've put ball park figure around 50k of .38's through it now. The Miroku doesn't get much use.

[No1_49er]

With "open" sights, a longer sight radius is always better. 24" barrel and a tang sight; go for the max.
As for accuracy - that will depend on what load you develope for it.
Me? I prefer Marlin.

[Obie73]

In some ways I'm a bit of a stubborn fellow and I'm going to use semi-buckhorn for the rear sight, even though most people don't seem to like them, especially for any kind of target shooting. I like to choose something a bit more difficult (and I guess you could say a bit more basic, as in, without the special trimmings or extra devices) and learn how to use it well. I may not get results as good as I could get with a peep sight or scope but ... I just want to use open sights. If one day my eyesight isn't good enough for it and I can't use open sights any more then I will make the change then.

Otherwise, I enjoy the challenge of using the buckhorn sights.

Occasionally I read here and there advice from some very experienced shooters who say that open sights eg. semi-buckhorn can be just as accurate as using a peep sight. But such people seem to be pretty thin on the ground. Most people much prefer the peep sight.

[in2anity]

As others have said - sight radius is key. You’ll never see anyone consistently put x10 into sub 4 moa from offhand at 100m over rudimentary irons (without further aids like a jacket and sling). So if one rifle is fractionally more accurate than the other, it will be of little consequence. Go for ease of use like balance and good sight picture over some arbitrary benchrest accuracy.

[Obie73]

That's good advice. The tang mounted iron sight certainly has the significantly extra sight radius. There was at least one guy in the US who posted a few years back who maintained that in his extensive experience that proper use of open sights eg. straight bladed notch rear sight or semi-buckhorn will equal the best peep sight shooting but I've found that many people seem to be unconvinced by this claim. At any rate, as I said above, I don't mind if my groups are slightly wider for going with 'open sights'. The way I see it is that, with similar or the same equipment, how well do others shoot? If I'm in a LA classic competition where you have to use the original type of sights that were sold with that rifle from the factory (eg. open iron sights) how well do the best shooters shoot? Then that's the group sizes I aspire to. Whatever is possible with that equipment. I'm not into slings or jackets and I suspect they wouldn't be allowed in the range competitions I go in. Just the unadorned rifle. I've never seen anyone shoot sub-4MOA at 100m offhand. That would be spectacular shooting indeed, but I'd be happy with larger groups offhand for sure.

That said, I do sometimes think that a bit further along the track I might eventually get a tang mounted sight. I want to learn to shoot my best with open irons first though. I find it the most fun way to shoot. I get the most out of it but others would have more fun with other equipment. I guess we all do what most floats our boat. The general principle of tang mounted sights doesn't readily appeal to me as the thing swivels up quite a way, above its base. Plus the base of the sight gets in the way of your hand. I prefer the simple look and feel of the factory supplied rifle. Then of course there's the 'romance' of the frontier kind of saddle scabbard rifle, and the great plains ... and all that. Sure, a lot of real 'cowboy' types probably used peep sights if they depended on their equipment to supply food each day On the whole though, I'm not really into the 'cowboy' kind of thing, or CAS. To each their own.

[in2anity]

Obie73 I shoot graded, commonwealth-era service rifle weekly under the NRAA. The rules dictate that the factory front blade must be used. 1/3rd of all our shooting happens on the 100m mound, from the standing offhand position. We are allowed to use our service slings to help stabilise. For offhand, I personally opt for simple two point configuration, and pull the rifle tight onto the chest. Some go for the single-point configuration. Many good offhand shooters use no sling at all - it's not really clear how much it helps (unlike sitting or prone where it's a must).

If you are holding the rifle for more than one shot at a time, arm fatigue plays a part. It probably also means the stage will be time limited, meaning you need to break your shots with relative promptness, depending on format.

You merely have to group all into aproximately a 10" bull to achieve a perfect score, but this will be timed, usually around 20 rounds across a slow fire stage and a quick fire or snap stage.

Even in a slow fire application, VERY rarely will you see a competetor shoot a possible 50/50. It does happen, but not often. That means all x10 shots simply went into that 10" bull at 100m. The best shooters consistently go 48 or 49 / 50 possible, meaning 9/10 went into the 10" at 100m. But out there in the elements, with recoil and arm fatigue (no putting the rifle down the whole time) - it makes it way harder than you might imagine. Very different to olympic smallbore.

Now, the crux of this long story (sorry) - for specifically offhand in this context, there's not a huge difference between the dovetail sighted mausers and the peep sighted No4s. The criticial detail is that the sight radius be nice and long as to neatly place that crisp front sight into the center of the target, and pulling the trigger at just the right moment while wobbling around. That simply comes with length, and good balance with the fulcrum placed under the supporting hand.

The peep sight comes into it's own further back on particularly prone mounds, whereby the rifle is significantly more stabilised, and the small gains from the peep can more easily be realised

How does this compare with Lever Action Silhoutte SSAA competition? It's fundementally different because you rest the rifle down between shots, and have MUCH longer to break nice clean shots. So it really depends on what your end goal is, and what comp you are aiming for?

[bladeracer]

That's good advice. The tang mounted iron sight certainly has the significantly extra sight radius. There was at least one guy in the US who posted a few years back who maintained that in his extensive experience that proper use of open sights eg. straight bladed notch rear sight or semi-buckhorn will equal the best peep sight shooting but I've found that many people seem to be unconvinced by this claim. At any rate, as I said above, I don't mind if my groups are slightly wider for going with 'open sights'. The way I see it is that, with similar or the same equipment, how well do others shoot? If I'm in a LA classic competition where you have to use the original type of sights that were sold with that rifle from the factory (eg. open iron sights) how well do the best shooters shoot? Then that's the group sizes I aspire to. Whatever is possible with that equipment. I'm not into slings or jackets and I suspect they wouldn't be allowed in the range competitions I go in. Just the unadorned rifle. I've never seen anyone shoot sub-4MOA at 100m offhand. That would be spectacular shooting indeed, but I'd be happy with larger groups offhand for sure.

That said, I do sometimes think that a bit further along the track I might eventually get a tang mounted sight. I want to learn to shoot my best with open irons first though. I find it the most fun way to shoot. I get the most out of it but others would have more fun with other equipment. I guess we all do what most floats our boat. The general principle of tang mounted sights doesn't readily appeal to me as the thing swivels up quite a way, above its base. Plus the base of the sight gets in the way of your hand. I prefer the simple look and feel of the factory supplied rifle. Then of course there's the 'romance' of the frontier kind of saddle scabbard rifle, and the great plains ... and all that. Sure, a lot of real 'cowboy' types probably used peep sights if they depended on their equipment to supply food each day On the whole though, I'm not really into the 'cowboy' kind of thing, or CAS. To each their own.

When I started shooting it was with air-rifle and .22LR in competition (PCYC and Army Cadets). This was all done with open iron sights. Air-rifle was prone 10m, the .22LR was prone at 25m - I've confirmed this as we did it on the school oval which I've since checked on GoogleEarth. We used to shoot very, very well, far better than I can now, so perhaps there is some grain of truth to his comment. But an aperture rear sight makes it significantly easier to shoot well. I have compared open sight and aperture sight groups with scoped groups and my open sight groups tend to be a little larger, but a whole lot slower than aperture sights or scopes. But to shoot open or aperture sights I also need a large enough target to be able to get a clean sight picture. With a scope this is far less of an issue.

I really like the theory behind buckhorn sights, and would love to be able to use them effectively, but I can't be bothered putting in the time to learn and practice with them when there's no real-world value I can see in it.

Yep, shooting jackets and gloves and slings really take the enjoyment out of shooting for me. And not a fan of the tang sights either, great for a competition rifle but I think they'd just get snapped off on a field rifle.

I can shoot 4MoA (116mm at 100m) offhand with the 18.5" Henry .22LR and aperture sight, not easy but possible - I have to be in the right "zone" for that. I might be able to do it with the 25" BSA Sportsman 5 perhaps, with open sights, but I'm not sure I've tried grouping it that far. I have used it on the half-scale ram at 100m but that's larger than four minutes. I'll have to give it a try.

My biggest problem shooting iron sights is my age, and a cataract.

[Obie73]

Really good reading your posts here, in2anity and bladeracer. I'm inspired by what you write. I've been busy lately but will do my best to load up another 50 rounds soon and head back out to the range. My latest plan is to sell my Henry 30-30 and get a 24" barrel .357. That, with my 19" barrel Uberti carbine, will be my main two 'sticks' I use. It's a fun hobby. A bit expensive but ah well.

[in2anity]

IMO a 24" .357 is a really desirable offhand configuration.
The .357 has enough power to still group O-K at 100m even under average sort of windage, from standing or sit/crouch.
The .357 does not recoil as much as say a .44magnum, so recoil fatigue will be minimised.
Wait till you experience it first hand, but i can assure you that front sight will be crisper and finer to place on the target compared with the carbine length.
The .357 doesn't burn the bank with powder consumption.
The .357 doesn't burn the bank with projectile consumption; heck shoot cast lead at 1400fps and she'll do great.
The .357 still has reasonable stopping power at modest distances, if that's your jam. Use a carbide die and you don't need to lube.
The .357 holds heaps up the tube for loooong strings.
Case life is amazing compared with rifle cartridges.
Negatives are that if you hit the 200m ram low, you may not topple it. Depends if you are doing CLAS or not.

https://youtube.com/shorts/SlfyVH1f0mc? ... DgcZj64wJ2 (not a .357, but 100m 8rnd offhand with a recharge in 40secs). Now that would be MUCH easier with a rifle length .357, let me tell you!! I've done those matches with my 32h&r magnum lever, and she is just about perfect for such a format.