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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
The city of Hartford in Connecticut is Mecca if you are a Colt fan (as in Colt firearms), and I sure am a Colt fan. I grew up seeing Colt .45 sixguns in western movies when I was a kid and I got my first Colt (a .45 ACP 1911 Government Model) when I finished college (and I’ve never not owned at least one Colt since then). I have no tattoos, but if I were going to get one it would be the Colt logo.
My Colt 1911 has been sending lead downrange for 50 years.
I made a friend in the Colt company when reviving the MacManus award. I had to be in Hartford recently for a symposium and I told my Colt buddy I’d buy him a beer. He suggested a tour of the Colt factory. That was an opportunity I could not let pass.
Popup ads…click on them and we’ll keep the lights on!
The original Colt plant (the one built by Sam Colt) is a National Historic Site. Time did not permit visiting it, but I could see the blue dome above the old plant from my hotel window.
The original Colt manufacturing facility on the banks of the Connecticut River. I didn’t get to it, but the next time I’m in Hartford I will.
The modern Colt factory is a few miles from downtown Hartford. It’s what you see in the big photo up top, and it’s where I had the plant tour described in this blog. The bad news is that photography is prohibited inside the plant (as a manufacturer of military rifles for the US and other countries, Colt can’t have photos of their production processes finding their way to the bad guys). The good news is that I entered the inner sanctum. I saw how the M4s, the M16s , the 1911s, the Single Action Armys, the Pythons, and all the other cool stuff are made. As a manufacturing guy and gun guy with a defense industry background, it was one of the best days of my life.
More good news is that I could take pictures inside the famed Colt Custom Shop. The Custom Shop is a small group of world class artists who assemble what are arguably the most desirable guns in the world. Think engraved, gold inlaid, extremely expensive works of the gunmaker’s art. Guns that are delivered to US presidents, wealthy collectors, and…well, you get the idea. There’s a two-year waiting list for a Custom Shop Colt firearm, and when delivered, the ticket can exceed the cost of a new car. On the secondary market, some have been known to exceed the cost of a new home.
Colt Custom Shop handguns, the stuff of dreams.You can still purchase a brand new Colt 1903 through the Custom Shop. This one is exquisite. I owned one in the 1970s I bought it for $75 and sold for $200 a few months later, thinking I had done well. Ah, the mistakes we make.A Custom Shop Anaconda with an inlaid gold bear and extensive engraving.A closeup of the above Anaconda’s engraving and gold inlay. It’s all done by hand with small hammers and tiny chisels.An exquisite Single Action Army. The grips are giraffe bone.A closer look.Colt’s Custom Shop is producing a series of Single Action Army revolvers for the legendary Texas Rangers. The Texas Rangers are the oldest law enforcement organization in America.Colt has a process for making a new gun look aged. It’s been applied to this Custom Shop Single Action Army.
This was my second visit to Hartford. When I wrote The Gatling Gun nearly 30 years ago, I contacted Colt to ask if I could visit their archives (the original Gatling guns were built by Colt). Colt referred me to the Connecticut State Library and Museum. I went there and I was met by a Connecticut State Trooper who asked me a few questions, took my fingerprints, and ran a background check. Satisfied I wasn’t a terrorist or a KGB agent, he issued a laminated permit designating me an official Connecticut state historian. That gave me access to the archives in a secure area of the Museum. Poking around in there made for a fun day, and I used materials from those archives when I wrote The Gatling Gun.
My visit to the Colt archives three decades ago was impressive. I handled hand-written documents signed by Dr. Gatling and Samuel Colt. It was a great day and a lifelong memory. My recent visit to Colt factory and the Custom Shop (as described in this blog) made for an even better day. A Colt tattoo….maybe that’s not a bad idea.
Some days at the range I don’t feel like punishing myself with heavy recoil or trying to shoot the tightest possible groups with loads that have been tuned to perfection. Nope, shooting is fun, and sometimes blasting through a box of ammo is just what the doctor ordered.
A few years ago when we were organizing military surplus rifle fun matches, good buddy Paul showed up with a bunch of zombie targets. Paul called the zombie Boris and the hostage Betty, and the names stuck. We had targets left after the match, and yesterday I shot the very last one.
I had my trusty Model 60 Smith and Wesson and a box of 100 .38 Specials I had loaded on my Star progressive reloader. They were Gardner Cache powder-coated 148-grain wadcutters with 2.7 grains of Bullseye (the go to accuracy load in .38 Special). I set ol’ Boris and Betty up on the 7-yard line and proceeded to double-action my way through 20 cylinders’ worth of ammo (the cylinder in a Model 60 holds 5 rounds). There was not a single misfire in the entire 100 rounds, and more importantly, not a single one of them hit Betty. Boris…he didn’t fare so well.
This is an update on my latest 1903 Springfield load development work.
I purchased this rifle about three years ago assuming the headspace was correct, but it wasn’t. That’s a risk associated with old military rifles. Rifle parts are often mixed through the years, and when doing so with the bolt and the barreled action, it’s easy to induce an excess headspace condition. That’s what I encountered on my rifle, so I had the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) in Anniston, Alabama install a new 1903 barrel and rechamber the rifle. Live and learn, I guess. Always check the headspace when purchasing a milsurp rifle.
As it was returned to me from the CMP the rifle shot to the right and jacketed bullets shot way too high (at least I thought it shot way too high, but I was wrong…more on that in a bit). I noticed that the front sight was biased to the left (which made the rifle shoot to the right). I drifted the front sight in its base (it’s a dovetail fitting). The front sight takes a retaining screw that secures it to the barrel mount, and on my rifle that screw was missing. It might have shipped that way from the CMP or it might have fallen out.
When the Springfield was returned to me from the CMP, the front sight was biased to the left, as you see here. I didn’t notice it at first.A replacement front sight screw.
I wrote to the CMP regarding the missing front sight screw, but I haven’t heard from them and I found a replacement front sight screw on the Sarco website. I haven’t installed it yet (that will come later). I drifted the front sight in its dovetail to the right, and that brought the point of impact closer to the point of aim.
Before I get into the reloading specifics, I should explain a bit about the rear sight. The rear sight on the 1903 Springfield rifle is a complicated device. It’s called the M1905 rear sight, and it is designed and calibrated for standard military ball ammo (back in the day when the Army used .30 06 ball ammo). The sight is a ladder type rear sight and it has four aiming methods. One is the battlesight zero (it’s with the ladder down); the other three are with the ladder up which allows adjusting for various distances. In the big photo at the top of this blog, you see the rear sight with the ladder up. In the photo below, you see the rear sight with the ladder down.
The M1905 rear sight assembly on the 1903 Springfield rifle. The sight ladder is in the down, or battlesight zero position. Wow, there’s a lot going on there.
This first aiming method is through the battlesight zero notch with the ladder down. Battlesight zero means the bullet will coincide with the point of aim at 547 yards. The thought is that if you hold center of mass on a man-sized target at any distance up to 547 yards, you’ll hit the target. At 100 yards the rifle will shoot way high with the ladder down using the battlesight zero, which is what I experienced. I did not understand this was a normal occurrence when using the battlesight zero rear sight notch.
The 1903 Springfield’s rear sight in the raised position. Note that the sides of the rear sight force the crossbar to the left as distance to the target increases. That’s a built-in feature to compensate for bullet drift to the right at longer distances. Clever people, those Army engineers were. This rifle is over 100 years old.
The other three aiming methods all involve shooting with the ladder up (as you see in the above photo). You can adjust for various ranges from 100 yards out to 2800 yards (which is roughly a mile and a half) by loosening the crossbar lock screw and sliding the crossbar up or down to various indicated ranges on the ladder. One sighing method uses the crossbar upper notch. You simply slide the crossbar up or down so that the top of the notch aligns with the estimated distance to the target (in yards) on the ladder’s distance graduations. Another sighting method uses the crossbar lower notch. In this case, you slide the crossbar up or down so that the top of this lower notch aligns with the estimated distance to the target. The last sighting method involves using the crossbar aperture. There’s a horizonal scribe line across the plate containing this aperture, and when using the aperture, you align that scribe line with the estimated distance to the target. The aperture allows zeroing the rifle for ranges as close at 100 yards, which is where I do most of my shooting.
All the above is calibrated for standard military .30 06 ball ammo. If you’re shooting cast bullet ammo, or jacketed ammo with bullet weights or velocities other than standard ball ammo, you have to zero your rifle for your specific load.
There’s one other bit of coolness incorporated into the design of this rear sight. The sight ladder is designed so that as you raise the crossbar, the sighting notches and aperture move to the left. That’s to compensate for the bullet’s natural drift to the right as distances increase.
It’s all very clever, but in my opinion the Army made it too complicated. The rear sight was probably designed by an engineer who never had to carry or use a rifle in the field or train recruits to do so. I think most of the guys I served with in the Army would have a hard time remembering all this (I’m an engineer and I struggled to understand it). Apparently the Army agreed: They simplified the rear sight on the later 1903A3 rifle. The 1903A3 rear sight is much better for an infantry rifle.
That’s enough background on the 1903 Springfield sights. Let’s get to the reloading variables and which loads the Springfield likes. I prepped several, and I also grabbed some of the ammo I had previously loaded for the M1 Garand.
Four bullets used in this testing. From left to right: The Hursman 173-grain cast bullet, the Montana 210-grain cast bullet, the Winchester 150 grain jacketed soft point bullet, and the jacketed Speer 168-grain Match bullet.The Hursman cast bullet loaded in a .30 06 cartridge.
I first fired at a 5o-yard silhouette target to see where the bullets were hitting (there’s lots of real estate on that target). With the ladder down, the point of impact was to the right and low using the 17.0-grain Trail Boss and 173-grain Hursman bullet load. With the ladder up, it moved left a little and printed higher using the higher rear sight notch. For that 0.793 group up top, I used the bottom edge of the upper left box as the aimpoint. For the other two groups, it was the bottom of the orange bullseye.
An initial target shot with cast bullets and Trail Boss powder. There’s a lot of real estate on this target, so I could see where the rifle was shooting.
I shot groups at 50 yards with several different loads using combinations of the bullets shown above and SR 4759, Trail Boss, 5744, and IMR 4064 propellants, all at 50 yards, and all with neck-sized-only .30 06 brass. Then I returned a week later and fired groups with the 150-grain jacketed Winchester bullets (again at 50 yards).
After shooting the above groups, I had 20 rounds left with the Trail Boss, Hursman bullet, and SR 4759 load. I shot two of them at a clump of dirt at about 80 yards and hit it (I think) both times. Then I put a 100-yard small bore rifle target up at 100 yards and shot at it with the 173-grain cast bullet SR 4759 load (8 rounds were crimped, and 10 rounds were not). To my surprise, all 18 rounds were on the paper and 14 of the 18 were in the black. It’s not that great a 100-yard group, but it shows potential. All this was with the ladder down using the battlesight zero sighting approach, so with cast bullets this rifle (at least with the SR 4759 load) is pretty much in the ballpark.
Cast bullets at 100 yards using the battlesight zero rear sight.
For the jacketed loads, I used the 150-grain Winchester jacketed soft point bullet (I bought a bunch of these a few years ago when somebody had them on sale) and 48.0 grains of IMR 4064. This is the accuracy load in the Lyman reloading manual with a 150-grain jacketed bullet, and I know from prior development work it is superbly accurate in my Model 70. It is also a minimum load, which is nice given the 1903’s steel buttplate. The 1903 did well at 50 yards with the Winchester bullets, so I posted another silhouette target at 100 yards. I fired three rounds and it was rough shooting at that target. Using the aperture, I literally could not see the orange bullseye at 100 yards when I focused on the front sight. The orange bullseye disappeared until I shifted my focus to the target. I’d acquire the bullseye, then rapidly shift my focus to the front sight and squeeze the trigger. I did that three times, literally firing blind, and managed to get a 3.050-inch 3-shot group.
The 150-grain jacketed Winchester bullet load at 100 yards. I couldn’t keep the orange bullseye visible using the aperture at 100 yards.
I figured it was time to quit while I was ahead. I didn’t have any more black bullseye targets with me. I knew I would be able to see those focusing on the 1903’s front post while sighting with the aperture. But with the orange bullseyes (like you see in the target above), I might as well have been shooting at night. I returned to the range a few days later and shot at 100 yards with the jacketed 150-grain Winchester bullets (with the 48.0-grain IMR 4064 load), the 210-grain cast Montana bullets (with the 17.0-grain Trail Boss load), and the 168-grain Speer match bullets (with a 48.0 grain IMR 4064 load).
Using the rear sight aperture, I shot the target below at 100 yards with the 150-grain Winchester jacketed bullet and 48.0 grains of IMR 4064. I was pleased with the results and I quit after 3 shots (I didn’t want to screw up the group).
Three shots into an inch and three quarters at 100 yards. The load was 48.0 grains of IMR 4064 and the Winchester 150-grain jacketed soft point bullet. Old eyes and an even older rifle sometimes do great things. My rifle was manufactured in 1918; I was born in 1951.
I then shot at another 100-yard target with the 210-grain Montana cast bullet (these were loaded with 17.0 grains of Trail Boss). I used the rear sight’s lower notch for this target. Hmm, what do you know…the elevation was about perfect without moving anything on the rear sight.
Another 100 yard target, this time with the Montana 210-grain cast bullet and 17.0 grains of Trail Boss. I used the rear sight notch immediately above the aperture without making any adjustments. This is a real sweetheart load with minimal muzzle blast, almost no recoil, and no leading. The cast bullets are not as accurate at 100 yards as are the jacketed bullets, but they are still pretty good.
Finally, I fired eight rounds originally loaded for the Garand (I reload for the Garand in multiples of eight, as that’s what a clip holds), returning again to the rear sight aperture. This load used the 168-grain Speer jacketed boattail hollowpoint bullet and 48.0 grains of IMR 4064 propellant. The Speer bullets are almost identical to the Sierra match bullet, but the Speer’s ogive is slighly different and it has less bearing area in the barrel. I called the wizards at Speer about that and they recommended going to a heavier charge than would be used with the comparable Sierra bullet (they specifically recommended 48.0 grains of IMR 4064 for the Garand). That load was a little warm in the 1903 (the recoil was significantly more than the 150-grain Winchester bullet and the primers had slight flattening). But it was reasonably accurate.
Eight rounds of .30 06 ammo loaded for the Garand, using the 1903 rear sight aperture, at 100 yards. The astute blogophile will note there appears to be only seven holes; the hole just outside the 10-ring had two bullets pass through it.
My observations and conclusions from the above are:
The 1903 Springfield rear sight is needlessly complex for an infantry rifle. You may feel differently. Hey, go start your own blog.
With my cast bullet loads, there was no leading. My cast bullets had gas checks (the little copper cup on the bullet base), which helps to prevent leading.
The Lyman cast bullet book showed a minimal 5744 load to be the accuracy load for the 210-grain Montana cast bullet. I did not find that to be the case.
Both the Hursman 173-grain and the Montana 210-grain cast bullets were extremely accurate with 17.0 grains of Trail Boss, at least at 50 yards.
The Winchester 150-grain jacketed bullet accuracy load, per the Lyman manual, was with 48.0 grains of IMR 4064. I found this to be a very accurate load. I didn’t do a lot of work developing a jacketed bullet load. I’m going to stick with this one for this rifle.
Orange bullseyes and aperture rear sights don’t work with my old eyes at 100 yards. They are okay at 50 yards, but not 100 yards.
Both of the jacketed bullet loads I tried (the Speer Garand load and the Lyman 150-grain accuracy load) are accurate. Without adjusting the rear sight from the 150-grain jacketed bullet setting, the Garand load shoots a little high and to the right, but the group size would fit into the bullseye if the sights were adjusted.
The cast bullets are not as accurate as the jacketed bullets at 100 yards. The cast bullets are comparabily accurate to jacketed bullets at 50 yards, but not at 100.
With regard to shooting both cast and jacketed bullets in the same rifle, I got lucky: As complicated as that 1903 Springfield rear sight is, I found that one rear sight position shoots to the same point of impact at 100 yards for both my cast bullet accuracy load and my jacketed bullet accuracy load. Yep, you read that right. With the rear sight crossbar secured as you see in the photo below, I can use the aperture (denoted by the right arrow) with the 150-grain jacketed bullet load. Or, I can use the lower crossbar notch (denoted by the left arrow) with the 210-grain cast bullet, 17.0 grains of Trail Boss load. Both will shoot to the same point of impact at 100 yards. A friend asked if I tuned the loads to do this. I wish I could say I had that kind of load development expertise. Nope, I just got lucky.
One size fits all (sort of). With the 1903’s rear sight in the raised position, I use the notch denoted by the arrow on the left for my cast bullet accuracy load at 100 yards. I use the aperature denoted by the arrow on the right for the 150-grain jacketed bullet load at 100 yards. I don’t need to move the rear sight cross bar up or down. Sometimes you just get lucky.
One final note that’s sure to set the Internet on fire: I know this is heresy. As much as I like my 1903, I think the 91/30 Mosin Nagant is a better rifle. My Mosin groups better at 1oo yards. But that’s a story for another blog.
Never miss an ExNotes blog:
Tales of the Gun: 1911s, revolvers, 9mm semi-autos, bolt action sporters, milsurps, reloading, big bore rifles, and more. It’s all right here!
Click on those popups, folks! It’s what pays the rent!
ExNotes features a bunch of things (motorcycles, guns, watches, reloading, and more). We get way more hits on the gun pieces than we do on anything else, but truth be told, we’re old and we’re not motivated by hits, likes, tweets, or any of the other silliness introduced by the so-called social media platforms. Gresh and I write because we like to write. It’s that simple. Don’t get me wrong: We love it when you click on the pop up ads that appear on the site and in our blogs because that puts money in our pockets.
On occasion, we’ll hear from some left wing asshole (sorry for the redundancy) with his shorts in a knot when we do a gun blog. Hey, we get it: Some folks hate guns. My advice and response has always been simple: If you don’t like guns, don’t buy one. If you don’t like a gun blog, don’t read it.
But even a lifelong, died-in-the-wool shooting enthusiast like yours truly feels sick, disgusted, and unspeakably sad at the rash of mass shootings that have become common in the last few years. I knew a guy who lost a daughter in the Virginia Tech shooting. The aftermath is gut-wrenching. I’ve wondered: Should these high capacity weapons be outlawed? Then I remembered…guns that hold large quantities of ammo have been around for over a hundred years, and when I was a kid, we didn’t have these mass shootings. So what’s changed?
A friend sent this YouTube video to me a few days ago. I can’t remember ever having agreed with Bill Maher on anything (not that he or anyone else needs me to), but I think old Maher nailed it. Take a look:
As I mentioned above, we like it when you click on the pop up ads. We like it even more when you leave comments. We’re eager to hear from you, and if ever one of our posts deserved comments, this is it.
