.357 Magnum – The ExhaustNotes Blog

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.

The New Model Blackhawk

I recently bid in a Rock Island auction for an Old Model Blackhawk once owned by Hank Williams, Jr. I wanted that gun, but not as badly as someone else. It sold for $4,993.37. I thought that was crazy, but in these days of 8.3% inflation (considered by some to be nothing), I’m not sure what constitutes crazy anymore.

The Hank Williams, Jr., Old Model Ruger Blackhawk.

As an aside, the New Model Blackhawk is not that new. Ruger introduced it in 1973. The New Model contains internal changes (a transfer bar mechanism) that prevents it from firing if it is dropped with a live round in the chamber. The previous Blackhawk (sometimes called the Old Model or the Three Screw) could discharge a round if it was dropped. The Hank Williams Ruger you see above is the Old Model.

You know the story of my stainless steel .357 Magnum Blackhawk (it went down the road), and that left me without one. I felt naked without a .357 Magnum Blackhawk, so I bought a new one through Gunbroker.com from Reeds in Minnesota. I recently picked it up (after waiting the obligatory Peoples Republik of Kalifornia 10-day cooling off period). I’ve already started a couple of blogs on the new Blackhawk, including one on the best accuracy loads and another comparing it to the Colt Python (a .357 Magnum revolver costing twice as much as the Blackhawk). This blog focuses on my initial impressions.

Two huge handguns: The Ruger New Model .357 Blackhawk and Uberti’s resurrection of the Colt Walker. The Blackhawk is wearing a set of Ruger black laminate grips in this photo.

My first impression is one I’ve always had: Ruger’s New Model Blackhawk is a massive handgun. I ordered mine with the 6 1/2-inch barrel (it’s primarily going to be a target gun, although if all the planets come into alignment I may hunt with it someday). My first thought when I picked it up was of the Colt Walker, another sixgun of huge proportions. The Ruger is a bit smaller than the Walker, but you have to put them side by side to see it. Heft the Ruger by itself and the feel is one of massiveness. It’s a big revolver. I like that.

The bluing is what I’d call an industrial grade gun finish. It’s certainly better looking to me than the black plastic stuff I see on the range. My cylinder had bright spots where the bluing was incomplete.

Spots where the bluing quality standard must have been “close enough for government work.” I’m surprised this escaped from the Ruger plant.

The pin securing the rear site to the revolver is another issue. After my first 140-round range session, it started to back out. Green Loctite is the answer here. In fairness to Ruger, I’ve experienced this on other handguns. But it shouldn’t happen.

The fit of the black plastic grips can only be described as poor. I had decided (before I saw the revolver) that I would leave the stock checkered black plastic grips on the gun because I have the same grips on a .30 Carbine Blackhawk and I like the fit, the feel, and the look. On the .30 Carbine Blackhawk, the grips fit well. On this new .357 Blackhawk, the grips didn’t match the grip frame.

The grip frame should align with the grips. It does not.

The grip frame sits a good 0.080-inch proud of the grips nearly all the way around. I’ve seen this sort of thing on other Blackhawks. I don ‘t know if the grip frames are varying from gun to gun, or if the grips are varying, or if both conditions exist. In any event, the lack of dimensional control is not good. If I had seen this gun in a gunstore, I would have asked to see another.

I have a few older Blackhawk grips I’ve picked up over the years. One is a set of black laminated grips. They fit the new .357 much better. The fit is not perfect, but it’s better and they’re staying on for now. The dark grips complement the Blackhawk’s look well. It’s what you see in the big photo at the top of this blog.

I checked the Ruger’s timing and it is perfect (as it should be). The way to check timing is to exert light drag on the cylinder while cocking the hammer, and the cylinder bolt should click in place when the hammer reaches full cock. Kudos to Ruger on that. You’d be surprised how many new guns are timed incorrectly from the factory. In the late 1970s in the Dirty Harry craze, Smith and Wesson revolvers were notorious for being out of time when brand new (I know because I bought a few; they quickly went to new owners).

The Blackhawk’s trigger spring is a coil spring with two legs that extend into the grip frame area (one side of the spring is noted by the red arrow in this photo).

To reduce the trigger pull, simply unhook one side of the trigger spring (denoted by the lower red arrow) from the post against which it rests (denoted by the upper red arrow). Voilà, a New York trigger job.

The Ruger’s trigger is crisp, with zero creep. Ruger got that right, too. I did a quick New York trigger job, and it now it is lighter and has that classic “breaking glass” release. It’s a wonderful trigger.

So how does it shoot? In a word, it’s wonderful. I’ve already been to the range to evaluate different loads (the subject of a future blog), and the results are impressive. Here’s a set of teaser photos showing a few 50-foot, 5-shot groups.

Cosmetic issues aside, my new Blackhawk is a shooter. These are phenonemal groups for a first range session. Watch for a near-term future blog on how different loads performed.

We’ll have a series of blogs on the Blackhawk in the coming days. One will be the preferred loads blog mentioned above. Another will be a detailed comparison of the Blackhawk and the Colt Python. Apples and oranges, you say? Maybe not.

A Colt Python and a Ruger Blackhawk, both chambered in .357 Magnum. One costs twice what the other costs. Is it worth it? Stay tuned and find out.

I contacted Ruger about the grips and the cylinder bluing; they are sending me a new set of grips and they will reblue the cylinder. That’s Ruger Customer Service; it’s the best in the business.

On the off chance that decisionmakers at Ruger read this blog, indulge me and allow a recommendation from one of your biggest fans. Bring out a premium version of the .357 Blackhawk with:

- - A brass grip, Super Blackhawk Dragoon frame (like that Hank Williams, Jr. revolver shown above). Yeah, I know it would cost more. There are people willing to pay more. Put me at the head of that line.
  - A high polish blue, like you used to do on the Super Blackhawk. The same comments apply; a price hike would be okay.
  - A 7 1/2-inch barrel. You already do so on the Super Blackhawk, and on the .30 Carbine and .45 Colt Blackhawks. That extra inch of sight radius makes a difference, and a 7 1/2-inch barrel just looks cool. Regarding cost, see above.

That’s it for now. Stay tuned; there’s more good stuff coming your way.

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

More Tales of the Gun!

Lee .357 Magnum Dies, Cast vs Jacketed Bullets, and Crimping

This blog is longer than I intended it to be. I thought I would just do a quick bit about a new set of Lee reloading dies I recently purchased, but as I got into it, I learned more about my Colt Python, crimping with a bullet seating die versus a dedicated factory crimp die, and well, the thing just grew. Mea culpa; you can leave early if you want to. Because this is a longer-than usual post, I thought I’d provide the bottom line up front: The Lee factory crimp die is a good thing. It works. It holds bullets in place better, it improves chambering, and it improves accuracy.

Now, the rest of the story.

For the last umpteen years when loading .38 Special or .357 Magnum ammo I have been using a kluged-up three die set (a carbide resizer/decapper from Dillon, an expander die from Lee, and a bullet seating and roll crimping die from Lee). You can use the same dies for both .38 Special and .357 Magnum; the only difference between the two cartridges is the length of the cartridge case. They use the same diameter bullets (even though it’s called a .38 Special, the bullet diameter of a .38 is actually .357 to .358 inches, just like the .357 Magnum).

The two cartridges on the left are .357 Magnum; the one on the right is a .38 Special. The .357 cartridge case is longer so it cannot be inadvertently inserted into a handgun chambered for .38 Special. Note the slightly longer overall cartridge length on the .357 Magnum cartridge on the left (with the cast bullet) compared to the .357 Magnum cartridge in the middle (with the jacketed bullet).

A mixed set of dies I’ve been using for years for reloading .357 Magnum and .38 Special. Note the Lee shellholder marked “1.” .38 Special used to be the most commonly reloaded cartridge in America. Today it’s 9mm. .38 Special was the first cartridge I ever reloaded. The die on the right is the bullet seating and crimping die.

Reloading Gear

I’ve had a few .38/.357 die sets over the years, selling them when convenient as I bought or inherited other equipment. As featured here on the ExNotes blog, I have a 50-year-old Star reloader I use for .38 Special wadcutter ammo (I’ll give you a link for the Star story at the end of this blog). The Star is set up to meter 2.7 grains of Bullseye propellant (that’s a 148-grain wadcutter target load) and it works fabulously well, so it’s a dedicated setup. For all other .38 Special and for .357 Magnum reloading, I load with my RCBS Rockchucker single-stage press. I’ve been using it for 50 years.

My Star progressive reloader. A good buddy gave this to me in rundown, funky, and long-neglected condition. I cleaned it, lubed it, and put in back in service. The Star does a fantastic job on .38 Special wadcutter ammo.

Old Faithful, my RCBS Rockchucker single stage press. I load non-wadcutter .38 Special ammo and all .357 Magnum ammo on this press.

Bullet Seating and Crimping

For many years, I seated and crimped my bullets with a simple seating and crimping die. It’s what you see in the illustration below.

I use this die in two steps. First, I screw the bullet seating adjuster deep into the die and seat the bullet to the correct cartridge overall length without crimping the bullet in place. After seating all the bullets, I then back off on the bullet seating adjuster so that it no longer contacts the bullet, and then I screw the die body deeper into the press. The die body has a roll crimping feature that then roll forms a crimp around the case mouth to lock the bullet to the cartridge case.

Lee has an alternative approach for bullet crimping they call the factory crimp die. As a first step, you seat the bullet to the desired depth in the case using the die shown above. After seating all the bullets, you then remove the bullet seating and crimping die from the press and then use the fourth die (the factory crimp die). Here’s what the factory crimp die looks like:

The fourth die, the factory crimp die, does not seat the bullet. Its only function is to apply the crimp, and it does this very well. The idea is that the die is screwed all the way into the press such that it contacts the shellhoder, and then the amount of crimp is set up with the crimp adjuster, which screws into the die body. This die applies a roll crimp on a revolver cartridge (the same kind of crimp as the bullet seating and crimping die described above), but it does so in a much better-controlled manner. The factory crimp die also has a secondary carbide sizer/aligning ring at its lower end, which aligns the cartridge as it enters the case, and holds the cartridge outside diameter to specification values as the cartridge enters and then exits the die. It works fabulously well, and Lee states that this die makes it impossible to buckle a case.

I had .357 Magnum ammo I had previously loaded using the bullet seating and crimping die only (not the Lee factory crimp die), and it chambered with no problem in my Ruger Blackhawk. The Colt Python has a tighter chamber, though, and several of these older reloads would not chamber in the Python. A quick trip through the Lee factory crimp die cleaned up the outside diameters and the rounds chambered easily.

Before and after shots of older .357 loads I reloaded using the bullet seating and crimping die. Some wouldn’t chamber in the tighter Python. The Lee factory crimp die fixed that.

Lee’s Deluxe 4-Die Set

I recently ordered a new Ruger Blackhawk, and I’ve written many times about my Colt Python. With my new .357 Magnum Blackhawk in its 10-day cooling off period, I thought I would get a new set of dies. I like Lee (they give you a shellholder, they are inexpensive, and they do a good job). I had bent the decapping pin on the Dillon sizing die in my mixed set of dies shown above (a primer wouldn’t come out and I forced it). I was able to bend the pin straight, but I figured a man of my stature ought to have a set of grownup new dies. Then I got an email from MidwayUSA showing the Lee 4-die set on sale for $53 and they had free shipping on orders over $49. The Lee Deluxe set includes the factory crimp die. All the planets were in alignment (enter order, buy now…you know the drill). The dies were at my front door a few days later.

The new Lee 4-die Deluxe Set was well packaged by Midway.

The Lee Deluxe 4-die set includes a carbidge sizing die and decapper (the die on the far right), a cartridge expander and case mouth flaring die (on the far left), a bullet seating and roll crimping die (second from the right), and the Lee factory crimp die (second from the left). Lee also provides a shell holder and power dispensing spoon. I’ve never used the powder dispensing spoon; I use an RCBS powder dispenser.

The new dies looked great, and I was eager to put them to work.

Bullet Pull and Cylinder Rotation

On revolvers with significant recoil, bullets can back out of the cartridge case when other rounds in the cylinder are fired. This can allow bullets on unfired cartridges to protrude beyond the cylinder face and interfere with cylinder rotation. We prevent this by controlling the reloaded cartridges’ overall length and by crimping. In firing my new Colt Python with ammo I had loaded for an earlier Ruger Blackhawk, even though the bullets were crimped I experienced bullet pull beyond the front of the cylinder. When this occurred, the cylinder would not rotate. These same rounds had worked in a Ruger Blackhawk.

In analyzing the cylinder rotation issue on my new Python, I found several things:

- - The bullets were not seated deep enough (the cartridge overall length exceeded the maximum spec of 1.590 inches), even though the bullets were crimped in their crimping groove.
  - The crimp wasn’t strong enough to hold the bullets in place. Under recoil from other cartridges, the bullets were backing out.
  - The Python cylinder is slightly shorter than the Ruger Blackhawk cylinder. I probably had the same bullet pull occurring on the Blackhawk, but the Blackhawk’s longer cylinder masked it. They might have been backing out on the Ruger and I didn’t know it.

Cartridge Overall Length

Let’s dive into the numbers. The reloading manuals show the .357 Magnum maximum cartridge overall length (COAL) to be 1.590 inches. With my cast bullets crimped in their crimping groove, the overall length was running from 1.607 to 1.615 inches. That put them about even with the front of the Python cylinder. If any bullet pull occurred under recoil, the front of the bullet would hit the rear of the forcing cone and the cylinder wouldn’t rotate. That’s what I experienced with my Python.

The Ruger New Model .357 Blackhawk has a longer cylinder than the Python. The Ruger cylinder is 1.640 inches long. The Internet says the Python cylinder length is 1.552 inches; mine measures 1.553 (which is close enough). Right away, the astute ExNotes blog reader will recognize that the Colt’s cylinder (at 1.552 inches) appears to be shorter than the specification .357 Magnum cartridge maximum overall length (1.590 inches), but it is not. When loaded in the cylinder the cartridge is held rearward by its rim, which sits flush against the back end of the cylinder.

The Python, like most revolvers, headspaces on the cartridge rim. The cartridge rim is 0.060 inches thick.

The .357 Magnum cartridge rim backs the cartridge up 0.060 inches (the rim thickness), which would put the leading edge of the bullet in a cartridge loaded to an overall length of 1.590 inches about 0.023 inches inside the front edge of the cylinder (if I’ve done the math correctly). And I think I have, because when you look at cartridges in the Python cylinder, they are pretty close to the edge of those big .357 cylinder holes. 0.023 inches. Twenty-three thousandths of an inch. That’s not much to play with.

.357 Magnum cartridges loaded in the Python cylinder. At the cartridge’s specified max overall length of 1.590 inches, the front of the bullet is only 0.023 inches away from the forward cylinder face.

Bullet Design and Crimp Location

I examined the bullets I was using. I had crimped my cast bullets in the crimping groove, and I could see that the crimping groove put the bullet face very close to the forward end of the Python’s cylinder. I couldn’t seat the cast bullets any deeper and still crimp in their crimping groove. Hornady’s jacketed 158-grain bullets are no problem; their crimping groove is a lot higher on the bullet.

A 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollow point bullet on the left, and a cast 158-grain bullet on the right. Note how much higher the crimping groove is on the jacketed bullet. This lowers the bullet in the cartridge case when it is crimped, making the cartridge shorter.

Two .357 Magnum cartridges with crimped bullets. The cast bullet cartridge on the right has the bullet seated as low as it can go while still allowing a crimp. You can see that the cast bullet cartridge is longer than the cartridge with the jacketed bullet.

Test Objectives

I wanted to test bullets seated and crimped using both approaches (i.e., the bullet seating and crimping die, versus seating with the bullet seating die and crimping separately with the Lee factory crimp die). My testing would evaluate the following:

- - Bullet movement under recoil.
  - Accuracy.
  - Ease of chambering.
  - The ability to get a good crimp in locations other than the crimping groove.

That last one is important, because as I learned with my Python, crimping some cast bullet configurations in the crimping groove makes the cartridge too long.

Test Ammo

I loaded three test lots. The first was with 15.7 grains of Winchester 296 powder, Winchester small pistol magnum primers, and Hornady’s 158-grain jacketed hollow point bullets. That was my accuracy load when shooting metallic silhouette a few decades ago, so I know it works well. I loaded half with the bullets crimped using the old Lee bullet seating and crimping die (not the factory crimp die), and the other half with the bullets crimped with my new Lee factory crimp die (after seating them with the bullet seating die).

.357 Magnum ammo with 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollowpoint bullets. The 25 on the right were crimped with the bullet seating die; the 25 on the left were crimped with the Lee factory crimp die.

A macro photograph of the ammo above. The Lee factory crimp due cartridge is on the left; the bullet crimped with the bullet seating die is on the right.

The second lot of ammo was a group I had loaded several years ago. This ammo had 158-grain cast semi-wadcutter bullets crimped in the crimping groove, 7.0 grains of Unique, and Winchester small pistol primers. That load (7.0 grains of Unique and a 158-grain cast bullet) has been accurate in every .357 revolver I’ve ever shot. I loaded this ammo with the bullet seating and crimping die (not the Lee factory crimp die). I’d shot tons of this load in an older Ruger Blackhawk, but I had not tried it yet in my Python.

.357 Magnum ammo with cast 158-grain semi-wadcutter bullets crimped in their crimping groove. This ammo worked fine in the Ruger Blackhawk, but it had issues in the Colt Python. Although crimped in the crimping groove, this ammo was longer than the .357 Magnum’s 1.590-inch maximum cartridge overall length.

The third ammo lot was similar to the one above (same bullet weight and powder), but I used the cast truncated flat point bullet and I crimped above the bullet’s crimping groove using the Lee factory crimp die. I wanted to get the bullet further back from the cylinder face to prevent cylinder rotation inteference if the bullets pulled under recoil. My concern was that I would be crimping above the crimping groove, on the bullet’s main diameter, and I didn’t know if the crimp would hold the bullet in place.

The cast 158-grain truncated flat point bullet crimped above the crimping groove. This shortens the cartridge overall length. I seated these to 1.565 inches overall length. After crimping, that figure came back up back up to 1.568 inches, still well below the 1.590-inch maximum length spec.

The above .357 cartridges in the Python cylinder crimped with the Lee factory crimp die above the crimping groove. These rounds were loaded to an overall cartridge length of 1.568 inches (as shown above), which positions the front of the bullets further back from the cylinder face.

When loading with my new Lee Deluxe 4-die set, I noticed immediately that the resizing operation was much easier. The same was true for the expander die step. Maybe the older dies I had been using were just dirty, but I sure like do the feel of these Lee Deluxe dies.

Some of you may wonder: Why not just trim the brass shorter to a below-spec length? That would move the bullet back, and if I trimmed it short enough it would allow me to crimp these cast bullets in their crimping groove and not risk any cylinder rotation interference. Yeah, I could have done that, but when I trim brass I like to trim it to specification, not something below spec. And I don’t want to have to segregate brass based on trimmed length tied to specific firearms.

Test Results: Bullet Movement

The first test objective was to determine how much bullet movement occurs during recoil using the two different crimping approaches. Here’s how I tested:

- - I loaded 5 rounds in the revolver.
  - I took a 6^th round and recorded its cartridge overall length, and then I loaded it.
  - I fired the first five cartridges.
  - I removed the unfired 6^th round and measured the overall length again.

Here’s what I found in assessing the two crimping approaches’ ability to prevent bullet pull:

The results surprised me. The Lee factory crimp die, even when done on the main diameter of the bullet (not in the crimping groove) does a better job holding the bullet in place than does crimping with the bullet seating die. In each test in which the bullets were crimped with the bullet seating die, they experienced recoil-induced bullet movement. That one entry where the overall length decreased by 0.001 inch is probably measurement error on my part.

Test Results: Accuracy

This testing was straightforward. I fired a series of 5-round groups at 50 feet to assess any differences in accuracy.

Here’s what I see in the above results:

- - With the Hornady jacketed hollow point points, using the Lee factory crimp die resulted in an improvement in accuracy (the group average was 1.637 inches compared to 1.934 inches).
  - The Hornady jacketed hollow point bullets were more accurate than the cast bullets. That was an expected result.
  - With the cast bullets, there isn’t much of an accuracy difference between using the bullet seating and crimping die versus using the bullet seating die and then the Lee factory crimp die.
  - With the cast bullets, there wasn’t much of an accuracy difference between the truncated flat point bullets and the semi-wadcutter bullets.

I wasn’t having my best range day ever (I had a bad cold when I fired these groups). But I think I did well enough to support the above conclusions.

Test Results: Ease of Chambering

I already mentioned this. Lee claims that the factory crimp die will not buckle or distort the case during crimping. My results confirm this. A few rounds that had been crimped with the bullet seating die would not chamber in the Python; after running these through the Lee factory crimp die, they chambered easily. The Lee factory crimp die does a better job for ease of chambering.

Test Results: Crimping Without a Crimp Groove

This is really a subset of the first test objective, in which we evaluated the ability of the Lee factory crimp die to hold bullets in place under recoil. Here, the focus is more specific: I crimped on the bullet’s main diameter, not in the crimping groove, and I wanted to determine if the Lee factory crimp die would secure the bullet in place. As you can see from the data above, it did. When I crimped the cast truncated flat point bullets forward of the crimping groove, they did not move under recoil. The Lee factory crimp die did this well, and it did so without buckling the cartridge case.

The Bottom Line

The Lee factory crimp die is a good thing. It holds bullets in place better, it improves chambering, and with jacketed bullets, it improves accuracy.

If you want to buy a set a Lee dies, or the Lee factory crimp die, or any Lee reloading equipment, Amazon is a good place to shop. Midway is, too. But I usually go to Amazon first.

If you have comments, be sure to let us know in the comments section below. We enjoy hearing from you.

The Star reloader resurrection story is here.

Hit those popup ads!

Want to read our handgun ammo reloading tutorial? It’s right here.

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

More reloading and gun articles are on our Tales of the Gun page.

For more info on Lee Precision reloading equipment, click on the image below:

Catching Up

Here’s a quick update on things we’ve posted about recently.

Someone else won the auction for Hank Williams .357 Ruger Blackhawk, and like I said I would, I ordered a New Model Ruger Blackhawk instead. To my astonishment, the Hank Williams gun sold for a whopping $4,993.37 (when new in 1972, it was a scosh over $100). My New Model .357 Blackhawk is at the local dealer, and I’m in the Peoples Republik 10-day cooling off period. I snagged it for $659 on Gunbroker, a reasonable price in today’s economy. I’ve got a bunch of ammo in a variety of flavors reloaded and ready to test, but I think I know what works in a Blackhawk. We’ll see.

I took Poppy’s watch to the repair shop and it was enlightening. My guy opened the watch up, which confirmed it is 14-carat white gold and revealed the serial number. The watch tech looked it up, and I learned that Poppy’s watch dates to 1884. It’s 138 years old and it’s still ticking. It’s the oldest and coolest thing I own.

Gresh’s blog on a proposed vintage bike gathering in New Mexico garnered a lot of comments and it was picked up by Motorcycle.com. I think this event it is going to happen. A few guys have posted it on other forums (we appreciate that). We’ll keep you updated right here on the ExNotes blog.

The Harley that flew off the Oakland Bay Bridge? It’s still under water (dive crews can’t find it). I wouldn’t have thought it worth the effort (you know, you can buy a brand new Chinese motorcycle from CSC for less than what a used Harley costs). I would think the divers could just look for the oil spots and work back, but hey, what do I know?

I found the piece Gresh did on the Vintage Japanese Motorcycle Club particularly appealing and I joined the VJMC, too. Like Joe, I recently received my first print magazine, and Gresh was right….there is a special excitement in getting an actual printed magazine in the mail.

The Gresh Husky saga soldiers on. Joe is already deep into the guts of his Husky’s transmission, and his engineering talents and Ebay prowess are moving things in the right direction (you’ll get an update on that in the very next ExNotes blog). Good buddy Terry pointed out that Gresh could have bought a used Sportster for what he’ll have into his Swedish meatball (it seems that Harleys are the benchmark for all things motorcycle). With Gresh’s considerable skills and Harley’s rumored reliability, maybe the best approach would be to wedge a Milwaukee transmission into the Husky (a Husky-Davidson?). Like you, I’m looking forward reading about how this adventure progresses.

And finally, one last comment, this one on Mosin-Nagant rifles. We’ve done Mosin stories (see the Tales of the Gun page). It’s no secret I’m a big fan, and it looks like that interest could pay dividends if I was interested in selling my Mosins (I’m not). Rock Island Auctions recently published an article on Mosin-Nagant price trends, and it shows they are sharply up. That’s good.

So there you have it. We appreciate you following the ExNotes blog and we appreciate your comments. Please keep the comments coming, and as always, please keep hitting those popup ads!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

A 110-grain Python Load

I’ve owned three Colt Pythons. Back in the ‘70s I had a blue 6-inch Colt Python and another 6-inch nickel-plated one (they were only about $250 back then, and I could buy them for even less through the Post Exchange). Both those Pythons went down the road, and yeah, I’m sorry I sold them. Who wouldn’t be?

Please click on the popup ads…it keeps us going!

These days, I have a 6-inch bright stainless Colt Python, the new model, and I love it. It’s the one you see in the photo above. I’ve been to the Colt factory to see how they are made, and both the Python’s design and its production are impressive. I’ll let you in on a secret: The new Pythons are better guns. I shoot my Python a lot. In the last few months I’ve been hitting the range with it at least a couple of times every week. I’m old school, I guess: I prefer a revolver to a semi-auto, and I prefer .38 Special and .357 Magnum over 9mm. Your mileage may vary. I know what I like.

Winchster 110-grain jacketed hollow point bullets waiting to be seated and crimped.

I remembered that back in the day I found a 110-gr jacketed hollow point bullet with 10.0 grains of Unique (the max load in the Hornady manual in the 1970s) and it was extremely accurate in my blue steel Python. I mean, like one-hole accurate. Accurate enough to keep that load in my memory for five decades.

Fast forward 50 years and you’ll find me scrounging for reloading components on a fairly regular basis. On one of those scrounging expeditions Rick Phillips (of Phillips Wholesale) had Accurate No. 5 propellant in stock. It’s a handgun powder, and Rick told me that Accurate No. 5 has a burn rate about like Unique. Hmmm. Unique, huh? That stuck in my mind, mostly because I had some 110-grain .357 pistol bullets in my components stash: I had Winchester jacketed hollow points, and Hornady jacketed hollow points. I bought a bunch of the Winchester bullets during the Obama years when everything was scarce, and I was down to one unopened bag of 100. I had an unopened box of the Hornady 110-grain bullets, too.

Winchester, if you’re paying attention, this bag was 15 bullets light.

I loaded the last of the Winchester bullets recently using some junk 357 brass. I have Unique, but I wanted to see if I could get good results with Accurate No. 5. Rick’s comment about Accurate No. 5 being about like Unique stuck in my mind. The max load on the Accurate site for 110 grain bullets is 11 grains, so I loaded some at 10.1 grains and some at 10.5 grains, both with magnum CCI primers.

Winchester shorted me on that last bag of 100 grain bullets. The last bag I had was unopened, but it had only 85 bullets in it. I wrote to Winchester customer support, and they responded with an answer that was left blank. I wrote to Winchester again after receiving the above non-answer for an answer, but I’m not holding my breath.

The results with both the Hornady and Winchester bullets were great. Here’s a 5-shot group at 50 feet with 10.1 grains of Accurate No. 5 and the Winchester bullets. This was the best group this morning, but they were all good.

That’s how we like to do it. I know the brass is dirty. This was a quick and dirty test. The laod was 10.1 grains of Accurate No. 5, a CCI 550 primer, and Winchester’s 110-grain jacketed hollowpoint bullet. The distance was 50 feet.

The 10.1 and the 10.5 grains of Accurate No. 5 loads shot about the same from an accuracy perspective, but the 10.5 grain loads made the primers flatter, so I’ll load the 10.1 grain load the next time I reload this ammo. No sense burning up more powder and stressing the gun and the brass if there’s no accuracy improvement. It’s already excellent at 10.1 grains.

Rugged, reliable, regal, and rewarding: Today’s Colt Python.

The Winchester bullets looked cruder than the Hornady bullets but I think they maybe had a slight accuracy edge. I went online to buy more, but I learned Winchester discontinued them. One of my buddies had two bags and he gave them to me, but the odds of me ever getting any more are slim. Hornady, Speer, and Sierra all make JHP 110-grain bullets, but nobody has any in stock. I have 85 left of the Hornady bullets (I used 15 of the Hornady bullets to make up for the ones Winchester shorted me) and now, an additional 200 Winchester bullets. You still owe me 15 bullets, Oliver.

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Rifle Primers in Revolver Ammo

With reloading components still hard to find, the question emerges: Can you use rifle primers in handgun cartridges? If you’re flush with rifle primers but hurting for pistol primers (as I am), it’s a logical question. To evaluate this, loaded a box of .357 Magnum ammo for my Colt Python. I tried to different loads of Bullseye (not an ideal .357 Magnum propellant, but it’s what I had available) and Winchester small rifle primers.

I thought I would simultaneously test for accuracy and reliability on Alco 4-silhouette targets at 25 yards, firing single action at the top two targets and double action on the bottom two targets. The first load was 3.2 grains of Bullseye, a 158 grain cast flatpoint bullet, and Winchester small rifle primers.

Accuracy was mediocre (if you’re ever assaulted by four little men with orange bullseyes painted on their chest, you’d be good enough for government work, but you won’t be taking home any accuracy trophies). The upper two little orange guys were fired single action, and every round discharged. The bottom two little orange guys were fired double action, and on those two targets, I had two misfires. That’s two misfires in 10 rounds, and that’s not good. When I fired the two misfired rounds a second time, they discharged normally.

The next target was a repeat of the first, except the ammo I shot at it had 4.0 grains of Bullseye. Everything else was the same. The top two targets were fired single action and the bottom two were fired double action. All rounds fired normally.

You can ignore the shots below the bottom two targets. I was just shooting up some ammo I had left loaded with different combos. The lower left group on the zombie’s green hand were .38 Special 148 grain wadcutter loads (with 2.7 grains of Bullseye); the ones between the two targets were .38 Special loads with the 158 grain flat point bullets and 4.5 grains of Bullseye (a very hot .38 Special load).

The propellant’s name notwithstanding, none of the above were not particularly accurate loads.

As to the primary question: Will rifle primers work in handgun cartridges, my take on this is yes, if fired single action. In double action, ignition is unreliable. On handguns with heavy hammers, you’re probably okay if firing single action. That’s true on the Colt Python, and it’s definitely true on single action Ruger Blackhawks (I have a .30 Carbine Ruger Blackhawk and I always load .30 Carbine ammo with rifle primers).

I suppose it’s possible that the two rounds that misfired double action in the Python may have been suffering from primers that were not completely seated, but I don’t see a need to continue testing. I learned enough from this quick look.

More Tales of the Gun!

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!

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 Bullseye Birdseye Blackhawk

By Joe Berk

Good buddy Greg and I (along with about a gazillion other people) are long term Ruger Blackhawk fans, and last week we were on the range with a new .357 Magnum Blackhawk Greg recently acquired. It’s one of a limited run offered by Talo, a distributor specializing in custom guns from a variety of manufacturers.

Greg’s Blackhawk has a 5 1/2-inch barrel (standard New Model .357 Blackhawks have either a 4 5/8-inch or 6 1/2-inch barrel) and really cool birdseye maple grips (most Blackhawks these days have black plastic grips). The birdseye maple grips contrast well with the Ruger’s deep bluing, and that 5 1/2-inch barrel just flat works on a single action revolver. At 40 ounces (one ounce heavier than a 1911 Government Model .45 auto), the Ruger balances well and feels right. Greg’s birdseye Blackhawk is beautiful, it groups well, and it has a superb trigger. This particular offering from Talo includes an extra cylinder chambered in 9mm, so Greg can use .357 Magnum, .38 Special, or 9mm ammo (I guess he won’t be running out any time soon).

Greg loads the same .357 Magnum ammunition that I do (a 158-grain cast lead bullet with 7.0 grains of Unique), which is the “go to” accuracy recipe in .357 Magnum. It sure shoots well. A target load that is superbly accurate in a Blackhawk is the .38 Special with a 148-grain wadcutter bullet and 2.7 grains of Bullseye propellant (that’s been a preferred .38 Special accuracy load for decades).

Ruger makes a beautiful revolver, and this Talo birdseye Blackhawk’s limited production run almost guarantees these will be investment grade guns. Most dealers are sold out, but if you poke around a bit on Gunbroker.com, you may still find one.

Help us keep bringing these articles to you. Please click on the popup ads!

Like our gun posts? Hey, there’s a lot more on Tales of the Gun!

Never miss an ExNotes blog! Sign up here for a free subscription:

.357 Ruger Blackhawk Accuracy Loads

A favorite load that seems to work well in any .357 Magnum revolver, including my stainless steel Ruger Blackhawk, is 15.7 grains of Winchester’s 296 propellant and the Hornady 158-grain jacketed hollow point bullet. I use standard rather than magnum primers. This was a 25-yard target.

The .357 Ruger Blackhawk

Ruger’s Blackhawk is an iconic firearm, one that’s been in production since the 1950s in one form or another. I bought my first one in a department store in Texas for under a hundred bucks back in the mid-1970s, and I’ve bought and sold several since. I wish I had not sold any of the Blackhawks.

I’ve owned a few .357 Magnums over the years…Rugers, a couple of Model 27 Smiths, a Model 28 Smith (remember that one?), a Model 19 Smith, and a Model 65 Smith. I’ve owned a couple of Colt Pythons, too. The Pythons were nice, but not nice enough to command the premium prices they pulled in the 1970s, and certainly not nice enough to pull the exorbitant amounts they sell for today. The Smiths were accurate, but they didn’t hold up under constant use with magnum loads. I had a new Model 27 that I wore out in a couple of seasons in the metallic silhouette game; it suffered from extreme gas cutting under the top strap and a cylinder that sashayed around like an exotic dancer in a room full of big tippers. The Ruger Blackhawks seem to last forever.

Every Ruger firearm manufactured in 1976 carries the 200th year bicentennial stamp, just like the one on my 200th year Blackhawk. On my gun, the liberty scrollmark is on top of the barrel.

I’m down to one .357 Magnum now and it’s a 200th year stainless steel Blackhawk with a 6 1/2-inch barrel. It’s one of my favorite revolvers and it’s not for sale (it never will be; I learned my lesson about letting good guns get away). I have a few favorite .357 Magnum loads I’ve used over the last 50 years. I thought it might be a good idea to document how they did in the Blackhawk, try a few more to see how they do, and share it all with you here on the ExNotes blog. I guess this is the appropriate place for the disclaimer: These are loads that work well in my Blackhawk. You should never just take these loads (or any others from the Internet) and simply run with them. Always consult a reputable reloading manual (I like the Hornady and Lyman manuals best). Always start with lower charges and work your way up, looking for any signs of excess pressure, and go no higher if you see signs of excess pressure. Okay, so that’s out of the way. Let’s get to the good stuff.

Last week’s .357 Magnum testing at the West End Gun Club.

.357 Magnum Accuracy Loads

I’ve played with a lot of different .357 Magnum loads over the years. I have a few favorite .357 Mag loads that have been superbly accurate in any of the .357 sixguns I’ve owned. That’s a bit unusual because frequently a load that is accurate in one gun won’t be accurate in another, but that rule doesn’t seem to apply here. The loads I like have worked well for me in any .357 I’ve ever shot. I verified these loads in my Blackhawk with this latest round of testing, and like I said above, I explored a few more loads.

A few of the loads tested for this blog. From left to right, the first five are .357 Magnum cartridges and the last three are .38 Special cartridges (you can fire .38 Special rounds in a .357 Magnum handgun). The bullets (from left to right) are the 110-grain Hornady jacketed hollow point, the 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollow point, the 158-grain Hornady jacketed flat point, the Xtreme 158-grain plated flatpoint, a cast 158-grain flatpoint, a cast 158-grain flatpoint in a .38 Special case, a powder-coated 158-grain semi-wadcutter in a .38 Special case, and the Missouri 148-grain double-ended wadcutter in a .38 Special case.

So, with the above as background info, let’s get into the loads. I’ll start with one of the standard “go to” .357 Magnum loads. That’s the 158-grain cast semi-wadcutter bullet (the Keith-style) over 7.0 grains of Unique. This is not the hottest .357 load (it’s a mild-recoiling .357 Magnum load), but it’s hot enough, it’s very accurate, and it’s relatively flat shooting. I have a guy who casts 158-grain flatpoint bullets for me and I like those with 7.0 grains of Unique even better than the semi-wadcutter bullets. The load is very consistent, and with the same zero and six o’clock hold I use at 50 feet (seen in the target below), I pretty much hit right on target at 25 yards, 50 yards, and yep, even at 100 yards. I was hitting a steel gonger last week at 100 yards consistently with this load. My shooting buddies were impressed, and after all, that’s what a lot of this is all about. This is a good load.

A 50-ft target with the .357 Blackhawk using 158-grain cast flatpoints with 7.0 grains of Unique. Like they say, this is close enough for government work.

For hotter .357 Magnum loads, any of the Hornady 158-grain jacketed bullets (hollow points, flat points, and full metal jacket flat points) work superbly well with 15.7 grains of Winchester’s 296 propellant. These loads have a distinctive bark, high velocities, snappy recoil, and they are superbly accurate.

15.7 grains of WW 296 and the 158-grain Hornady jacketed flat point resulted in the best group fired in this test series. Two shots went through the hole in the lower right.

Another long time favorite load is a bit unusual but it’s accurate as hell. That’s the 110-grain Hornady jacketed hollow point and a max Unique load (10.0 grains of Unique, as listed in a Hornady reloading manual from the 1970s). I first tried this one 40 years ago when I had a Colt Python and I was impressed with its accuracy. I tried it again in this test series and the results were similarly impressive. It’s probably the fastest load I tested because of the max load and the light bullets. My old Hornady manual indicates the 110 grain Hornady bullet with 10.0 grains of Unique exits the muzzle at 1450 feet per second. That’s fast.

If light bullets and high velocity float your boat, try this one (but work your way up to it): 10.0 grains of Unique with Hornady’s 110-grain jacketed hollow point.

Plated Bullets: Are They Any Good?

Surprisingly, the 158-grain plated flatpoint bullets I tested didn’t do well with any charge of Unique, and in the past, they have performed very poorly with 296 (the bullets frequently shed their plating in the bore). These plated bullets are offered by Berry and Xtreme. These are not jacketed bullets; the copper plating is chemically applied and the coating is very thin. I did get one decent showing with a lower-end charge of IMR 4227 propellant, but given the choice, I’d go for a plain cast bullet rather than plated bullets. You may feel differently. Please leave a comment here on the blog if your experience is different than mine.

Powder Coating and Paint Fumes

I tried powder-coated bullets last week, too, to see how they would perform. Powder coating is a concept that’s been around for a few years as an alternative to lubing cast bullets. I found that accuracy was more or less on par with lubed bullets, but not really any better. The powder-coated bullets look cool (the cartridges kind of look like lipstick). When I fired several powder-coated bullets fairly quickly, I could smell the paint. Some folks swear by these bullets and love them for IDPA and similar competitive pistol events. For me, performance was the same as conventional cast bullets. Your mileage may vary. Leave us a comment if you feel differently.

Powder-coated 158-grain semi-wadcutter bullets. I found their accuracy to be comparable to conventional cast and lubed bullets.

A Metallic Silhouette Load

When I shot metallic silhouette competition I used a 200-grain cast roundnose bullet in my .357 Magnum Model 27 Smith and Wesson. That bullet worked extremely well, and because of its heavy-for-caliber nature and high length/diameter ratio, it carried a lot of energy downrange. It was superbly accurate with 12.4 grains of 296. But finding those bullets is next-to-impossible today. It used to be a standard .38 Special bullet for police duty, but very few (if any) departments carry .38s today, and nobody seems to stock the 200-grain bullets. Maybe I need to get back into casting. I sure loved that 200-grain bullet in the .357 Magnum. They actually made the .357 Magnum work better on the 200-meter rams than a 240-grain .44 Magnum. The .44 Magnum wouldn’t consistently take down the rams; the 200-grain .357 Magnum did so every time.

.38 Special Loads

One of the great things about a .357 Magnum handgun is you can also shoot .38 Special loads in it. I guess that’s a good thing, as the .38 Special cartridges have lighter recoil. I tried three .38 Special loads with three different bullets. The accuracy load in .38 Special is a 148-grain wadcutter bullet seated flush with the cartridge mouth over 2.7 grains of Bullseye propellant. That load is super accurate in my Model 52 Smith and Wesson target pistol, and it did okay in the Ruger, too. I’ve always believed that a .38 Special cartridge would never be quite as accurate in a .357 Magnum handgun because the bullet has to make a longer jump to reach the rifling, and my testing last week did nothing to change my mind on that count. The .38 Special does okay in a .357 Magnum handgun, but I believe the best accuracy resides in a .357 case.