Category: Guns

Colt’s Python versus Ruger’s Blackhawk

The Colt Python versus the Ruger Blackhawk:  Apples and oranges?  Maybe, maybe not.  This blog compares the two .357 Magnum revolvers from several perspectives, including price, actions and triggers, sights, barrels, fit and finish, durability, feel, panache, accuracy, bore leading, ammo sensitivity, and extraction.

Price

The Python is a premium revolver, selling for $1500 (if you can find one) compared to a Ruger Blackhawk’s typical sell price of just under $700.    I believe Ruger stopped making Blackhawks for a while; they resumed production this year and I have one of the recently manufactured specimens.  Colt stopped making the original Pythons in 1999; in 2020 they reintroduced an improved version.  That’s the one I have now.

Actions and Triggers

The Python is a double action revolver; the Ruger is a single action.    That means that on the Ruger, you have to cock it by pulling the hammer all the way to the rear to rotate the cylinder and bring the gun to a ready-to-fire condition.   On a double action revolver like the Python, you can fire it single action as described immediately above, or you can pull the trigger a longer distance to rotate the cylinder, cock the gun, and drop the hammer.

Help us bring more content to you…please click on the popup ads!

As delivered, the Blackhawk had a crisp but relatively heavy single action trigger pull.  I gave mine the quick New York trigger job described in an earlier blog; now it is both lighter and crisp.  It’s a good trigger, as good as you’d get with a custom trigger job.  Ruger did a good job here.

A Blackhawk New York trigger job. Unhook one leg of the trigger spring, and you get a lighter trigger.

The Colt Python’s double action trigger pull is superb, far superior to the double action trigger of the earlier Pythons.  It doesn’t stack; it’s a constant force trigger pull all the way to hammer drop.  The Python trigger is serrated, which I don’t care for.  I think it would be better as a smooth trigger,  like the Ruger has.  The serrations interfere with the double action trigger motion, in which I’d like my finger to be able to slide across the trigger laterally as I complete the pull.  But it’s still a good double action trigger.

The Ruger and Colt triggers. A smooth trigger on the Python would make for better double action shooting.

The Colt Python’s single action trigger, as delivered by the factory, was not acceptable to me.  It probably exceeded 6 pounds, it was gritty, and it actually cocked the hammer a bit more before it released.  I called my contact at Colt to ask about it and he explained that it’s necessary to survive our California drop test.   That requirement stipulates that a cocked gun has to not discharge when dropped repeatedly from a specified height on a concrete surface.  I run with a pretty exclusive crowd (exclusive in the sense that we don’t drop our loaded and cocked guns repeatedly on concrete), so the requirement is beyond silly to me, but hey, it is what it is, and it’s why a new Python has a heavy, gritty single action trigger from the factory.  It’s not Colt’s fault; it’s California.

I had TJ (of TJ’s Custom Gunworks) work his magic on the single action trigger and it’s now what it is supposed to be.  Think zero creep, a breaking glass release, and 2.5 pounds, and you’ll have a good idea of my Python’s single action trigger.

Sights and Sight Radius

Both revolvers have adjustable sights.   The Python has a red ramp front sight (but no white outline rear).  The Blackhawk has plain black sights front and rear, which I actually prefer.  The Blackhawk rear sight is click adjustable for windage and elevation (like most handguns with adjustable rear sights), the Python rear sight is click adjustable for elevation.  The Python windage adjustment is a little different than most.  It is infinitely adjustable for windage via a screw (with no clicks), and it can be locked in place with what has to be the world’s smallest Allen screw.  Colt provides a tiny Allen wrench with the revolver for this purpose.

The Ruger Blackhawk’s front and rear sights. I prefer a plain black post and rear blade, like this Ruger has. The rear sight blade has an indented provision for adding paint to create a white outline, but I’m leaving it black.
The Colt Python’s sights. The rear is click adjustable for elevation, and infinitely adjustable (i.e., there are no clicks) for windage. The front sight has a red ramp.

The Colt front sight is easily replaced with the same size tiny Allen screw that is used to lock the rear sight windage.  I’ve not seen any different front sights offered to replace the red ramp front sight, but I guess they are (or will be) available.

I actually prefer the Ruger’s plain black sights to the Colt’s red ramp arrangement, but that’s a personal preference.

The Colt’s sight radius (the distance from the front to rear sight) is 7 3/4 inches.  The Ruger’s sight radius is 8 1/2 inches, which should give a Ruger a slight accuracy edge.

Barrels

Both handguns have the longer version of the barrels offered by their respective manufacturers.  The Ruger .357 Magnum New Model Blackhawk can be had with either a 4 5/8-inch barrel or a 6 1/2-inch barrel; I opted for the 6 1/2-inch barrel.  The Colt Python is available with either a 4 1/4-inch barrel or a 6-inch barrel; I went with the 6-inch version.  For me, these are target guns, and I wanted the longer sight radius.

The Colt Python has a 6-inch barrel; the Ruger Blackhawk has a 6 1/2-inch barrel. Both are large, heavy revolvers.

Colt is recently introduced a 3-inch barrel on the Python.   The Python (in my opinion) is too big for concealed carry even with the 3-inch barrel; the short barreled version holds no interest for me.

The Python has a 1 turn in  14 inches left twist rate barrel; the Ruger has a slightly slower 1 turn in 16 inches right twist rate.  Both barrels have recessed crowns.  The Python, of course, has its signature ventilated rib and full underlug barrel.  It’s a classic and unique look and I love it.

Interestingly, in the 1970s I shot handgun metallic silhouette competition with a Smith and Wesson Model 27; it had a twist rate of 1 turn in 18 3/4 inches.  It was accurate, but not any more than either of the two 357 Magnums being reviewed here.

Weight

The Colt Python weighs 46 ounces.  The Ruger Blackhawk weighs 45 ounces.  The grip frame on the Blackhawk is a painted alloy, which reduces the weight slightly.  These are both big, heavy handguns.  They are not meant to be concealed carry guns.

Fit and Finish

Ah, how to be delicate here.   Colt hit a home run with the Python.  Ruger, not so much, at least on my Blackhawk.

The Python has a high polish, mirror-like finish on its stainless steel surfaces.  It’s actually not hand buffed like you might imagine; Colt uses a vibratory polishing media approach.  It really works; the finish is superb.

Ruger’s Blackhawk has an industrial grade blued finish, and on my revolver, the factory missed several spots on the cylinder.   Ruger offered to reblue the cylinder for me, but truth be told, the cylinder is a fitted part and I didn’t want to chance sending it to Ruger and having them return a different cylinder.  I used cold blue on mine to touch it up, and after oiling it, you have to know where the bluing shortfalls were to find them.  But you shouldn’t have to do that on a new gun.

Lapses in bluing quality on the Ruger Blackhawk. This gun should have never left the factory.
The fit of the grips to the grip frame was atrocious on my Blackhawk.

The grips on my Blackhawk had a very poor fit.  I thought they were made of plastic, but they are hard rubber (like on the Colt Single Action Army).  Ruger sent a new set of grips to me, but I couldn’t get them over the mounting posts in the grip frame and I didn’t want to screw around enlarging the holes.  Instead, I installed a previous set of black laminate grips I had from Ruger (you can see them in the photo at the top of this blog).  I like the look and the feel of the laminate grips, so they are staying on the gun.  You shouldn’t have these kinds of issues on a new gun.

Both the Colt and Ruger rear sight elevation adjustment pivots on a pin through the revolver frame.  After shooting the Colt for a couple of years, the pin is still in place.  Colt uses a rolled steel pin; Ruger uses a solid pin. On the Ruger, by the end of the first range session its pin had backed out.  Ruger sent me another pin with a recommendation that I bend it slightly before I install it.  I’ll fix it in place with green Loctite when I get around to picking some up, but I shouldn’t have to do this.

I paid $659 for my Blackhawk, but factoring in the freight cost, the sales tax, the California DOJ fee, and the transfer fee, it was crowding a thousand dollars by the time I took it home.  For that kind of money, I expect something to be perfect.  That’s not what I received.  On the plus side, I know if I shipped the revolver back to Ruger, they’d make it perfect.  As I said in an earlier blog, Ruger’s customer service is the best in the business.  But that’s a poor benchmark for a gun manufacturer (or any manufacturer, for that matter).  If they got it right the first time, they wouldn’t need to be the best in the best in correcting quality escapes from the factory, and getting it right the first time is what most of us expect when we plunk down our hard-earned cash.

Durability

The older Pythons were delicate firearms, and it’s been said by people who know what they’re talking about they suffered from frame stretch and timing issues within the first 2,000 to 3,000 rounds.  The new Python is a much beefier gun, and the guys I spoke with at Colt told me it no longer has these issues.  I haven’t owned my Python long enough to say that’s the case, but I believe what Colt told me.  I’ve shot mine a lot over the last two or three years; if anything, it’s becoming more accurate.

Ruger Blackhawks have always been built like anvils.  I’m the only guy I know who wore one out, and I put many, many max loads through my old stainless steel Blackhawk.  Blackhawks are tough.  I think the new Pythons are, too.  From a durability perspective, I’d call it a draw.

Feel

This is a subjective assessment that includes grip, balance, and ease in handling the revolver.  It’s very much a matter of personal preference.  I like the feel and balance of a single action better than a double action revolver, so for me, the Blackhawk takes the win here.

Panache

This is another subjective assessment.  The dictionary defines panache as “flamboyant confidence of style or manner.”  The Python is the easy winner here.  Don’t get me wrong:  Folks have approached me on the range to ask about what I’m shooting when I’ve been out there with both guns.  But it happens more often with the the Python.   It’s a prestige item.  Pythons have been featured in movies going all the way back to the second Dirty Harry flick, Magnum Force, as well as others.  I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a Ruger Blackhawk in a movie (if you have, let me know).

Accuracy

This is essentially a draw.  Both revolvers are accurate, and both have their preferred loads.   You may have read my recent blog on the Blackhawk’s accuracy; I shot the same loads with the Python to make a comparison.

Bullets used for this test: From left to right, the Speer 158-grain jacketed soft point, the Hornady 158-grain jacketed hollow point (also called the XTP), the Hornady 110-grain jacketed hollow point, a cast 158-grain flat point, and the 148-grain Gardner cast and powder coated double ended wadcutter loaded in .38 Special cases. The different powder charges and primers used with these bullets are shown in the table below.

Take a look at the results:

I fired the above 5-shot groups at 50 feet, using a two hand hold resting my hands on the bench.  I did not use a machine rest, nor did I chronograph any of my loads.

Both the Python and the Blackhawk shot very well with 8.0 grains of Unique and the Hornady 158-grain jacketed hollow point bullet (Hornady calls it their XTP bullet).
The Python did very well with a light .357 Magnum cast load: 4.3 grains of Bullseye and the 158-grain cast flat point bullet. The Ruger didn’t shoot the lighter cast bullet loads nearly as well.  I need to move my Python’s rear sight to the right a bit.

The clear winner for a full power load that works well in both guns is the 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollow point with 8.0 grains of Unique.  That was the accuracy load for a 158-grain jacketed bullet in the old 45th edition (1970s vintage) Lyman manual (it’s not shown in the newer manuals). Loads using 158-grain jacketed bullets and Winchester’s 296 propellant did well in both guns, too, but they are high energy, high muzzle blast, and high recoil loads.

Another known favorite .357 Magnum load is the 110-grain Hornady jacketed hollow point with a max load of Unique.  These performed superbly well in the Python, but they were terrible in the Blackhawk.  The accuracy was poor and the brass would not extract (I had to remove the Blackhawk’s cylinder and drive the brass out with a rod).  This load had previously worked well in a stainless steel Blackhawk, but this newer one did not digest this recipe well.  Every gun is different.

I also tried a few lighter loads.  The Python grouped very well with 4.3 grains of Bullseye and the 158-grain cast flat point bullet.  That’s an easy load to shoot and I’ll be reloading a bunch of .357 Magnum cases with it later this week.  It’s an easily recoiling load, it’s very accurate in the Python, and it doesn’t lead the bore.  And a pound of Bullseye will go a long with this load (1627 cartridges, to be precise).   I also tried my preferred .38 Special target load in both revolvers (2.7 grains of Bullseye and a 148-grain Gardner powder coated double ended wadcutter bullet loaded in .38 Special brass).  The Python did well with these; the Blackhawk did not.  In general, the Ruger didn’t do nearly as well with lighter loads.

The Colt Python with 148-grain .38 Special target loads. Recoil was minimal; accuracy was good with this load in the Python but not the Blackhawk.

Overall, it’s hard to say one revolver is more accurate than the other.  The table above shows amazing consistency for both guns.  I averaged all the averages for each revolver, and from that statistic, one could conclude that the Python holds an accuracy edge.   But you know what they say about statistics.  From an accuracy perspective, both manufacturers (Colt and Ruger) got it right.

Extraction

The Python was flawless.  The Ruger had extraction issues with the 110 grain bullet and a near-maximum load of Unique.  Well, issues isn’t exactly the right word.  Cases fired with those loads wouldn’t extract.  I had to remove the cylinder and tap the cases out with a rod.  All the other loads tested in the Ruger extracted normally.

The Python extracted the same load that gave the Ruger fits with no issues, and owing to the nature of a double action revolver’s extraction mechanism, it had to push out all the cases at the same time.   The inside of the Python chambers have a mirror finish.  The Ruger chambers do not.

With regard to extraction, the Python is the better revolver.

Leading

Neither revolver had an advantage over the other with regard to leading.  When cast bullet velocities were high, both guns leaded the bore.  If I loaded to get velocities below 1000 feet per second, neither revolver leaded the bore.  But (and it’s an important but), the Python is more accurate than the Ruger with lower velocity cast bullet reloads.

The Python’s bore after firing 20 rounds of cast bullets with 7.0 grains of Unique.

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, my old standard .357 Magnum load turned out to not be such a good load.  It leaded the bore of the Python and the Ruger significantly after 10 rounds.  The first five shot group grouped well; each succeeding group grew larger.  Interestingly, that group averaged exactly the same (1.555 inches) for both the Python and the Blackhawk.

When I was finished with the Python accuracy testing, I know I’d have to scrub the lead out of the barrel with a bronze bore brush.  From time to time, people ask if they can just shoot jacketed bullets when the bore leads up to “push the lead out.”  I knew the answer to that question is a solid no, but I fired a few jacketed bullets through the heavily-leaded Python bore to make the point.

Fire jacketed bullets through a leaded bore and you get copper fouling on top of bore leading. It still needs to be bore brushed. The copper bullets do not push the lead out.
Both revolvers performed similarly with the 7.0-grains of Unique and the 158 grain cast flat point bullet. The first group was good, then as the bore leaded the groups progressively grew.  This target is with the Python; the Ruger target looks the same (both revolvers averaged exactly 1.555 inches overall with this load).

Ammo Sensitivity

I’ve already mentioned issues associated with extraction, and how the Python did better than the Ruger Blackhawk.

There’s another potential issue, and that’s bullet pull under recoil.  The Ruger has a longer cylinder than the Python, and if bullet pull occurs, the Ruger is less susceptible to it preventing cylinder rotation.

You can see that the Blackhawk’s cylinder is longer than the Python’s.

The Ruger has a 1.640-inch long cylinder.  The Python has a 1.553-inch long cylinder.  The Ruger gives you another 0.087 inches of cylinder length to play with, which would probably allow any recoil-induced bullet pull to go unnoticed (unless the cartridges had no crimp at all, the bullets most likely wouldn’t back out far enough in six rounds to affect cylinder rotation).  In this regard, the Blackhawk will be more forgiving than the Python.  Did Colt make the Python cylinder too short?  Nope, they did not.  They made it as long as it needs to be with adequately-crimped .357 Magnum ammo meeting the max cartridge overall length spec.  The reason for that is accuracy.  Keeping the distance the bullet has to jump to the rifling as low as it can be enhances accuracy.  Colt got it right, in my opinion.  I like the idea that cylinder length is minimized.

Conclusions

The bottom line to me is that you won’t be making a mistake by purchasing either handgun.  I’d think twice about ordering the Blackhawk through one of the online sites; the better approach would be to purchase the gun at a store where you can see it first.  On the Colt, you may not be satisfied with the single action trigger pull as delivered from the factory (I wasn’t, but it was recoverable with a trigger job).

From an accuracy perspective, it’s a draw; both guns are very accurate.

You might be wondering which of the two I prefer, and I don’t have an answer for you.   I enjoy reloading for and shooting both.

Help us out, folks!  We depend on our popup ads to keep us in components and chain lube.  Please click on the popup ads!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Like our gun and reloading stuff?  More Tales of the Gun are here!

We have a bunch of earlier blogs on the Ruger Blackhawk and the Colt Python.  Here’s a set of links:

There you have it, folks. If you have comments, please make them.  We love hearing from you.

A Sneak Preview…

Wowee, do we ever have some good stuff coming up right here on the ExNotes blog.  Guns, motorcycles, adventure touring in Transylvania, and the results of a content safari through Arizona all the way to Albuquerque.  Here’s an inkling of just a few of the topics coming your way.

What’s the real difference between a $1500 Colt Python and a $650 Ruger Blackhawk?   Watch for our side-by-side, target-by-target comparo.  It’s coming up.

Into resurrections?   Hey, how about CSC’s replica of the original Mustang motorcycle!  You read our recent story about the Al Simmons Mustang motorcycle collection and the origins of the Mustang.   CSC’s Steve Seidner went a step further, and we’ll tell you all about it.

Ever have your well dry?  I mean literally, not figuratively.   Uncle Joe Gresh has, and he’ll tell you all about it.  Gresh is a guy who makes MacGuyver look like an amateur.   You’ll love this story.

We’re going to bring in a new writer or two (or maybe more).  We have a blog loaded and ready to publish from good buddy Airborne Mike on a motorcycle ride through (get this!) Transylvania!  I kid you not.  Transylvania and the Transfagarasan Highway!

On that topic of new writers…Joe Gresh will tell you all about what you need to do to be considered for the ExNotes editorial staff.  Watch for a blog on this topic in the near future.

The Pima Air Museum in Tucson is another treasure.  Wow, that was a fun visit.  There’s so much there we couldn’t take it all in during a single visit, and it’s a place that screams for more than a single blog.  I need to return.  The photo ops were incredible.

More good Joe Gresh stuff straight from Tinfiny Ranch, including the Gresh moto stable and the world famous Gresh project bank.  Motorcycles, the MGB-GT, and more!

How about the Franklin Automobile Museum in Tucson, Arizona?  Never heard of it?  We hadn’t, either, but (trust me on this) it’s Tucson’s best kept secret!

White Sands Missile Range?  Yep, that, too.  Everything from a Nazi V-2 to current US weaponry, and we’ll have the story right here.

How about White Sands National Park?   Think Sahara Desert, and you’ll have a good idea about what these rolling snow white gypsum hills look like.  It was awesome!

The New Mexico Museum of Space History, with a guided tour by none other than Joe Gresh?  That was a really fun visit with lots of cool exhibits.  It’s coming your way.

How about sacred Native American ruins in New Mexico?  We saw several and they were impressive, including the Kuaua Native American site along the Rio Grande River.

Albuquerque is quite a town, and Old Town Albuquerque is quite the place.  We had a lot of fun wandering around and taking photos.  It’s in the mix for a future blog.

And the Albuquerque 50th Anniversary Balloon Fiesta…wow, was that ever spectacular.  The excitement and wonder of that event is one of the most impressive things I’ve ever experienced.

Stay tuned, folks.   It’s quite an adventure, and it’s onging!

Click on those popup ads…we get paid everytime you do!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

A 300 H&H Ammo Score

Finding reloading components of any kind these days (brass, bullets, powders, or primers) is a tough thing to do.  Finding brass for more exotic cartridges is near impossible.  One of my favorite cartridges is the famed .300 Holland and Holland.  It’s a specialty item.  I’ve not seen loaded .300 H&H ammo or brass in gun stores for years.  I searched for two years for brass and found nothing.  Prices for both ammo and brass have climbed through the roof (Nosler brass, just the empty brass, is now about $6 per round), but it’s all moot.  It could be free or it could be $100 per round.  Nobody has any.  I know moot, and this is it.

I was recently in my local reloading shop (Phillips Wholesale, in Covina, California).  I stop by there periodically just to see what Rick has in stock, and if it’s anything I might be able to use, I buy it because there’s no telling when it will be available again.  While there, I was lamenting with Rick about the sad state of affairs in component availability, and I mentioned not being able to find .300 H&H brass.  Rick perked up.  “.300 H&H?” he said.  “I might have something.”

Rick pulled a plastic box of 50 cartridges from under the counter.  It contained .300 H&H handloaded ammo in virgin (previously unfired) brass.

.300 H&H ammo. It;s beautiful, isn’t it?
The data label on the ammo Rick showed to me. It was loaded 12 1/2 years ago.

Rick helps folks settle estates when the estate includes reloading goodies.  This was a box of ammo with that provenance.   I normally wouldn’t fire someone else’s handloads.  I’m a careful reloader; I don’t know that the someone else who loaded other ammo was.  But I had, in my hot little hands, 50 rounds of fresh .300 H&H brass.   I didn’t recognize the propellant (AA 86?), but I didn’t care.  I figured I could pull the bullets, dump the powder, and load the new brass with my preferred .300 H&H load, which is 60.0 grains of IMR 4320 and a Winchester 150-grain jacketed softpoint bullet.  My rifle (I’ll tell you more about it in a minute) has shot 0.25-inch groups with this load.

So I bought the ammo and proceeded to pull it apart.  I removed the bullets (which mashed a few tips and scraped a few ogives), dumped the powder, and reloaded the brass cases with my IMR 4320 load.  I reused the pulled bullets.  The bullets weren’t perfect after the extraction operation, but I wanted to fireform the brass to my rifle and I didn’t care about their condition.  Once the brass has been fireformed (fired so it conforms to that particular rifle), I will neck size only to maximize case life.  The .300 H&H cartridge is known for short case life when it is full length resized.

AA 86 propellant and Remington 150-grain jacketed soft poin bullets pulled from the first box of ammo. I’m going to use that powder in .243 ammo now that I know what it is.

I weighed a few of the powder charges as I was pulling the bullets and they were exactly as labeled on the box Rick sold to me:  75.0 grains.  Whoever loaded this (a fellow from Riverside who passed away) was obviously a careful reloader.  The propellant was a stick powder, so I figured it was a rifle propellant, but I had never heard of AA 86.  I recognized AA as most likely belonging to Accurate Arms, but there’s nothing I could initially find on the Accurate website called AA 86.

I called Accurate Arms’ customer service to see if they could shed any light on the AA 86 mystery.  The kid I spoke with told me Accurate Arms had gone through an acquisition, and he didn’t know anything about their propellants before the acquisition.  He specificially had never heard of AA 86.  I poked around a bit more on the Internet and learned that Accurate Arms had occasionally sold surplus powders identified as Data Powder (or DP) powders, followed by a two-digit number.  There was a DP 86 powder.  I went back to the Accurate Arms site and found a reference to it, which said that DP 86 was essentially the same as their AS 3100 powder.  The Accurate Arms customer service guy didn’t know this (he sounded like a young guy).

When I bought the box of .300 H&H ammo from Rick, he told me he might have some more.  I gave him my phone number and Rick called a couple of days later.  He found three more boxes.  I was in the middle of doing something important (writing an ExNotes blog, actually), but Rick’s message took priority.  I stopped writing and left for Rick’s shop immediately.

I told Rick about the phone call to Accurate Arms.  Rick knew all about DP 86, and he told me that this ammo had indeed been loaded with DP 86.  He also had canisters of the powder from the gentleman who passed away.  It sold quickly, Rick told me.

After pulling the bullets, I reloaded the first box with my pet load. If I was loading for accuracy, I would measure each charge, but I just wanted to fireform so I charged each case with my RCBS powder dispenser. IMR 4320 is an extruded rod powder, but the individual rods are small and it meters well.

I mentioned above that I would tell you a bit about my .300 H&H rifle.  My Dad bought it for me in the early 1970s before my US Army tour in Korea.  The rifle began life as a 7mm Weatherby Magnum, but I never could get the rifle to group well with that cartridge.  I had it rebarreled in .300 H&H, a cartridge I had read a lot about and learned to love in a pre-’64 Model 70 Winchester (don’t ask, it’s sold, and yeah, selling it was a dumb move on my part).   I glass bedded the Weatherby action, and I stripped the rifle’s original epoxy finish and refinished it with TruOil.

A Douglas barrel chambered in .300 H&H. It has a 1 turn in 10 inches twist rate and it is accurate. The rebarreled  Weatherby feeds the .300 H&H cartridges flawlessly.
Rich, warm, and beautiful.  There’s something about oil-finished walnut that is just right.
The flip side looks just as good. About 10 years after I refinished this rifle, Weatherby introduced their Euromark line, which was the Mark V with an oil finished walnut stock. I own a couple. Both have highly figured walnut, but to me this custom .300 H&H looks better. It groups better, too.  Weatherby has since discontinued making walnut Mark V rifles.  They are all composite rifles now, which seems like a crime against nature.

I’ve been shooting and hunting with this custom .300 H&H Weatherby for close to 50 years now, and  I’ve owned and shot quite a few other rifles during that time.  This one remains my favorite. I am a big Weatherby fan and I love the .300 H&H cartridge.  It is the perfect combination of power, accuracy, and manageable recoil.  I greatly prefer the .300 H&H Magnum over the .300 Weatherby Magnum.  The .300 Weatherby Magnum’s recoil is vicious and unpleasant.  The .300 Weatherby’s recoil is aggravated by a need to load at or near maximum for accuracy.  The .300 H&H is a more useable and enjoyable chambering.

I bought four boxes (200 rounds!) of this handloaded virgin brass, and I recently took two boxes to the range.  One contained my reconstituted ammo with the IMR 4320 powder and 150-grain pulled Remington bullets; the other was loaded with 180-grain Nosler blemished bullets and AA 85 powder.  On this blemished bullet business: Sometimes bullet manufacturers sell factory seconds at reduced prices. This was the only time I’ve heard of blems from Nosler.  I’m a guy who loads for accuracy (I could care less about muzzle velocity or killing power), so the idea of using a rejected factory bullet seems silly.  I’m firing this ammo only to fireform the cases, so I was okay with reusing the pulled bullets.  And I felt more comfortable about firing the ammo as provided by Rick once I learned more about AA 86 and AA 85 propellants.

How did it shoot?  Both the boxes I tried (my IMR 4320 load and the 180-grain Nosler load) shot very well.  The 180-grain load predictably had a bit more recoil, but it wasn’t bad.   The 150-grain bullet and IMR 4320 load showed no primer flattening; the 180-grain Nosler load showed just a hint of primer flattening (but not enough to be of concern).

My favorite 300 H&H load showed no pressure signs. The guy who loaded it snuck in a different primer on one cartridge.
The ammo loaded with 180-grain Noslers and a near-max DP 86 load flattened the primers just a bit, but not enough to indicate excessive pressure. This load had more recoil, but it was still way below .300 Weatherby levels.

Accuracy was surprisingly good with both loads, especially considering that I dinged up the 150-grain Winchester bullets during the removal operation and the 180-grain Noslers were factory blems.

Here’s the target I shot at 100 yards with my IMR 4320 loads:

This is way below minute-of-wild-boar and more than accurate enough for ammo loaded with pulled bullets and brass that had not yet been fireformed. Next tme will be better.  It’s a load that has produced quarter-inch groups in the past.  I didn’t expect that kind of accuracy with this ammo due to the bullets’ condition.

And here’s one I shot with the 180-grain Noslers as loaded by the original reloader 12 1/2 years ago.  You can ignore the group(s) circled in black.  When good buddy Chuck gave me a target board at the range, it had a target stapled on it with usable real estate.  I’m cheap so I reused the target (somebody  had previously fired at the bullseyes circled in black; I only shot at the orange and blue targets).

Groups shot with the 180-grain blemished Nosler bullets and DP 86 surplus powder. It’s not bad for a dragon slayer at 100 yards. The shots circled in black were already on the target when I used it.

I’m quite pleased with this .300 H&H ammo.  I picked up 200 rounds at about one-sixth what factory ammo would have cost at a time when neither ammo nor brass is available.  It pays to maintain a relationship with local businesses.

More Tales of the Gun!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Keep us in components…please click on those popup ads!

When Rick doesn’t have the reloading gear I need, I turn to Amazon.

Ruger Blackhawk Accuracy Testing

I recently tested several loads for accuracy in my Ruger .357 Magnum New Model Blackhawk.

The Ruger New Model .357 Blackhawk.

The .357 Magnum Blackhawk is available with either a 4 5/8-inch or a 6 1/2-inch barrel; mine is the 6 1/2-inch version.   I like a longer barrel when I have a choice.

In this test series, I fired four 5-shot groups at 50 feet and then calculated the average group size for each load.  I did not use a machine rest (more on that later); I used a two-hand hold rested on the bench, with no support for the barrel or any other part of the gun.

The Loads

I tested with five bullets and three propellants:

      • The Hornady 158-grain XTP jacketed hollow point
      • The Speer 158-grain jacketed soft point
      • The Hornady 110-grain jacketed hollow point
      • A cast 158-grain truncated flat point
      • A cast 148-grain powder coated double-ended wadcutter
      • Unique
      • Bullseye
      • Winchester 296
From left to right, the Speer 158-grain jacketed soft point, the Hornady 158-grain jacketed hollow point (designated by Hornady as XTPs), the Hornady 110-grain jacketed hollow point, a cast 158-grain truncated flat point, and the Gardner 148-grain powder coated double ended wadcutter (the wadcutters are loaded in .38 Special brass).

All loads were prepared using my new Lee Deluxe 4-die .357 Magnum reloading dies, with the exception of the .38 Special wadcutter ammo.  All loads were crimped.  I recently did a blog on the Lee dies.  I think they are the best dies I’ve ever used.  If you’re considering a set of Lee dies, a good place to buy them is on Amazon.

Lee’s Deluxe 4-Die Set. These do a fantastic job.

You can also buy directly from Lee Precision.

The different load recipes are identified in the table below.

The Results

Here are the results:

The biggest variable in this test series is me.  But, I’m what you get.

The most accurate load was 8.0 grains of Unique with the 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollow point bullet and a regular (non-magnum) primer.  You won’t find this load in any modern reloading manual.   It’s one that was in Lyman’s 45th edition manual (printed in 1970) as their accuracy load with a 158-grain jacketed bullet.  Sometimes there are jewels hidden in those old reloading manuals.  There are folks who say you shouldn’t use loads from old manuals.  When I do, I work up to them, watching for pressure signs.  Another one of my old reloading books goes up to 8.5 grains of Unique with a 158-grain jacketed bullet.  I didn’t go there because I didn’t need to.

The Lyman 45th Edition Reloading Handbook. I still use it. These older books contain loads the newer reloading manuals do not.
Back in 1970, the good folks at Lyman identified 8.0 grains of Unique and a 158-grain jacketed bullet as their accuracy load. They were right!

Recoil with the Lyman accuracy load identified above was moderate, and there were no excess pressure indications (extraction was easy, and the primers were not flattened).  I tried 7.0 grains of Unique first, and it was so calm I had no qualms about going to the Lyman-recommended 8.0-grain load.  I was impressed with the 8.0 grains of Unique and 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollow point load.  One of the groups was a one-holer (five shots clustered in a single ragged hole).   Was that simply a fluke?  I don’t think so.  The other groups with this load were larger, but that was undoubtedly me.

I wish I could do this every time.  This target was brought to you by 8.0 grains of Unique and the Hornady 158-grain jacketed hollow point bullet.

The second most accurate load (which is essentially as accurate as the load above) was the 158-grain Speer jacketed soft point bullet with 15.0 grains of Winchester 296 and a magnum primer.   These bullets are still listed on the Speer website, but good luck finding them.  No one has them in stock.  The ones I used were from a stash I picked up from my good buddy Paul.  Winchester 296 is a good powder for magnum handgun cartridges and it’s been one of my favorites for years.  I was a bit surprised that 296 did not take the accuracy honors, but it was pretty close.  296 is a slower burning powder, and the reloading manuals show it gives the highest muzzle velocity.  Recoil (and muzzle blast and flash) are significant with this powder.

Trust me on this: Bill Jordan’s No Second Place Winner is a good read.

The difference in average group size between the most accurate load and the next most accurate load was only 0.004 inches (the most accurate group average was 1.087 inches, the next most accurate group average was 1.o91 inches).  That’s nothing, really.   And I didn’t go higher or lower with the 296 charge with the second-place load; I only tried 15.0 grains.  It’s likely that variations in the 296 charge would have shown a slighly different charge to be better.  Maybe Bill Jordan (who carried a .357 Magnum) had it wrong:  There is a second place winner.

Surprisingly, one of my previous accuracy loads (a near-max load of Unique with the Hornady 110-grain jacketed hollow point bullet) was not a good load in the Blackhawk.  Accuracy was okay, but it was a fierce load and the cases would not extract (I had to take the cylinder out and drive the cases out with a rod).   I only fired two groups with this load and then I stopped.  This is a load that worked well in previous .357 Magnums, including a stainless steel Blackhawk, an earlier version of the Colt Python, a Smith and Wesson Model 27, and my current production Colt Python.  I had the Python with me so I fired a couple of groups with it.  It worked fine (it was accurate and extraction was easy).  I proved, once again, that every gun is different with regard to what it likes.

What I thought would be a good load (a 158-grain cast bullet and 7.0 grains of Unique) was not.  It was just okay accuracy-wise, but it leaded the bore big time and accuracy grew worse with each group fired as the leading increased.  That wasn’t unique to the Blackhawk, either.  It did the same thing in the Colt Python.  These cast bullets are fairly hard, but the charge (7.0 grains of Unique) is driving the bullets to approximately 1200 feet per second, and it appears that’s enough to induce leading.  The bullets are sized to .358 inches, so they should be sealing adequately.

The above observation led to a quest for a load using these cast bullets that wouldn’t lead the bore, and I tried a couple that kept velocity below 1000 feet per second (4.3 grains of Bullseye, and 5.0 grains of Unique).   Neither produced appreciable leading, but the accuracy was mediocre.

Mild leading after the 4.3-grain Bullseye and 5.0-grain Unique cast bullet loads. These loads kept the velocity below 1000 feet per second.

After cleaning the bore, I tried the standard .38 Special target load:  2.7 grains of Bullseye and a 148-grain double ended wadcutter.  I used Jim Gardner’s powder coated wadcutters and ammo I reloaded with my Star  progressive machine.  Accuracy was okay, but not exceptional.

Machine Rest versus Hand-Held Shooting

On the topic of machine rests, I don’t have one.  In the past, keyboard commandos criticized me for that.  I was recently was in the Colt plant in Connecticut.  The Colt manager took us through the famed Colt Custom Shop and he showed me one of their custom gun test targets.  It looked like my targets…four shots clusted into a cloverleaf with a single flyer.  I asked my Colt buddy about the distance and if Colt used a machine rest.   He told me the distance was 45 feet and said they do not use a machine rest.  “A good shooter will outshoot a machine rest,” he said.  I thought that was interesting and I liked hearing it.  I never felt a need to use a machine rest and what the Colt guy said reinforced that.

A Note on Safety

This blog describes loads I developed for use in my revolver.  Don’t simply run with them.  They work for me; I make no conclusions (nor should you) about what they will do in your guns.  Consult a reloading manual, start at the minimum load, gradually work up, and always watch for pressure signs.

What’s Next?

I have a blog in work that compares the Blackhawk to the Colt Python, and part of that is assessing how the Python groups with the same loads listed above.  I think you’ll enjoy reading it.  Stay tuned, folks.

Keep us in components…click on those popup ads!

Never miss an ExNotes blog!

More gun and reloading stuff?  You bet!

The New Model Blackhawk

I recently bid in a Rock Island auction for an Old Model Blackhawk once owned by Hank Williams, Jr.  I wanted that gun, but not as badly as someone else.  It sold for $4,993.37.  I thought that was crazy, but in these days of 8.3% inflation (considered by some to be nothing), I’m not sure what constitutes crazy anymore.

The Hank Williams, Jr., Old Model Ruger Blackhawk.

As an aside, the New Model Blackhawk is not that new.  Ruger introduced it in 1973.  The New Model contains internal changes (a transfer bar mechanism) that prevents it from firing if it is dropped with a live round in the chamber.  The previous Blackhawk (sometimes called the Old Model or the Three Screw) could discharge a round if it was dropped.   The Hank Williams Ruger you see above is the Old Model.

You know the story of my stainless steel .357 Magnum Blackhawk (it went down the road), and that left me without one.  I felt naked without a .357 Magnum Blackhawk, so I bought a new one through Gunbroker.com from Reeds in Minnesota.  I recently picked it up (after waiting the obligatory Peoples Republik of Kalifornia 10-day cooling off period).   I’ve already started a couple of blogs on the new Blackhawk, including one on the best accuracy loads and another comparing it to the Colt Python (a .357 Magnum revolver costing twice as much as the Blackhawk).  This blog focuses on my initial impressions.

Two huge handguns: The Ruger New Model .357 Blackhawk and Uberti’s resurrection of the Colt Walker.  The Blackhawk is wearing a set of Ruger black laminate grips in this photo.

My first impression is one I’ve always had: Ruger’s New Model Blackhawk is a massive handgun.  I ordered mine with the 6 1/2-inch barrel (it’s primarily going to be a target gun, although if all the planets come into alignment I may hunt with it someday).   My first thought when I picked it up was of the Colt Walker, another sixgun of huge proportions.  The Ruger is a bit smaller than the Walker, but you have to put them side by side to see it.  Heft the Ruger by itself and the feel is one of massiveness.  It’s a big revolver.  I like that.

The bluing is what I’d call an industrial grade gun finish.  It’s certainly better looking to me than the black plastic stuff I see on the range.  My cylinder had bright spots where the bluing was incomplete.

Spots where the bluing quality standard must have been “close enough for government work.” I’m surprised this escaped from the Ruger plant.

The pin securing the rear site to the revolver is another issue.  After my first 140-round range session, it started to back out.   Green Loctite is the answer here.  In fairness to Ruger, I’ve experienced this on other handguns.  But it shouldn’t happen.

The fit of the black plastic grips can only be described as poor. I had decided (before I saw the revolver) that I would leave the stock checkered black plastic grips on the gun because I have the same grips on a .30 Carbine Blackhawk and I like the fit, the feel, and the look.  On the .30 Carbine Blackhawk, the grips fit well.  On this new .357 Blackhawk, the grips didn’t match the grip frame.

The grip frame should align with the grips. It does not.

The grip frame sits a good 0.080-inch proud of the grips nearly all the way around.  I’ve seen this sort of thing on other Blackhawks.  I don ‘t know if the grip frames are varying from gun to gun, or if the grips are varying, or if both conditions exist.   In any event, the lack of dimensional control is not good.  If I had seen this gun in a gunstore, I would have asked to see another.

I have a few older Blackhawk grips I’ve picked up over the years.   One is a set of black laminated grips.   They fit the new .357 much better.  The fit is not perfect, but it’s better and they’re staying on for now.  The dark grips complement the Blackhawk’s look well.  It’s what you see in the big photo at the top of this blog.

I checked the Ruger’s timing and it is perfect (as it should be).  The way to check timing is to exert light drag on the cylinder while cocking the hammer, and the cylinder bolt should click in place when the hammer reaches full cock.  Kudos to Ruger on that.  You’d be surprised how many new guns are timed incorrectly from the factory.   In the late 1970s in the Dirty Harry craze, Smith and Wesson revolvers were notorious for being out of time when brand new (I know because I bought a few; they quickly went to new owners).

The Blackhawk’s trigger spring is a coil spring with two legs that extend into the grip frame area (one side of the spring is noted by the red arrow in this photo).
To reduce the trigger pull, simply unhook one side of the trigger spring (denoted by the lower red arrow) from the post against which it rests (denoted by the upper red arrow). Voilà, a New York trigger job.

The Ruger’s trigger is crisp, with zero creep.  Ruger got that right, too.  I did a quick New York trigger job, and it now it is lighter and has that classic “breaking glass” release.  It’s a wonderful trigger.

So how does it shoot?   In a word, it’s wonderful.  I’ve already been to the range to evaluate different loads (the subject of a future blog), and the results are impressive.   Here’s a set of teaser photos showing a few 50-foot, 5-shot groups.

Cosmetic issues aside, my new Blackhawk is a shooter. These are phenonemal groups for a first range session. Watch for a near-term future blog on how different loads performed.

We’ll have a series of blogs on the Blackhawk in the coming days.  One will be the preferred loads blog mentioned above.  Another will be a detailed comparison of the Blackhawk and the Colt Python.  Apples and oranges, you say?  Maybe not.

A Colt Python and a Ruger Blackhawk, both chambered in .357 Magnum. One costs twice what the other costs. Is it worth it? Stay tuned and find out.

I contacted Ruger about the grips and the cylinder bluing; they are sending me a new set of grips and they will reblue the cylinder.   That’s Ruger Customer Service; it’s the best in the business.

On the off chance that decisionmakers at Ruger read this blog, indulge me and allow a recommendation from one of your biggest fans.   Bring out a premium version of the .357 Blackhawk with:

      • A brass grip, Super Blackhawk Dragoon frame (like that Hank Williams, Jr. revolver shown above).    Yeah, I know it would cost more.  There are people willing to pay more.  Put me at the head of that line.
      • A high polish blue, like you used to do on the Super Blackhawk.  The same comments apply; a price hike would be okay.
      • A 7 1/2-inch barrel.  You already do so on the Super Blackhawk, and on the .30 Carbine and .45 Colt Blackhawks.  That extra inch of sight radius makes a difference, and a 7 1/2-inch barrel just looks cool.  Regarding cost, see above.

That’s it for now.   Stay tuned; there’s more good stuff coming your way.

 

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

More Tales of the Gun!

Lee .357 Magnum Dies, Cast vs Jacketed Bullets, and Crimping

This blog is longer than I intended it to be.  I thought I would just do a quick bit about a new set of Lee reloading dies I recently purchased, but as I got into it, I learned more about my  Colt Python, crimping with a bullet seating die versus a dedicated factory crimp die, and well, the thing just grew.  Mea culpa; you can leave early if you want to.  Because this is a longer-than usual post, I thought I’d provide the bottom line up front:   The Lee factory crimp die is a good thing.  It works.  It holds bullets in place better, it improves chambering, and it improves accuracy.  

Now, the rest of the story.

For the last umpteen years when loading .38 Special or .357 Magnum ammo I have been using a kluged-up three die set (a carbide resizer/decapper from Dillon, an expander die from Lee, and a bullet seating and roll crimping die from Lee).   You  can use the same dies for both .38 Special and .357 Magnum; the only difference between the two cartridges is the length of the cartridge case.  They use the same diameter bullets (even though it’s called a .38 Special, the bullet diameter of a .38 is actually .357 to .358 inches, just like the .357 Magnum).

The two cartridges on the left are .357 Magnum; the one on the right is a .38 Special. The .357 cartridge case is longer so it cannot be inadvertently inserted into a handgun chambered for .38 Special. Note the slightly longer overall cartridge length on the .357 Magnum cartridge on the left (with the cast bullet) compared to the .357 Magnum cartridge in the middle (with the jacketed bullet).
A mixed set of dies I’ve been using for years for reloading .357 Magnum and .38 Special. Note the Lee shellholder marked “1.”  .38 Special used to be the most commonly reloaded cartridge in America.  Today it’s 9mm.  .38 Special was the first cartridge I ever reloaded.  The die on the right is the bullet seating and crimping die.

Reloading Gear

I’ve had a few .38/.357 die sets over the years, selling them when convenient as I bought or inherited other equipment. As featured here on the ExNotes blog, I have a 50-year-old Star reloader I use for .38 Special wadcutter ammo (I’ll give you a link for the Star story at the end of this blog). The Star is set up to meter 2.7 grains of Bullseye propellant (that’s a 148-grain wadcutter target load) and it works fabulously well, so it’s a dedicated setup. For all other .38 Special and for .357 Magnum reloading, I load with my RCBS Rockchucker single-stage press. I’ve been using it for 50 years.

My Star progressive reloader. A good buddy gave this to me in rundown, funky, and long-neglected condition. I cleaned it, lubed it, and put in back in service. The Star does a fantastic job on .38 Special wadcutter ammo.
Old Faithful, my RCBS Rockchucker single stage press. I load non-wadcutter .38 Special ammo and all .357 Magnum ammo on this press.

Bullet Seating and Crimping

For many years, I seated and crimped my bullets with a simple seating and crimping die.  It’s what you see in the illustration below.

I use this die in two steps.  First, I screw the bullet seating adjuster deep into the die and seat the bullet to the correct cartridge overall length without crimping the bullet in place.  After seating all the bullets, I then back off on the bullet seating adjuster so that it no longer contacts the bullet, and then I screw the die body deeper into the press.  The die body has a roll crimping feature that then roll forms a crimp around the case mouth to lock the bullet to the cartridge case.

Lee has an alternative approach for bullet crimping they call the factory crimp die.  As a first step, you seat the bullet to the desired depth in the case using the die shown above.  After seating all the bullets, you then remove the bullet seating and crimping die from the press and then use the fourth die (the factory crimp die).  Here’s what the factory crimp die looks like:

The fourth die, the factory crimp die, does not seat the bullet.  Its only function is to apply the crimp, and it does this very well.   The idea is that the die is screwed all the way into the press such that it contacts the shellhoder, and then the amount of crimp is set up with the crimp adjuster, which screws into the die body.  This die applies a roll crimp on a revolver cartridge (the same kind of crimp as the bullet seating and crimping die described above), but it does so in a much better-controlled manner.   The factory crimp die also has a secondary carbide sizer/aligning ring at its lower end, which aligns the cartridge as it enters the case, and holds the cartridge outside diameter to specification values as the cartridge enters and then exits the die.  It works fabulously well, and Lee states that this die makes it impossible to buckle a case.

I had .357 Magnum ammo I had previously loaded using the bullet seating and crimping die only (not the Lee factory crimp die), and it chambered with no problem in my Ruger Blackhawk.  The Colt Python has a tighter chamber, though, and several of these older reloads would not chamber in the Python.  A quick trip through the Lee factory crimp die cleaned up the outside diameters and the rounds chambered easily.

Before and after shots of older .357 loads I reloaded using the bullet seating and crimping die. Some wouldn’t chamber in the tighter Python. The Lee factory crimp die fixed that.

Lee’s Deluxe 4-Die Set

I recently ordered a new Ruger Blackhawk, and I’ve written many times about my Colt Python.  With my new .357 Magnum Blackhawk in its 10-day cooling off period, I thought I would get a new set of dies.  I like Lee (they give you a shellholder, they are inexpensive, and they do a good job). I had bent the decapping pin on the Dillon sizing die in my mixed set of dies shown above (a primer wouldn’t come out and I forced it). I was able to bend the pin straight, but I figured a man of my stature ought to have a set of grownup new dies. Then I got an email from MidwayUSA showing the Lee 4-die set on sale for $53 and they had free shipping on orders over $49.  The Lee Deluxe set includes the factory crimp die.  All the planets were in alignment (enter order, buy now…you know the drill).  The dies were at my front door a few days later.

The new Lee 4-die Deluxe Set was well packaged by Midway.
The Lee dies in my new die set.
The Lee Deluxe 4-die set includes a carbidge sizing die and decapper (the die on the far right), a cartridge expander and case mouth flaring die (on the far left), a bullet seating and roll crimping die (second from the right), and the Lee factory crimp die (second from the left). Lee also provides a shell holder and power dispensing spoon. I’ve never used the powder dispensing spoon; I use an RCBS powder dispenser.

The new dies looked great, and I was eager to put them to work.

Bullet Pull and Cylinder Rotation

On revolvers with significant recoil, bullets can back out of the cartridge case when other rounds in the cylinder are fired.  This can allow bullets on unfired cartridges to protrude beyond the cylinder face and interfere with cylinder rotation.  We prevent this by controlling the reloaded cartridges’ overall length and by crimping.  In firing my new Colt Python with ammo I had loaded for an earlier Ruger Blackhawk, even though the bullets were crimped I experienced bullet pull beyond the front of the cylinder.  When this occurred, the cylinder would not rotate.  These same rounds had worked in a Ruger Blackhawk.

In analyzing the cylinder rotation issue on my new Python, I found several things:

      • The bullets were not seated deep enough (the cartridge overall length exceeded the maximum spec of 1.590 inches), even though the bullets were crimped in their crimping groove.
      • The crimp wasn’t strong enough to hold the bullets in place.  Under recoil from other cartridges, the bullets were backing out.
      • The Python cylinder is slightly shorter than the Ruger Blackhawk cylinder.  I probably had the same bullet pull occurring on the Blackhawk, but the Blackhawk’s longer cylinder masked it.  They might have been backing out on the Ruger and I didn’t know it.

Cartridge Overall Length

Let’s dive into the numbers.  The reloading manuals show the .357 Magnum maximum cartridge overall length (COAL) to be 1.590 inches.  With my cast bullets crimped in their crimping groove, the overall length was running from 1.607 to 1.615 inches.  That put them about even with the front of the Python cylinder.  If any bullet pull occurred under recoil, the front of the bullet would hit the rear of the forcing cone and the cylinder wouldn’t rotate.  That’s what I experienced with my Python.

The Ruger New Model .357 Blackhawk has a longer cylinder than the Python.  The Ruger cylinder is 1.640 inches long.  The Internet says the Python cylinder length is 1.552 inches; mine measures 1.553 (which is close enough).   Right away, the astute ExNotes blog reader will recognize that the Colt’s cylinder (at 1.552 inches) appears to be shorter than the specification .357 Magnum cartridge maximum overall length (1.590 inches), but it is not.  When loaded in the cylinder the cartridge is held rearward by its rim, which sits flush against the back end of the cylinder.

The Python, like most revolvers, headspaces on the cartridge rim. The cartridge rim is 0.060 inches thick.

The .357 Magnum cartridge rim backs the cartridge up 0.060 inches (the rim thickness), which would put the leading edge of the bullet in a cartridge loaded to an overall length of 1.590 inches about 0.023 inches inside the front edge of the cylinder (if I’ve done the math correctly).  And I think I have, because when you look at cartridges in the Python cylinder, they are pretty close to the edge of those big .357 cylinder holes.  0.023 inches.  Twenty-three thousandths of an inch.  That’s not much to play with.

.357 Magnum cartridges loaded in the Python cylinder. At the cartridge’s specified max overall length of 1.590 inches, the front of the bullet is only 0.023 inches away from the forward cylinder face.

Bullet Design and Crimp Location

I examined the bullets I was using.  I had crimped my cast bullets in the crimping groove, and I could see that the  crimping groove put the bullet face very close to the forward end of the Python’s cylinder.  I couldn’t seat the cast bullets any deeper and still crimp in their crimping groove. Hornady’s jacketed 158-grain bullets are no problem; their crimping groove is a lot higher on the bullet.

A 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollow point bullet on the left, and a cast 158-grain bullet on the right. Note how much higher the crimping groove is on the jacketed bullet. This lowers the bullet in the cartridge case when it is crimped, making the cartridge shorter.
Two .357 Magnum cartridges with crimped bullets. The cast bullet cartridge on the right has the bullet seated as low as it can go while still allowing a crimp. You can see that the cast bullet cartridge is longer than the cartridge with the jacketed bullet.

Test Objectives

I wanted to test bullets seated and crimped using both approaches (i.e., the bullet seating and crimping die, versus seating with the bullet seating die and crimping separately with the Lee factory crimp die).  My testing would evaluate the following:

      • Bullet movement under recoil.
      • Accuracy.
      • Ease of chambering.
      • The ability to get a good crimp in locations other than the crimping groove.

That last one is important, because as I learned with my Python, crimping some cast bullet configurations in the crimping groove makes the cartridge too long.

Test Ammo

I loaded three test lots.  The first was with 15.7 grains of Winchester 296 powder, Winchester small pistol magnum primers, and Hornady’s 158-grain jacketed hollow point bullets. That was my accuracy load when shooting metallic silhouette a few decades ago, so I know it works well. I loaded half with the bullets crimped using the old Lee bullet seating and crimping die (not the factory crimp die), and the other half with the bullets crimped with my new Lee factory crimp die (after seating them with the bullet seating die).

.357 Magnum ammo with 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollowpoint bullets. The 25 on the right were crimped with the bullet seating die; the 25 on the left were crimped with the Lee factory crimp die.
A macro photograph of the ammo above. The Lee factory crimp due cartridge is on the left; the bullet crimped with the bullet seating die is on the right.

The second lot of ammo was a group I had loaded several years ago.  This ammo had 158-grain cast semi-wadcutter bullets crimped in the crimping groove, 7.0 grains of Unique, and Winchester small pistol primers.  That load (7.0 grains of Unique and a 158-grain cast bullet) has been accurate in every .357 revolver I’ve ever shot.   I loaded this ammo with the bullet seating and crimping die (not the Lee factory crimp die).  I’d shot tons of this load in an older Ruger Blackhawk, but I had not tried it yet in my Python.

.357 Magnum ammo with cast 158-grain semi-wadcutter bullets crimped in their crimping groove. This ammo worked fine in the Ruger Blackhawk, but it had issues in the Colt Python.  Although crimped in the crimping groove, this ammo was longer than the .357 Magnum’s 1.590-inch maximum cartridge overall length.

The third ammo lot was similar to the one above (same bullet weight and powder), but I used the cast truncated flat point bullet and I crimped above the bullet’s crimping groove using the Lee factory crimp die.  I wanted to get the bullet further back from the cylinder face to prevent cylinder rotation inteference if the bullets pulled under recoil.  My concern was that I would be crimping above the crimping groove, on the bullet’s main diameter, and I didn’t know if the crimp would hold the bullet in place.

The cast 158-grain truncated flat point bullet crimped above the crimping groove.   This shortens the cartridge overall length. I seated these to 1.565 inches overall length. After crimping, that figure came back up back up to 1.568 inches, still well below the 1.590-inch maximum length spec.
The above .357 cartridges in the Python cylinder crimped with the Lee factory crimp die above the crimping groove.  These rounds were loaded to an overall cartridge length of 1.568 inches (as shown above), which positions the front of the bullets further back from the cylinder face.

When loading with my new Lee Deluxe 4-die set, I noticed immediately that the resizing operation was much easier.  The same was true for the expander die step.  Maybe the older dies I had been using were just dirty, but I sure like do the feel of these Lee Deluxe dies.

Some of you may wonder:  Why not just trim the brass shorter to a below-spec length?  That would move the bullet back, and if I trimmed it short enough it would allow me to crimp these cast bullets in their crimping groove and not risk any cylinder rotation interference.  Yeah, I could have done that, but when I trim brass I like to trim it to specification, not something below spec.  And I don’t want to have to segregate brass based on trimmed length tied to specific firearms.

Test Results:  Bullet Movement

The first test objective was to determine how much bullet movement occurs during recoil using the two different crimping approaches.  Here’s how I tested:

      • I loaded 5 rounds in the revolver.
      • I took a 6th round and recorded its cartridge overall length, and then I loaded it.
      • I fired the first five cartridges.
      • I removed the unfired 6th round and measured the overall length again.

Here’s what I found in assessing the two crimping approaches’ ability to prevent bullet pull:

The results surprised me.  The Lee factory crimp die, even when done on the main diameter of the bullet (not in the crimping groove) does a better job holding the bullet in place than does crimping with the bullet seating die.  In each test in which the bullets were crimped with the bullet seating die, they experienced recoil-induced bullet movement.  That one entry where the overall length decreased by 0.001 inch is probably measurement error on my part.

Test Results:  Accuracy

This testing was straightforward.  I fired a series of 5-round groups at 50 feet to assess any differences in accuracy.

Here’s what I see in the above results:

      • With the Hornady jacketed hollow point points, using the Lee factory crimp die resulted in an improvement in accuracy (the group average was 1.637 inches compared to 1.934 inches).
      • The Hornady jacketed hollow point bullets were more accurate than the cast bullets.  That was an expected result.
      • With the cast bullets, there isn’t much of an accuracy difference between using the bullet seating and crimping die versus using the bullet seating die and then the Lee factory crimp die.
      • With the cast bullets, there wasn’t much of an accuracy difference between the truncated flat point bullets and the semi-wadcutter bullets.

I wasn’t having my best range day ever (I had a bad cold when I fired these groups).   But I think I did well enough to support the above conclusions.

Test Results:  Ease of Chambering

I already mentioned this.  Lee claims that the factory crimp die will not buckle or distort the case during crimping.   My results confirm this.  A few rounds that had been crimped with the bullet seating die would not chamber in the Python; after running these through the Lee factory crimp die, they chambered easily.  The Lee factory crimp die does a better job for ease of chambering.

Test Results:  Crimping Without a Crimp Groove

This is really a subset of the first test objective, in which we evaluated the ability of the Lee factory crimp die to hold bullets in place under recoil.  Here, the focus is more specific:  I crimped on the bullet’s main diameter, not in the crimping groove, and I wanted to determine if the Lee factory crimp die would secure the bullet in place.  As you can see from the data above, it did.  When I crimped the cast truncated flat point bullets forward of the crimping groove, they did not move under recoil.  The Lee factory crimp die did this well, and it did so without buckling the cartridge case.

The Bottom Line

The Lee factory crimp die is a good thing.  It holds bullets in place better, it improves chambering, and with jacketed bullets, it improves accuracy.

If you want to buy a set a Lee dies, or the Lee factory crimp die, or any Lee reloading equipment, Amazon is a good place to shop.  Midway is,  too.  But I usually go to Amazon first.

If you have comments, be sure to let us know in the comments section below.  We enjoy hearing from you.

The Star reloader resurrection story is here.

Hit those popup ads!

Want to read our handgun ammo reloading tutorial?  It’s right here.

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

More reloading and gun articles are on our Tales of the Gun page.

For more info on Lee Precision reloading equipment, click on the image below:

Catching Up

Here’s a quick update on things we’ve posted about recently.

Someone else won the auction for Hank Williams .357 Ruger Blackhawk, and like I said I would, I ordered a New Model Ruger Blackhawk instead.  To my astonishment, the Hank Williams gun sold for a whopping $4,993.37 (when new in 1972, it was a scosh over $100).  My New Model .357 Blackhawk is at the local dealer, and I’m in the Peoples Republik 10-day cooling off period.  I snagged it for $659 on Gunbroker, a reasonable price in today’s economy.  I’ve got a bunch of ammo in a variety of flavors reloaded and ready to test, but I think I know what works in a Blackhawk.  We’ll see.

I took Poppy’s watch to the repair shop and it was enlightening.  My guy opened the watch up, which confirmed it is 14-carat white gold and revealed the serial number.  The watch tech looked it up, and I learned that Poppy’s watch dates to 1884.  It’s 138 years old and it’s still ticking.  It’s the oldest and coolest thing I own.

Gresh’s blog on a proposed vintage bike gathering in New Mexico garnered a lot of comments and it was picked up by Motorcycle.com.  I think this event it is going to happen.  A few guys have posted it on other forums (we appreciate that).  We’ll keep you updated right here on the ExNotes blog.

The Harley that flew off the Oakland Bay Bridge?  It’s still under water (dive crews can’t find it).  I wouldn’t have thought it worth the effort (you know, you can buy a brand new Chinese motorcycle from CSC for less than what a used Harley costs).  I would think the divers could just look for the oil spots and work back, but hey, what do I know?

I found the piece Gresh did on the Vintage Japanese Motorcycle Club particularly appealing and I joined the VJMC, too.  Like Joe, I recently received my first print magazine, and Gresh was right….there is a special excitement in getting an actual printed magazine in the mail.

The Gresh Husky saga soldiers on.   Joe is already deep into the guts of his Husky’s transmission, and his engineering talents and Ebay prowess are moving things in the right direction (you’ll get an update on that in the very next ExNotes blog).  Good buddy Terry pointed out that Gresh could have bought a used Sportster for what he’ll have into his Swedish meatball (it seems that Harleys are the benchmark for all things motorcycle).  With Gresh’s considerable skills and Harley’s rumored reliability, maybe the best approach would be to wedge a Milwaukee transmission into the Husky (a Husky-Davidson?).  Like you, I’m looking forward reading about how this adventure progresses.

And finally, one last comment, this one on Mosin-Nagant rifles.  We’ve done Mosin stories (see the Tales of the Gun page).  It’s no secret I’m a big fan, and it looks like that interest could pay dividends if I was interested in selling my Mosins (I’m not).  Rock Island Auctions recently published an article on Mosin-Nagant price trends, and it shows they are sharply up.  That’s good.

So there you have it.  We appreciate you following the ExNotes blog and we appreciate your comments.  Please keep the comments coming, and as always, please keep hitting those popup ads!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

A 110-grain Python Load

I’ve owned three Colt Pythons.  Back in the ‘70s I had a blue 6-inch Colt Python and another 6-inch nickel-plated one (they were only about $250 back then, and I could buy them for even less through the Post Exchange).  Both those Pythons went down the road, and yeah, I’m sorry I sold them. Who wouldn’t be?

Please click on the popup ads…it keeps us going!

These days, I have a 6-inch bright stainless Colt Python, the new model, and I love it.  It’s the one you see in the photo above.  I’ve been to the Colt factory to see how they are made, and both the Python’s design and its production are impressive.  I’ll let you in on a secret:  The new Pythons are better guns.  I shoot my Python a lot.  In the last few months I’ve been hitting the range with it at least a couple of times every week. I’m old school, I guess:  I prefer a revolver to a semi-auto, and I prefer .38 Special and .357 Magnum over 9mm.  Your mileage may vary.  I know what I like.

Winchster 110-grain jacketed hollow point bullets waiting to be seated and crimped.

I remembered that back in the day I found a 110-gr jacketed hollow point bullet with 10.0 grains of Unique (the max load in the Hornady manual in the 1970s) and it was extremely accurate in my blue steel Python.  I mean, like one-hole accurate.  Accurate enough to keep that load in my memory for five decades.

Fast forward 50 years and you’ll find me scrounging for reloading components on a fairly regular basis.  On one of those scrounging expeditions Rick Phillips (of Phillips Wholesale) had Accurate No. 5 propellant in stock.  It’s a handgun powder, and Rick told me that Accurate No. 5 has a burn rate about like Unique.   Hmmm.   Unique, huh?   That stuck in my mind, mostly because I had some 110-grain .357 pistol bullets in my components stash:  I had Winchester jacketed hollow points, and Hornady jacketed hollow points.  I bought a bunch of the Winchester bullets during the Obama years when everything was scarce, and I was down to one unopened bag of 100.   I had an unopened box of the Hornady 110-grain bullets, too.

Winchester, if you’re paying attention, this bag was 15 bullets light.

I loaded the last of the Winchester bullets recently using some junk 357 brass.   I have Unique, but I wanted to see if I could get good results with Accurate No. 5.  Rick’s comment about Accurate No. 5 being about like Unique stuck in my mind.  The max load on the Accurate site for 110 grain bullets is 11 grains, so I loaded some at 10.1 grains and some at 10.5 grains, both with magnum CCI primers.

Winchester shorted me on that last bag of 100 grain bullets.  The last bag I had was unopened, but it had only 85 bullets in it.  I wrote to Winchester customer support, and they responded with an answer that was left blank.  I wrote to Winchester again after receiving the above non-answer for an answer, but I’m not holding my breath.

The results with both the Hornady and Winchester bullets were great.  Here’s a 5-shot group at 50 feet with 10.1 grains of Accurate No. 5 and the Winchester bullets.  This was the best group this morning, but they were all good.

That’s how we like to do it.  I know the brass is dirty.  This was a quick and dirty test.  The laod was 10.1 grains of Accurate No. 5, a CCI 550 primer, and Winchester’s 110-grain jacketed hollowpoint bullet.  The distance was 50 feet.

The 10.1 and the 10.5 grains of Accurate No. 5 loads shot about the same from an accuracy perspective, but the 10.5 grain loads made the primers flatter, so I’ll load the 10.1 grain load the next time I reload this ammo.  No sense burning up more powder and stressing the gun and the brass if there’s no accuracy improvement.  It’s already excellent at 10.1 grains.

Rugged, reliable, regal, and rewarding: Today’s Colt Python.

The Winchester bullets looked cruder than the Hornady bullets but I think they maybe had a slight accuracy edge.  I went online to buy more, but I learned Winchester discontinued them.  One of my buddies had two bags and he gave them to me, but the odds of me ever getting any more are slim.  Hornady, Speer, and Sierra all make JHP 110-grain bullets, but nobody has any in stock.  I have 85 left of the Hornady bullets (I used 15 of the Hornady bullets to make up for the ones Winchester shorted me) and now, an additional 200 Winchester bullets.  You still owe me 15 bullets, Oliver.

 

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Ruger’s .357 Magnum Blackhawk

If I had to select one handgun above all others, my choice would be easy.  It’s Ruger’s .357 Magnum Blackhawk.  I don’t have one, but that’s something I aim to fix in the near term.  I’m watching two .357 Blackhawks on the auction block right now.  One is that drop dead gorgeous brass frame Old Model you see in the big photo above.  That one is not just any Blackhawk, either.  It was previously owned by Hank Williams, Junior.

The Hank Williams Blackhawk has a lot going for it.   It’s the Old Model Blackhawk, which has a feel when cocked similar to a Colt Single Action Army. There’s the provenance (this one has a letter attesting to its prior ownership and its factory brass grip frame).  And, there’s that rare (and highly desirable) brass grip frame.  Ruger only made a few of those.

Winning the auction for the Hank Williams Blackhawk is a long shot.  My backup is to buy a new Blackhawk, and I have my eye on the one shown in the photo below.

A new New Model Ruger .357 Blackhawk with a 6 1/2-inch barrel.

I guess I need to go tangential for a minute and explain this business about Old Model and New Model Blackhawks.  The basic difference between the Old Model and the New Model is that the Old Model can fire if you drop it on a hard surface.  The New Model incorporates a transfer bar to prevent that from happening.  You should carry an Old Model with the hammer resting on an empty chamber; you can safely carry a New Model with all six chambers loaded.  Naturally, geezers like me prefer the look and feel of the Old Model (and we tend not to drop our guns), but the new Model Model is every bit as good and every bit as accurate.  Geezers just like old stuff.

I found a used 200th year stainless steel one on Gunbroker about a dozen years ago, I won the auction for it, and I ran the equivalent of a lead mine’s annual output down the bore (including some ultra-heavy 200-grain loads).  I am the only guy I know who wore out a .357 Blackhawk.  The loading latch wouldn’t stay open, and when I returned it for repair to Ruger, they were as amazed as I was that I wore it out.  It was beyond repair, they told me, but as a good will gesture they paid me what I paid for it.  Nobody, but nobody, has better customer service than Ruger.

A 25-yard group with the .357 Blackhawk.  The Blackhawk will do this all day long.

Part of the reason the .357 Blackhawk I describe above went south, I think, is that it was stainless steel.  I have it in my mind that stainless steel is softer than blued carbon steel, and I think they just don’t hold up as well under a steady diet of heavy loads.  That’s why my next .357 Blackhawk will be blue steel.

To me, the Blackhawk is a “do anything” .357 Magnum.  It’s a good buy in today’s inflated world, it’s a solid defense round, you can hunt with it, and it is accurate.  I like the longer barrel for the sight radius.   You can believe this or not, but I can easily hit targets at 100 yards with a .357 Blackhawk and the right load.

Typical .357 Blackhawk groups.

It’s been at least a couple of years now that I’ve been without a .357 Blackhawk, and like I said, I aim to fix that problem.  I’ll let you know which of the above two guns (a brand new blue steel Blackhawk, or the Hank Williams Old Model) I pick up.  Most likely it won’t be the Hank Williams revolver (competition and bidding will be intense on that one and it will probably be too rich for my blood), but the New Model will make me just as happy. Good times lie ahead.  Stay tuned.

Hit those popup ads!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

More Tales of the Gun!

A Tale of Two Old Army Black Powder Rugers

Good buddy Paul is a black powder enthusiast.  I am, too, except I’m completely inexperienced as a shooter in the blackpowder world.  I owned an 1858 Remington reproduction (it was a Pietta, I think, and it was beautiful).  Good buddy Duane wanted one and I sold mine, new in the box, to him without ever firing it.  I’ve seen it fired, as Duane is a range regular and he’s had it out a few times.  And I have a beautiful reproduction Colt Walker (made by Uberti; you can read that story here), but I haven’t fired that yet, either.

But I digress; this story is about the Ruger Old Army.  Two of them, in fact.  The name notwithstanding, the Ruger Old Army is a completely modern gun, with the exception of it’s being a cap and ball revolver.  Ruger made a few variations of this fine weapon, with the variations being barrel length (the ones Paul owns are both 7 1/2-inch barreled guns; Ruger also made 5 1/2-inch barreled versions), blue steel or stainless steel construction (the ones you see here are samples of each), satin or highly-polished stainless steel, and fixed or adjustable sights.  Ruger also offered a brass grip frame on the blue steel version (those are beautiful handguns).  Ruger also offered the Old Army with simulated ivory grips for a while.

Paul added custom grips to his Old Army revolvers, and in both cases, the grips add considerably to the revolvers’ appearance.

Big bore percussion revolvers have simultaneously been called either .44 caliber or .45 caliber.  They are not a .44, though.  They are all .45s, and you can fire either a .457 lead ball, or a .454 conical lead bullet.

Ruger introduced the Old Army in 1972 and discontinued it in 2008 as sales slowed.  From what I’ve read, Ruger Old Army revolvers can be extremely accurate.  I can’t tell you that from personal experience, however.  As I said above I have absolutely zero range time with the Old Army or any other black powder firearm.  Caps are difficult-to-impossible to find these days with the pandemic-induced components shortages (I haven’t fired my Walker yet for that reason).

Paul’s two Old Army Rugers are beautiful.  One of these days, when components are flowing freely again, we’ll have to get them and my yet-to-be fired Colt Walker on the range.

More Tales of the Gun!

Never miss an ExhaustNotes blog…get a free subcription here:

Those popup ads…give them a click or two!