In two previous blogs, I wrote about adding the Wilson Combat rear sight (which caused the Python to shoot too high) and the Harrison Design front sight (which brought the Python back on target). This blog discusses two heavy Python loads, their ballistics, and the Python’s accuracy at 25 yards.
The two loads evaluated in this comparison. The one on the left is loaded with the Missouri Bullet Company’s 180 truncated roundnose (a cast bullet); the one on the right is loaded with Hornady’s 180-grain jacketed hollow point.
The two loads are:
Hornady’s 180-grain jacketed XTP bullet with 13.6 grains of Winchester 296 propellant and a Winchester small pistol magnum primer, and
Missouri Bullet Company’s 180-grain hard cast, truncated roundnose bullet with 14.0 grains of IMR 4227 propellant and a Winchester small pistol magnum primer.
Both are max loads.
I first tried the Hornady bullet load at 25 yards, shooting from a bench, with a two-hand hold. My point of aim was at 6:00. I fired two groups of 20 shots each. The groups were a bit low, and very slightly to the left.
A 25-yard, 20-shot group with the 180-grain jacketed hollow point Hornady bullet and 13.6 grains of Winchester’s 296 powder.A second group with the same combo.
I next tried the Missouri cast bullet load at 25 yards, firing 20 rounds under the same conditions. Surprisingly, the group size and the group center were similar to the Hornady load, even though the velocity was higher and I was using different bullets and propellants.
A 25-yard group with Missouri’s 180-grain cast bullet and IMR 4227 propellant. The two loads are of comparable accuracy.
I felt the cast bullet load’s recoil was slightly lower than the jacketed bullet load, but the difference was miniscule. Both loads have significant recoil. The ballistics of both cartridges (fired from the Python) are summarized below:
Chronograph data for the two loads tested. The IMR 4227 load has a much smaller standard deviation.
The above surprised me a bit. I always thought that Winchester’s 296 would provide the highest velocities and the smallest standard deviations. For me, an amateur ballistician, the Garmin chronograph was a good purchase. My reloading is frequently guided by the additional information it provides. I knew IMR 4227 was a good powder for magnum handgun cartridges; I just didn’t know how good. It’s very good.
After firing the first 20-round group with the Missouri Bullet Company load, I moved on to the next target. I adjusted the rear sight for elevation and windage, realizing while doing so that I had no idea how much each click of elevation and windage adjustment represented on the target, so I made a guess. I came up 6 clicks in elevation, and I moved the rear sight 6 clicks to the right.
I was disappointed that the three 20-shot groups I had shot thus far were larger than I thought they should be, so I tried harder. I poured everything I had into the next 5 shots on the second Missouri Bullet Company target, concentrating intensely, focusing on the front sight. The front sight. The front sight only. I willed myself to not think about anything except the front sight while slowly and gently increasing pressure on the trigger. The target disappeared as into fuzzy black blur. The big Python barked and bucked. I did it again four more times and then got up to check the target in my spotting scope.
Damn, that looked good! All 5 shots were in the 10-ring. This formed a dilemma. That was a nice target. Should I stop now and save the target for a photo, or should I fire the next 5-shot group, potentially ruining the target’s bragging rights?
A deep breath, let halfway out, with intense concentration on the front sight. This is a sweet combination: The Colt Python, 14.0 grains of IMR 4227, and the 180-grain Missouri cast bullet.
I went for Door No. 2, and sent 5 more 180-grain cast bullets downrange, concentrating so hard the rest of the world vanished. I checked the spotting scope. All 5 shots went into one ragged hole. This is good stuff; both the above loads are acceptably accurate and they are suitable for taking hogs. I think I’m going to go with the cast bullet load when I next hunt pigs in Arizona, which will occur later this year. When I do so, you’ll read about it here on the ExNotes blog.
Subscribe to ExNotes for free!
We need your support! Do what you can to help ExNotes stay in the black!
More Gresh and Berk? You bet! Check out A Cup O’ Joes!
In a previous blog comparing Ruger’s .357 Bisley, the Ruger Blackhawk, and the Colt Python with the Missouri 180-grain bullet and IMR 4227 propellant, I mentioned that the Colt Python rear sight is a real rinky dink design. Specifically, the set screw that holds the windage adjustment in place is not up to the job. Mine wouldn’t secure the windage blade, and when I tried to tighten it, the set screw’s Allen socket surrendered. Surrender would be good for the IRGC; on a high-priced revolver component, not so much.
The stock Python rear sight. The windage blade is secured in place with a tiny set screw denoted by the red arrow.
Faced with this situation, I did what Wilson Combat wanted me to do: I ordered their upgraded, more robust rear sight. At $119, it’s not cheap. It probably cost less than $3 to manufacture. The high price was undoubtedly due to the nonrecurring engineering that went into it, but based on my results on the range, I don’t think Wilson got what they paid for from their engineering department. I sure didn’t (more on that in a second). I bought the Wilson Combat rear sight on Amazon Prime, so I saved a few bucks on shipping and that was good. I received the part the next morning, and that was good, too.
The Wilson Combat Colt Python Adjustable Battlesight.A look at the Wilson Combat Python rear sight components.
The Wilson upgrade comes in a nice plastic display package, and it includes everything needed: A complete rear sight assembly, a spring, the elevation adjustment screw, and installation instructions (although the thing is so basic the instructions aren’t really needed).
A set of brass punches. Using these helps to prevent marring the stainless steel Python.The Universal Gun Bench Block. Everyone who tinkers with guns needs one of these.The Universal Gun Black out of the box. I’ve had this one for years. It is a very handle tool.A small gunsmithing hammer. One side is brass; the other is rubber.
I installed my Wilson Combat replacement sight the day I received it, using simple gunsmithing tools I had previously purchased: A set of brass punches, a universal bench block, and a small brass hammer. The brass tools are necessary because the Python is made of stainless steel, and I didn’t want to mar any of the revolver’s polished surfaces.
The Python’s rear sight roll pin must be removed to remove the rear sight. On firearms, removal is always from left to right. Installation is always from right to left.
The first step was to tap out the stock rear sight’s roll pin. Colt uses a roll pin instead of a simple pin, and that’s a good thing. Roll pins stay put. Other manufacturers use simple pins, and my experience has been that they constantly back out under recoil.
Once I had removed the Python’s stock rear sight, I compared it to the Wilson Combat replacement.
The Python stock rear sight (top) and the Wilson Combat rear sight (bottom). Note the heavier spring in the Wilson Combat rear right. I used the stock Python spring with the new Wilson Combat sight.The two rear sights side by side.Another look at the stock rear sight (top) and the Wilson Combat rear sight (bottom). Both use screws for windage adjustment, but the stock rear sight requires locking the rear sight blade in place with a very tiny set screw. The Wilson Combat rear sight uses a click-detented windage adjustment screw. It’s a better setup for windage adjustment.A view from the driver’s seat. The stock rear sight is on the left; the Wilson Combat rear sight is on the right.
I like the Wilson Combat’s clean look, it’s slightly longer sighting radius (i.e., distance from the front sight), and the serrated rear sight blade. The theory behind a serrated rear sight blade is that it cuts down on reflections (although I think that’s more a marketing shtick than a real advantage). I like the look better, though. The width of the rear sight slot appeared to be about the same as the stock Python rear sight. The notch’s depth was greater, so that’s good. What wasn’t good, though, was that the Wilson Combat rear sight appeared to be taller than the stock part. That would make the gun shoot high. I hoped I was wrong about that, and that once I had new sight installed, it would not be any taller. As I had that thought, I was reminded of the old saying: Poop in one hand, hope in the other, and see which one fills up first.
The Wilson Combat rear sight spring is way stronger than the stock spring, and I had a hard time attempting to get everything aligned so that I could tap in the roll pin. I gave up and used the stock spring (the one that was originally under the stock rear sight).
When I had the gun reassembled, I examined it. The rear sight was indeed taller than the original equipment Colt sight, even with the elevation adjustment lowered as far as it would go.
The Wilson Combat rear sight installed on my Colt Python. It is all the way down; it cannot be lowered further.Another view of the fully-lowered Wilson Combat rear sight. It’s taller than the stock rear sight, which causes the revolver to shoot high.
I went to the range the next day, and shooting my 180-grain Missouri bullet load (with 14.0 grains of IMR 4227), I found that the Wilson sight absolutely did shoot high. As can be seen from the photo at the top of this blog, the Python now shoots about 2.880 inches high with the rear sight in its lowest position. Hmmm. I looked at both my hands. Neither contained any hope.
I tried another load I like (a 158-grain jacketed hollowpoint with 15.0 grains of IMR 4227). It, too, was high at 45 feet. I expected it to be slightly higher than the 180-grain bullet load. It was about the same, which is to say it, too, shot too high.
The Wilson rear sight has no wobble; the stock Colt rear sight can be wiggled around quite a bit. Because of that, I think the Wilson sight will group better, although I have no data that proves this. Unlike the stock Colt rear sight, the Wilson rear sight has positive clicks for windage adjustment. That is a definite improvement. There’s no more Mickey Mousing around with a microscopic set screw. I think the Wilson rear sight presents a cleaner sight picture than the stock Colt rear sight. That’s subjective on my part, but it was definitely there for me.
Overall, I was disappointed with the Wilson Combat rear sight. For a part that costs $120, I expected more. It’s not beyond the state of the art to engineer a rear sight that will work with the stock front sight. It’s ludicrous to offer a “replacement” rear sight that makes the revolver shoot high.
On this business of shooting too high, and just for grins, I took a few shots at a rock about 130 yards out. With the Wilson sight, the Python and I were hitting it consistently. But that’s with the sight adjusted as low as it will go. I guess the good news is that I can now adjust the Python to hit targets in the next county (sarcasm alert here, folks).
Given the current design, the answer is a taller front sight, and that will become the topic of a future blog. Not surprisingly, there are outfits out there selling those, too. Maybe that was the plan all along, and on this issue of a better set of Colt Python sights, I’m not done yet.
Stay tuned, my friends.
A Few Thoughts On “Windage”
The left-t0-right (or right-to-left) windage adjustment on a firearm’s rear sight is seldom used to compensate for wind. It’s used to account for a firearm’s printing to the left or the right of the shooter’s aim point. A shooter moves the rear sight’s windage adjustment to the right or to the left to bring the center of the group in line with the aim point (the spot where the shooter aligns the front and rear sights on the target). Usually, once this “windage” adjustment is made for a particular load or brand of ammunition, it is left there. We don’t move the windage adjustment to compensate for the wind blowing; if the wind is blowing, we simply hold to the left or the right of the target to compensate for the wind moving the bullet.
You might think that if there’s no wind blowing, a gun’s rear sight could be placed exactly along the centerline of the firearm to hit the target. That’s seldom the case, though. The bullets’ impact on the target will be biased to the left or the right due to factors built into the gun and the way the gun recoils in the shooter’s hand (which varies from shooter to shooter). We compensate for this left or right bias by adjusting the rear sight’s “windage.”
Subscribe to ExNotes for free!
We need your support! Do what you can to help ExNotes stay in the black!
This blog focuses on an evaluation of the Missouri Bullets 180-grain cast lead bullet with IMR 4227 powder in the three .357 Magnum revolvers shown above: A 6-inch Colt Python, a 6 1/2-inch Ruger Blackhawk, and the 7 1/2-inch Ruger Bisley. All three revolvers have graced these pages previously (I will provide a link to the earlier blogs below); today’s story specifically assesses the Missouri cast bullet and IMR 4227 performance.
Missouri Bullet Company’s 180-grain truncated roundnose (TRN) bullet. Notice that many of the bullet bases have cast lead overflow (not a situation conducive to great accuracy).
The Missouri bullet is heavier than most .357 bullets, which I like. I generally prefer heavy-for-caliber bullets. The jury was out on these, though. I was not too pleased with an earlier batch due to casting imperfections on the bullet base. Missouri gave me a credit for that box and I ordered another thousand. These were better, but still not what I expected (the bullets still had some base smears and runs, as can be seen in the above photograph).
My reloaded .357 Magnum ammo. 14.0 grains of IMR 4227 comes right to the base of the RCBS 180-grain cast bullet.
The Missouri bullets made for a nice-looking load. I loaded the ammo used for this test on my Lee Classic Four Turret press, which is my go-to reloading setup for just about any handgun cartridge. I can’t say enough good things about the Lee gear. It’s been great.
An 8-lb bottle of IMR 4227 powder. I’m just about out of this very good propellant. I hesitate to think what a replacement bottle will cost (it’s probably close to $500). It works real well with cast bullets in reduced rifle loads, too.
As mentioned above, all loads used IMR 4227 powder. I loaded in increments of 13.5 grains, 14.0 grains, and 15. o grains. The 15.0 grains is above what most reloading references list as a max load. I found a reference to that load on the Missouri Bullets website so I thought I would try it. It is a very hot load. I would not advise using it and I’m not including data for it here.
I used brass as identified in the table below, and CCI 550 small pistol magnum primers. All cartridges were loaded to an overall length of 1.585 inches and firmly crimped with Lee’s crimping die. My Garmin chronograph recorded all velocities.
How did I do? The chart below summarizes what I found.
Tough to read, I know. Click on it and a larger version will pop up.The 6 1/2-inch Blackhawk target. The top two were shot with 13.5 grains of IMR 4227; the bottom two with 14.0 grains of IMR 4227. All shots were at 50 feet with a two-hand, rested hold. I know it looks like there are only four bullet holes in the lower right target; one bullet went through the same hole as another (it happens sometimes).The 7 1/2 inch Bisley target. Same thing here; 13.5 grains of IMR 4227 on top and 14.0 grains on bottom.The Python target. After noticing the 13.5-grain load shot way to the left, I noticed the rear sight problem. After moving the blade to the right, it wouldn’t stay in position, and the horizontal spread increased as the windage blade moved around.
With respect to accuracy, the above loads were mediocre. Both Rugers did better with the 14.0-grain IMR 4227 load; the Python did better with the 13.5 grain IMR 4227 load (but I wouldn’t take that to the bank, as will be explained in the next paragraph). None of the loads are what I would call target grade accuracy. That may have been due to me (I’m not a world class target shooter), or it may have been due to the bullet base imperfections mentioned above. Note that one particular combination (the 6 1/2-inch Blackhawk with a 14.0-grain load) shot a 0.721-inch group. Maybe I just got lucky on that one, or maybe those particular cartridges had bullet bases with no casting imperfections.
Colt Python rear sight. The blade that adjusts for windage is on a non-detented adjustment screw. When the sight is in the desired position, the tiny Allen head set screw denoted by the arrow is tightened to secure it. The Python’s rear sight was obviously designed by a guy who doesn’t shoot .357 Magnum ammo very much.
Regarding the Python, I noticed that my shots for the first two groups were way to the left. That’s because the rear sight blade had drifted to the left. I unscrewed the tiny set screw that is intended to secure the blade in place, adjusted the windage, but the sight blade moved again when I fired the next two groups. When I tried to tighten the set screw further, its Allen head socket stripped. The Python’s rear sight is the gun’s weak point. I’m replacing it with a Wilson combat sight. The Wilson rear sight replacement will be the topic of a future blog.
With respect to velocity, the differences in barrel length between the 6 1/-inch and 7 1/2-inch Rugers can be seen (the 7 1/2-inch Ruger was faster). The shorter 6-inch Python did well, most likely because it’s very tight barrel-to-cylinder gap, a slightly tighter bore (I’ve read that Pythons have a marginally smaller bore diameter than most other .357 Magnums), and a more polished bore overcame the longer-barreled Rugers’ length advantage.
I think IMR 4227 is a good powder in the .357 Magnum. It gives velocities comparable to Winchester 296, another great choice for this cartridge. The Missouri bullets do not provide, in my opinion, target grade accuracy. I may load some of these with the 14.0 grain load using bullets that I screen for good bases (i.e., no casting defects) to see how they do. I think these bullets are good enough for hunting, though, and I plan to use the 14.0-grain load in my 6 1/2-inch Blackhawk on my next pig hunt. Stay tuned.
Our earlier blogs on the Python, the Blackhawk, the Bisley, and a whole bunch of other cool stuff are here.
Subscribe to ExNotes for free!
We need your support! Do what you can to help ExNotes stay in the black!
Man, I love my Colt Python. I thought I’d get that out of the way first in case anyone had any doubts. The Python is one of those things that just feels right. I’m glad I bought it and every time I take it to the range I feel good because I know I made a good decision.
I’ve been on a kick lately developing different loads for the Python with a focus on 158-grain and 180-grain jacketed bullets, and different propellants (including Winchester 296, Bullseye, IMR 4227, and Unique). Not to be combative and before you get your inner keyboard commando up, let me state at the outset that I can hear the comments already: What about 2400, or Power Pistol, or (fill in with your favorite powder). You go to war with the Army you have and I had to put a cap on the development work (and the above listed powders are what I had). If you want to see more development work with other powders, hit the donate button below and send me a note. Or start your own website.
158-grain DKC bullets, .357 Magnum reloads, and the Colt Python: A marriage made in Heaven.
I keep a stash of Hornady jacketed bullets as my preferred projectiles in the .357 Magnum, mostly because of their consistent quality and accuracy. Recently, I received an email from Raven Rocks for DKC 158-grain jacketed hollowpoint bullets, so I thought I’d try those. DKC is a Turkish bullet maker, and I know from prior defense industry experience that the Turks usually do a good job on armament components. You may recall that I recently tested some of DKC’s 147-grain 9mm bullets in three different handguns and I wasn’t too impressed with them (that blog is here). I wanted to see if the DKC .357 bullets were any better than the 9mm bullets (spoiler alert: they are).
For this testing, I fired all loads at 50 feet, I used my Garmin chronograph to measure the velocities, and I used my Lee classic four turret press and Lee’s .38/.357 four-die set for loading the ammo. I believe in Lee reloading gear, and when it comes to getting a good crimp on hot revolver cartridges, the Lee dies work best (you can read about that here). That’s especially critical on the Colt Python, which has a very short cylinder compared to some other sixguns). Making sure the other bullets in the cylinder don’t jump forward under recoil is critical with the Python (see our earlier testing).
So what’s the bottom line?
It’s 15.0 grains of IMR 4227, CCI 550 primers, and the DKC 158-grain jacketed hollowpoint bullet. Here’s how I got there:
I know the table’s font is too small to read as presented here. If you click on the table, a larger table will appear. You can thank me by clicking on the Donate button.
Oh yeah! A 50-foot target shot with the 15.0-grain IMR 4227 load. Point of aim was 6:00 on the orange bullseyes.
As stated above, I found that 15.0 grains of IMR 4227, a magnum primer (I used CCI 550 primers), and the DKC 158-grain bullet gave the smallest groups, but several of the other recipes were not too far behind. Just about any load combo worked well. But that 15.0-grain load…wow, it was a honey. The velocity (which averaged 1140 fps) was what I would consider moderate for a .357 Magnum. The recoil was correspondingly moderate.
Every gun is different, and it’s interesting to see what works best in different guns chambered for the same cartridge. The Unique load at the top of the table above was the accuracy load for my 6 1/2-inch blue steel Ruger Blackhawk. The 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollowpoint load with 16.7 grains of Winchester’s 296 worked best in my 6 1/2-inch Ruger stainless Blackhawk and it was stunningly accurate in my 8 3/8-inch Model 27 Smith and Wesson 40 years ago. But 16.7 grains of 296 makes for a religious experience type of load. Recoil is impressive and steady servings of those cartridges beat both the stainless Ruger Blackhawk and the Smith Model 27 to death. I only tried a few of those monster loads in the Python, and I’m glad they weren’t the accuracy winner.
I keep a stash of the .38 Special standard target load (2.7 grains of Bullseye with a 148-grain Hornady hollowbase wadcutter bullet) on hand. It is a one-hole load in my Model 52 Smith, and it’s been accurate in other .357 and .38 Special handguns. I wanted to use it in the Python as a standard of comparison, and it surprised me. It was the least accurate of any of the loads tested in my Python. Like I said above: Every gun is different.
After settling on the 15.0-grain IMR 4227 load, I wanted to see how it would do at 25 and 50 yards. I went to the West End Gun Club on a beautiful Sunday morning and set up targets at both distances.
I first shot at the 25-yard target and shot a great group, but it was high (it’s the group circled in red in the target below). The rear sight only had four more clicks left in the down direction, so I dialed those in and fired another five rounds. That produced the group circled in green in the target below. I used a 6:00 hold on the black bullseye for both groups.
A 25-yard target with my 15.0-grain IMR 4227 load. Two groups…one in red before lowering the rear sight, and one in green after lowering the green sight.
After firing the first 25-yard group, I shifted to the 50-yard target before adjusting the rear sight. That produced the group outlined in red in the target below. After lowering the rear sight, I shot the group outlined in green in the target below. It was a good group at 50 yards, but still too high (I was using the same 6:00 bullseye hold mentioned above). Because I was out of adjustment on the rear sight, I tried to hold about 4 inches below the bottom of the bullseye, and I shot the group outlined in yellow.
I couldn’t get the rear sight low enough at 50 yards, so I dialed in a little Kentucky droppage to get the group in yellow.
I’m pleased with these results. I might need to move the rear sight a scosh to the left, but I want to shoot a few more groups to confirm that. That will happen in the near term. I am also thinking about a taller front sight. The rear sight is already in its lowest position; a taller front sight would bring the point of impact in line with the point of aim. We’ll see.
What’s next? I’m thinking a trip to Arizona for some more pork. I’d like to see how this combo works on a pig, and I think there’s enough energy and accuracy to humanely take next year’s stash of bacon. Well, okay, you got me: I’m just kidding about the bacon part. There’s no belly fat on a wild pig. There’s plenty of other meat on one of those Arizona hogs, though, and I’m already thinking about a cookbook featuring recipes for the same.
I’ve written about the Ruger .357 Magnum Bisley before, and I’ve written about other Ruger .357 Magnum revolvers. The .357 Magnum cartridge is one of my all-time favorites, and I wanted to share with you a load that is particularly powerful and accurate. It’s the one you see below:
Winchester’s 296 propellant has always performed well for me in the magnum handgun cartridges and in .30 Carbine, and the .357 Magnum is no exception. I had loaded these cartridges with Hornady’s 180-grain jacketed hollow point bullets (a heavier bullet than the normally-used 158-grain bullet). I like these bullets a lot, and apparently, so does the Bisley. Here’s a 25-yard target with 50 rounds, shot from the bench, but with no other rests employed:
The average velocity from the Bisley was a cool 1194 feet per second, with a relatively small 18.4 feet per second standard deviation. This is a good load. From a metallic silhouette perspective, I can’t tell you if they will reliably take down the 200-meter rolled homogeneous ram, but I’m guessing they will.
We’ve written a lot on the .357 Magnum cartridge, Ruger handguns, and reloading the cartridges they shoot (including the very fine Lee Precision dies and turret press I use). Links to those articles are listed below.
Fifty years ago I used to be a pretty good metallic silhouette shooter. I would like to return to that game. It would be nice to be 25 years old again, too, but that’s not in the cards. Metallic silhouette shooting, though…I think I can turn the clock back on that one.
Participating in a Fort Bliss metallic silhouette competition in 1976. One of the revolvers I shot in those days was a .44 Magnum Ruger Super Blackhawk (shown above); the other was a .357 Magnum Model 27 Smith and Wesson.
If you haven’t figured it out yet, that’s where this story is going. Ponce de León went looking for his fountain of youth. Me? I just want to knock over a few metal chickens, pigs, turkeys, and rams. Like I did 50 years ago.
My friends at the range are surprised when I shoot at 100 yards with a revolver. That’s because they’ve never shot a handgun metallic silhouette course. In that game, there are four courses of fire:
Chickens at 50 yards (10 shots)
Pigs at 100 yards (10 shots)
Turkeys at 150 yards (10 shots)
Rams at 200 yards (10 shots)
The targets are sized so that each subtends about the same angle. That means the pigs (actually, they are supposed to be javelinas) are bigger than the chickens, the turkeys are bigger than the pigs, and the rams are bigger than the turkeys.
Chicken, turkey, ram, and pig targets.
The hardest target to hit is the turkey (it is narrower than the other targets); the hardest target to knock over is the ram (it is big and heavy). Simply hitting doesn’t count; you have to knock the targets over. The 200-yard ram weighs about 55 pounds. Back in the day, I used to be able to knock them over with a .357 Magnum. My load was a 200-grain cast bullet and 13.0 grains of Winchester 296. It was more reliable than a 240-grain 44 Magnum load because the .357 bullet is more aerodynamic and it retained more energy downrange.
I’ve been evaluating loads for the .357 Ruger Bisley for metallic silhouette competition, and load development is progressing. I’ve mostly been playing with Hornady’s 158-grain jacketed hollowpoint XTP bullet, but I’ve also tried their 180-grain XTP. In my Bisley the 180-grain Hornady is a very accurate load.
Hornady’s 158-grain XTP bullet (left) and 180-grain XTP bullet (right).
The two bullets are identical above the cannelure. The difference is bullet length behind the cannelure.
Two .357 Magnum cartridges loaded with the 158-grain XTP bullet (top) and 180-grain bullet (bottom). After loading, the cartridges appear to be identical.
I’ve been keeping track of the loads, the velocities, and the accuracy on 100-yard targets. The Bisley shoots best with the 180-grain Hornady XTP bullets and 13.6 grains of 296 powder. I used small rifle primers. I’ll try the same load with small pistol magnum primers to see if I get a velocity gain and if the groups get better. In prior tests with the 158-grain Hornady bullets, there didn’t seem to be a velocity increase in going from small rifle to small pistol magnum primers. We’ll see if the same holds true for the 180-grain bullets.
Here’s a 100-yard target with the actual size of the 100-yard pig overlayed on it. That silhouette is one I grabbed off the Internet. It is smaller than what I remember (and certainly smaller than any javelina I’ve ever seen, other than babies). But it’s useful for assessing my progress in getting a useable Bisley load. I used the 180-grain bullets for the group you see below.
A target shot at 100 yards, with a pig imposed on it. I think the actual target is a little larger. This isn’t a bad 100-yard revolver group, but I want to tighten it up.
Real javelinas are not quite that small, and they’re mean as hell. You don’t want to tangle with a javelina.
The real deal: Mamá Javelina con su bebé. Folks tell me I was in a bad spot when I took this photo. It was dark and I couldn’t see the javelina except when the flash fired. I didn’t know where to focus, so I just kept twisting the lens and firing successive shots. Only one was in focus. I didn’t know this lady was with her baby until I saw the photo later.
Winchester’s 296 powder is my preferred propellant as it usually gives great velocity and accuracy. Winchester 296 is prone to gas cutting, though. That’s what occurs on the underside of the revolver’s top strap (the part of the frame that goes over the cylinder). Hot gases and powder escape between the barrel and cylinder gap and cut into the frame. From what I’ve read, it tends to cut as you see in the photo below, and then it doesn’t get any worse. I think that’s because as the cutting gets deeper, the distance to the bottom of the cut increases.
Flame cutting on the Bisley top strap induced by hot 296 loads.
I’ve seen gas cutting in handguns after putting lots of 296-powered rounds through them (and that’s what I intend to continue to do with the Bisley). We’ll find out if it is self-limiting.
The plan is to continue to practice (a lot) and continue the load development effort. So far, 13.6 grains of 296 and the 180-grain Hornady bullet get the nod. Then I have to zero the revolver at 50, 100, 150, and 200 yards. Fortunately, my club (the West End Gun Club) has a range that goes out that far. Then I’m going to find someplace that has handgun metallic silhouette shooting and knock down a few targets. It’s going to be fun.
One thing about Ruger: Nobody can top their customer service. Ruger may not explicitly state their firearms come with a lifetime warranty, but in effect, they do.
You may remember my story on the Ruger Bisley I won in a Rock Island Auction (I wrote about it several months ago). I had wanted a .357 Magnum Bisley for its heavy construction and longer barrel and, truth be told, I was surprised that my bid prevailed. When I won the Rock Island Auction, I ponied up all the nutty fees that come with such an undertaking (they are significant), and then when I received the Bisley I was disappointed. It wasn’t particularly accurate (the group sizes were mediocre), and it shot so far to the left the rear sight had to be adjusted all the way to the right to get the shots on paper.
I figured I was kind of stuck with the Bisley and my initial thought was I’d look at the gun for a while, stick it in the safe, and then maybe sell it somewhere down the line. But it bothered me. Owning a firearm that doesn’t meet my expectations doesn’t set easy. If there’s such a thing as having an obsessive-compulsive disorder with firearms that are less than perfect, I’d make for a good clinical study.
I wrote to Ruger and told them what I wanted, which was an accurate Bisley that didn’t shoot to the left. I told them the revolver left their plant in 1986, so I was more than willing to pay whatever it took to make me happy. I also mentioned that I wanted to buy new grip frame screws and a new ejector rod shroud (cosmetically, they looked beat up). And finally, I mentioned that extraction was difficult with hotter loads. I asked the Ruger folks to hone the chamber walls so the fired cases would extract easily.
Ruger charged me $45 for a Fedex mailer (which they emailed to me), told me how to package my revolver (a plain brown box, with nothing on the outside to indicate its contents), and advised it could be 4 to 6 weeks before I saw the gun again. Four days later, it was on its way back to me, with no additional charges other than the initial $45 I paid for the Fedex mailer.
A new ejector shroud on the Bisley.New grip screws all the way around.The rear sight, approximately centered. This is way better than what it was when I returned the Ruger.Ruger honed the chamber walls to prevent sticky extraction. The gun extracts flawlessly.
Ruger mentioned in the paperwork returned with the gun that they retorqued the barrel, installed a new ejector shroud, honed the chambers, replaced all the grip screws, test fired it, and sent it home. The first thing I looked at was the rear sight. Comfortingly, it was a lot closer to being centered than it was when I sent the gun to them.
So how did it do?
Yessiree, that’s what I’m talking about!
Just fine, thanks. The day I received it, I hopped in the Subie, motored over to my indoor range, and fired three different .357 loads at 10 meters. Now, I know 10 meters is only 30 feet, but I wanted to get an idea how the revolver was working. One load was a relatively mild Bullseye-powered concoction with cast 158-grain bullets, another was a gonzo 158-grain Hornady jacketed bullet load with a max charge of Unique, and the third was an even more energetic load with the same 158-grain jacketed hollow point Hornady bullet and a max load of Winchester 296 propellant. On that indoor range, even with my Walker electronic earmuffs, the concussion of the big Bisley and its full throated .357 loads was starting to give me a headache. But the targets? Oh, boy…the Bisley and I were back in business. I ran another target out to 50 feet (the longest range available at the indoor range), and that group was just as good as the ones at 30 feet.
Winchester’s 296, Unique, a finished .357 Magnum cartridge, the 158-grain Hornady XTP bullet, and the 180-grain Hornady XTP bullet.A macro shot of the Hornady 159-grain and 180-grain XTP bullets. Viewed from outside the cartridge case, the bullets appear identical. The difference is in their length below the cannelure.A couple of loaded .357 Magnum cartridges. I’ve always liked the .357 Magnum cartridge.
The day after that, I took the Bisley to our Wednesday morning Geezer get-together at the West End Gun Club. I had three things in mind: I wanted to show off a bit to my friends, I wanted to chronograph the two balls-out .357 loads I mentioned above, and I wanted to see how the revolver would do at 100 yards. Yes, you read that right: 100 yards.
100 yards with the Bisley. The first 30 shots or so were with the Unique load. When i switched over to the 296 load, the group tightened. Next time I’m out I’ll try the 180-grain bullets with 296 and dial in a little windage.
My buddy Kevin spotted for me with his spotting scope, and he was amazed with the first load (8.0 grains of Unique and the 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollow points). Kevin gave a hearty “whoa!” and I suspected things were looking good.
Kevin said several of the shots (after I had warmed up a bit and got into my long-range groove) grouped like I was shooting a rifle. I sure didn’t mind hearing that. I checked the chronograph and the velocities were respectable, too. The bullets were hitting to the left a bit, but I had room to adjust the rear sight to bring that in. And where a gun prints on target is a function of how it is held. I wasn’t consistent with the Bisley yet (I actually haven’t shot it that much).
The 158-grain Hornady bullet with 8.0 grains of Unique. It’s a max load and velocities were respectable, but not like what I attained with Winchester 295.
Then I switched to the heavier-duty 296 load (with the same Hornady XTP bullet), and wowee, I was keeping them in the black on that same 100-yard rifle target. And those loads were smoking hot. Winchester;s 296 propellant is good stuff. Check this out.
Whoa, baby! 1500 fps plus! 296 is a dynamite powder in the .357 Magnum.
All the cartridge cases extracted easily and even with the 1500 feet per second 296 load above, there were no pressure signs (other than a hellacious muzzle blast). As mentioned above, Ruger honed the chambers for me and the prior extraction issues had evaporated.
With replacement of the grip frame screws and the ejector shroud, the Bisley looks like a new revolver. And other than me paying for the initial shipping to Ruger, it was all on the house (Ruger’s house, that is). Bear in mind what I said earlier in this blog: The Bisley, purchased used, is a 38-year-old revolver.
The Bisley went from being a regret to a gun I’m excited about owning. You probably know that Ruger also made these guns in other chamberings, to include .44 Magnum and .45 Colt, and you might be wondering why I wanted the .357 Magnum. Back in the 1970s when I was a handgun metallic silhouette shooter, I competed with a .357 Magnum and I was a rarity. While everyone else was shooting a .44 Magnum or a .45 Colt, or custom-built bolt-action handguns shooting what were essentially rifle cartridges, I was one of the very few people (in fact, the only one I knew of) who shot a .357 Magnum in that game. With the right loads, the .357 would topple the 200-meter rams (the toughest target to knock over) more reliably than either the .44 Magnum or the .45 Colt, so there was a certain coolness (and a bit of smugness) on my part associated with that. The other reason is weight. When Ruger chambers different cartridges in the same firearm, the gun’s external dimensions remain the same, so the .357 Magnum Bisley weighs more than the .44 Magnum or the .45 Colt versions. More weight means the gun holds steadier and that means greater accuracy.
What’s next for this revolver is working up a load with Hornady’s 180-grain jacketed hollow point bullet and 296 powder and getting the sights dialed in at 50, 100, 150, and 200 yards (the four stages of a handgun metallic silhouette competition). When I used to compete in metallic silhouette competition, I used a cast 200-grain bullet, but nobody makes that bullet commercially. Well, almost nobody. I previously found a guy who sold a 200-grain bullet for the .357, but his bullets leaded terribly and accuracy fell off after the first three or four rounds (and cleaning the bore was a pain). If I can get the 180-grain jacketed bullets to group well, I think the metallic silhouette rams at 200 yards won’t know the difference between a 200-grain cast bullet and a 180-grain jacketed bullet, and I may get back in the game. We’ll see.
That term: Balls out. You might think it’s a crude anatomical and testicular reference, but it’s not. Engine governors used to use lever-suspended rotating metal balls that moved further away from their axis of rotation as rpm increased. When the engine speed reached a preset maximum value allowed by the governor, the centrifugal outward movement of the balls operated a lever that prohibit engine speed from going any higher. At that point, the engine was running “balls out.”
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 45th 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.
Subscribe to the ExNotes blog for free!
Help us out, folks! We depend on our popup ads to keep us in components and chain lube. Please click on the popup ads!
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.
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 dies in my new die set.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 6th round and recorded its cartridge overall length, and then I loaded it.
I fired the first five cartridges.
I removed the unfired 6th 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.
