Accuracy loads – The ExhaustNotes Blog

9mm and .45 ACP ARX Load Testing

By Joe Berk

I recently received my order of Inceptor ARX 118-grain .45 ACP bullets. I had previously loaded 9mm ammo with ARX 65-grain bullets and I was pleased with them, so I wanted to try the ARX bullets in the .45, too.

I compared how two 1911s performed on my local indoor pistol range, firing with a two-hand hold (but without a rest) at 10 yards. I used nearly identical 1911 Springfield target pistols, one in 9mm and the other in .45. The .45 1911 is as it came from the factory; this gun has had no custom work done to it other than installing a one-piece guide rod. The 9mm 1911 had the same one-piece guide rod, along with other custom touches by good buddy TJ at TJ’s Custom Gunworks. The 9mm 1911 has a much crisper and lighter trigger, it is an absolute delight to shoot, and it is my favorite handgun.

The two Springfield 1911s used in this test., shown here with cast bullet loads. The testing described herein used ARX composite bullets, as shown in the photo at the top of this blog.

The ARX bullets are different than anything I’ve used before. They are a mix of copper particles suspended in a polymer matrix. The ARX bullets are much lighter than cast or jacketed bullets, with consequently dramatically higher muzzle velocities. They are not marketed as frangible bullets. They are intended to produce a larger wound cavity and I suppose because of that they could be considered a better defense round. I’m not interested in any of that. I’ll never hunt with either a 9mm or a .45, and although I sometimes carry a 1911 chambered in .45 ACP or my 9mm S&W Shield, when I do so it is always with factory ammunition. Nope, my interested was a result of my buddy Robby gave me a few 9mm ARX bullets and I fell in love with them. The ARX bullets are less expensive than cast or jacketed bullets and they are accurate. For a range rat like me, that’s a good deal.

I reloaded all ammo used in this test series with my Lee turret press, a great setup that consistently produces superior ammo. This photo shows a completed ARX .45 ACP round. Here’s our earlier review of the Lee gear.

9mm 1911 ARX Results

I wrote about my initial impressions with the 65-grain 9mm ARX bullets previously (they were all good), so for this first portion of the comparison there’s not too much that’s new other than this load’s attaining 100% reliability in holding the slide back after the last round.

9mm ammo loaded with the ARX 65-grain polymer composite bullet. After my first trial with these bullets, I ordered a bunch.

9mm ARX bullets loaded in my 1911’s magazine.

My 9mm load uses 5.2 grains of Winchester’s 231 propellant, with the bullets seated to an overall cartridge length of 1.135 inches. I used CCI 500 primers and mixed brass for the loads you see here (I am lazy and I didn’t want to sort the 9mm brass). I loaded these on my Lee turret press using Lee dies (including the factory crimp die). I took the load data directly from Inceptor’s website. This load is a max load in their standard load listings (i.e., it is below the +P loads the Inceptor data also lists).

I shot at the Alco four-silhouette target (it has four quarter-sized silhouettes on each sheet), and I sent either 12 or 13 rounds downrange on each silhouette. That made for a total of 50 rounds on each target.

The Alco Targets 4-silhouette target. I shot 12 rounds at the top left target ,13 rounds at the top right target, 12 rounds at the bottom left target, and 13 rounds at the bottom right target. That top right target is pretty sweet.

The 9mm ARX load functioned perfectly in my 1911. There were no failures to feed or eject and the pistol stayed open after the last shot fired. This is an accurate load. The flyers are due to yours truly, not the gun or the load. Maybe if I had sorted the brass they would be a little better, but these are good enough for my purposes.

These 9mm bullets only weigh 65 grains. They step out sharply, but the recoil is low (perceptibly lower than what I would feel with a 115 or 124-grain cast or jacketed bullet). Velocities are high for a 9mm (which are typically in the 1100 fps range with cast or jacketed bullets). The Inceptor data for my load showed that they achieved 1433fps with 5.2 grains of HP38 propellant (which is the same powder as Winchester 231). Their results were with a 4-inch barrel. My 1911 has a 5-inch barrel; I achieved an average velocity of 1626fps, or nearly 200fps faster than what Inceptor achieved in their testing. To add a little more context to these findings, I previously tested this load in my S&W Shield (which has a 3.1-inch barrrel). In the Shield, this load averaged 1364fps. The bottom line? My results are consistent with the Inceptor load data.

Take a look at the Garmin chrono data for this load in the 1911.

Yikes! These are smoking hot 9mm rounds!

In my prior test of this load in the Springfield 1911 and the S&W Shield, I found that the 1911 would not hold the slide back after the last shot (the Shield didn’t have that problem). In that earlier initial test, I used a two-hand hold and I rested my arms on the bench. I think that might have caused the 1911’s problem with holding the slide open after the last shot. In the range session yesterday, I used a two-hand hold, but I did not rest my arms on the bench (and the gun functioned perfectly, holding the slide open after the last shot on every 5-shot string). The 5.2-grain Winchester 231 load is a good one for the 9mm. It’s accurate, the recoil is light, and reliability is superb.

.45 ACP ARX Bullet Testing

I next moved on to test the 118-grain ARX bullets in my .45 ACP Springfield 1911.

A cartridge that looks like a drill bit! ARX bullets in the .45 ACP make for an interesting and handsome round.

The .45 ACP load used the ARX 118-grain bullet with 9.1 grains of Power Pistol, a Winchester large pistol primer, and Winchester brass, all loaded on the Lee turret press with a Lee crimp die. The .45 ACP load data also came from the Inceptor site. The site lists three powders; the only one I had on hand was Power Pistol. The 9.1 grains of Power Pistol is at the top of their non+P range. It is not a +P load. Ordinarily I would not start testing at the top of the listed propellant weight range, and I probably shouldn’t have done so here (more on that a paragraph or two down).

.45 ACP ARX bullets loaded in my 1911’s mag. Everything works. They look cool.

The Inceptor load recommended a cartridge overall length of 1.26 inches. I loaded with a cartridge overall length of 1.250 inches, which is what I have used in all my other .45 ACP loads. That length fits well in the magazine. I don’t think the additional 1/100 of an inch Inceptor specified would cause interference between the ammo and the forward inside magazine edge, but it’s close and in any event, I wanted to stick with the cartridge length that has always worked for me in the past.

The .45 loads felt hot to me. I think that’s primarily because I have been shooting my 9mm handguns lately. A few of the cartridge cases showed a little (very little) primer flattening. I’m not sure if that was due to firing the round or if it was due to me putting extra effort into primer seating during the reloading process. The .45 ACP is a powerful cartridge, and when I haven’t shot one in a while, it can seem even more powerful.

Same target, different cartridge. That top left target has 12 rounds through it and it is what I’d like to do all the time. When it happens, it’s its own reward.

Accuracy was about the same as with the 9mm. I thought both were good. There were occasional flyers, but that was undoubtedly me and not the gun or the load. Again, I shot offhand for all of these groups, so I wasn’t expecting one-hole results.

1346fps from a .45 Auto! The chrono tells the story!

Velocities were very much higher than what I’ve seen with other bullets in any .45 ACP. I had previously loaded .45 ACP with all kinds of cast and jacketed bullets ranging from 185-grain wadcutters to 230-grain full metal jacket projectiles. They would typically see velocities of 700fps to maybe 900fps. Some folks load the .45 a little hotter than that with cast or jacketed bullets. I’ve never felt a need to. But those ARX 118-grain bullets! Wow! The Inceptor load data said I would see 1,317fps with 9.1 grains of Power Pistol propellant (and for their .45 ACP testing, Inceptor used a 5-inch barrel); my ammo averaged 1346fps. Extreme spread and standard deviation were low; both extreme spread and standard deviation were similar to what my 9mm ARX loads achieved.

Feed and ejection were flawless in my Springfield 1911. That said, I am going to drop the load down to 8.7 and 8.5 grains of Power Pistol and try that for the next load. If I get good groups and reliable function, that’s where I’ll load in the future.

The Bottom Line

These are good bullets, and I think they represent a huge step forward. They are the first really new thing to come along in the reloading game in a long time.

Surprisingly, both the 9mm and the .45 put the bullets where I wanted them, with no sight adjustments from my previous lead or jacketed bullet loads. I expected both the 9mm and .45 ACP ARX loads to shoot low, but they did not. The sights were right on the money.

I didn’t see any copper fouling from the bits of copper mixed in the ARX bullets’ copper/polymer matrix. There’s a tiny bit of blue/purple fouling from the bullet polymer, but it’s very minimal and it’s only in the grooves. I had not cleaned either the 9mm or the .45 1911 after earlier range sessions with cast and plated bullets and the bores were dirty when I started shooting the ARX bullets. Both guns were cleaner after shooting the ARX bullets than they are after shooting cast or jacketed bullets. Bore cleanliness is a big plus here.

Price is another advantage; the 9mm bullets are $57/1000 and the .45 ACP bullets are $65/500 (I think the .45 bullet price at $65/100 is an increase from what I paid a couple of weeks ago). I’ve ordered ARX bullets three times now; on all three orders, they did not charge sales tax. I guess the sales tax is included in the retail price already. Whatever. I’m an anti-tax guy. Whether it’s real or imagined, not paying sales tax is plus in my book.

I’m not going to hunt with either my 9mm or my 1911, but here in California, these bullets should meet our lead-free bullet criteria. Similarly, the bullets are not hollow points. Some places (San Francisco and all of New Jersey come to mind) have outlawed hollow point bullets. These bullets should be okay in places where hollow points are outlawed.

As mentioned near the start of this blog, the drill-bit-like bullet profile creates a much larger wound channel. The idea is that bullet spin allows the bullet to grab onto tissue and propel it outward. There are some YouTube videos that purport to show this in ballistic gelatin. I suppose if you were defending yourself against a bad guy made of ballistic gelatin (think Steve McQueen and the 1958 classic, The Blob) these would be the preferred bullet. None of that matters to me, and from a defense perspective it’s probably moot (especially with the .45). Dead is dead, and with a .45, I’m guessing a larger wound channel won’t make a bad guy any deader. My interest is in how well the ARX bullets shoot on paper, and they do that extremely well.

Join our Facebook ExNotes page!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Help us keep the lights on:

Don’t forget: Visit our advertisers!

Quality Ain’t Job One At Winchester These Days

By Joe Berk

Notice anything flaky about the bullets above? At first, I didn’t. But it’s there. Read on, my friends.

I confirmed a couple of good loads for the .30 06 Weatherby this morning and several months of trying different bullet weights, powders, powder charges, seating depths, and more. In the past, one of my favorite bullets for both the .30 06 and .300 H&H cartridges has been the Winchester 150-grain jacketed softpoint so I wanted to try these again, but they have been unavailable for a long time.

When the Winchester bullets finally came back on the market again a few months ago, I bought 1000. Sometimes they grouped well in my Weatherby, at other times they did not. I got to where I worked up a load with 51.0 grains of IMR 4064 (a max load for this bullet) and that had shown promise, but I’d get a good group and then a bad one. I was pretty sure it wasn’t me being flaky behind the gun; things looked good through the scope when I pulled the trigger.

My 40-year-old Weatherby Mk V, chambered in .30 06 Springfield. It’s a beautiful rifle.

That’s a 1980s-ish 12X Leupold Silhouette scope on the Weatherby.

I found that how I positioned the rifle in the Caldwell rest made a difference. If I had the rifle positioned so that the rest was just forward of the rifle’s floorplate, it grouped well; if I had the rifle positioned further back, it did not group as well. Even while taking care to appropriately position the rifle, though, the Winchester bullets grouped erratically. I’d get good groups and then I’d get bad groups.

Then one day after another frustratingly inconsistent range session, I returned home, cleaned the rifle, resized the brass, threw the brass in the tumbler, and was reloading it with the above load when I noticed that the bullet cannelures were not at consistent heights above the case mouth after seating the bullets. Hmmmm.

Winchester 150-gr JSP bullets. Note the cannelure location inconsistences.

So I lined up some bullets on the bench, and son of a gun, the cannelures were all over the place on the bullets (with regard to height above the bullet base). I bitched to Winchester about this through their website and they agreed to refund what I had paid for the bullets. They even had a UPS guy stop by and give me a prepaid shipper to return them. I didn’t want to, though, because the bullets had done well in the past, and I still wasn’t certain that the cannelure location issue was affecting accuracy.

So I reloaded another 12 rounds and before I did so, I sorted the Winchester bullets by cannelure height. I loaded 6 cartridges with bullets that had cannelures at what appeared to be approximately the same location, and I took the bullets I had screened with what were obvious cannelure location differences and loaded 6 more rounds. The next morning I got out early to beat the heat and set up a 100 yard target at the West End Gun Club. I proved my hypothesis: The cannelure height variability was degrading accuracy significantly.

The top two groups had bullets with inconsistent cannelure heights. The bottom two groups had bullets with cannelure heights that were located in approximately the same spot, and the groups with those bullets were much smaller.

The group sizes for bullets with the same cannelure locations returned minute-of-angle groups; the group sizes for bullets with random cannelure height locations were more than twice the size of the consistent-cannelure-location bullets. Duh. I proved (at least to myself) that this cannelure height location issue is making a difference. I can hypothesize that cannelure location can affect the bullet’s center of gravity, center of pressure, drag, and perhaps other aerodynamic and mass properties characteristics. The bottom line to me is that cannelure location variability plays a big role. Winchester screwed the pooch when they made these bullets, which is a shame. I should also mention that these bullets were not sold as seconds. They were supposed to be good bullets. An old line company with a name like Winchester ought to be making a quality product, but they clearly are not. That notwithstanding, I think I’ll keep the bullets and sort them. I’ll use what I cull out for open sight rifles, or maybe I’ll sell them to a gas station and they can melt them down for wheel weights.

Yeah, I could just send the bullets back. To Winchester’s credit, they were willing to refund what I had paid for the bullets. But they disappointed me, and I have to tell you, I spent a lot of time and money in wasted components trying to shoot good groups with lousy bullets. What I’d really like is a note from Winchester telling me they’ve fixed the problem, and then I’d buy another thousand bullets.

You might wonder: Why not just use Hornady’s comparable 150-grain jacketed soft point bullet? It’s a logical question. I tried that with the same load, and it wasn’t as accurate as the screened Winchester bullets (even though the cannelure location was consistent on the Hornady bullets).

I did find a Hornady bullet and a load that worked well in this rifle, though, and that’s the 130-grain Hornady jacketed soft point bullet with 53.0 grains of IMR 4320 (a max load, so work up to it). It shoots slightly high and to the right compared to the load above. IMR 4320 is no longer in production, but I have a stash and I’ll continue to use it. This load is also extremely accurate in my Ruger No. 1A.

Wondering about the chrono results for the loads described above? Here they are, as shot from my 26-inch barreled Weatherby Mark V:

150-grain Winchester Loads

- 150-grain Winchester jacketed soft point bullet, 51.0 grains of IMR 4064, no crimp, cartridge overall length 3.250 inches, Fiocchi large rifle primer, inconsistent bullet height cannelure
- Min velocity: 2861.7 fps
- Avg velocity: 2891.8 fps
- Max velocity: 2909.8 fps
- Extreme spread: 48.1 fps
- Standard deviation: 15.9 fps

- 150-grain Winchester jacketed soft point bullet, 51.0 grains of IMR 4064, no crimp, cartridge overall length 3.250 inches, Fiocchi large rifle primer, screened for consistent bullet height cannelure
- Min velocity: 2902.9 fps
- Avg velocity: 2912.5 fps
- Max velocity: 2933.1 fps
- Extreme spread: 30.2 fps
- Standard deviation: 10.0 fps

130-grain Hornady Load

- Load: 130-grain Hornady jacketed soft point bullet, 53.0 grains of IMR 4320, no crimp, cartridge overall length 3.095 inches, Fiocchi large rifle primer
- Min velocity: 3022.8 fps
- Avg velocity: 3037.2 fps
- Max velocity: 3063.8 fps
- Extreme spread: 40.9 fps
- Standard deviation: 10.9 fps

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Don’t forget: Visit our advertisers!

A .223 Browning Micro Medallion A-Bolt

By Joe Berk

I recently posted a blog about a couple of accuracy loads for the 6.5 Creedmoor Browning X-Bolt. This blog focuses on a different Browning: A .223 Browning Micro Medallion A-Bolt. It’s the rifle you see here.

I bought the A-Bolt new from a local gun shop in southern California about 35 years ago. I paid $339 for it. It doesn’t have fancy walnut but when I saw it on the rack I asked to see it. I soon as I held it I wanted it. It just felt right. I fancied it as a walking around varmint rifle suitable for rabbits and coyotes, although I’ve never taken this rifle anywhere but the West End Gun Club 100-yard rifle range. I still make gun purchase decisions based on the kind of hunting and shooting I did 50 years ago in Texas. Someday I may get out and chase jack rabbits and coyotes with this rifle again. I can dream.

Browning offered their A-Bolt Medallion series, which were full-sized rifles, and their A-Bolt Micro Medallions, which have a shorter barrel and a shorter stock. The Browning Medallions and Micro Medallions were discontinued a few years ago when Browning shifted to the X-Bolt rifle, but you can still find the Micro Medallion A-Bolt rifle on the used gun racks and on the gun auction boards. A recent check showed that they go for around $650.

The rifle you see here is Browning’s Micro Medallion. I like the smaller size. It’s a lighter rifle and the shorter stock fits me well. I don’t like the gloss finish, but at the time it was all Browning offered (they later offered a satin finished rifle). What’s nice about the gloss finish, though, is that it has held up well. It and the deep bluing make this firearm look brand new. I like the rifle’s cut checkering and the darker fore end pistol grip tips, too. Browning made a big deal about their rifle’s short bolt angle in their advertising back in the 1980s and 1990s (bolt angle is the angle the bolt turns through to allow extraction, ejection, and loading). I like it, but if the rifle had a c0nventional bolt throw it wouldn’t have bothered me. It’s something different, but it’s not necessary. It is cool.

Fairly plain, gloss finished walnut. The Browning’s bolt throw is a short 60 degrees, much less than a conventional bolt action rifle’s 90 degrees. The rifle’s bluing is amazing.

A nice rifle. I use the notepad to keep track of which load I fire at which target.

Cut checkering on the Browning. These rifles were manufactured in Japan. They did a nice job.

The fore end tip and the pistol grip have rosewood caps. They look good.

Shortly after I bought the rifle, I mounted an inexpensive 4X Tasco scope on it. That worked okay for a couple of years and then the scope called it quits, so I bought another inexpensive 4X scope (a Nikko this time). The Nikko has held up well.

You might wonder: Why a nonvariable 4X scope? Why not the more popular 3-9X you see on most rifles? In my opinion, the 4X is a lot more useable in the field. I don’t get dramatically better groups with higher magnification scopes, and I like the lightness and the much larger field of view a 4X offers. Unfortunately, not too many companies offer fixed power 4X scopes these days. The scope companies’ marketing has convinced everyone they need variable scopes with high magnification.

The Nikko 4X scope was inexpensive. It has parallax and focus adjustments. Not the roll engraving on the receiver.

In my recent blog about the Browning maple Medallion 6.5 Creedmoor X-Bolt, I described a couple of accuracy loads I developed for that rifle. This time, my objectives were different. I wasn’t shooting the .223 Micro Medallion for accuracy. I was harvesting brass.

Bulk Remington .223 ammunition. It comes in a big plastic bag. I counted out 100 rounds for this range session.

A macro shot of the bulk Remington .223 ammo. Note the crimp applied to each round. I generally find that uncrimped ammo is more accurate with this cartridge. I think the crimping induces a bit of tilt in the bullet.

Several years ago I scoured the Internet looking for Remington brass. I’ve always had good luck with Remington brass (it lasts longer and it provides better accuracy, in my opinion). At that time and to my surprise, loaded Remington bulk ammo was cheaper than unprimed brass. For me it was a no brainer: I ordered a thousand rounds of loaded .223 Remington bulk ammo. When I need .223 brass, I’ll shoot up a bunch of the bulk ammo to get the brass.

The bulk Remington ammo was notoriously inaccurate in my Ruger Mini 14, which is the only rifle I had previously used with this ammunition. I wanted to see how the ammo would shoot in the Browning. I knew the Browning was accurate based on previous range testing at 100 yards (some of my reloads would shoot into a quarter of an inch in the Browning; I’ll give you those loads at the end of this blog).

The Remington ammo did well enough in the Browning. It held loads right around a minute and a half of angle at 100 yards, and it printed about where the scope was zeroed. Take a look:

Cheap ammo, but results that weren’t too shabby. I could hunt with this load.

This accuracy is good enough for minute of jackrabbit or coyote. The Browning Micro Medallion rifle is fun to shoot, too. It has negligible recoil, the shorter Micro Medallion barrel helps to keep the weight down, and it connects well at 100 yards.

About the accuracy loads I mentioned above: In a previous load development effort I tested .223 loads in several rifles, including two Remington 700 varmint guns with bull barrels and big scopes. To my surprise, the Micro Medallion and its 4X scope had no problem running with the big guns and their much heavier barrels and much higher magnifications. Here’s how the Micro Medallion and three other .223 rifles grouped a few years ago at 100 yards:

The Browning Micro Medallion shot half-inch groups with ARComp propellant (and it was basically a minute-of-angle rifle with nearly all other loads). I’ll reload the brass harvested from this range session with the Hornady V-Max bullet and ARComp propellant. This is great performance, especially considering the lightweight barrel and the 4X scope. It’s a great rifle.

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Please click on the popup ads and visit the folks who advertise with us.

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.

A Tale of Two Bicentennial No. 1 Rugers

I’ve been a Ruger No. 1 fan for close to 50 years. It started with one I’ve written about before, and that is a Ruger No. 1A chambered in the awesome .30 06 Government cartridge. I’ve spent time on the range and I’ve hunted with this rifle, and it is probably my all-time favorite firearm.

What attracted me to the No. 1 was my father’s fascination with the rifle (he never owned one, but he wanted to), the beautiful and exquisitely figured walnut Ruger used on these rifles, and their style. To me, they just look right. My fixation started in 1976. Ruger roll-stamped every firearm they manufactured with “Made in the 200th Year of American Liberty” that year.

Rugers with this roll-marked stamp are known as Liberty or Bicentennial guns.

Like I said, the walnut on my Ruger .30 06 is exquisite on both sides.

As I said, the highly-figured walnut is exquisite on both sides of this .30 06.

The Ruger No. 1 came in different configurations, and the ones you see here are what Ruger called the 1A. They had 22-inch barrels, iron sights, and the Alex Henry fore end (that’s the fore end with the notch at the front). There are all sorts of suppositions about what why the notch was originally included on the Farquharson rifles that influenced the Ruger No. 1 design, but no one seems to know for sure. I just like the look of the thing. To me, these rifles are elegant. They’re not particularly light, but they’re short and it’s easy to get around in the woods with one. Back in the day, I bought a straight 4X Redfield scope and a still prefer a 4X non-variable scope for hunting (even though it’s tough to find one these days; high-powered variable scopes are all the rage).

Those west Texas days back in the ’70s were good. We spent a lot of time (essentially every weekend) out in the desert north of Fabens chasing jackrabbits and coyotes, and the No. 1 you see here sent a lot of those critters to the Promised Land. Jackrabbits were grand fun. It was hard to believe how big some of them were.

The accuracy load for my .30 06 No. 1 is the 130-grain Hornady jacketed softpoint bullet over a max load of IMR 4320 propellant. IMR 4320 is no longer in production, but I’ve got about 10 pounds of it so I’m good for a while. The rifle will put that load into an inch at 100 yards all day long, and the 130 grain Hornady bullet seems to be perfect for jackrabbits. Yeah, I know, that’s maybe a little more power than needed for Peter Cottontail, but hey, like Donald Rumsfeld used to say: You go to war with the army you have.

The .30 06 also does well with other loads. I was on the range with the ammo I had on hand a week or so ago with heavier bullets and I was pleased with the results. I tried 180 grain Remington bullets loaded on top of 48.0 grains of IMR 4064. Those loads shot low and had perceptibly heavier recoil, but they grouped under an inch at 100 yards.

Three shots at 100 yards with the Ruger .30 06 No. 1A. The load was the 180 grain Remington jacketed soft point bullet and 48.0 grains of IMR 4064, with military brass and a CCI 200 primer.

The title of this blog is A Tale of Two Bicentennial No. 1 Rugers, and that brings us to the second rifle. I was in Ohio on a secret mission about 15 years ago and the guy I visited there learned of my interest in guns. He took me to a local shop that only sold through an online auction (that was the gunshop’s business model). When we arrived, I quickly noticed another Ruger No. 1A, this time chambered in .243 Winchester. It was a bicentennial rifle, it looked to be a near twin to my .30 06 1A, and I had to have it. I tried to buy it while I was there and have shipped to my FFL holder in California, but the owner confirmed what my friend told me…I had to bid on it at auction. I did, and I won the auction at $650. Bear in mind that these rifles’ list price in 1976 was $265, and they typically sold at $239 back then. If you think I got scalped, think again. I won the auction, and the MSRP on these rifles today is something around $2,000. And the ones made back in the 1970s are, in my opinion, of much higher quality in terms of walnut figure, checkering, and other attributes.

A .243 Winchester Ruger No. 1. It wears a period correct El Paso Weaver 4×12 telescopic sight.

Ruger used to put fancy walnut on the No. 1 rifles. Today, not so much.

A fancy walnut, red pad Ruger No. 1. Sweet!

Like the .30 06 No. 1 featured above, this .243 is also a Liberty gun.

Most recently, good buddy John gave me a bunch of assorted brass and I started loading bits and pieces of it. I loaded the .30 40 Krag and wrote about it a week or so ago. There were a few pieces of .243 Winchester brass and that had me thinking about the .243 No. 1 in this blog. You see, I bought that rifle, stuck it in the safe, and never fired it. That was a character flaw I knew I needed to address.

I thought I had a set of .243 dies, but I was surprised to find I did not. I had some ammo, so I guess at some point I had .243 dies. I bought a new set of Lee dies, and I already had some .243 bullets. And as it turns out, the Lyman reloading manual lists IMR 4350 as the accuracy load for 60 grain bullets, and I had some. I only loaded six rounds (using the brass John gave to me), and I thought I needed to buy .243 brass (everybody is sold out of .243 brass right now). Then I started poking around in my brass drawer and it turns out I have five boxes of new Winchester 243 brass. I swear I’m gonna find Jimmy Hoffa or an honest politician in my components storage area one of these days.

The Tula factory ammo I had didn’t shoot worth a damn. Tula is cheap ammo, this stuff was old, and it grouped around 2.9 to 3.5 inches at 100 yards. I also had some very old reloads that had 100 grain Sierra bullets and 34.0 grains of IMR 4064, and it did only marginally better. The six rounds I loaded myself with the brass good buddy John provided was better. At least I think it was better. I used 65 grain Hornady V-Max bullets and 43.2 grains of IMR 4350 powder. I had one good group and one lousy group. But hey, Rome wasn’t built in a day, and I’m just getting started. I’ll buy some heavier 6mm bullets (.243 is 6mm), I’ll try them with a few different loads, and you’ll get to read about it here on the ExNotes blog.

More stories on Ruger single-shot rifles (the No. 1 and the No. 3) are here.

Never miss an ExNotes blog…sign up here for free!

A Tale of Three 300s

The word “wow” might have been invented in anticipation of the .300 Weatherby Magnum. It’s that impressive. I’ve owned and fired a lot of different cartridges over the years, and the one that I find the most interesting, the most intimidating, and the most coolest ever is the .300 Weatherby. For a lot of years it was the most powerful .308-caliber cartridge on the planet. Roy Weatherby, my personal hero, created the cartridge in 1944 and it’s only been in the last few years that two or three more powerful .30-bore cartridges emerged, but these new .30-caliber cartridges are overkill. In fact, I could make a good argument that the .300 Weatherby is overkill. But I won’t. I love the round and I love the fact that it scares me a little every time I shoot it.

A sense of scale. From left to right, it’s the .22 Long Rifle, the .45 ACP, the .223 Remington (essentially, our M-16 round), the .30-30 Winchester (America’s premier deer cartridge), the mighty .30-06, and the last two are .300 Weatherby Magnum cartridges. Every cartridge shown here (with the exception of the .22 Long Rifle) is a reloaded round.

The first rifle I ever bought chambered for the .300 Weatherby, oddly enough, was not a Weatherby. It was a Winchester Model 70 that I bought maybe 35 years ago. It was a limited production item and that might have been a good reason to buy it, but the thing that grabbed my attention on this particular rifle was the walnut. You just don’t see factory Model 70s with fancy walnut, but this one had it in spades.

A 1980s Model 70 Winchester in .300 Weatherby Magnum, wearing a Weaver T-10 telescopic sight.

The right side of the .300 Weatherby Model 70.

Ah, that beautiful walnut. It’s not often lumber like this appears on a Winchester.

Both sides, too! When I saw this rifle I was still in my 30s. I really couldn’t afford it, but I couldn’t afford to let it get away, either.

I think I paid just over $400 for that rifle back in the 1980s, which is what they were going for then. I had a Weaver T10 target scope I had used when shooting metallic silhouette and it went on the Model 70. It’s most definitely not the scope for a .300 Weatherby, but it’s what I had at the time. The scope is a collectible item all by itself…it’s steel and it was manufactured when Weaver made their scopes in El Paso.

So that’s the first rifle in this trio of .300s. The next is one I bought exactly 10 years ago, in 2009, at the height of the Great Recession. I was lucky in 2009…I was working, and lots of folks were selling things to raise cash, including more than a few gun stores. An outfit called Lock, Stock, and Barrel advertised a new-in-the-box Mark V Euromark on Gunbroker, and I was on that in a New York minute. The store was in the upper Midwest somewhere and they stated in their ad they would not sell to California (our state commissars make life difficult in a lot of ways, and more than a few sellers simply won’t ship to California). But I wanted that Euromark something fierce (the Euromark is a Mark V Weatherby with a satin oil finish, rather than the Mark V’s usual high gloss urethane finish). I called the guy, did my “woe is me” routine, and he agreed to ship the rifle to my FFL-holder here in the Peoples’ Republik.

Saw it on Gunbroker, saw the wood, and I couldn’t say no.

It was nice on both sides, too. Rosewood accents, beautiful walnut, and the mighty .300 Weatherby Magnum in a Mark V. What’s not to like?

I bought a new Weaver 4×16 scope, put it on the rifle, and then I put the Mark V in the safe. It stayed there for 10 years. I fired it for the first time this weekend, for this blog.

You know, the funny thing is my good buddy Marty saw the Weatherby before I put it in the safe and he decided he needed one, too. He tried calling Lock, Stock, and Barrel a week after I received mine, but they had already gone out of business. The Great Recession was rough. My grabbing that rifle was a lucky break.

These photos impart a bit of an orange hue to the Mark V’s stock. It’s really a bit more subdued.

Like the Model 70, this Mark V is pretty on both sides. The stock profile is the classic Weatherby Monte Carlo look, which actually works very well in reducing felt recoil.

Unlike the other Deluxe Mark V rifles, the Euromark has a classic, low-sheen satin finish. It works well with the rosewood accents.

It was sunny when I was on the range this weekend. I get better photos when it’s overcast, but you get the idea. The 4×16 Weaver on this rifle is a magnificent optic.

The last .300 Weatherby I’m going to talk about today is my Vanguard. It’s one of the original series Weatherby Vanguards, and it has what we tongue-in-cheek refer to as the Tupperware stock. I’ve written about this rifle on the ExNotes blog before. I wasn’t looking for a Vanguard when I bought this one, but I saw it at the Gunrunner gun shop in Duarte, the price was right, and, well, you know how these things go. It came home with me.

My Series 1 Weatherby Vanguard with the plastic stock. It’s accurate. And it’s hard-hitting (on both ends).

A view from the port side. You can see the profile similarity between the Vanguard’s composite stock and the Mark V’s walnut stock above.

The Vanguard came from the factory with a Bushnell 3×9 scope. It needs more eye relief. Before I go into the field with this rifle, I’m going to replace the scope.

The deal on the Vanguard rifles is that Weatherby wanted to bring a lower cost rifle to market without cheapening their flagship Mark V, and they contracted with Howa of Japan to build the Vanguards. The principal difference is that the Vanguard has a 90-degree bolt lift compared to the Mark V’s 54-degree bolt lift, and the Mark V sells for about $1400 more than a Vanguard. I’m here to tell you that the Vanguard is an outstanding rifle, every bit as good as the Mark V, and in many cases, more accurate.

So how do these three puppies shoot?

Like I said at the beginning of this blog, the .300 Weatherby is intimidating. I like to think I’m not recoil sensitive, but the .300 Weatherby is right on the edge of what I think I can handle shooting from the bench. It’s not an easy rifle to shoot for accuracy. To get the best groups from any rifle, I like to minimize contact with the rifle. I let the rifle lay in the benchrest, lightly hold the fore end with my fingers, barely touch my cheek against the stock, move my head to an appropriate position to get a full image through the scope, and just touch the recoil pad with my shoulder. The idea is that I don’t want to exert any force on the rifle, as that can move the rounds around on the target, and I’m shooting for the tightest group. That works with rifles that have light to moderate recoil, say, up to the .30 06 level. Try that with a .300 Weatherby, though, and you’re going to get popped in the face by the scope when you drop the hammer. Really. Trust me on this; I know. Nope, when you shoot the .300 Weatherby from the bench, you need a solid grip on the rifle, and you need to pull it firmly into your shoulder. It’s a little harder to get tight groups doing that. But it’s easier than getting smacked by the scope.

Before I get into the accuracy results, I’ll share my impressions of the three rifles based on trigger pull, felt recoil, fit, and optics.

The Mark V has the best trigger. I broke cleanly at about 3 lbs, and it made shooting the rifle easier. I guess that’s to be expected with a rifle that has a price tag like the Mark V (these things ain’t cheap). The Model 70 had a crisp (no creep) trigger, but it was heavy. That made it a little harder to shoot well, especially when shooting it right after I shot the Mark V (I got spoiled; it’s pretty hard to follow the Mark V act). The Vanguard trigger had a bit of creep in it, and it was about as heavy as the Winchester’s trigger, which is to say both the Vanguard and the Winchester triggers were heavier than the Mark V’s trigger.

The Mark V is a clear winner from a felt recoil perspective. There are several reasons for this. One is that it is the heaviest of the three rifles, with its dense walnut stock and 26-inch barrel. Another is the Weatherby stock profile. Folks make fun of it, but it works. When the gun recoils, it draws away from your cheek, and the perception is that it has less recoil. Another factor is Mark V’s recoil pad. And the last one is the Weaver 4×16 scope’s eye relief. Head position isn’t critical, and you’re far enough back from the scope that it doesn’t hit you in recoil. Don’t get me wrong: The Mark V still packs a wallop. It’s just easier to shoot than the other two. The Winchester Model 70 was a close second, most likely because it also has a real stock (read: walnut), but it’s thinner recoil pad made it slightly more punishing than the Mark V. Third place from the felt recoil perspective was the Vanguard. It has a big recoil pad like the Mark V, but the plastic stock and 24-inch barrel make the gun lighter, and like we say in the engineering biz, f still equals ma. Also, the Vanguard’s low end Bushnell Banner scope does not have generous eye relief, and I got smacked a couple of times. Not enough to draw blood, but enough to get my attention.

I’ve already started talking about scopes, so let me continue that discussion. The Weaver 4×16 I purchased for the Mark V is a killer scope. It’s incredibly bright, crisp, and clear. In fact, it’s so good I didn’t realize I had it turned down to 4X for the first couple of groups I fired. Eye relief on this scope is generous enough for a bucking bronc like the .300 Weatherby. It’s the clear winner.

The Weaver T-10 on the Model 70 was out of its element. It’s a target scope. Eye relief was good enough, but alignment and distance were hypercritical; move just a little too far forward or backward, or left or right, and you’ve lost the image. I like the scope (I’ve owned it for over 40 years), but it’s in the wrong place on a hunting rifle.

The Vanguard’s Bushnell Banner…what can I say? Maybe this: Halitosis is better than no breath at all. I played around with the focus adjustment, but the Bushnell just isn’t as clear or crisp as either of the Weavers. That said, it’s considerably less expensive than the other two scopes. When I bought the Vanguard, it was essentially in as new condition, and the Bushnell was part of a factory package (it came with the rifle). If I was do it over, I’d get the Weaver 4×16, or maybe a Leupold, for this rifle. I may do that anyway. I know this is heresy, but I actually think the Weaver has a crisper image than a Leupold scope.

Of the three rifles, the Mark V fits me best, with the Vanguard a close second. I like the Weatherby profile. It just works for me. If I had to choose one of these three rifles for a hunting trip in the mountains (and I do, as I’m chasing deer with good buddy J later this year in Idaho), it would definitely be the Vanguard. It’s lighter, and that counts on a hunt like the one I’m headed into. Yeah, I know…a .300 Weatherby is a bit much for deer. You take what you want when you hunt. I’m taking my .300.

Okay, so the big question emerges: How about accuracy?

I almost didn’t include this. I did a bit of accuracy testing, but my advice is to take my results with a grain of salt. A big grain. Maybe a barrel of salt. I hadn’t been on the rifle range in a month or two, and firing 50 or 60 rounds of .300 Weatherby Magnum ammo in one sitting is not the best way to do this kind of shooting. Stated differently, I was not really giving these rifles a fair shake in this test. The first few groups you see below are me getting settled in, and the last few groups you see below are more likely than not me deteriorating after getting smacked around all morning. These rifles are better than what the results below indicate.

That said, here we go. All groups you see in the chart below were 3-shot groups at 100 yards from the bench. There was no wind, it was a bit warm, and conditions were about ideal.

The loads. Don’t take my word for this stuff; get thee to a load manual, study it, and do your own testing. Start low and work up.

I knew from past dealings that IMR 7828 propellant is good stuff in the big magnums, and I think that my 76.5 grain load with the 180-grain Remington jacketed softpoint bullet is a great load. I was a bit off on the first group I fired with this load (two shots were touching; the third was a flyer most likely induced by me) and then the other two groups with this load were at minute of angle. I could do better if I shot this rifle more (yeah, that’s another factor; this was the first time I had this rifle out and the barrel is not broken in yet). This is not a max load (I could go hotter) and the group size was smaller with the warmer of the two loads I tried with 7828 and the Remington 180-grain bullets. That suggests an even warmer charge of 7828 under this bullet is where greater accuracy lives, but I just don’t feel a need to go there. No animal on the planet would be able to tell the difference from an energy-on-target perspective and minute-of-angle accuracy is close enough for government work (especially for the game I plan to hunt). Dead is dead. There’s no sense getting beat up by more recoil to make an animal more dead.

The 80 grains of 7828 with the 165-grain Hornady bullet I show in the table above is near a max load, and I think it’s obvious I was losing my edge toward the end of this range session. I shot a 0.507-inch group at 100 yards with that same load in the Vanguard a couple of years ago; I just couldn’t duplicate it near the end of my range session this past weekend.

The difference between a cup of coffee and my advice is you might have asked for a cup of coffee, but I’ll give you my advice anyway. If I was going to get one rifle in .300 Weatherby, I’d get the basic model Vanguard with a walnut stock, and I’d put either a Weaver 4×16 or a Leupold scope on it. You’d be getting the Vanguard’s accuracy, with the walnut stock you’d get a little added weight to soak up the recoil, and you’d save a cool $1400 over the Mark V. I think the Weatherby Vanguard is the best rifle value on the market today. Shop around on Gunbroker.com for a bit and you can find new walnut Vanguards for about $600. That’s a phenomenal deal and owning a Weatherby will make you thinner, taller, and better looking. It will make you a better man. Trust me on this.

One last comment: The results you see above regarding different loads are my loads in my rifles. Your mileage may vary. Consult a load manual, and always work up your own loads starting at the low end of the manual’s recommended propellant charges.

More Tales of the Gun? No problem. Click here, and enjoy!