.357 Magnum accuracy loads – The ExhaustNotes Blog

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!

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!