“I’ll be Bach,” of course, is the written Austrian-accent impersonation of the Governator (i.e., Arnold) in what has to be one of the best sci-fi movies ever, Terminator. One of the several guns that received top billing in that movie was an AMT Long Slide Hardballer equipped with a laser sight.
There are a lot of cool things to know about the Terminator movie and its armament, not the least of which is that laser target designators were not yet available for handguns when the movie was released in 1985. Ahnold’s (misspelled intentionally) AMT Hardballer had a custom 10,000-volt laser, and the wiring for all that power was hidden in the future governor’s jacket sleeve. I liked the movie, but I especially liked seeing the Long Slide Hardballer 1911 in it. You see, I own one. It cost just $365 back in the day and it was manufactured by Arcadia Machine and Tool (hence the AMT moniker) just up the road from me in Monrovia, California. It is a stainless steel 1911, it has a 7-inch long slide and barrel, and it is accurate. That’s my gun you see in the phot0 at the top of this blog. One of these guns recently sold for close to $2,000 complete with box and papers. I have the box and papers that came with mine. And no, it’s not for sale.
The Hardballer is surprisingly accurate. The 2-inch longer sight radius really works. Mine has not been tightened up, accurized, or modified in any way. The trigger pull is a bit higher than I would like, but it’s crisp (one of these days, I may get around to having TJ of TJ’s Custom Gunworks do a trigger job on it). I found the targets you see below in an old reloading notebook; they were all fired by yours truly, standing, at 50 feet. I guess that old saying is true: The older I get, the better I was.
I’ve owned my Hardballer for close to 40 years now. The AMT company is no more, so there won’t be any more of them. It’s a classic, and I need to get out and shoot it more often. Maybe I’ll do that today.
Keep us afloat: Click on those popup ads!
Never miss an ExNotes blog…sign up here for a free subscription:
I’ve been a Ruger No. 1 fan for close to 50 years. It started with one I’ve written about before, and that is a Ruger No. 1A chambered in the awesome .30 06 Government cartridge. I’ve spent time on the range and I’ve hunted with this rifle, and it is probably my all-time favorite firearm.
What attracted me to the No. 1 was my father’s fascination with the rifle (he never owned one, but he wanted to), the beautiful and exquisitely figured walnut Ruger used on these rifles, and their style. To me, they just look right. My fixation started in 1976. Ruger roll-stamped every firearm they manufactured with “Made in the 200th Year of American Liberty” that year.
Rugers with this roll-marked stamp are known as Liberty or Bicentennial guns.Like I said, the walnut on my Ruger .30 06 is exquisite on both sides.As I said, the highly-figured walnut is exquisite on both sides of this .30 06.
The Ruger No. 1 came in different configurations, and the ones you see here are what Ruger called the 1A. They had 22-inch barrels, iron sights, and the Alex Henry fore end (that’s the fore end with the notch at the front). There are all sorts of suppositions about what why the notch was originally included on the Farquharson rifles that influenced the Ruger No. 1 design, but no one seems to know for sure. I just like the look of the thing. To me, these rifles are elegant. They’re not particularly light, but they’re short and it’s easy to get around in the woods with one. Back in the day, I bought a straight 4X Redfield scope and a still prefer a 4X non-variable scope for hunting (even though it’s tough to find one these days; high-powered variable scopes are all the rage).
Those west Texas days back in the ’70s were good. We spent a lot of time (essentially every weekend) out in the desert north of Fabens chasing jackrabbits and coyotes, and the No. 1 you see here sent a lot of those critters to the Promised Land. Jackrabbits were grand fun. It was hard to believe how big some of them were.
The accuracy load for my .30 06 No. 1 is the 130-grain Hornady jacketed softpoint bullet over a max load of IMR 4320 propellant. IMR 4320 is no longer in production, but I’ve got about 10 pounds of it so I’m good for a while. The rifle will put that load into an inch at 100 yards all day long, and the 130 grain Hornady bullet seems to be perfect for jackrabbits. Yeah, I know, that’s maybe a little more power than needed for Peter Cottontail, but hey, like Donald Rumsfeld used to say: You go to war with the army you have.
Gee whiz…a group I shot 40 years ago!
The .30 06 also does well with other loads. I was on the range with the ammo I had on hand a week or so ago with heavier bullets and I was pleased with the results. I tried 180 grain Remington bullets loaded on top of 48.0 grains of IMR 4064. Those loads shot low and had perceptibly heavier recoil, but they grouped under an inch at 100 yards.
Three shots at 100 yards with the Ruger .30 06 No. 1A. The load was the 180 grain Remington jacketed soft point bullet and 48.0 grains of IMR 4064, with military brass and a CCI 200 primer.
The title of this blog is A Tale of Two Bicentennial No. 1 Rugers, and that brings us to the second rifle. I was in Ohio on a secret mission about 15 years ago and the guy I visited there learned of my interest in guns. He took me to a local shop that only sold through an online auction (that was the gunshop’s business model). When we arrived, I quickly noticed another Ruger No. 1A, this time chambered in .243 Winchester. It was a bicentennial rifle, it looked to be a near twin to my .30 06 1A, and I had to have it. I tried to buy it while I was there and have shipped to my FFL holder in California, but the owner confirmed what my friend told me…I had to bid on it at auction. I did, and I won the auction at $650. Bear in mind that these rifles’ list price in 1976 was $265, and they typically sold at $239 back then. If you think I got scalped, think again. I won the auction, and the MSRP on these rifles today is something around $2,000. And the ones made back in the 1970s are, in my opinion, of much higher quality in terms of walnut figure, checkering, and other attributes.
A .243 Winchester Ruger No. 1. It wears a period correct El Paso Weaver 4×12 telescopic sight.The left side of the .243 No. 1.Ruger used to put fancy walnut on the No. 1 rifles. Today, not so much.A fancy walnut, red pad Ruger No. 1. Sweet!Like the .30 06 No. 1 featured above, this .243 is also a Liberty gun.
Most recently, good buddy John gave me a bunch of assorted brass and I started loading bits and pieces of it. I loaded the .30 40 Krag and wrote about it a week or so ago. There were a few pieces of .243 Winchester brass and that had me thinking about the .243 No. 1 in this blog. You see, I bought that rifle, stuck it in the safe, and never fired it. That was a character flaw I knew I needed to address.
I thought I had a set of .243 dies, but I was surprised to find I did not. I had some ammo, so I guess at some point I had .243 dies. I bought a new set of Lee dies, and I already had some .243 bullets. And as it turns out, the Lyman reloading manual lists IMR 4350 as the accuracy load for 60 grain bullets, and I had some. I only loaded six rounds (using the brass John gave to me), and I thought I needed to buy .243 brass (everybody is sold out of .243 brass right now). Then I started poking around in my brass drawer and it turns out I have five boxes of new Winchester 243 brass. I swear I’m gonna find Jimmy Hoffa or an honest politician in my components storage area one of these days.
The Tula factory ammo I had didn’t shoot worth a damn. Tula is cheap ammo, this stuff was old, and it grouped around 2.9 to 3.5 inches at 100 yards. I also had some very old reloads that had 100 grain Sierra bullets and 34.0 grains of IMR 4064, and it did only marginally better. The six rounds I loaded myself with the brass good buddy John provided was better. At least I think it was better. I used 65 grain Hornady V-Max bullets and 43.2 grains of IMR 4350 powder. I had one good group and one lousy group. But hey, Rome wasn’t built in a day, and I’m just getting started. I’ll buy some heavier 6mm bullets (.243 is 6mm), I’ll try them with a few different loads, and you’ll get to read about it here on the ExNotes blog.
More stories on Ruger single-shot rifles (the No. 1 and the No. 3) are here.
I am a fan of both the No. 1 and the No. 3 Ruger single shot rifles. The No. 1 is the more elegant rifle with a fancier lever, a pistol grip stock, checkering, a rubber shoulder pad, a slick quarter rib, fancier walnut, and more. The No.3 was the economy version without checkering, plain walnut, an aluminum (and later plastic) shoulder pad, and a no frills look. When I started collecting these rifles in 1976, the No. 1 was chambered in contemporary cartridges and priced at $265. The No. 3 came in classic chamberings; in 1976 that included .22 Hornet, .30-40 Krag, and .45-70. Ruger listed the No. 3 at $165, and you could buy them all day long for $139. Which I did. In 1976, I bought No. 3 rifles in all three chamberings. All had the “Made in the 200th Year of American Liberty” inscription.
Take a look at the finish on this Ruger No. 3. It’s better than how they came from the factory.
I was younger and dumber in those days, and I stupidly sold all three rifles within a year of purchasing them. The Hornet went to Army buddy Jim, the .45-70 went to another Army buddy also named Jim, and the .30-40 was traded for something else I can’t remember. If you’re reading this blog, you realize the phrase “stupidly sold” is redundant. We have all sold guns we wish we kept.
Ruger has to have one of the best fonts ever for chambering designation.
I wanted to undo the wrong I did, and about 15 years ago I started a search to replace my No. 3 rifles. The .45-70 was the easiest to find and the .22 Hornet followed shortly thereafter. The prices had gone up (used, they were going for about $650-$700 back then). The .30-40 Krag was tougher to find. I’m assuming it was because Ruger made fewer of them. Then I spotted something I had to have: An unfired .30-40 No. 3 advertised on Gunbroker, and it had significantly nicer wood then No. 3 rifles typically have. I had to own it and I paid top dollar. When I called the shop, I used my American Express card instead of a certified check because I was eager to get it. I had to pay a 4% premium, but that turned out to be a good thing (more on that in a second).
Unusually highly-figured walnut on a No. 3 Ruger.
The shop that sold it to me did something stupid. They shipped the rifle in the original box with no additional padding and they didn’t insure it. You could get away with shipping a No. 1 Ruger in the original box, as they were stout and contained big pieces of foam padding. The No. 3 had a flimsy cardboard box in keeping with the No. 3’s lower price. You can guess where this story is going.
A view of the No. 3’s port side at the West End Gun Club.
Yep, the rifle arrived with the stock broken at the wrist. Wow. The wood was as beautiful as it looked in the Gurnbroker.com ad, but it was busted. I had a brand new, unfired 200th year No. 3 in .30-40 Krag with nice wood and its collector value was ruined. Like the box, I was crushed.
I called the shop owner, who turned out to be a real prick. “It’s your problem, and it’s between you and the US Post Office,” he told me. “You didn’t tell me to insure it, so I didn’t. Once it leaves here, it’s yours.” I told him I was going to have the stock repaired and I offered to split the cost with him, but he kept repeating his mantra: Once it leaves here, it’s yours.
Keep us publishing: Please click on the popup ads!
I told this sad story the next day during our usual geezer gathering at Brown’s BMW in Pomona, and good buddy Dave asked if the gun shop had asked me about insurance. “Nope, he never asked and I didn’t mention having it insured. I guess I just assumed it would be.” Dave explained that I was right to make that assumption, so I called the shop owner again, I explained to him I had learned about insurance responsibilities, and I again offered to split the repair cost. He said no again.
Then I remembered I had used my credit card. I called American Express, I explained the situation, and I told them it would cost about $275 to have the stock repaired and refinished. Not a problem, the guy on the other end of the line said, and just like that, he took $275 off the charge and said that the shop owner had 30 days to appeal. He didn’t, and that was that.
I sent the rifle off and when it came back I was both pleased and disappointed. I had asked the place I use for such work to match the original Ruger finish, but they did not. Instead, it was a much deeper and more glorious oil finish. It was nicer than the original finish, but it wasn’t original. That was good news and bad news. I had planned to keep the gun in its unfired condition, but now that it was busted, repaired, and refinished, it would be a shooter (that was the good news).
You can just barely see where the crack was in the stock wrist, but that’s because I used flash for this photo. In normal light, you really can’t see it.
I didn’t shoot the No. 3 immediately. This all happened 15 years ago before I retired and before COVID hit. I recently decided I needed to shoot the .30-40, so I ordered unprimed brass and Lee’s Ultimate four die set. Both were initially unavailable, but they came in and I was in business. I already had large rifle primers, a stash of what has to be one of the best powders ever for cast bullets (SR 4759), and a bunch of 173-grain gas checked bullets.
.30-40 Krag ammo in new brass, loaded by yours truly.Ready for the range.
I seated the cast bullets to the crimping groove and used the Lee factory crimp die, and the cartridges looked great. I tried a number of different SR 4759 powder charge levels in the Lyman cast bullet manual. When I fired on the 50-yard line at the West End Gun Club using the rifle’s open sights, I found that 20.0 grains of SR 4759 is my accuracy load.
I held at 6:00, and the rounds shot very close to point of aim at 50 yards. The target was mounted on its side, as you see it here.Very modest bore leading in the No. 3. That SR 4759 load with the 173-grain bullet is accurate even with the Ruger’s factory iron sights.
The .30-40 Krag is an interesting cartridge. It was the US Army’s standard chambering after they phased out the .45-70 Springfield. The new rifle was the 1892 Krag-Jorgensen rifle made at the Springfield Arsenal. It was the first military cartridge designed for smokeless (as opposed to black) powder, and it originally fired a 230-grain jacketed bullet. The .30-40 is a rimmed cartridge that looks a lot like the 7.62x54R Russian cartridge (which came out just one year earlier). The ballistics of both are fairly close to the .308 Winchester (which is the 7.62 NATO round we currently use).
.45-70, .30-40 Krag, 7.62x54R Russian, .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO), .30 06, and .300 Weatherby cartridges. The .300 Weatherby is the fiercest recoiling cartridge in the group when loaded with jacketed bullets at factory velocities (the cartridge shown here is loaded with a cast bullet). With the exception of the .300 Weatherby, Gatling guns have been chambered in each of these cartridges. Modern mini-guns are electrically-powered Gatlings chambered in 7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester).
After our experiences in the Spanish-American War, our government load plant created and issued a hotter version of the .30-40 Krag in an attempt to match the speed and ballistics of the Spanish 7mm Mauser round, but the Krag rifles started cracking bolts. All the .30-40 Krag ammo was recalled and reconfigured with the original, lower pressure load. The .30-40 Krag was also used in the Gatling gun. You can read about that here:
The .30-40 Krag only lasted about a decade in US government service. It was replaced with the .30-03 in 1903 (which was soon replaced with the .30-06, which became one of the most popular hunting cartridges ever). The history of this fine old cartridge is interesting; shooting it with cast bullets in a sleek Ruger No. 3 is good old fun. I might never have known that if the stock had not broken.
With reloading components still hard to find, the question emerges: Can you use rifle primers in handgun cartridges? If you’re flush with rifle primers but hurting for pistol primers (as I am), it’s a logical question. To evaluate this, loaded a box of .357 Magnum ammo for my Colt Python. I tried to different loads of Bullseye (not an ideal .357 Magnum propellant, but it’s what I had available) and Winchester small rifle primers.
I thought I would simultaneously test for accuracy and reliability on Alco 4-silhouette targets at 25 yards, firing single action at the top two targets and double action on the bottom two targets. The first load was 3.2 grains of Bullseye, a 158 grain cast flatpoint bullet, and Winchester small rifle primers.
Accuracy was mediocre (if you’re ever assaulted by four little men with orange bullseyes painted on their chest, you’d be good enough for government work, but you won’t be taking home any accuracy trophies). The upper two little orange guys were fired single action, and every round discharged. The bottom two little orange guys were fired double action, and on those two targets, I had two misfires. That’s two misfires in 10 rounds, and that’s not good. When I fired the two misfired rounds a second time, they discharged normally.
The next target was a repeat of the first, except the ammo I shot at it had 4.0 grains of Bullseye. Everything else was the same. The top two targets were fired single action and the bottom two were fired double action. All rounds fired normally.
You can ignore the shots below the bottom two targets. I was just shooting up some ammo I had left loaded with different combos. The lower left group on the zombie’s green hand were .38 Special 148 grain wadcutter loads (with 2.7 grains of Bullseye); the ones between the two targets were .38 Special loads with the 158 grain flat point bullets and 4.5 grains of Bullseye (a very hot .38 Special load).
The propellant’s name notwithstanding, none of the above were not particularly accurate loads.
As to the primary question: Will rifle primers work in handgun cartridges, my take on this is yes, if fired single action. In double action, ignition is unreliable. On handguns with heavy hammers, you’re probably okay if firing single action. That’s true on the Colt Python, and it’s definitely true on single action Ruger Blackhawks (I have a .30 Carbine Ruger Blackhawk and I always load .30 Carbine ammo with rifle primers).
I suppose it’s possible that the two rounds that misfired double action in the Python may have been suffering from primers that were not completely seated, but I don’t see a need to continue testing. I learned enough from this quick look.
Good buddy and fellow Inland Empire shooter Jose recently posted on Facebook about what has to be one of the best deals ever for a highly collectible Ruger No. 1 in .405 Winchester. Ruger produced only a small number of these rifles (I’ve only seen one in person at a gun show a few years ago). This one has exceptional walnut, which makes it even more desirable.
Here’s Jose’s story. Enjoy, my friends.
I’ve never had any desire to hunt African game and I probably never will. But I’ve enjoyed reading about the African plains rifles since I was a kid in junior high school. Bringing a copy of Guns & Ammo magazine to school would probably get you a quick trip to the principal’s office these days…but I digress.
Exquisite walnut is often found on the older Ruger No. 1 rifles.
Quite a few years ago I saw an old Ruger No.1 Tropical in the consignment rack of a small gun shop that is now long gone. The owner said, “just pick it up and feel the heft.” And of course, I did and the next thing you know we were talking price, knowing I would never pay $2,000 for a collectible Ruger No. 1. Shaun confided in me that the rifle’s owner couldn’t find the obsolete 405 ammo for it anywhere and he wasn’t a handloader, so he wanted to sell the rifle. Another problem with the rifle was that a previous owner had cut down the front sight, probably because he had been shooting handloads with .41 caliber pistol bullets. So we settled on $500 and I became the owner of my first “unobtainable” Ruger No. 1!
In the gun shop years ago eyeing the Ruger No. 1. Salesman Shaun said, “hand me your phone and let me take a photo of you so you can see how good you look with that rifle!” Shaun passed away a couple of years ago, but I know he smiled down from Heaven yesterday as I fired the Ruger No. 1H Tropical for the first time. And he was right, this gun was meant for me!
It took me a lot of searching over the past few years, but I finally located a set of 405 Win reloading dies, the shell holder, and all the components to bring this rifle back to life.
Hornady had made a run of new 405 Winchester brass and I was lucky enough to find a New Old Stock box of 50 shells. I also located some new Barnes .412, 300 grain TSX bullets.
The first step in restoring the old 1H Tropical was to contact Ruger and purchase a new gold bead front sight. That was a simple install as the blade is held in place by a small detent spring.
New Ruger NOS gold bead front sight blade installed.
Not wanting to use the expensive Barnes TSX bullets quite yet, lead bullets were cast from lead wheel weights with a bit of tin added using a Lyman 412263 plain base mold to cast 288 grain bullets. These were sized to 0.413 inch and lubed with Alox. Lyman has since discontinued this fine old bullet mold.
A Lyman 412263 bullet, lubed and sized.
Finally, yesterday morning I decided it was time to resurrect this old rifle! Besides, the project would give me the opportunity to test some old “salvage” Hodgdon 4198 powder I’ve had sitting on the shelf for nearly two decades. The powder is probably from the 1950s or early 1960s. I also had some ancient CCI 200 large rifle primers on hand.
Hodgdon “salvage” 4198 smokeless powder. The powder is probably WW II US Military surplus powder that Hogdon bought in bulk and repackaged in the late 1950s or early 1960s.Vintage components for a vintage cartridge.
I loaded 20 rounds of 405 Winchester ammo using the cast lead bullets and a starting load of 38.5 grains of 4198 and headed down the hill with good friend Yvon to an informal shooting range on BLM land.
The obsolete 405 Winchester cartridge (left) and the popular 45-70 Government cartridge (right) used by 1880s plains buffalo hunters of the American west. I don’t shoot buffalo and never will. But I enjoy reviving and firing old guns!
Let me say that this Ruger No. 1H Tropical in 405 Winchester lives again. It shoots incredibly tight groups with the cast bullets and gold bead open sights.
My next project will be to develop a non-lead hunting load using the 300 grain Barnes TSX bullets.
Bringing life back into old obsolete rifles can be tons of fun.
That’s an awesome story, Jose, and thanks for allowing us to share it here on the ExNotes blog. Your No. 1 has to be one of the best deals ever. The dealer’s original asking price is probably what that rifle is worth if you could find one for sale. Well done, my friend.
The 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge draws a lot of flak on the Internet. I suspect most of the folks who go negative do so with no real experience. I have two 6.5 Creedmoor rifles, and both do very well for me. Will they magically overcome a shooting skills deficit? No. Are there other cartridges out there that can do as well? Sure. But the 6.5 Creedmoor, in my opinion, does what it is supposed to, and that’s provide accuracy with modest recoil. I’m a believer.
I had my two Creedmoors on the range a few days ago, a Browning X-Bolt and a Ruger No. 1 (you’ve seen them on these pages recently). Both are elegant rifles and each has what I would call exhibition grade wood. The Browning has a curly maple stock and the Ruger has fancy walnut. Both are factory rifles, and other than mounting scopes on each, both are unmodified guns.
Which one is prettier? It’s a tie in my opinion. Good wood, to me, is one of the best parts of having a fine rifle, and both these 6.5 Creedmoors answer the mail in that regard. The wood seems to be alive on each, changing depending on the viewing angle and how the light hits it. This sensitivity to light orientation is probably more pronounced with the maple-stocked Browning. The curl runs from front to rear and top to bottom on both sides (this rifle has an unusually highly-figured stock). When photographed from the front (as I did in the photo below), the figure on the Browning is more subdued.
When photographed from the rear, though (as you can see below), the Browning’s curl really pops. The Ruger’s fancy walnut looks good from any angle.
The Browning is a bolt action rifle based on the Paul Mauser design (as are nearly all bolt action rifles) and it holds five rounds (four in the magazine and one in the chamber). You can buy extra magazines and carry them with four more rounds ready to go in each (you know, in case your deer starts returning fire). The Ruger is a falling block action and it is a single shot. I prefer that and I admit it is a bit of snobbery on my part; I like to think I only need one shot. On the rifle range, I only load one round at a time. Come to think of it, on a hunt I also only load one round at a time. California’s magazine restrictions are irrelevant to me; to my way of thinking if you need a 30-round magazine you aren’t much of a shot.
As much as I love Ruger No. 1 rifles, I prefer the scope location on a bolt action rifle better. A telescopic sight on a bolt action is in a more natural position. The Ruger No. 1 positions the scope further forward, and even when I mount the scope as far to the rear as it will go, it requires an unnatural amount of forward stretch to get the correct eye relief. You can get Ruger scope rings with a rearward setback to overcome this problem, but they look goofy and they add more weight to the rifle.
The Ruger is a heavier rifle. Part of that is the slender and shorter barrel on the Browning. Walnut is lighter than maple, but the Ruger barreled action is heavier that the Browning X-Bolt barreled action. Browning’s specs put the maple X-Bolt at 6 1/2 pounds; a Ruger No. 1B (this rifle’s configuration) is listed as 8 1/4 lbs. On the rifle range the Ruger’s heft doesn’t bother me. If I was carrying a rifle all day on pig hunt, I’d prefer the lighter Browning. The Browning feels almost dainty compared to the No. 1.
I mounted inexpensive scopes on both rifles. The Browning has a Vortex 4×12 scope and the Ruger has a 3×9 Redfield. The optics are equally bright on both. The Vortex has indistinct indexing on its windage and elevation click adjustments; the Redfield turret is snappy and allows counting clicks by feel alone as you make them. The Redfield Revenge is discontinued (the Redfield company is no more), but it is a good scope. I prefer the Redfield to the Vortex.
Both rifles are accurate at right around minute of angle, and both will occasionally get down in the 0.6-inch group neighborhood. The Ruger didn’t like the Speer 140 grain jacketed soft point bullet with 41.0 grains of IMR 4350, although I’ve used it before with a lighter charge of that same powder and achieved sub-minute-of-angle groups. Rifles have their preferences. With a load dialed for each rifle, the accuracy of both rifles is comparable.
I tried a few loads in both rifles recently with IMR 4350 and Varget powder, and I also tried neck-sized-only ammo in the Browning. Here are the results:
If there’s an advantage to neck sizing fired cases in the Browning, it’s not obvious to me. I’m going to full length resize the brass from this point forward, which will allow me to use my reloaded ammo in either rifle.
When I bumped the IMR 4350 charge up to 41.0 grains, accuracy deteriorated from previous sessions. The Browning likes 40.7 grains (or maybe a little less); the Ruger did better with the Speer 140 grain jacketed softpoints at 39.5 grains of IMR 4350.
What’s next? I found Berger Bullets load data for IMR 7828 SSC propellant. That’s a slower burning propellant ordinarily used in magnum cartridges, but I like the fact that it fills the case (which should make for a more accurate load) and I thought I would give it a try. I have 20 rounds loaded and I’ll test this combo later this week. Stay tuned, and you’ll read about it here on the ExNotes blog.
That’s a Model 60 Smith and Wesson snubbie you see in the big photo above, and Betty and Boris you see in the photo below. You’ve read about the Model 60 before here on the ExhaustNotes blog. One thing about the Model 60 I wasn’t excited about is that it had a tendency to misfire occasionally when firing double action (it always fired single action, but when shooting double action, I would get one or two misfires in every box of ammo).
I know I was supposed to shoot Boris (the zombie), but Betty is the real troublemaker here and it was easier to get a better sight picture on her. Sorry about that, Betty. Sometimes it’s fun to mix it up a bit and shoot zombie targets.
When shooting double action, the hammer fall is a little less than it is when firing single action, and that little bit of energy loss makes a dfference in ignition reliability. I tried replacing the hammer spring on the Model 60 (thinking the spring had fatigued like it did on my Rock Island Compact), but I still had the double action misfiring problem. Hmmm. It was time for a bit of online research.
The Model 60’s hammer spring. Removing it requires the same high-tech tool I used to disassemble the Rock Island Armory Compact 1911. You don’t have to remove the sideplate on a Model 60 to remove and replace the hammer spring.
I’ve read that there are differences in primer manufacturers that can make a difference in ignition sensitivity, with CCI primers being the hardest to light and Federal being the easiest. These days, it’s a stroke of good fortune to find any kind of primers. I have CCI primers (with components, halitosis is better than no breath at all). I had tried Winchester primers in the Model 60 in the past and they had the same propensity to occasionally double action misfire.
.38 Special wadcutter ammo loaded on my Star. Those are 148 grain Xtreme wadcutter bullets in the foreground. They’re called wadcutters because they punch a clean hole in the target. These particular bullets are orientation insensitive; you can load them in the cartridge case facing up or facing down (they are the same on both ends).
My research tumbled me onto something I kind of already knew but more or less forgot: Primer seating makes a difference. It’s typically not an issue for most guns, but on those with little hammers (like the Model 60 snubnose), it matters more. From what I read, you can’t just seat your primers to a consistent depth and call it good. There’s variability in the primer height and there’s variability in the primer hole depth. There’s also variability induced by the carbon residue from the last shot if you’re reloading fired cases. The conventional wisdom is that you need to have the primer anvil in firm contact with the bottom of the primer cavity, maybe even with a little bit of crush on the primer cup material. A little bit of primer crush affects primer output less (i.e., it’s better, or so I’ve read), than not having the primer fully seated. If a primer is not fully seated, the first strike may or may not light the primer. If the primer is not seated, a lot of the hammer’s energy is consumed finishing the primer seating operation. After the primer gets seated the rest of the way by the firing pin, the hammer may not have enough energy left to ignite the primer. It all makes sense to me.
Primers need to be fully seated, which usually means the primer face should be 0.005 to 0.006 inch below flush.
The more I thought about the above, the more I convinced myself the Model 60’s occasional misfires were a primer seating issue. The reason I think that’s what I had going on is because when I had a misfire, the cartridge that misfired always fired on the second strike. That’s consistent with the primer-not-fully-seated hypothesis. If it was just a matter of insufficient firing pin energy, the primer wouldn’t fire on the second strike, either. The issue is more pronounced on a little snubby like the Model 60 because it has such a tiny hammer and hammer spring. There’s not a lot of energy there like there is on a Colt Python or a Ruger Blackhawk (those handguns have much bigger hammers and hammer springs).
I loaded a box of 38 Special ammo on my Star reloader (I love that machine) and examined the primer seating depth. They were below flush with the rear of the cartridge, but not by much. I can fix that, I knew. The Star has an adjustment for primer seating depth, as explained in the photos below.
Lowering the primer seating adjustment shaft is accomplished by loosening a locknut and turning the shaft in a bit more.The Star’s primer seating shaft. It operates a lever on the press downstroke that pushes the primer up to seat it in the cartridge case. Adjust the shaft down, and the gizmo seating the primer pushes it into the cartridge case deeper.
After adjusting the Star to seat the primers deeper, I loaded another box of .38 Special wadcutter ammo. You can guess where this story is going. I double action fired a box of ammo I loaded before I made the adjustment, and I had two misfires. That’s about how the Model 60 has always performed. Then I shot the second 50 cartridges using ammo that I reloaded after making the primer seating depth adjustment, and every round fired. There were zero misfires. My Model 60 double action misfire issue was primer seating. What do you know. Live and learn.
All this is interesting, but I usually don’t shoot wadcutter ammo loaded on the Star in the Model 60. My Star reloader is configured to load the classic .38 Special target load: 2.7 grains of Bullseye and a 148 grain wadcutter bullet. The powder weight is not adjustable without buying a new powder throw bar for the Star, and I don’t want to do that. The Star will remain dedicated to .38 Special wadcutter ammo.
For the Model 60, I found that a good accuracy load (and a heavier load better suited for defensive purposes) is 3.5 grains of WW 231 propellant and a 158 grain cast flatpoint (also known as a truncated cone) bullet. That combination shoots to point of aim at 50 feet in the Model 60. I reload that ammo on my single stage RCBS Rockchucker press. For primer seating on the Rockchucker, I use an old Lee priming tool (they called it the AutoPrime II) I’ve had for 40 years (it’s shown in the photo below). Unfortunately, Lee no longer offers this system and they don’t have anything that offers both automatic primer feeding and primer seating on the press upstroke. That’s a pity, because it’s a good approach and allows for much more positive primer seating.
A good primer seating system no longer offered: The Lee auto primer. It is 40 years old and still works well. A mini-ram replaces the shell holder in the Rockchucker ram, and the primer seating operation occurs up north.Freshly-reloaded .38 Special ammo with ballistics similar to the old FBI load…a 158 grain cast flatpoint bullet and 3.5 grains of WW 231.
A couple of final notes…when doing this kind of testing, I always make sure the revolver is clean and properly lubricated. My preference is BreakFree cleaner and lubricant. It does a stellar job. And if you’re wondering about the grips on the Model 60, they from Altamont. Those grips turn the Model 60 into a more manageable and less punishing handgun. I like them.
You know, one of the things I enjoy with this reloading hobby is just how much there is to learn. I’ve been reloading for about 50 years now, and I’m still learning (and sometimes relearning) new things. When you roll your own, you’re in charge and you can tune a load for better accuracy, better reliability, and lower cost. Reloading is a cool hobby, and it’s as much fun as the shooting itself.
Click on our pop up ads!
Never miss an ExNotes blog…sign up for a free subscription:
Yeah, I’ve become a 6.5 Creedmoor believer. This is a superior cartridge and accuracy seems to just come naturally with it.
The rifle you see above is a maple-stocked Browning X-Bolt. It’s from a limited run and it sure is good looking. I bought it from a small shop in in Lamar, Colorado, when I was there on a recent secret mission. The dealer wouldn’t ship it to California so it had to go the long way around: Lamar, Colorado, to Raleigh, North Carolina, to Riverside, California, and then finally to me after I waited the obligatory 10-day cooling off period (I have to be the coolest guy in California; I’ve cooled off so many times). California has extra requirements for shipping guns to FFL holders here and the dealer in Colorado didn’t want to mess with our nutty requirements. The reshipper guy in North Carolina makes a living doing this (who says government can’t stimulate trade?). It’s crazy, but that’s our leftist Utopia here in the Golden State. I sometimes wonder if our firearms regs have ever actually prevented a crime.
Anyway, to leave the politics behind, a couple of weeks ago when I was on the range a good friend gave me a box of once-fired 6.5 Creedmoor brass another shooter had left behind. That was a sign, and I figured I’d reload it for the first range session with the new Browning.
Speer, Hornady, and Nosler 6.5mm bullets.
I already had stocked up on 6.5 Creedmoor bullets. I am probably on every reloading retailer’s email list and I get a dozen advertising emails every day. With components being in short supply nationally, if I see anything I might use I pick it up. Like the maple Browning you see above, the time to buy something that’s hard to get is when you see it (to quote Mike Wolfe).
That’s the Speer 140-grain jacketed softpoint on the left, the Hornady 140-grain jacketed boattail hollowpoint in the middle, and the Nosler 140-grain jacketed boattail hollowpoint on the right. The Nosler has a longer boattail than the Hornady, and the ogive is blunter.
From everything I’ve read and my limited experience loading for a Ruger 6.5 Creedmoor No. 1 (see my recent blog on the 6.5 Creedmoor Ruger No. 1), IMR 4350 propellant is the secret sauce for accuracy with this cartridge. I had some under the reloading bench and it got the nod for this load session.
That’s how I keep track of what I’m loading at the bench. I’ll transfer that information to a reloading label that goes on the rifle ammo container.
IMR 4350 is an extruded stick powder, and it doesn’t meter consistently through the powder dispenser. I use an RCBS trickler I’ve had for 50 years. The idea is that you drop a charge into a loading pan, it goes on the scale, and then you trickle in extra powder (a particle or two) at a time with the trickler to arrive at the exact weight.
An old and well worn RCBS powder trickler. It works well and although it sounds slow, it goes pretty quickly.
I have a set of Lee dies I use for the 6.5 Creedmoor. It’s Lee’s “ultimate” four-die set, which includes a full length resizing die and decapper, a neck-size-only die and decapper, the bullet seating die (which includes a roll crimping feature), and a factory crimp die. Lee dies are inexpensive and they work well. Their customer service is superb, too. I full length resized this batch and I didn’t crimp. I’ll experiment with that later. For this load, I just wanted to get pointed in the right direction. The refinements will come later (if they are needed).
The Lee 6.5 Creedmoor die set. Lee dies include the shell holder; most other manufacturers’ die sets do not. Lee makes good gear.
After charging the primed cases with IMR 4350, I seated the bullets. The long, heavy-for-caliber bullets and the relatively short 6.5 Creedmoor brass make for cartridges that look like hypodermic needles. It’s good looking ammo.
So how did the new 6.5 Creedmoor do? It was very cold and very windy when I went to the range. I had hoped for more pictures of the Browning in the daylight but it was so windy I didn’t want to chance the photos (I was afraid the wind would knock the rifle out of its Caldwell rest). There was only one other shooter out there; most folks were probably staying warm at home. I shot at 100 yards and the wind notwithstanding, this puppy can shoot. Here are the results from my first box of reloaded ammo…there are a few erratic groups, but they were due to me and the wind.
Here’s what the best groups looked like:
The Browning likes the 140 grain Hornady jacketed hollowpoint boattail bullets, which is good because I have a couple of boxes of those. Going up to 40.7 grains of IMR 4350 helped a bit. After I fired these rounds, I could chamber a fired case without it sticking, so I am going to load another 20 cartridges that I will neck size only.
The scope I bought for this rifle is a Vortex 4×12 (it’s made in China). This was the first time I used a Vortex. The optics are very clear. Because of the wind and the cold temperatures I didn’t try to adjust the parallax; I just set the parallax adjustment at 100 yards and shot (I’ll adjust the parallax next time, assuming the weather cooperates). The Vortex click adjustments for windage and elevation are not as tactilely distinct as they are on a Leupold or a Weaver. The clicks are squishy and I had to look at the turret graduations to keep track. Eh, it’s a $170 scope. You get what you pay for. Sometimes.
The recoil on the 6.5 Creedmore is moderate; maybe a little less than a .308. The Browning has a removable muzzle brake, and that helps.
The maple Browning (especially this one) really stands out. There were three rangemasters and one other shooter on the range the day I shot it. Everyone stopped what they were doing to look at the rifle. They thought it was a custom gun. This Browning X-Bolt is a beautiful firearm. And it shoots, too.
Never miss an ExNotes blog: Sign up here for free!
This was another blog with a daunting title challenge. I went with the one you see above. Other choices were “The 6.5 Creedmoor No. 1” and “Surfing While Under The Influence.” The story goes like this: A few years ago Ruger built a limited number of their elegant single-shot No. 1 rifles chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor. They were built exclusively for a Ruger distributor, and as is that distributor’s habit, they were fitted with 28-inch barrels (the normal barrel length for the beavertail fore end No. 1 Rugers is 26 inches). If you tell me a rifle is a limited edition you have my attention. Tell me it’s a Ruger No. 1 and I’m about 90% of the way there. If it has fancy walnut, you can hear the cash registor go “ka-ching.”
I’d been watching the Creedmoor No. 1 rifles on Gunbroker.com, but I didn’t see any with wood that caught my attention. Then one night I’d had a beer or two (okay, maybe it was four or five) and I was surfing the Gunbroker.com site, and this 6.5 Creedmoor No. 1 appeared:
The Ruger No. 1 first hit the market in the late 1960s, and it is about as classy a rifle as ever existed. It’s a real specialty item. Today the craze is all about black plastic semi-automatic rifles with big magazines; but none of that nuttiness has ever appealed to me. A single shot rifle, on the other hand, gets my attention immediately. They are just cool. There’s something inherently worthy about having to make that one shot count.
The 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge was developed specifically as a target round, and it’s been catching on for the last few years. It has the same trajectory as a .300 Winchester Magnum but with substantially less recoil, and everything I’ve read about the Creedmoor said it is inherently accurate.
So, back to my quest for a 6.5 Creedmoor No. 1. The price on Gunbroker seemed right, I hit the “buy now” button, and the rifle had a new owner. The next day I looked at the Gunbroker ad again, and something I had not noticed the night before caught my attention. It was listed with a 26-inch (not a 28-inch) barrel. Hmmm. So I did a bit more research. What I had purchased was a rifle from Ruger’s earlier run of 6.5 Creedmoor No. 1 rifles, which folks tell me is even harder to find than the more recent group of 28-inchers. Hmmm. A rare No. 1 in the chambering I wanted with beautiful wood. Sometimes you just get lucky.
When the rifle arrived, I bought an inexpensive Redfield scope, a set of Lee reloading dies, a box of 6.5mm bullets, and a bag of Starline brass. I only loaded two different loads, and I was off to the range. All the hype about the 6.5 Creedmoor’s inherent accuracy? Hey, I’m here to tell you that if you’re looking for an argument, I’m not your guy. My No. 1 convinced me that the 6.5 Creedmoor is indeed an accurate cartridge.
I loaded two different recipes with the 140-grain Speer jacketed softpoint bullets seated to an overall cartridge length of 2.700 inches, IMR 4350 powder, Winchester large rifle primers, and virgin Starline brass. At 100 yards, I fired five rounds with the above load using 38.5 grains of IMR 4350, and those five went into 2.272 inches. I was just getting warmed up. I then tried the same combo but with 39.5 grains of IMR 4350. The first three-shot group was 0.701 inches, and the second three-shot group was 0.978 inches. This was outstanding for the first outing. Maybe I just got lucky. But I don’t think so. I think that the 6.5 Creedmoor is everything folks say it is.
Last week I was on the range again with a different rifle, and good buddy Dan asked if I shot 6.5 Creedmoor. I do, I answered. It seems somebody shot a box or three of factory ammo and didn’t keep their brass. Dan wanted to know if I wanted it. Does the Pope poop in the woods? Is a bear Catholic? You bet, I answered. Any kind of brass is hard to come by these days. But 6.5 Creedmoor? For free? Like I said, sometimes you just get lucky.
6.5 Creedmoor brass in the vibratory cleaner. It’s looking good.6.5mm bullets in Speer and Nosler flavors. I only tried the Speer bullets so far. I’ll bet the Noslers are going to be more accurate.
I’ll keep you posted on 6.5 Creedmoor developments right here on the ExNotes blog. I’ll load more ammo this week and I’ll get on the range shortly after that. Stay tuned.
Help us keep the lights on…please click on the popup ads!
The .222 Remington, known as the triple deuce, is an inherently accurate cartridge. I have an old Savage 340 chambered for this cartridge and I’ve written about it before. The Savage was inexpensive and the stock was well worn (it was only $180 from a local shop used gun rack maybe 3 or 4 years ago). I bought it because I never had a triple deuce and I wanted a refinishing project.
The refinished Savage 340. Port, and…..starboard. It looks brand new. It’s at least 50 years old.
The Savage 340 was an economy rifle back in the day. I have a library of old Gun Digest books, and my 1956 Shooter’s Bible shows that it sold for $62.
The refinish, with TruOil, turned out well.Mine is a 340D. I think that means it was the Deluxe model.Note the cantilevered Weaver mount and the Bushnell 3×9 Banner (an el cheapo model if ever there was one) were included with the rifles’ $180 price at Turner’s.The detachable box magazine. The bluing is in excellent original condition on this rifle.
I recently bought an 8-pound bottle of XBR 8208 propellant (these days, you buy what’s available), and I wanted to see where the accuracy was with this propellant and 55-grain full metal jacket boat tail Hornady bullets. I use these bullets in my Mini 14, and I was pretty sure they would do well in the .222 Savage, too.
Loads for testing in the Savage.
The accuracy load for the Savage is 23.4 grains of XBR 8208. Not bad for $180, a little elbow grease, a little TruOil, and an hour on the range at 100 yards.
For a pencil weight barrel and a really screwy bedding approach, the Savage did very well.And another. You gotta love conistency.
The rifle could do better. The stock has a lot of drop at the heel and it is designed for the iron sights on the rifle. And that would be okay, but the Savage has a scope on it and I wanted to play with it. It’s difficult to get a consistent cheek weld because of the scope’s height and the stock’s drop (I’m shooting with my chin almost on the stock). I may cast about for one of those leather cheek pads that lace onto a rifle, or I may leave it as is.
This lightweight and accurate rifle would be a hoot chasing jackrabbits in west Texas, which is what I spent a lot of my earlier years doing. Maybe someday I’ll go back.
About those other links…here’s the series on refinishing the Savage:
Here’s what the best groups looked like:
