Nearly 15 years ago, TALO (a firearms distributor) offered a unique version of Ruger’s 10/22. It was a model with a French walnut stock. As a guy who appreciates good wood and a long time 10/22 fan, I knew I wanted one. The rifles were offered initially at $419, but I knew the price would only go. It’s hard to go wrong with a Ruger 10/22, especially if it is a limited edition.
I contacted an executive with Turner’s (a sporting goods chain) and told them I and several of my friends wanted to buy these, and asked if they would consider buying a group of them and allowing us to select the ones we wanted before they went on the shelves. Turner’s went along with my nutty idea, and I and my friends each bought one.
TALO’s French walnut 10/22 on the bench at the West End Gun Club.I’m pretty sure Ruger and TALO subcontracted the 10/22 French walnut stocks to Altamont. The checkering, fit, and finish is flawless.The French walnut 10/22 starboard side view.
The French walnut 10/22s were flawless, and I actually bought two. I gifted one to a friend who steered a big chunk of consulting work way my way, and I kept the one you see here. I tried several different brands of .22 ammo to find the one it liked best (it was Aguila Target ammo), and I bought a bunch of that shortly after I finished my testing.
I already knew that I liked the Mueller 4.5×14 scope on a .22, so I bought one and mounted it on the rifle. It’s a great scope, sharp, clear, and with several features I like.
The 4.5×14 Mueller scope.The Mueller scope incorporates a parallax adjustment feature on the objective end. I dialed it down to 50 feet.The Mueller scope cranked all the way up to 14-power magnification.
Most recently, I had the French walnut 10/22 out at the range. As always, it performed brilliantly. I’ve competed with this rifle in the WEGC metalllic silhouette matches, and I sometimes bring it to the range just to plink. It’s a fabulous rifle.
The famous Ruger 10/22 rotary magazine in the rifle. It holds 10 rounds. I load only five at a time.Cartridges in the 10/22 rotary magazine.
I took the 10/22 with me on the same day I shot my old Winchester Model 62, using the same three types of ammo on a 50-foot NRA target.
I’m nearing the end of this old box of Federal high velocity ammo. It was good while it lasted.CCI standard velocity .22 ammo. This is good stuff.Aguila .22 Long Rifle target ammo. I found this to be very accurate in my .22 rifles.
The 10/22 did a fine job. As usual, the Aguila ammo turned in good results. The Federal high velocity and CCI ammo did a surprisingly good job, too.
The results on a paper target with Federal, CCI, and Aguila ammunition. The distance was 50 feet.
If you are looking for a good .22 firearm, the 10/22 is hard to beat. At more than 7 milli0n produced, the 10/22 has sold more rifles commercially than any other firearm (there are military rifles that have higher production numbers, like the Mosin Nagant and the AK-47, but in terms of commercially available .22s, the 10/22 is it). There’s a huge aftermarket in 10/22 parts, too. You just can’t go wrong with a 10/22. I’ve owned several over the years and I still have three, including an older 10/22 Mannlicher with exceptional walnut and a 200th year 10/22 Deluxe model (Ruger roll marked “Made in the 200th Year of American Liberty” on every rifle they manufactured in 1976). Sometime in the near future I’ll dig out the 200th year 10/22 and post a blog on it.
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.
Help us out, folks! We depend on our popup ads to keep us in components and chain lube. Please click on the popup ads!
With reloading components still hard to find, the question emerges: Can you use rifle primers in handgun cartridges? If you’re flush with rifle primers but hurting for pistol primers (as I am), it’s a logical question. To evaluate this, loaded a box of .357 Magnum ammo for my Colt Python. I tried to different loads of Bullseye (not an ideal .357 Magnum propellant, but it’s what I had available) and Winchester small rifle primers.
I thought I would simultaneously test for accuracy and reliability on Alco 4-silhouette targets at 25 yards, firing single action at the top two targets and double action on the bottom two targets. The first load was 3.2 grains of Bullseye, a 158 grain cast flatpoint bullet, and Winchester small rifle primers.
Accuracy was mediocre (if you’re ever assaulted by four little men with orange bullseyes painted on their chest, you’d be good enough for government work, but you won’t be taking home any accuracy trophies). The upper two little orange guys were fired single action, and every round discharged. The bottom two little orange guys were fired double action, and on those two targets, I had two misfires. That’s two misfires in 10 rounds, and that’s not good. When I fired the two misfired rounds a second time, they discharged normally.
The next target was a repeat of the first, except the ammo I shot at it had 4.0 grains of Bullseye. Everything else was the same. The top two targets were fired single action and the bottom two were fired double action. All rounds fired normally.
You can ignore the shots below the bottom two targets. I was just shooting up some ammo I had left loaded with different combos. The lower left group on the zombie’s green hand were .38 Special 148 grain wadcutter loads (with 2.7 grains of Bullseye); the ones between the two targets were .38 Special loads with the 158 grain flat point bullets and 4.5 grains of Bullseye (a very hot .38 Special load).
The propellant’s name notwithstanding, none of the above were not particularly accurate loads.
As to the primary question: Will rifle primers work in handgun cartridges, my take on this is yes, if fired single action. In double action, ignition is unreliable. On handguns with heavy hammers, you’re probably okay if firing single action. That’s true on the Colt Python, and it’s definitely true on single action Ruger Blackhawks (I have a .30 Carbine Ruger Blackhawk and I always load .30 Carbine ammo with rifle primers).
I suppose it’s possible that the two rounds that misfired double action in the Python may have been suffering from primers that were not completely seated, but I don’t see a need to continue testing. I learned enough from this quick look.
