Guns – Page 20 – The ExhaustNotes Blog

The Model 52 Smith and Wesson

I’m a lucky guy. One of the Holy Grail pieces in my collection is a Model 52 Smith and Wesson. These guns were discontinued nearly 30 years ago and a lot of folks (myself included) consider them to be the finest handguns ever manufactured. I had always wanted one, and finally, after pestering a good friend relentlessly, he agreed to sell me his.

An impressive target handgun: The Smith and Wesson Model 52-2. It has one of the best triggers I’ve ever experienced.

The Model 52 was built as a no-compromise bullseye target handgun chambered for mid-range .38 Special wadcutter ammunition. What that means is that it’s not a duty weapon or a concealed carry weapon. It’s a full-sized, 5-inch-barreled, adjustable sights, tightly-clearanced handgun with but one objective in mind: Shooting tiny groups with wadcutter ammo.

The .38 Special cartridge has been around forever, and the target variant uses a wadcutter bullet. One of my friends saw these and commented that it was odd-looking ammo, and I guess if you’re not a gun nut it probably is. The bullets fit flush with the case mouth, and because of the sharp shoulder at the front of the bullet, they cut a clean hole in the target (hence the “wadcutter” designation).

.38 Special wadcutter ammo, reloaded on a Star reloading machine. The secret sauce (not so secret, actually) is a 148 grain wadcutter bullet seated flush and 2.7 grains of Bullseye propellant.

I love reloading .38 Special wadcutter ammo, especially now that I am doing so on my resurrected Star reloader. You can read about that here.

You can see the clean holes cut by the wadcutter bullets in the target below, and that’s a typical target for me when I’m on the range with the Model 52. What you see below is a target with 25 shots at 25 yards shot from the standing position.

25 rounds at 25 yards from the Model 52, all in the bullseye. I’m a ham-and-eggs pistolero; guys who are good can shoot much tighter groups.

Yeah, I know, 2 of the 25 shots were a bit low in the orange bullseye. A gnat landed on my front sight twice during the string of 25. (That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.)

That’s a Hornady hollow-base wadcutter on the left, and the Missouri Bullets cast double-ended wadcutter on the right. The HBWC is orientation sensitive; the DEWC is not.

Reloaded HBWC and DEWC cartridges, with two of the double-ended wadcutter bullets that show the wadcutter end (which faces forward in the cartridge) and the hollow base end. These HBWC projectiles are Hornady bullets.

Next question: Which is more accurate in the Model 52, the hollow-base wadcutters or the double-ended wadcutters? The two I tried are the Missouri cast double-ended wadcutter, and the Hornady swaged hollow-base wadcutter. Here’s what they look liked (with me behind the gun) on a set of 50-ft targets:

50-ft targets used for comparing DEWC bullets versus HBWC bullets. These targets are about one-fourth the size of the silhouette target shown above.

And here’s the group size data from the 16 five-shot groups I fired a couple of days ago (all dimensions are in inches). It was all focused on answering the question: Which is more accurate? Hollow-base wadcutters, or double-ended wadcutters?

The load was 2.7 grains of Bullseye, a CCI 500 primer, and mixed brass for all of the above groups. They were all shot at 50 feet. So, to answer the accuracy question, to me the difference is trivial (it’s less than a 1% difference when comparing hollow-base to double-ended wadcutter average groups). The standard deviation (a measure of the variability in the group size) was a little bigger for the hollow-base wadcutters, but the difference was probably a statistcal anomaly and it was more due to me, I think, than anything else.

Folks often wonder how the Smith and Wesson wizards managed to get a semi-auto to feed wadcutter ammo. It’s partly in the magazine design and partly in the ramping (but mostly in the magazine). The Model 52 magazine is designed to only hold 5 rounds, and if the bullet protrudes beyond the case mouth, it won’t fit into the magazine. The magazine holds the the top cartridge nearly perfectly in alignment with the chamber, and when the slide pushes the round forward, it glides right in. It will even do so with an empty case, as the video below shows.

The Model 52 was first introduced by Smith and Wesson in 1961. It was based on Smith’s 9mm Model 39, but it had a steel frame (instead of an aluminum frame, although Smith also made a small number of Model 39s with steel frames), a 5-inch barrel (instead of the 39’s 4-inch barrel), and target-grade sights adjustable for windage and elevation (instead of the 39’s windage-adjustable-only sights). The original Model 52 had the Model 39’s double action first shot capability, although I’ve never seen a no-dash Model 52. In 1963 Smith incorporated a better single-action-only trigger and the 52 became the 52-1, and then in 1970 it became the 52-2 when Smith incorporated a better extractor. Mine is the 52-2.

I was lucky…when my friend sold the Model 52 to me, he had the complete package: The original blue Smith and Wesson box, the paperwork that came with the new gun, and all of the tools and accessories (including the barrel bushing wrench).

You might be wondering: Which is more accurate? The Model 52 Smith and Wesson, or the new Colt Python? They are both fine and accurate handguns, but in my hands and after coming back from good buddy TJ and TJ’s Custom Gunworks with a crisp single-action trigger, the Python gets top billing in the accuracy department. You can read about the Python’s accuracy with wadcutter .38 Special ammo here.

Never miss any of our ExNotes blogs on guns, bicycles, motorcycles, construction equipment, product reviews, and all the rest. Subscribe for free here!

More Tales of the Gun? You bet!

Click on those popup ads!

The Rimfire Series: A .22 Colt Trooper Mk III

Take a look at this: A Colt Trooper Mk III chambered in .22 Long Rifle, an interesting and extremely accurate revolver. I picked it up maybe 30 years ago in a local gun store. The revolver was in their display case on the lower shelf and I almost didn’t see it. I wasn’t in the market, but when I saw the Trooper it grabbed my attention. It was marked $225, I offered $200, the guy on the other side of the counter said okay, and the Trooper was mine.

Deep bluing, crisp lockwork, and color case hardening on the hammer. It makes for a good-looking revolver. This one wears custom handgrips.

I didn’t realize it at the time, but the little Trooper is a phenomenally accurate handgun, maybe one of the most accurate I’ve ever shot. It groups as well as a Model 41 Smith and Wesson, a target handgun with maybe twice the sight radius.

The Trooper is based on a Colt that was originally a .38 Special, then it was chambered for the .357 Magnum, then it was redesigned as the Trooper Mk III, and then it was offered in .22. That was a thing back in the ’60s and ’70s, you know, offering full-sized revolvers but in .22, and it was a good thing. These are awesome target guns, relatively inexpensive to shoot, and just plain fun. And heavy. The Trooper kept the same external envelope (i.e., the exterior dimensions) as the far-more-powerful .357 Magnum Trooper, and that means there’s a lot more steel in the barrel and the cylinder.

I bought my Trooper used, but it is in as new condition. It came with the original lighter colored (and checkered) walnut grips, but I saw the grips you see the revolver wearing in these photos about 15 years ago and I had to have them. The smooth grips look good and the medallions imply the gun went throught the Colt Custom Shop (it did not), but truth be told, the original grips offer a better hold and they fit the revolver better.

The grips say Colt Custom, but my Trooper was a regular production gun. The build standards were way higher back in the day.

One of these days I’ll get around to hogging out the interior of the custom grips and fitting them to the Trooper with AcraGlas, but that’s a project for the future. Or, I may put the original grips back on the gun (they’re around here somewhere).

The Troopers were available with a 4-inch barrel (like mine), a 6-inch barrel, or an 8-inch barrel, and they could be had with a high polish blue (like mine), a high-polish nickel, or a brushed nickel finish. If I knew then what I know now I would have purchased a matching blue steel Trooper Mk III in .357 Magnum. They were around $200 back in the day, and like my .22, the .357 would have been a sound investment. These guns go for five to eight times that amount today. You could argue that they make for a good investment, but that implies flipping the gun to realize the profit, and that’s not going to happen. I’ll keep this one forever.

You know, it’s hard to find new guns built to these same standards as regular service guns were 30 or more years ago. When I look at the deep bluing on my Trooper, that’s pretty obvious. The new Colt Python is one that rivals the Trooper for build quality, but it’s the exception.

Join our Milsurp Target Shooting group!

Click on the popup ads and help us keep the lights on!

Never miss an ExNotes blog!

Need targets? Order them the way we do and have them delivered to your door!

Check out our Tales of the Gun page!

A TJ Trigger for My New Python

As I mentioned in a recent blog, good buddy TJ (of TJ’s Custom Gunworks) reworked the trigger on my Colt Python. The original single action trigger had a lot of creep, it was heavy, and what surprised me most of all was that it actually cocked the hammer another few degrees before it released. I was getting a little double action when firing single action.

That bothered me enough to call my contact at Colt Manufacturing, and I think he was surprised when heard about it, too. He checked with his engineering department, and the word came back: They had to do that to meet the California and Massachusetts drop test requirements. I checked the California regulation and it requires dropping a loaded, cocked revolver from a height of 1 meter six times on a concrete surface without the gun firing inadvertently. Think about that. Dropping a loaded and cocked revolver, a .357 Magnum, onto a concrete floor. Six times.

Me? I’m going with an alternative approach. I’m not going to drop my loaded, cocked, .357 Magnum revolver on a concrete surface even once. It’s kind of a common sense approach, one that the politicians in California and Massachusetts apparently think we can’t be trusted to take.

A loaded revolver. Cocked. Dropped. Six times. Onto a concrete floor. What were they thinking?

I’m not one to to argue Darwinism versus Divine Creation (we don’t do politics or religion here on ExNotes), but here’s a thought. Maybe someone who drops a cocked, loaded, .357 Magnum revolver on a concrete surface six times, well, maybe Darwin was on to something. Maybe that person needs to be culled from the gene pool. Before you get your shorts in a knot, though, remember my preface: It’s just a thought.

Anyway, back to the main attraction, and that’s the trigger job TJ did on the new Python. TJ took photos of the Python’s internals (the complete parts interface is shown above in the large photo). The photo below shows what was causing the trigger creep and the hammer movement during a single action trigger pull:

That’s the hammer on the left, and the trigger on the right. You’ll notice that the hammer’s sear area (denoted by the red arrows) is kind of rough and it contains a hooked ledge of sorts. That’s what was rotating the hammer back a few more degrees when the trigger was actuated in the single action mode.

TJ modified the sear to eliminate the hooked ledge and create the angles and surface finish the Python trigger-to-hammer interface deserves. That’s what you see below.

Before he improved the sear interface, the Python’s double action trigger pull was 9 1/2 lbs; it is now 9 lbs. The single action trigger pull was a very creepy 5 1/2 lbs; now there is no perceptible trigger or hammer movement before the hammer is released and the trigger breaks at a very clean 2 1/4 lbs. The upgrade completely changes the character of the new Python. I can’t imaging anyone buying a Python and not wanting to have the trigger cleaned up in this manner. TJ is the guy to do it.

The next big question is: Did the new trigger a make a difference in how the Python performed? Hey, you tell me. Here are two 5-shot groups shot at 50 feet with the improved trigger:

Those two groups were shot with my go-to .38 Special target load (a 148-grain wadcutter and 2.7 grains of Bullseye prepared on my Star reloader). The group on the left measures 0.680 inches; the one on the right measures 0.830 inches. Some of the .357 Magnum loads performed just as well. I’ll share all my Python load testing results in a near-term future blog. I didn’t adjust the sights during my load testing because I’d be moving them with each new load; I’ll zero the gun when I’ve selected the load I want for the Python. I am a happy camper; these are phenomenally good results.

You might be wondering about now why you’d need a trigger job on a $1500 handgun. Folks, this isn’t Colt’s fault. They’re doing what they have to in order to meet a requirement imposed by people who don’t understand what they are doing. Don’t get upset with Colt. Do the right thing and vote.

If you have a Python and you’re not happy with the trigger, take a look at TJ’s Custom Gunworks and drop TJ a note. Trust me on this: You’ll be glad you did.

More Tales of the Gun!

Never miss an ExNotes blog!

More gun porn? Check this out!

An Urban Camo SIG 239 (and a quick Python update)

When I recently visited good buddy and custom gunsmith TJ of TJ’s Custom Gunworks to discuss a trigger job on my new Colt Python, I noticed a custom SIG P220 in .45 ACP in his shop. The SIG had a very unusual finish. The trigger work was incredible, with as crisp a single action trigger pull as any I have ever felt. I’m hoping the Python’s will be as good after TJ works his magic on it (jumping ahead, it is, and that will be in a future blog). I asked TJ about the SIG, and in particular, if I could share it with our blog readers. Here’s what TJ told me:

I haven’t taken photos of my urban camo P220 yet; I’ll do that over the weekend. Here are some photos of his little brother, the P239, in .40 S&W.

The camo finish is a 6-layer process. I did a full LEVEL 1 package on it, and since it was already DAO (Joe’s note: That’s double action only) I did a full bob on the hammer, slightly lifted the slide catch, melted the edges and corners, satin polished the barrel and extractor, applied orange DayGlo on the front sight, installed camo Duracoat on the Hogue rubber grips, and I fitted my TJ hex head grip screws. I can email you more details of what I did if you need it over the weekend.

These are the photos TJ sent. The first one is the 239 SIG as TJ acquired it, the next one is one of the steps in the camo application process, and the last two or three are the finished gun.

This TJ-customized SIG 239 sure is impressive. It’s in a powerful chambering, it’s compact, all of TJ’s customs are super reliable, and the gun just has a cool look. Whoever ends up owning it is going to have one hell of a handgun. TJ tells me he’s going to be listing the gun you see here on Gunbroker in the near future (at a price that seemed to me to be way too low).

If you’ve ever thought about having a custom handgun built to your specifications, TJ is the guy you want to talk to. One of the gun magazines described TJ’s work as “duty jewelry you can wear.” That sounds accurate. You don’t have to be here to use his services; most of TJ’s work is for folks in other states. Take a few minutes and check out the photos of prior TJ custom handguns on the TJ’s Custom Gunworks website.

Never miss an ExNotes blog!

A quick note: The Python is back from TJ now and the trigger is superb. The double action went from 9 1/2 to 9 lbs and it is much smoother. The single action trigger went from 5 1/2 lbs (with a lot of creep) to a what I would call a breaking glass, creep-free 2 1/4 lbs. It feels better and I am seeing an immediate improvement on target. If you own a Colt Python, trust me on this: You need a TJ trigger job on yours. It completely changes the character of the revolver. Watch for an upcoming blog on the new Python with its improved trigger.

Help us keep the lights on: Please visit our popup ads and our sponsors!

The 2021 MacManus Award

Last year I wrote about the MacManus Award, a program I helped revive with the Rutgers University Reserve Officer Training Corps. Captain Colin D. MacManus was a US Army Infantry officer and an Airborne Ranger who graduated from Rutgers in 1963. Captain MacManus was killed in action in Vietnam in February 1967 and posthumously awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in action.

US Army Captain Colin D. MacManus, Rutgers University ’63.

To commemorate Captain MacManus’ life, each year the MacManus family awarded a .45 Auto to the graduating senior who held his Rutgers Corps of Cadets assignment, and in 1973, that was me. The award was a very big deal to me in 1973, and it’s still a big deal to me today. I still shoot my MacManus .45 regularly.

My first handgun: The Colin D. MacManus 1911 and a couple of 5-shot, 25-yard hand held groups I fired with it. I had it accurized in the 1970s, and it is still a tack driver.

The MacManus award fell away a few years after I graduated, but we were successful in restarting it in 2020. The young man who won the MacManus award last year communicates with me regularly. He’s now a US Army Infantry lieutenant going through the Ranger School at Fort Benning Georgia. Good people, these are.

My good buddy at Rutgers, Colonel Javier Cortez, selected the top cadet at Rutgers for the 2021 graduating class, and I’m happy to report that this year’s honoree will receive his 1911 from the Colt company (last year’s award was a Springfield Armory 1911, another fine handgun). This year’s Colt is the Classic Government Model just like you see in the photo at the top of this blog, and Colt is putting some special touches on it through their Custom Shop. That’s the same Colt model I was awarded in 1973, I’ve put a few tons of lead through it since then (230 grains at a time), and my Colt is still going strong.

Because of the pandemic, there was no award ceremony last year. We’re doing the award ceremony via Zoom this year, and I’m looking forward to it. If you would like to read more about MacManus award and its revival last year, you can get to it via this link:

The Colin D. MacManus Award

This is good stuff, folks, and I am delighted to be associated with the effort. These are fine young men we are honoring. I’m proud of them, and I know you are, too.

Keep up with all the good ExhaustNotes stories!

IMR 4166: A quick look

Necessity is the mother of invention, or something like that. When I heard that IMR 4320 was discontinued (on top of the ammo and components shortage), I was not a happy camper. IMR 4320 was my go to powder for several cartridges, and now what I have left is all there is (and it’s almost gone). But it really doesn’t matter, because we can’t hardly find propellants of any flavor. That notwithstanding, I made the trek to my local components supplier a couple of weeks ago, and he had only three propellants left: IMR 4166, 8208, and BLC2. I’ve never used any of these, although I had heard of Ballsy 2. The 4166 seemed interesting…it matched my motorcycle jacket, but none of my reloading manuals had any data for it (it’s that new). I bought all three.

I went online and found data published by the manufacturer, so I worked with that for my 30 06. IMR 4166 is an extruded stick powder. It will flow through a dispenser, but the dispenser throw variability was about 0.2 grain, and that’s enough when loading for rifle accuracy that I’ll weigh every charge with my scale and trickle it in with my RCBS powder trickler.N Would 0.2 grains make an accuracy difference? I don’t know (and someday I’ll test to find out). I suspect not, but weighing every charge only takes a few seconds more, and it seems like the right thing to do.

IMR 4166 is a stick powder that looks like any other stick powder. It’s in a powder trickler in this photo. Yeah, I weigh the powder for every cartridge.

On the IMR website, it said that Enduron IMR 4166 is one of a new class of propellant that offers four adventages:

Copper fouling reduction. These powders contain an additive that drastically reduces copper fouling in the gun barrel. Copper fouling should be minimal, allowing shooters to spend more time shooting and less time cleaning a rifle to retain accuracy. Hmm, that might be interesting. We’ll see how it does, I thought to myself as I read this.

Temperature change stability. The Enduron line is insensitive to temperature changes. Whether a rifle is sighted in during the heat of summer, hunted in a November snowstorm or hunting multiple locations with drastic temperature swings, point of impact with ammunition loaded with Enduron technology will be very consistent. In the old days, I might have dismissed this as a solution looking for a problem, but I’ve experienced what can happen in a temperature sensitive powder. I had a max load for my 7mm Weatherby that was fairly accurate that I took out to the range one day when it was 107 degreees. I fired one shot and had great difficulty getting the bolt open. It’s a real issue if you develop a load at one temperature and then shoot it at an elevated temperature. If IMR 4166 is free from that characteristic, that’s a good thing.

Optimal load density. Enduron powders provide optimal load density, assisting in maintaining low standard deviations in velocity and pressure, a key feature for top accuracy. Eh, we’ll see how it does on paper. I have some loads that are low density (i.e., they occupy well under 100% of the case volume) and they shoot superbly well. I’m interested in how the load groups. The target doesn’t give extra credit if an inaccurate load has a low standard deviation.

Environmentally friendly. Enduron technology is environmentally friendly, crafted using raw materials that are not harmful to the environment. Okay, Al Gore. Gotcha. Now go back to inventing the Internet.

My test bed for the new powder would be a Model 700 Euro in 30 06, a 27-year-old rifle I bought new about 10 years ago. I had just refinished it with TruOil and glass bedded the action (a story a future blog, to be sure), and I hung a cheapie straight 4X Bushnell scope just to get a feel for how everything might perform.

The Model 700 Euro had a tung oil finish. The rifle was only offered in 1993 and 1994. The tung finish didn’t do it for me, so I did my usual TruOil finish. That’s an old Bushnell 4X economy scope up top.

My load was to be a 180-grain Remington Core-Lokt jacketed soft point bullet and 47 grains of the IMR 4166, all lit off by a CCI 200 primer. If you’re interested, I was using Remington brass, too. The cartridges were not crimped.

Loaded 30 06 ammo with the Remington 180-grain jacketed soft point bullet.

Wow, those 180-grain bullets pack a punch. Recoil was fierce, and I probably felt it more because the Model 700 doesn’t have a recoil pad.

Okay, that’s enough about my heroics. Let’s take a quick look at how the propellant performed. With regard to the reduction in copper fouling claim, I’d have to say that’s an accurate claim. After 20 rounds (the very first through this rifle), I ran a single patch with Hoppes No. 9 though the bore, followed by a clean patch, just to remove the powder fouling. There was a very modest amount of copper fouling, way less than I would have seen with any other propellant. Ordinarily, at this point in the cleaning process (i.e., removing the soot) I would normally see a bright copper accent on top of each land. With 4166, there was only a minimal amount of copper present (as you can see below). After a second patch with Hoppes No. 9, the copper was gone. I guess this copper fouling eliminator business is the real deal.

This is a brand new rifle even though it’s nearly 30 years old. Check out the machinings inside the bore. Remington, for shame!

With regard to accuracy, 4166 has potential. I shot five targets that afternoon, and this was the best. It’s a 0.590-inch group at 100 yards, and that ain’t too shabby.

Sometimes you just get lucky. Other times you rely on careful load development, glass bedding, and a steady trigger squeeze.

The bottom line for me is that IMR 4166 is a viable powder. Now, like everyone else, I need to find more. That’s going to be a challenge. But at least I know that my IMR 4320 has a decent replacement.

Two .44 caliber 1858 Remington New Model Army Revolvers

This is a guest blog by good buddy Jose, and it compares two modern Italian reproductions of the famed .44 caliber 1858 Remington New Model Army revolver. One is manufactured by A. Uberti S.p.A. (it’s the one on top in the big photo above); the other is by F.LLI Pietta (the revolver on the bottom). Here’s another shot of the two:

The Uberti in on top right, the Pietta is on lower left.

The 1858 Remington New Model Army was a competitor to Colt’s blackpowder percussion sidearm. The Army went with both versions but primarily bought the Colt (it was 50 cents cheaper than the Remington). Then the Colt factory had a fire in 1864. At that point, the Army starting buying Remingtons in quantity. The Remington was considered to be the stronger revolver because it has a top strap over the cylinder (the Colt does not), and some folks feel the Remington is easier to aim because the rear sight is cut into the frame (instead of the hammer, as on the Colt). And there are other advantages to the Remington, which Jose covers. With that as a background, here’s Jose’s article on the modern Uberti and Pietta reproductions. All photos in this blog are by Jose.

Help us publish: Please click on the popup ads!

If you’ve never fired a percussion revolver you’re really missing out on huge part of firearms history. But maybe you didn’t know that even here in California you can order one of these fine blackpowder revolvers online or over the phone with a credit card and have it shipped to your doorstep without background check or going through an FFL. Your state rules may vary.

Cap and ball packpowder sidearms were a huge part of arms on both sides during the American Civil War. The Union Army had a contract for the Colt 1860 Army, but when Colt could not keep up with demand Remington Model 1858’s were ordered. Many troops preferred the Remington over the Colt for a number of reasons. The Remington has a top strap making it stronger, and the Colt was prone to having loose percussion caps jam the cylinder.

Uberti 1858 Remington Revolver

I’ve had the Uberti for about 10 years. It’s an awesome piece of fine craftsmanship. There is nothing cheap about this revolver, the fit and finish are supurb. The cylinder and barrel are a deep blue, the steel frame is color case hardened, and the trigger guard is polished brass, ans walnut stocks, giving it a very classy look. The gun is a six shot .44 cal, rifled 8-inch barrel with 1:18 LH twist, and weighs in at 2.7 pounds.

454 cal pure lead balls, Remington #10 percussion caps, waxed felt wads, and the Uberti 1858 New Army.

Powder measure, balls, waxed felt wads, and caps.

I use .454-inch diameter balls cast from pure soft lead (stick on wheel weights or plumbers lead, BRN 7) weighing in at 143 grains. It fires best when loaded with 35 grains of FFF blackpowder (I don’t like substitute synthetics), a felt pad soaked in bore butter over the powder, and the ball over the top. The felt over the powder charge prevents a chain fire from jumping between cylinders, and also adds some lube to the barrel between rounds helping prevent a buildup of powder. Either Remington or CCI #10 percussion caps provide the spark.

The color case hardened steel frame on this model Uberti is off set nicely by its polished brass trigger guard.

The loading lever on the Remington 1858 is used to ram the ball into each cylinder, after loading powder and waxed wad. The percussion caps are placed on the cylinder nipples only after all cylinders have been loaded.

The cylinder doesn’t require removal between loadings, only for cleaning.

The Uberti is very well balanced and feels good in the hand. The cylinder locks up very tightly. There are noches between the cylinder nipples to rest the hammer on making it safe to carry with all six cylinders loaded. The rear sight is a V-notch on the top strap, unlike the Colt 1860 which has the notch on the hammer because the 1860 lacks a top strap. It’s no exaggeration that out to 40 yards my the Uberti 1858 holds about as tight a group as my Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 mag!

The Remington 1858 has a top strap over the cylinder making it stronger than the Colt 1860 and older firearms. It also allows for placement of a stable V-notch rear sight as opposed to the Colt’s rear site which is a simple notch filed on the back of the hammer.

Nice sight picture. This Uberti has a 1:18 barrel groove twist and holds groups as tight as my Ruger Super Blackhawk out to about 40 yards.

Properly cleaning and blackpowder revolver after a day in the field is a good exercise in gunsmithing. The revolver should be entirely disassembled, down to the Springs, removing hammer from the frame, cylinder pin, loading lever, trigger, mainspring, nipples from the cylinder – everything except for removing the barrel from the frame and front sight.

The notchs between the nipples are for the hammer to rest, allowing the six-gun to be safely carried with all cylinders loaded.

A good set of gunsmithing drivers and properly fittjng nipple wrench are mandatory to keep from damaging the screws. Owning a blackpowder revolver will help anyone gain confidence to start Barking simple dunsmithing repairs and parts replacements on other types of firearms. If you don’t already have a blackpowder gun order one today! They are a blast.

Pietta 1858 Remington Revolver

This one was recently purchased because the price was right. It looks like it has never been fired, and I’ve not fired it yet, either. The specs are essentially the same as the Uberti; however, the claimed weight of the Pietta is only 2.4 pounds compared to Uberti’s 2.7 pounds. For whatever reason the Uberti feels much lighter and more well balanced. The Pietta is noticeably front heavy. The Pietta has a little play at cylinder lockup. The hammer pull and trigger feel smooth and crisp, similar to the Uberti.

The Pietta, another quality Italian replica in a slightly lower price range.

The really nice thing about the Pietta is that it came with an optional .45 Colt conversion cylinder. I’ve always wanted to get a conversion cylinder for my Uberti but they are very expensive, about 2/3 what I paid for the gun, and they always seem to be out of stock.

This Pietta came with a .45 Colt conversion cylinder.

The conversion cylinder has an upper plate that holds a separate firing pin for each cylinder.

The conversion cylinder for the Pietta fits very nice, locks up tightly, and came with a box and a half of .45 Colt ammo which I have no intentions of using. Remington first started converting Model 1858 revolvers to .46 cal rimfire metallc cartridges in 1868. These were still blackpowder cartridges as smokless powder hadn’t yet been developed. So I will hand load .45 cartridges for the Pietta using blackpowder to stay traditional.

I’m looking forward to shooting these two together on a side-by-side comparison soon. For now, I hope you enjoy the photos.

That’s an awesome article, Jose. Thanks very much for sharing it with us here on the ExNotes blog.

I asked Jose to tell us a bit about himself, and he did. Jose is a geologist, an offroad racer, a fly fisherman, an upland game hunter, a handloader, and he likes to teach outdoor sports to young people. He lives on the banks of the Henry’s Fork River in Idaho in the spring and summer months and he spends the winter months in Big Bear Lake, California. Most of Jose’s offroad racing adventures are in Baja. Jose’s other hobbies include taekwando, and cumbia and bachata dancing. An interesting man, to be sure!

Never miss an ExNotes blog. Subscribe here for free!

A place to start for all your black powder accessories is right here!

Hit those popup ads!

Colt’s New Python Range Tested

The Colt Python is an iconic handgun that stands out as the pinnacle of the gunmaker’s art. They were originally offered by Colt as their premier .357 Magnum revolver in a run that spanned decades and offered several variants: Blue steel, nickel-plated steel, brushed stainless steel, bright stainless steel, and barrel lengths of 2 1/2, 4, 6, and 8 inches. For a brief period, they even offered one chambered in .38 Special only. That all ended a few years ago when the revolver market subsided and black plastic, semi-auto 9mm gangbanger guns held sideways took over the silver screen (there’s absolutely no accounting for some folks’ taste, I guess). Then, in a surprise move, Colt introduced a re-engineered Python last year, in stainless steel only, with either a 4 1/4-inch or 6-inch barrel. I had to have one, and about a month ago, I scratched that itch.

The new Python carries a hefty $1499 price tag and they are just about impossible to find. And when you do see one, it is always substantially above MSRP. I don’t see the prices coming down on these guns, either. The original Pythons sell for $3K or more (mostly more), and with guns in high demand now and for the forseeable future, I think you’ll always always be able to get your money out of a Python if you ever wanted to sell it. I don’t see the prices going anywhere but up, and like I said, it is near-impossible to find a new Colt Python. But I know people in high places, I got a hell of a deal on my Python, and I am enjoying it enormously. Just looking at it is fun.

I went to my gun club a few days ago to shoot the new Python for the first time, and in a word, it was spectacular. I’ll get to that in a second.

My Python has a 6-inch ventilated rib barrel. The revolver is polished stainless steel and it looks great. The roll marks on the new Python are very similar to the original Pythons. Very classy, in my opinion.

One of the reasons Colt stopped making the original Pythons a few years ago is they were too expensive to manufacture, as they required too much hand fitting of the revolver’s internal components. Colt’s re-engineering effort made all but one internal part capable of being CNC-machined to final dimensions, and in the modern Python hand-fitting is required for only one component. What that did was dramatically improve the double action trigger pull, and somewhat degrade the single action trigger pull. The double action trigger is short and sweet, and the hammer travel is only about half what it used to be. The single action trigger pull is, well, different. Read on, my friends.

Help us keep the content coming: Please click on the popup ads!

Single action, by design on the new Python, has a some take-up and you can actually see the hammer move a little further to the rear when you squeeze the trigger shooting single action. Think of it as a single action trigger that adds a little bit of double action to the dance before it releases the hammer.

I thought there was something wrong with the revolver, but my contact at Colt told me the new Pythons were designed that way to meet the California and Massachusetts drop test requirements. It is definitely not a “breaking glass” single action trigger; it’s closer to pulling the trigger on a Glock (that’s not intended to be a compliment). Double action, though, is absolutely outstanding. It’s a shorter pull than any other double action revolver I’ve ever fired and I like it. I suppose some people might think it’s a good thing that the gun meets the drop test requirements of left-leaning governments. Me? I’d go with Door No. 1 and refrain from dropping my loaded $1499 revolver.

Anyway, the single-action trigger threw me for a loop, but I adjusted to it quickly during a dry firing session. I don’t notice it anymore, and as you’ll see below, it sure hasn’t hurt accuracy.

Fit and finish on the new Python are top notch. You can see that in the photos on this blog, which I shot during and after an extended range session. I probably should have taken pictures before I fired the new Python (when the gun was factory immaculate), but hey, it is what it is.

The new Python has a red ramp front sight, which I like. There is no white outline rear sight (it’s plain black). The combination works well, as the targets you see here show. The Python also has a recessed crown, unlike the original one, which was flush. The recessed crown better protects the bore.

My first shots were 50 rounds I put through the gun using my standard .38 Special target load (2.7 grains of Bullseye and a 148 gr wadcutter, loaded on my Star reloader), all fired single action. I shot from the 50-foot line and it was windy as hell. I had to stop a few times to walk downrange and add more staples to the target because it was starting to come loose, and the target stand was swaying toward and away from me as the wind rocked it. I was shooting, literally, at a moving target.

A complete box of .38 Special wadcutter ammo…50 rounds fired at 50 feet firing single action. All those extra staples were needed to keep the wind from tearing the target off the stand.

I was surprised (and pleased) at how stunningly accurate the new Python is. I hadn’t touched the sights, and it was punching holes right where I wanted right out of the box. It put an entire box of ammo into the bullseye with a standard 6:00 hold and the sights left as they came from the factory. That’s a first for me, and I’ve been doing this a long time. The bottom line: The new Python is accurate.

.38 Special ammo loaded with 148-grain wadcutter bullets. The bullet’s “wadcutter” nose profile cuts a clean hole in the target. I used mixed brass shooting the new Python for the first time.

Then I shot another box of 50 cartridges (using the same .38 Special target load I used for the target above), but this time shooting double action. Let me make the point again: These two boxes were the first time I ever fired the new Python. Here’s my second 50 rounds on the target, fired double action.

Another 50 rounds at 50 feet, this time shooting double action. Not too shabby, if I do say so myself. The new Python’s double action trigger is superb.

Eh, one shot went out of the bullseye (it’s that one in the 9-ring, just outside the 10-ring, on the right). Like I said, it was windy out there. But still, for me, this was phenomenal double action shooting. It’s the best I’ve ever done shooting double action, actually.

Then I thought I’d try two 5-shot groups on the 50 foot standard pistol target with .357 ammo (all targets shown here were shot at 50 feet). As you know, a .357 Magnum handgun can shoot either .357 Mag ammo or .38 Special ammo. I brought along some of my standard 357 Magnum reloads (15.7 grains of Winchester 296 powder and a 158 grain Hornady jacketed hollow point bullet). This is a load I’ve been using since my Army days and it does well in any .357 Magnum revolver I’ve ever owned. It came from the pamphlet Winchester published in the 1970s for their powders. It performed superbly well in the new Python.

.357 Magnum shots at 50-foot targets. Point of aim was 6:00 for all shots. Bring it on…fire and brimstone…the new Python handles full power .357 Magnum loads well.

It’s easy to forget how powerful the .357 Magnum cartridge is unless you fire it back-to-back with the .38 Special. The .38 Special is a very manageable cartridge with moderate recoil, especially in a big, heavy, 6-inch handgun like the new Python. When I shot the .357 Magnum loads, I was instantly reminded that the .357 is a real barn burner. Think big recoil and lots of muzzle flash and blast. It was cool, and the big Python handled full power magnum loads well.

As I already mentioned, it was very windy and gusty on the range (two tractor trailers were on their side on I-15 when I drove out to the club). I was the only guy out there (I’m probably the first guy to visit our range with the new Python, too). On a calm day, I’m sure I could do better than the targets you see above.

I finished up another box of .38 Specials shooting 158 gr cast flatpoint Hursman bullets (also loaded with 2.7 gr of Bullseye), shooting at one of those green star target things you throw on the ground (my daughter bought it for me a few years ago and I think the thing is going to last forever). I walked it out to 50 yards with repeated hits, and I’ll bet I didn’t miss but two or three times out of 40 or so rounds.

There were no malfunctions of any kind in the approximately 150 rounds I fired through the new Python. No light strikes, no misfires, and no jams. And like I’ve been saying, accuracy was stellar. It’s almost like the new Python is laser guided.

A prancing pony…the rampant Colt logo that has adorned Colt firearms for more than a century and a half. Long may it live!

You know, there’s an old saying: You get what you pay for. To that, I would add the qualifier: Sometimes. In the case of the new Colt Python, this is one of those times. I love the new Python. It’s an iconic firearm and if you are thinking about getting one, my advice is this: Do so. You won’t be disappointed.

You can see our earlier blog on good buddy Python Pete’s 8-inch, original Colt Python here. And please check out our other Tales of the Gun stories here.

Never miss an ExNotes blog!

Need targets? Order them the way we do and have them delivered to your door!

Want to load your own ammo? Here’s a good place to get started in the reloading game!

Check out our resurrected Star reloader for prepping high-quality .38 Special ammo!

Want to see more on .38 Special and .357 Magnum accuracy loads in a Ruger Blackhawk? Check this out!

Keep us afloat: Please hit those popup ads!

Ruger’s Custom Shop Super GP100

Colt has a custom shop, Remington has a custom shop, Winchester had a custom shop, Savage has a custom shop, Springfield Armory has a custom shop, CZ has a custom shop, and Smith and Wesson has a custom shop. It seemed Ruger was the only one of the big players that didn’t have a custom shop.

That’s changed. Ruger recently announced that they, too, now have a custom shop, except they do things differently. Rather than taking orders for custom features on their regular line of firearms, Ruger’s approach is to produce limited numbers of highly-customized guns. Stated differently, Ruger picks the features they want to add to their custom guns; your choice is to purchase it (or not). It’s not a bad way to go.

Note the new Super GP100’s dark PVD finish, the green fiber optic sight, the slotted barrel shroud, and other custom touches.

Ruger’s two most recent custom shop models are revolvers they call the Super GP100; one chambered in 9mm and the other chambered in .357 Magnum. These revolvers have a number of custom features, including a shrouded and vented barrel, 8-shot capacity and the ability to use star clips for speedy reloads, radically-fluted cylinder (I like the look), PVD (that’s physical vapor deposition) finish, polished and slicked up trigger and internal componentry, oversized Hogue hardwood grip, an 11-degree barrel crown (that’s supposed to enhance accuracy), and a fiber-optic front sight (never had one of those before; I’m eager to see if it really does anything for me).

Befitting its custom status, the Ruger Super GP100 comes with a higher-quality carrying case.

The Super GP is offered in two chamberings: .357 Magnum and 9mm Parabellum. The 9mm version is not approved here in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia. That’s probably okay, as I would go for the .357 if given the choice. But that’s not a choice that’s going to be offered any time soon. Read on, and you’ll see what I mean.

The 9mm version of Ruger’s new Super GP100 revolver. It looks good. Note the shorter cylinder.

I like the way Ruger handled the 9mm Super GP100. The cylinder is shorter to match the 9mm cartridge, and the barrel extends back into the frame. This means the 9mm bullet has less of a jump to the rifling in the barrel, which should improve accuracy. It’s the same thing Smith and Wesson does on its .45 ACP revolvers.

Ruger doesn’t stock these guns. True to the custom shop concept, Ruger builds them as orders are taken. But it wouldn’t do any good to order one now, unless you just want to get a place in line. Due to the press of handgun orders induced by the election, the pandemic, and the recent civil rioting in major US cities, Ruger has its workforce focused elsewhere on meeting the unprecedented demand for its standard guns. As an aside, it’s tough to buy ammo right now, too, for the same reasons. That’s not bothering me, as I reload on my RCBS reloading gear and I’m well stocked.

I’m in the market for a .357 Mag revolver, but I’ll probably go with a more traditional handgun. Maybe a .357 Blackhawk or a S&W Model 27. I’ll keep you posted.

Revolvers, rifles, reloading, and more…check out our Tales of the Gun page!

A Tale of Two 300 H&H Magnums

I had the 300 H&H Mags out last week, and when reloading the brass from that range session, I noticed a bright ring around some of them about a quarter inch above the belt. I did the inside-the-case check with a bent paper clip and sure enough, I could feel the sharp step of the brass thinning. Uh oh. Impending case separations. I had reloaded this brass once too often.

Case separations are caused by case stretching, which progresses each time you reload a cartridge. You can check for impending separations by examining the cases closely (you’ll see a bright ring, maybe evidence of gas escaping, or maybe even the beginnings of a crack above the case head). You can also make a tool from a paper clip to feel for a circumferential notch inside the case. That’s what I do, and I could feel the notch on these cases. They were at the end of their useful life.

I don’t know how many times I had reloaded these cases (maybe something like 3 to 5 times?), but rather than risk an impending case separation, I tossed the brass (all 50 pieces). It felt like a crime against nature, but it was necessary. I had two more boxes of 300 H&H brass (100 rounds) tucked away, so that will be the next lot that I load. I had tumbled the old brass for several hours, and maybe that was a good thing because it let me see the warning signs and the faint beginnings of circumferential cracks. Time to move on and start with fresh brass.

Evidence of a escaping gas on a fired 300 H&H Magnum case. The “belt” is the larger diameter just above the case base.

A classic impending case separation. You can see that the case has already started to crack. This would separate if I loaded and fired it again.

When I started this blog, I didn’t intend for it to be another reloading tutorial, but here we are anyway. Let’s get back on the two 300 H&H Magnums. I guess to start, allow me to tell you a bit about the magnificent and classic 300 H&H cartridge. It goes back to shortly after World War I, when the venerable English firm of Holland and Holland introduced it as an African plains game cartridge. I know, I’m coming across as snooty, and to tell the truth, I’m not entirely certain what “venerable” means. But it sounds like it fits.

300 H&H reloads. I use 150 gr Winchester bullets I bought about 6 years ago. I got a good deal on those bullets and I bought about 700 or so. I should have bought more, as I can’t find them anywhere online. I think I have about 200 or 300 left. You can see a bright circumferential ring above the case base on the lower cartridge, warning that this brass was past its useful life.

The 300 H&H was the absolute hottest .30 caliber cartridge in those days, and the belted 300 H&H cartridge just looks cool. It became the basis for nearly every magnum round that followed, including nearly all the Weatherby chamberings, the 7mm Remington Magnum, and a bunch more. The 300 H&H round won the Wimbledon 1000 yard match in 1935, and in 1937 Winchester offered it as a factory chambering in their Model 70 (assuring it’s survivability well into the future). Did I mention it just looks cool, too?

So to continue the story, I had to have a 300 H&H, and because I had a Weatherby 7mm Mag that I couldn’t get to group well no matter what I tried, to me the solution was obvious: Rebarrel it in 300 H&H. Which I did. 35 years ago. I’ve been shooting it ever since. It’s the one you see in the big photo at the top of this page, and if you don’t feel like scrolling up, here’s a view from the port side:

A custom 300 H&H Weatherby Mark V. This is a magnificent rifle.

The cartridge stamp on my custom barrel.

The 300 H&H Weatherby is a fabulous rifle. It has a Timney trigger my Dad put in it while I was overseas, and it breaks like glass. I enjoy owning it, reloading for it, and shooting it.

Then I picked up another 300 H&H rifle maybe 7 years ago: A Model 70 Winchester. The Model 70 in 300 H&H is not a commonly-encountered rifle, and I searched a while to find this one on Gunbroker with the fancy walnut I wanted. Trust me on this: It looks even better in person. And this one is a shooter. It deserves a better scope, but it’s still a beautiful rifle.

Sometimes people ask why I always find rifles with the nicest wood. It’s because I look for them!

The Model 70 stock from the right side of the rifle. It’s unusual to see this kind of walnut on a production rifle. I recognized that when I saw the rifle on Gunbroker, and I pulled the trigger.

Anyway, one day last week was one of those days when I woke up and knew I needed to get out and shoot some 300 H&H Magnum. So I did. These are some photos from that range session. I think it was a Monday. It was cold and windy as hell with gusts up to 60 mph (that’s the bad news), but because of that I had the range to myself (that’s the good news).

I shot my standard 300 H&H load. It’s one that has done well for me in the Weatherby, and it does equally well in the Winchester. The load is 60 grains of IMR 4320, a CCI-250 large rifle magnum primer, the 150-grain Winchester jacketed soft point bullet I mentioned above, and an overall cartridge length of 3.600 inches. You won’t find this load in any of the newer reloading manuals, but I still have the manuals I used years ago, before all the latest and greatest gee-whiz propellants came out. That’s where I found this one. And wow, does it work! Check out the 100-yard groups on the targets below, and remember it was a cold and windy day when I shot these.

The inexpensive Bushnell on the Model 70 was at the end of its elevation adjustment range and the rifle still shot a little high at 100 yards. I shimmed the front of the scope up .010 inch, which should get me a foot lower on the target at 100 yards (if you do the math, each 0.005 gets you 6 inches at 100 yards). I should be in the scope’s adjustment range after shimming, but I haven’t fired it again to make sure. I’ll check it the next time I’m out there. Longer term, though, the Model 70 will get the scope it deserves (and that will be a Leupold).

Edit: I learned that the manufacturer has discontinued IMR 4320 propellant, so the bad news is that when I deplete the little bit of this wonderful powder I have left, I need to develop a new load (and I guess that’s also the good news, as it means I get to play around with developing a new accuracy load). I’ll probably start with IMR 4350, as my research indicates it’s the go to powder for .300 H&H. Nobody has 4350 in stock right now; hopefully, that will change soon.

One more update…on a subsequent trip to the range, the shims did the trick for the Model 70; the Bushnell scope can now be adjusted to put the shots right where I want them.

More fancy walnut: Check!
More accuracy loads: Check!
More gun stories: Check!

It’s all right here on Tales of the Gun!

Hit those popup ads!