Colt’s Python versus Ruger’s Blackhawk

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

Price

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

Actions and Triggers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sights and Sight Radius

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

The Ruger Blackhawk’s front and rear sights. I prefer a plain black post and rear blade, like this Ruger has. The rear sight blade has an indented provision for adding paint to create a white outline, but I’m leaving it black.

The Colt Python’s sights. The rear is click adjustable for elevation, and infinitely adjustable (i.e., there are no clicks) for windage. The front sight has a red ramp.

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

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

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

Barrels

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

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

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

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

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

Weight

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

Fit and Finish

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

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

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

Lapses in bluing quality on the Ruger Blackhawk. This gun should have never left the factory.

The fit of the grips to the grip frame was atrocious on my Blackhawk.

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

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

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

Durability

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

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

Feel

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

Panache

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

Accuracy

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

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

Take a look at the results:

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

Both the Python and the Blackhawk shot very well with 8.0 grains of Unique and the Hornady 158-grain jacketed hollow point bullet (Hornady calls it their XTP bullet).

The Python did very well with a light .357 Magnum cast load: 4.3 grains of Bullseye and the 158-grain cast flat point bullet. The Ruger didn’t shoot the lighter cast bullet loads nearly as well. I need to move my Python’s rear sight to the right a bit.

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

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

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

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

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

Extraction

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

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

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

Leading

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

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

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

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

Fire jacketed bullets through a leaded bore and you get copper fouling on top of bore leading. It still needs to be bore brushed. The copper bullets do not push the lead out.

Both revolvers performed similarly with the 7.0-grains of Unique and the 158 grain cast flat point bullet. The first group was good, then as the bore leaded the groups progressively grew. This target is with the Python; the Ruger target looks the same (both revolvers averaged exactly 1.555 inches overall with this load).

Ammo Sensitivity

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

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

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

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

Be a Professional Writer For ExhaustNotes!

Berk and I were discussing the challenges of taking on additional writers here at ExhaustNotes. We print new stories about every two days and while we appreciate our loyal readers it wouldn’t hurt to drag a bunch more subscribers into the fold. We’d like ExhaustNotes’ popularity to reflect the quality of the content and to increase ad revenue to match our prodigious output. Plus, younger, less jaded motorcyclists who actually like all the electronic junk manufacturers strap onto motorcycles would be kind of cool.

So we’ve decided to try a thing: Berk says the best way to increase Internet hits and ad revenue is to publish interesting stories from insightful and entertaining writers on a regular basis. To do that, ExhaustNotes will need more than just two guys typing in their spare time. We may need three. Or four. Or more.

I don’t know about you but I’m ready for some fresh new perspectives on motorcycling and with Berk pushing 72 and me pushing a crusty 65 we tend to give fresh new perspectives a bit of the old stinkeye. You’ll notice we type a lot of dream bike segments and none of them are modern bikes. Do not stand on our lawns.

Perspectives don’t have to be young to be fresh, just different. Let’s hear how you love the way your motorcycle makes all the power and braking decisions for the rider. Hey, you still get to steer… for now. Tell us about the biker lifestyle and how it differs from the cosplay actors at comic-com. Exactly how do you use a 200 horsepower, full-race motorcycle on the street and stay alive? Tell us in an interesting way and you’ll get paid for doing it!

How much will you make?

Glad you asked: ExhaustNotes uses a simple formula to calculate how much we earn. We take the total site income from advertisers and Google ads and subtract the expense of running the site. That gives us a pool of money to pay the writers. You won’t get paid by the word. For example, if revenue after expenses is $100 and we publish 100 stories then each story is worth $1. Now, say Berk writes 70 stories and I write 30 stories then Berk makes $70 and I make $30. This is the part where you new writers will come in: If we publish 5 stories from you then the split will reflect your contribution. Berk divvies the money up twice a year, assuming there’s revenue.

On the surface this seems self-defeating, since you’ll be making the same amount per story as me and Berk then we must be losing money. Maybe not. The idea is to increase revenue, build the reader base and create a bigger pie. If it works we’ll all get filthy rich and go live with the prostitutes. Okay, maybe I can’t go live with the prostitutes but one of you guys might be able to.

We understand the unfairness of a 3000-word story earning the same as a 700-word story but life is full of unfair situations. Writing for ExhaustNotes is just one more. Try to picture this whole ExhaustNotes website thing as a grand experiment that we are opening up to a wider pool of participants. Who knows what will happen?

If you’ve already been a guest columnist for ExhaustNotes you won’t get any money from your past stories. That ship has sailed. This new deal is going forward from today. Mike Huber’s Romanian travel story is the very first one of our new system.

A few other things you should know: Berk is going to be the editor-in-chief and his word is final, meaning submitting is not the same as getting published. Punctuation and grammar matter. If Berk has to re-write your story to make it intelligible he probably won’t use it. ExhaustNotes only pays if we publish your story and we pay poorly at that. You retain all rights to your work and can do whatever you want with it. Remember: You are not going to make a ton of money doing this. If you feel our accounting methods are not strenuous enough don’t submit a story.

Having the proper mindset is critical. Berk and I write ExhaustNotes for the fun of it. If you factor in our time, we lose money doing it and I see no good reason why you shouldn’t lose money writing for us, too. Any beer money that happens to come our way is gravy that we use to buy mini bikes and reloading components. Topics are mostly motorcycle related with guns and construction materials thrown in, but any topic that is interesting will be considered. Everyone has to start somewhere; I started my writing career with a simple letter to the editor of The Key West Citizen. Let’s see what starts your writing career.

If you have a story you’d like to propose on motorcycles, guns, Baja, reloading, great rides, great roads, or any other topic you think would be of interest to our readers, email us with your story idea at info@exhaustnotes.us.

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Help us help you: Please click on those pop-up ads!

Roaming in Romania: Part 1 – The Transfagarasan Highway

Good buddy and fellow U.S. Army former paratrooper Mike Huber, whom I met a few years ago on one of the Baja rides, is joining the ExNotes team as a regular contributor.

You’ll be seeing more of Mike’s work here on the ExNotes blog. Mike, over to you and welcome aboard!

Joe

Throughout my adult life (although, many will argue I have yet to reach mature adulthood) one of my greatest passions is motorcycling. Like many of you, I seek out the most beautiful and exciting roads to experience on two wheels. Whenever possible I try to achieve this on a global level and not limit this quest to just my state, or even my country. This isn’t always the easiest objective to reach. Many roads that are the pinnacle of any rider’s dreams are usually quite far off the beaten path. This can seem like a deterrent to many, but my mindset is to use the distance to reach these places only adds more depth to the adventure and in doing so adds not only miles, but new friends and stories to each road.

Transfagarasan Highway

If you perform a Google search on “best motorcycle roads on Earth” or any similar phrase, what will appear before you in the top images will be a photo of the Transfagarasan Highway. This mind-blowing highway is nestled deep in the Transylvania Mountains of Romania, and for us it was a four-day ride from Krakow, Poland. This is where my girlfriend Bobbie and I rented our Honda motorcycles (she had a CBX500 and I had the CB600F).

We began the day waking up in a yurt at an amazing moto camp in Sibiu, Romania that is hosted by Doru Dobrota. Doru has been running this camp out of his family’s old mountain cabin for years and over that time has meticulously grown the camp to a perfect launching point to the many beautifully challenging roads of Romania. Once we finished breakfast, confirmed the weather would cooperate with us, performed routine maintenance checks on the bikes, and a had chat with some other riders staying at the camp, we were ready to set out for one of the greatest days possible on a motorcycle.

It was a two-hour ride through some remote Romanian villages that we had to remain alert for deer, cattle, horses, and the usual obstacles to dodge around as we traveled from Sibiu to the base of the mountain pass where the roads started really becoming fun. Once the switchbacks began in the lower parts of the pine forests, we quickly twisted the throttle and leaned into the perfectly paved corners as we begin to ascend the highway to where you eventually are at the bottom of what would be like in skiing terms a giant bowl. Looking up I am instantly in awe of what looks like a gigantic matchbox car racetrack thrown recklessly together by a 6-year-old.

After regaining our emotions of what lies before us, we jump on the Hondas and hit the throttles hard. The road has nonstop switchbacks but since its so open it allows you the ability to constantly overtake any vehicle in front of you easily. This enables us to really lean in deep to each corner pushing the red line of these little Hondas, as well as challenging our own riding abilities. We continue to traverse the switchbacks for what seemed like forever and just as we summit the pass, we stop for a quick breather at a waterfall to absorb what we have just completed and imagine what was ahead of us.

We now begin our decent down the south side of the pass. The southern side is less dramatic but nonetheless has spectacular views for miles until we are well below the tree line and back into another tight pine forest with switchbacks. This seemed less dramatic until out of the corner of my left eye I spotted something crawling onto the road. At this point the road has some sand on it, so we were only traveling at about 25 miles per hour. My first thought was a deer, but when I was able to decipher what it was, I had to stop and shake my head. It was a grizzly bear eating a bagel. Now THAT is worth stopping for a photo of. As I am taking the picture, I hear a loud shout through my headset “Go! Go! Go!”

I looked in front of me and there were three more grizzlies. What was so concerning at this point was they consisted of a mother bear and two cubs, fully blocking the road. So, I have one next to me eating a bagel and three in front of me. I hang my head down and reply over the headset with my usual response to when I am in a bad situation “So this is how it ends…” We sat extremely still on the bikes for a few minutes until the bears dispersed in front of us, retreating into the thick pine forest.

As the sunlight retreated into the dense forests, we still were admiring the beauty of the road and what Romania had shined upon us this day. After a fresh fish dinner and the semi comfort of a hostel bed we were able to fully absorb and appreciate the experience for having ridden one of the greatest roads on Earth: The Tranfagarasan Highway.

Keep us in clover…click on those popup ads!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

We stayed at Motocamp in Romania.

We rented our motorcycles from Motonasezon in Poland.

Guilt Trip

The ExhaustNotes website consumes a lot of content. Berk writes most of it and he’s always up to something interesting. I feel bad that he has to carry the load, but I just don’t have that much to write about. Here in the wilds of New Mexico we spend a lot of time and energy just surviving. Take water, for instance.

Our place has a combination of well water and rainwater. The well supplies the tiny shack we live in and the cistern for rainwater catches ½ of the shed roof runoff. It all worked ok until the well ran dry. Our well is only 85 feet deep and since our land sits at 6000 feet elevation you’ve got to figure the water in the well comes from a trapped source. Maybe there’s a layer of impervious stone or clay at 90 feet. The well was already dug when we bought the place, but the pump was dead.

Colleen and I installed a new pump using the existing piping and we had a reliable supply of water. The well inspector said it was good for 1.5 gallons a minute, which isn’t a lot unless you count the minutes in a day. We have a 40-gallon pressure tank with a pressure switch to turn the pump on and off.

The system worked fine until a month ago when the water stopped flowing. The well was flat out of water. The well guy told me this happens all the time. Maybe someone below me used a lot of water, maybe the well is silted up or maybe wells just go dry after 27 years. To get back in the swim I ran two, 150-foot-long garden hoses to a bib outside of the shack and fed the house from the shed water supply.

We let the well rest for about a week and then tried it. We had water again. Everything was fine until a few days ago when the water ran out again. Obviously, we are going to need a better water supply.

We decided to go with a hybrid, part well water, part rainwater, part purchased water set up. We’re getting a 3000-gallon storage tank that will sit next to the well house. Of course, the new tank will require a concrete slab. During monsoon season I can dump excess water from the shed tank into the lower, 3000-gallon tank. Probably 4 or 5 months of the year we can get by on rain water unless there is a drought.

We’re hoping this will take much of the load off the well and give it a chance to recharge from wherever its water comes from. If we need to we can purchase water. Many homes around here buy water and store it in tanks; they have no well because well drilling is expensive and you pay for the work whether the driller hits water or not. A typical well a few hundred feet deep will run around $30,000. If they hit water the first time.

The new system will require a bit of re-plumbing. Instead of directly feeding the shack the well output will dump into the 3000-gallon storage tank and from there the water will go to a jet type pump to provide pressure to the house. I’m hoping the tank will be a sort of battery to store the well water as I can adjust the well output to a trickle to not outrun the well’s capacity per minute. If we are lucky the slower draw will buy a few more years from our well, if not we may drill another, deeper well.

Using rainwater is way nicer than the mineral-rich stuff we get from the well. Soap makes better suds, sinks and faucets stay cleaner and you don’t get those stalactites of gypsum hanging off the aerators. Bought water comes from a city supply and so has all manner of junk floating around.

Future water infrastructure plans include a second, 2500-gallon tank up at the shed. I lost thousands of gallons this monsoon season due to the single tank being full. It drives me crazy seeing that water spilling onto the ground. Installing another rainwater tank to handle runoff from the Carriage House roof should be good for 3 or 4 thousand gallons during monsoon. One day I will get around to guttering the other half of the shed roof and that should double production from the upper level. If we get enough storage I think we can operate the ranch using just rainwater, giving the old well a much-deserved rest. My job will be to move water from all the different tanks to the main 3000-gallon unit.

And this is why I don’t have much fun stuff to write about lately. Things are falling apart faster than I can fix them. Men were given dominion over the Earth but it’s not an easy task to rule nature. I’m starting to think this ranch living is no country for old men. Maybe one day when we get really old we’ll get a suburban house. I’ll have my own garage door opener or a breakfast nook.

Help us pay for all these tanks, pumps, gutters, and more: Please click on those popup ads!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

A Sneak Preview…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Saguaros and Subarus

Susie and I were recently in Arizona and we found ourselves near the entrance to Saguaro National Park. There are two sections of Saguaro National Park; we were near the one with an 8-mile driving loop through it. It was an easy one-hour ride with frequent stops for photos.

Arizona is a vibrant state. Bright blues, and green hills and valleys from the Tanque Verde’s waters.

Another case of Mother Nature moving the vibrance and saturation sliders to the right.

A barrel cactus, with two blooming flowers.

There were a lot of butterflies flitting about. This one landed for a few seconds. I didn’t really have the right lens for this sort of photo.

The 8-mile loop through Saguaro National Park is a one way road, with markings for tortoise crossings, rabbit crossings, javelina crossings, and more. All we saw was a lone rabbit. It was hot out there.

The Starship Subaru. It’s perfect for these kinds of road trips.

The Outback framed by the Park’s namesake cactus.

On these kinds of trips, I love traveling in my Subaru Outback. If it gets hot, I turn on the air conditioning. If it gets cold, I turn on the heater. If it rains, I turn on the windshield wipers. If I want music or news, I turn on the radio. If I don’t know how to get someplace, I turn on the nav system. I can carry as much stuff as I want, even more if I fold down the rear seats. Don’t get me wrong; I like riding my motorcycle and I’ve done some big motorcycle trips. But there’s something to be said about traveling with your wife in a comfortable car. This is the third Subaru I’ve owned, and my next car will be another Subaru.

We stopped in the small visitor center before we left Saguaro National Park, and to my surprise, a new Subaru Wilderness Outback was in the parking lot. It’s a version with different trim, more ground clearance, restyled bumpers (front and rear) for better approach angles, and lower gearing. I like the idea of everything except the lower gearing and the trim. Somehow, the Wilderness styling makes it look cheap (in my opinion) and the lower gearing lowers fuel economy.

I’ve owned three Subies now, starting with a 2006 WRX, a 2013 CrossTrek, and my current Outback. They have all been great automobiles.

So, about this most recent trip: We meandered through Arizona and New Mexico, and our travels included stops at the Tinfiny Ranch, the Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta, and more. Stay tuned; there are more blogs coming your way from this adventure. We had a blast.

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Help us keep the lights on: Please click on those popup ads!

A 300 H&H Ammo Score

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

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

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

.300 H&H ammo. It;s beautiful, isn’t it?

The data label on the ammo Rick showed to me. It was loaded 12 1/2 years ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Douglas barrel chambered in .300 H&H. It has a 1 turn in 10 inches twist rate and it is accurate. The rebarreled Weatherby feeds the .300 H&H cartridges flawlessly.

Rich, warm, and beautiful. There’s something about oil-finished walnut that is just right.

The flip side looks just as good. About 10 years after I refinished this rifle, Weatherby introduced their Euromark line, which was the Mark V with an oil finished walnut stock. I own a couple. Both have highly figured walnut, but to me this custom .300 H&H looks better. It groups better, too. Weatherby has since discontinued making walnut Mark V rifles. They are all composite rifles now, which seems like a crime against nature.

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

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

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

My favorite 300 H&H load showed no pressure signs. The guy who loaded it snuck in a different primer on one cartridge.

The ammo loaded with 180-grain Noslers and a near-max DP 86 load flattened the primers just a bit, but not enough to indicate excessive pressure. This load had more recoil, but it was still way below .300 Weatherby levels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Tales of the Gun!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

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

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

The Magnificent Mustang

About 10 years ago the late Jim Cavanaugh and I wrote an article on Mustang motorcycles for Motorcycle Classics magazine. The research for that story was a lot of fun. I thought I’d resurrect it and publish it again here on the ExhaustNotes blog.

The Magnificent Mustang

Mustang: The little motorcycle that could — and still does
Story by Joe Berk and Jim Cavanaugh

Mustang. Uniquely American, the word stirs the imagination. Wild horses. World War II fighters. Pony cars. And for those of us with good memories, some of the coolest motorcycles ever made. No one knows with certainty how manufacturing mogul John Gladden, founder of the Mustang Motorcycle Corporation, selected the name. Some say he thought of wild horses. Others say it stems from the P-51 Mustang fighter plane. Both stories make sense, but we like the one about the P-51. Gladden Products made parts for World War II combat aircraft, so it seems logical that the P-51 Mustang could have been part of the calculus that created the Mustang moniker.

Howard Forrest’s first 300cc motorcycle next to a Harley-Davidson.

Gladden Products had a lot of things going for it, but as World War II was ending, John Gladden knew he needed a new product. Synchronicity struck when he noticed a very unusual motorcycle in the company parking lot. It was scooter-sized, but it was a motorcycle — a miniaturized motorcycle. The bike belonged to Howard Forrest, a machinist and engineer, and a serious motorcycle enthusiast who constructed it using a water-cooled, 300cc 4-cylinder engine he designed and built himself, from scratch.

So this was the time and the situation, Gladden casting about for a new product, one of his engineers riding a personally-designed and fabricated small motorcycle to work, and millions of young men returning from the war. Gladden recognized opportunity when he saw it: His new product would be a small motorcycle.

Gladden challenged Forrest and Chuck Gardner (a fellow Gladden Products engineer and motorcycle rider) to develop a lightweight motorcycle. Forrest’s 300cc engine was intriguing, but would be expensive to build. Gladden wanted a lightweight and inexpensive bike; more substantive than a scooter, but not as big as a motorcycle — a scooter-sized motorcycle. What resulted was a family of Mustang motorcycles.

The First Mustangs

Mustang originally planned to use 197cc Villiers 2-stroke engines, but after building a few prototypes with the 197cc engine, Villiers instead offered their 125cc 2-stroke. It wasn’t what Mustang wanted, but it was the only game in town. Thus was born the first production Mustang — the 1946 Colt. The Colts had leading-link front forks, a hardtail rear end, tiny 8-inch wheels, a peanut gas tank and twin exhausts. Small, yes, but stunning.

Forrest and Gardner weren’t ecstatic about the tiny Villiers engine, however, and Villiers was making noises about cutting off their supply. Gladden recognized that making his own engines would be critical to Mustang’s success, so Gladden did what moguls do: He acquired an aircraft engine manufacturer that included Busy Bee, a maker of small industrial engines. One in particular seemed a good fit for a new Mustang motorcycle. It was a 320cc flathead single-cylinder 4-stroke, and it became the basic engine that would power future Mustangs.

Building bikes at the Mustang Motor Products Corporation in Glendale, California.

Forrest and Gardner went back to the drawing board. What rapidly emerged in 1947 was the Mustang Model 2, a completely new Mustang and the first with what we now recognize as the classic Mustang appearance. Bigger than the Colt, it had Mustang’s new engine and 12-inch disc wheels. The intake and exhaust ports faced rearward, with a finned exhaust manifold. The cast aluminum primary cover was adorned with the Mustang logo, and it had a 3-speed Burman transmission, a tractor seat supported by big coil springs, a rear brake, a rigid rear end and telescopic front forks. It weighed just 215 pounds. The Model 2 was not without its problems, however, including rod knocks and noisy timing gears. Mustang handled the issues with special production actions, and to make sure only good bikes left the plant, the production foreman had to personally start, run, listen to, and approve each engine.

More Models

Looking to expand the market, in December of 1948 Mustang introduced the Model 3 DeliverCycle, a three-wheeled, low-cost commercial vehicle. Police departments used DeliverCycles for parking enforcement — the city of Huntington Beach, California, was the first to use trikes for this purpose.

1946 Mustang Colt with the 125cc 2-stroke Villiers engine.

1956 Mustang Colt with a 320cc flathead 4-stroke engine.

1963 Mustang Thoroughbred with rear swingarm suspension.

1964 Mustang Trail Machine “Rear Suspension” model.

Addressing the Model 2’s problems, in 1950 the Mustang team rolled out the Model 4 (known as the Standard). The newest Mustang engine incorporated Micarta timing gears for quieter running, a new magneto and alternator for improved ignition and lighting, forward-facing intake and exhaust ports to simplify the exhaust design, and a stamped steel primary case. The frame was also cleaned up and it got an improved 3-speed Burman transmission. The new Model 4 sold for $346.30. Mustang rolled these changes into a new DeliverCycle, too, the Model 5.

The Model 4 was a home run, and Mustang used it as the basis for several models over the next decade — the Special, the Pony, the Bronco and the Stallion. The Model 4 Special was a factory performance upgrade with higher compression and hotter cams. The standard Model 4 evolved into the Pony (the base model), which was the best-selling Mustang. Output climbed to 9.5 horsepower. Mustang also offered a 5 horsepower version of its iconic bike to meet some states’ requirements for junior riders.

The Model 4 Special morphed into the Bronco (Mustang had a practice of referring to their bikes with model numbers, which sometimes were offered as Specials and sometimes evolved into other designations). The Bronco kept the Pony’s engine and transmission and added a front brake as standard equipment.

Mustang upgraded the line again with the Stallion (the Model 8). It added a 4-speed Burman transmission and horsepower climbed to 10.5. The Stallion had a chrome flywheel and two-tone paint with pinstriping. The first Stallions had Amal carburetors; later models went to a 22mm Dell‘Orto.

1964 Mustang Model 7 DeliverCycle with a 4-speed tranny.

The market started to change for Mustang in 1956. DeliverCycle sales fell and Mustang dropped it. Perceiving a need for a lower cost motorcycle, Mustang introduced a new Colt in 1956, but it was a bust. Value engineered to reduce labor costs, the new Colt had a 9.5 horsepower engine, no transmission and a centrifugal clutch. The front suspension reverted to an undamped leading- link arrangement. The kickstarter was awkward and the centrifugal clutch wore the crankshaft prematurely. It wasn’t liked within the factory and build quality was poor, resulting in rework that offset any hoped-for savings. Mustang killed it just two years later.

Things improved in 1960 with the Mustang Thoroughbred. In a first for Mustang, the Thoroughbred incorporated swingarm rear suspension, a dual seat and an optional storage compartment under the seat. It had the Stallion’s 4-speed Burman transmission and a bump to 12.5 horsepower. This was good stuff, but the 1960s would not be good for Mustang. By the time the Thoroughbred rolled out, Howard Forrest had left the company. The Mustang organization was not without its politics, and for reasons few understood, the company had fired Forrest. Chuck Gardner took his place to lead development.

Offroad Expansion

In 1961, Mustang introduced the Trail Machine, the last in a legendary line of Mustang motorcycles. In a break from Mustang tradition, Trail Machines used Briggs & Stratton 5.75 horsepower engines. Staying with the Burman 3-speed tranny, the Trail Machine looked like the illegitimate child of a motorcycle and a lawn mower, with the standard Mustang diamond tread front tire and a more aggressive tractor tread rear tire.

While the machines were functionally excellent — weight was only 169 pounds dry — the rigid rear Trail Machine was tagged with the uninspiring “Rigid Frame” designation, and when Mustang introduced the swingarm Trail Machine in 1964 it was similarly (and boringly) named the “Rear Suspension” model. These bikes were initially offered only in yellow, but Mustang later added blue. Not many sold, and they are rare today.

Mustang resumed Model 5 DeliverCycle production in 1963, and then quickly upgraded it to the Model 7 in 1964. The Model 7 DeliverCycle incorporated the Stallion’s 12.5 horsepower engine and 4-speed transmission, but time was running out for Mustang. In 1965 production of Mustang motorcycles came to an end.

No one who’s talking knows with certainty why Mustang stopped production. Some say it was because Burman wasn’t supplying transmissions at the required rate. Some say there were management problems. Some believe it was all those nicest people you kept meeting on Hondas, motorcycles that offered electric starting, better performance and lower prices. There were a few revival attempts using residual Mustang parts inventories, but only a handful of bikes emerged. The Mustang saga, one of the most intriguing stories in our magnificent motorcycling world, was over. Or was it? Watch for a near term future blog on the California Scooter Company.

Today, original Mustangs are highly prized, routinely selling for $10,000-plus in concours condition. Even “beater” Mustangs — when you can find them — typically bring more than $5,000. There’s an active fan base (check out www.mmcoa.org), and enthusiasm in Mustang circles runs high.

Al Simmons with a few of his prized Mustangs.

The Mustang Colt and most of the Mustangs in this feature come from the collection of Al Simmons, the founder of Mustang Motorcycle Products, a designer and manufacturer of aftermarket motorcycle seats and accessories (www.mustangseats.com). An avid pilot, Al named his company after the World War II airplane. It wasn’t until Mustang Seats was well on its way to success that someone suggested he should own an original Mustang motorcycle. Al thought that was a splendid idea. Thirty Mustang motorcycles later, he still thinks it’s a splendid idea.

Jim Cavanaugh, back in the day and shortly before his passing.

The late Jim Cavanaugh started in the Mustang Motor Product Corporation’s manufacturing area at age 19 before becoming production superintendent. Jim was an avid rider into his 80s. You might have seen him buzzing around the Oregon countryside on one of his vintage Mustangs or his CSC replica Mustang.

When I wrote the above story for Motorcycle Classics, I was also a consultant to CSC Motorcycles. The initial CSC bike was an updated approximate replica of the original Mustang, and the above story had a sidebar to it that told the CSC story. Watch for it here on the ExNotes blog; we’ll publish that story in another week or so. In the meantime, if you’d like to know more about CSC Motorcycles, their Mustang replicas, and CSC becoming the highly successful North American distributor of Zongshen motorcycles, you should pick up a copy of 5000 Miles At 8000 RPM.

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Keep hitting those popup ads!

The Buck Stopped Here

Some time ago I wrote about ordering a custom Buck folding knife. I’m not a knife guy (many of my friends are). The hook for me was an ad that floated into my inbox. I have a regular Buck 110 (an anniversary edition I bought on sale; it’s the other knife you see in the photo above), but I am the guy that marketing types dream about: Offer a custom feature or two, hit me with an email, and I’m in.

As promised, the lead time was a few weeks. When it arrived, all was not well. All priced out, I was into the custom Buck (complete with elk horn grips) for a little under $200. I liked the look of the elk horn grips, but on my knife the interface between the elk horn natural bark and the bolsters was not good. Some of the undulations in the horn butted up against the bolsters and it looked cheap. I realize the grips are a natural material, but I still didn’t like the fit.

I wrote to Buck, expecting to hear the above as an explanation (i.e., that the grips are natural material), but that wasn’t the case at all. Buck responded the next day. Send the knife back, they said, and we’ll make it right. I did, I had a new knife in about two weeks, and it was perfect. Buck selected a set of grips that had no bark interfacing with the bolsters, and the intersection was line-to-line everywhere on the knife. It is a thing of great beauty.

My custom Buck features included a mirror-polished blade, nickel (instead of brass) bolsters, and the elk horn grips I mentioned. And that blade…wow, it is razor sharp. The first time I closed it, when the blade completed its arc into the handle the tip caught my finger. It was so sharp I didn’t even realize it had cut me. The cut was so clean it healed in only a few days.

There’s more good news to the story. When you get a custom knife like this from Buck, you also get an official-looking certificate of authenticity, a knife case, and a holster. Somehow when I returned the knife for the new grips, I accidentally put all that stuff into the trash (which I only realized after Buck returned my knife). I called Buck and told them what I had done. I wanted the complete Buck custom knife experience, I told the nice lady on the phone, and she told me “no problem.” She shipped another set and it arrived a couple of days later, all at no charge.

All the above notwithstanding, like I said above, I’m not really a knife guy. Even though I have the two Bucks shown in the photos above, I don’t carry either one of them. I have a cheap Chinese copy (and its little brother) I bought at Lowe’s that is the same size and looks almost exactly like the standard Buck 110 folder. Sacrilege, I know.

The Sheffield name is laser engraved on the Chinese copies, but trust me, they are not from England. I think I paid $20 for both of them in a bubble-wrap package a few years ago. Once in a great while I’ll put the smaller one it in my pocket and carry it (even though the package included leather holsters for both), but I can’t remember a single time when I needed it and it was in my pocket. The big one? Its primary duty is opening letters.

If you’re thinking of getting a Buck knife, Amazon is a good place to go. If you’re thinking of an inexpensive Chinese copy, check out Lowe’s.

More product reviews are here.

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Help us stay sharp: Please click on those popup ads!

Ruger Blackhawk Accuracy Testing

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

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

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

The Loads

I tested with five bullets and three propellants:

- - The Hornady 158-grain XTP jacketed hollow point
  - The Speer 158-grain jacketed soft point
  - The Hornady 110-grain jacketed hollow point
  - A cast 158-grain truncated flat point
  - A cast 148-grain powder coated double-ended wadcutter
  - Unique
  - Bullseye
  - Winchester 296

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

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

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

You can also buy directly from Lee Precision.

The different load recipes are identified in the table below.

The Results

Here are the results:

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

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

The Lyman 45th Edition Reloading Handbook. I still use it. These older books contain loads the newer reloading manuals do not.

Back in 1970, the good folks at Lyman identified 8.0 grains of Unique and a 158-grain jacketed bullet as their accuracy load. They were right!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Machine Rest versus Hand-Held Shooting

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

A Note on Safety

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

What’s Next?

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

Keep us in components…click on those popup ads!

Never miss an ExNotes blog!

More gun and reloading stuff? You bet!