Tag: Blackhawk

Restoring an Ugly and Broken 1968 Ruger Blackhawk

By  Joe Cota

This is my tale about restoring a very ugly and broken vintage 1968 Ruger Blackhawk that had the safety conversion done by the Ruger factory.  I think Skeeter Skelton would have approved! (Skeeter Skelton was an American lawman and prolific gunwriter well known to firearm enthusiasts.)

First, a little background on the single action revolver, or “sixgun” as they are called. In 1872 the US government was looking for a new service revolver to replace its older Colt and Remington cap-and-ball revolvers used in the Civil War.  Colt developed a sixgun that utilized the then new technology metallic cartridge. Colt was the successful contractor and their cartridge gun was adopted by the government in 1873 as the 1873 Colt Single Action Army. The 1873 Colt SAA was shortly thereafter offered to the civilian market and became very popular with ranchers, lawmen, cowboys and bad guys alike. The “Peacemaker” (as Colt’s SAA became known) was priced around $15, which was most of a drover’s wages for a month.

After WWII a new-fangled gizmo called television started to become affordable. In 1948 about 1% of American households owned a television, and by 1955, 75% of American households owned at least one television set (black and white with “rabbit ears” antenna, of course). The TV set became the center of the living room, and the entire family would gather around the “set” after dinner. Hollywood’s golden age of TV westerns from the mid-1950’s through the 1960’s produced an astounding number of instant hits with shows like Have Gun Will Travel, Rawhide, Wanted Dead or Alive, and The Rifleman. All of them featured the Colt SAA and Winchester repeating rifles, or the “lever gun.” Every red-blooded American boy and his father and his uncles and even some moms wanted to own and shoot their very own Peacemaker.  But there was a problem: The Colt sixguns were expensive and often not available.

My beautiful all original 1969 Ruger Single Six (top), the ugly vent ribbed 1968 Ruger Blackhawk “parts gun” (bottom).  The Single Six is Ruger’s .22 Long Rifle sixgun; the Blackhawk is the larger centerfire cartridge sixgun. Note the three screws on both sixguns and the square-faced, non-notched hammer on the Single Six in the half-cocked position. This Single Six was my first handgun given to me by Mom & Dad brand new for Christmas as a young man 13 years of age. It has a fair amount of holster wear from hunting, backpacking, camping, etc. over many years of honest use. I own up to evey scratch and ding on this well-used sixgun, and I’d never want to refinish or change a thing. When Ruger’s free retrofit advertising campaign first appeared in 1975 issues of Guns & Ammo magazine, I was tempted to send mine in to make it like the New Model but didn’t want to part with the gun for a few weeks. In hindsight, I’m sure glad that I didn’t fall for it.

That’s when Bill Ruger decided to give the public what they wanted. In 1953 Ruger introduced the Single Six revolver chambered in .22 Long Rifle.  It was a sixgun for every boy! Two years later in 1955 Ruger introduced its Blackhawk in .357 Magnum.  This was a sixgun for every man!  They were and still are wildly popular. About 700,000 of the pre-1973 Ruger Single Six .22 revolvers were made, and well over a million New Model Single Six .22 revolvers were made after 1973. I’ll defer the exact number manufactured to the Ruger historians.

Ruger’s Single Six and the original Blackhawk single action revolvers were patterned after Colt’s SAA. The Ruger has a similar shape, size, look and feel as the Colt on the outside. But on the inside Ruger made some improvements. Ruger’s guns used modern high-strength carbon steel. Colt’s action ran on leaf springs prone to breakage. Ruger replaced the brittle leaf springs with much tougher coil springs made from piano wire. The Ruger guns are much tougher than the Colt.

One of the infamous traits both Ruger’s initial guns and the Colts share is the first small hammer cock position called the “safety” is not safe. A gun with all six cylinders loaded, if accidently dropped, is prone to the safety failing (resulting in a negligent discharge). Therefore both the Colt and pre-1973 Rugers should only be carried with five rounds loaded and the hammer down over an empty chamber. These pre-1973 Ruger sixguns are known as the “three-screw” Rugers, as identified by the three plainly visible screws on the left side of the frame, just as the Colts have three screws.   The original Rugers are also called Old Models, for reasons that become clear in a minute.

As the story goes, someone who didn’t follow what is clearly stated in Ruger’s owner manual to carry only with the hammer over an empty chamber, dropped their Old Model Ruger, fully loaded with six rounds, and shot himself in the leg. Apparently, there were other negligent discharges and expensive lawsuits. This prompted Ruger’s engineers to develop a safer design Ruger sixgun.  This newer design is called the New Model Blackhawk.  New Model Rugers can safely be carried with all six chambers loaded. Beginning in 1973 all the New Model Rugers have what’s called the “transfer bar safety.” It basically works by making a mill cut in the front (or face) of the hammer so that in the down position the hammer face can’t possibly touch the frame-mounted firing pin. When cocked back in the shooting position, a steel bar (the transfer bar) attached to the trigger mechanism is raised. When the trigger is depressed, the transfer bar fills the gap between the milled cutout on the hammer face and the firing pin, effectively “transferring” the hammer’s impact to the firing pin.

The 1973 and later New Model Rugers are easily identified because they do not have the three screws.  They have instead two pins. Another difference is that there is no “half cock” position for loading the gun. The cylinder freely rotates for loading simply by opening the loading gate. The New Model Rugers work well enough but do not have the distinctive feel and clicking sound while cocking the hammer as do the Colts and old three screw Rugers. The New Model trigger is not quite as smooth as the older designs because of increased drag and the friction of the transfer bar as it moves into position. Some shooters claim they don’t notice the differences between the two, but I own both and I can feel the difference.

In 1975, Ruger engineers devised a method of retrofitting all of the “unsafe” pre-1973 sixguns with a makeshift transfer bar. They ran a campaign in the gun periodicals that prompted owners to ship their old guns to Ruger and they would “upgrade” the older guns to make them safe to carry with all six chambers loaded.

It remains unknown how many owners sent their guns back to Ruger, but apparently there were thousands because we see many of these retrofitted guns on the used gun market today. They are three screw guns that function similar to the New Model two pin guns, but unfortunately the trigger pull on the converted guns is absolutely terrible. The retrofit-style transfer bar scrapes up along the back side of the frame causing an awful, gritty, jerky feel. To make matters worse, the retrofit cylinder base pin is fitted with a small spring-loaded pin that also drags against the transfer bar to push it out and over the firing pin on its upward travel. If the retracting pin gets stuck, the transfer bar pushes into the firing pin, locking up the gun. The retrofitted three screw Rugers are pretty bad, taking all the smoothness from the action.

Ruger reportedly returned the retrofitted guns back to their owners with the original parts sealed a small plastic bag. Many of these plastic parts bags have been separated from the converted guns (they were either lost or thrown away). Ruger doesn’t offer any of these old parts for sale to the public, as they consider them unsafe. If an old unconverted three screw is sent in Ruger for any type of repair, they will return it to its owner with the transfer bar conversion installed, whether the owner asks for it or not. In fact, Ruger will not work on an unconverted old model gun without doing the conversion.

Unconverted three screw models (i.e., unaltered Old Model Rugers) today command premium prices among collectors. Even with the parts bag, the converted Old Models will never realize their true collector value because Ruger has permanently marked the converted guns with an “R” on the frame. The stamp is concealed underneath the grip frame to prove that the factory had done the conversion even if an owner wished to restore it back to its unaltered condition. Ruger will install the Old Model conversions but only if the owner sends the gun to them for installation, and Ruger will stamp the frame showing that they did the conversion.

Converted Old Model Rugers having the afterthought safety conversion are generally not very good shooters. However, restored back to original, these guns make very nice non-collectible shooters for those able to locate the original parts. The Old Model unconverted guns handle much better than the New Model guns, provided a most important safety rule is strictly adhered to.  That rule is to never carry the restored-to-original Old Model Ruger with the hammer over a loaded cylinder. This brings us to the point of this story.

Six years ago I stumbled upon an Old Model 1968 three-screw Blackhawk being sold as a parts gun at the Ventura Crossroads gun show. The cylinder was totally locked up due to the transfer bar conversion (as described above).  However, the asking price was so low that I won’t tell you the cost because you wouldn’t believe me.  Besides being broken it had a ventilated rib that I had never seen before on any Blackhawk. It was truly an ugly duckling Ruger Old Model Blackhawk!  But it had a great finish and the original factory grips, so I went for it without haggling over the price. Man, I’m not kidding.  This gun’s price was so low it was almost free.

The Poly Choke fake ventilated rib glued onto a Blackhawk barrel is just about the ugliest thing somebody could do to a Ruger. Trying to make it look like a Colt Python? Well, you failed!
Close up of the Poly Choke fake rib. It does absolutely NOTHING to improve the gun

After the 10-day cooling off period, I brought the ugly little Old Model sixgun home, along with a brand-new, high-quality gunsmith screwdriver set. After disassembling the Ruger, I found that the cylinder was frozen because of the factory safety conversion. After cleaning it up and freeing the cylinder, the gun had the absolute worst sandy, gritty, heavy sticky trigger I’ve ever experienced.  It now worked but it had a terrible action, and it was still the ugliest Blackhawk I had ever seen.

After more research I found that Ruger never made a Blackhawk with a ventilated rib. This gun had a phony aftermarket glued-on rib made by the Poly Choke company. I guess the owner wanted something that looked like a Colt Python and decided to dress up the Ruger for Halloween.  I managed to pull the fake ventilated rib off without causing any damage to the barrel, but it wasn’t easy.  The Poly Choke adhesive was pretty tough. After pulling the rib off, the remaining glue was removed using brake cleaner spray. By now the gun was looking pretty good again, but the action still sucked.

With the Poly Choke rib removed, the “parts gun” is beginning to look like a Blackhawk again. Note the flat hammer face. This photo was taken after the transfer bar conversion had been removed and factory original parts installed.

To smooth up the action, I removed the transfer bar conversion and replaced it with factory original parts to restore it to the original, classic “5-shooter” configuration. Unfortunately, the gun didn’t come with the old parts bag but I was determined to restore it.  Now before any of the do-gooder Ralph Nader safety types out there proclaim “how irresponsible of you,” allow me to ask if you’ve ever seen an original Colt SAA with a safety conversion? Well, no, you have not because Colt had the good sense to not ruin their guns with an ill-designed stopgap transfer bar safety.

Finding the original parts for an Old Model Ruger is very difficult. Each part had to be purchased separately. It took several months to find all the parts and there were some hiccups along the way. Upon receiving some parts advertised as original Blackhawk parts, such as the hammer, I found that they were original parts for a Single Six model and were not compatible with the Blackhawk. Eventually all the original parts were acquired. The parts included a new hammer, trigger, base pin, cylinder stop, spring, screw, and pawl. The photos and captions tell the story about what it takes to restore converted guns and illustrates the differences between the original and retrofit parts.

Factory transfer bar safety conversion parts. Note that this is not the same parts set as the transfer bar parts that come installed with New Model Blackhawks. These transfer bar safety conversion parts were specially designed to fit on the old three screw models and are not interchangeable with the two pin new models. In this photo the transfer bar appears to be connected to the trigger, but that’s not the case. The transfer bar has a hole that aligns with the trigger pivot bolt.
Original Old Model unconverted parts. This is an image that shows the contents of a returned parts bag that was offered for sale on the internet many years ago. Unfortunately, it was not available when I restored by Blackhawk and I had to locate the parts individually.
Comparison of the original flat-faced hammer (right) and the conversion hammer (left). Note that the conversion hammer has been milled on the face to create a space between the frame-mounted firing pin and hammer while the hammer is down and the transfer bar retracted. The side of the conversion hammer is also recessed for clearance of the long arm of the transfer bar. The transfer bar has friction along this part of the hammer. The front face of the transfer bar also rubs against the back of the frame. All of this creates unwanted friction that gives the converted gun a gritty feel. Also note the three notches on the original hammer for the safe, half-cock, and full-cock trigger positions. The conversion hammer lacks the three clicks that give the Old Model Ruger and Colt SAA their classic feel and sound.
When mixing and matching parts as you can find them, the trigger is not likely to be the same as the one that came with the hammer as a matched set and will likely need minor honing of the sear and hammer notches for proper fit.  This is an opportunity to make the trigger pull better.
One of the pitfalls of buying used gun parts on the internet is that the seller doesn’t always know what he is selling. The Ruger Single Six and Blackhawk trigger groups are not the same. Here’s an example of some of the Single Six parts that were sold to me as Blackhawk parts. The Single Six’s hammer and pawl are both shorter than those of the Blackhawk.

To make a long story short, all the original parts cost more than what I paid for the gun. But it was worth it. This is the smoothest Blackhawk trigger ever, and the accuracy is awesome. Only hand loaded, home cast Elmer Keith style bullets have been fired through it since acquired by me.

This Old Model Ruger has become one of my favorite .357 Magnum sixguns and I think that Skeeter would have approved of how this “parts gun” was salvaged.

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Don’t forget: Visit our advertisers!

A .357 Magnum Ruger Bisley

In a prior blog I described bidding on a Ruger .357 Blackhawk that had been owned by Hank Williams, Jr.  The Rock Island Auction folks predicted the gun would sell for between $900 and $1,600, and I wanted it so I put in a bid at $2,000 (which I thought was ridiculously high).  That gun sold for $5,000.  There are evidently guys out there who have the disease worse than me.

The Hank Williams, Jr., Ruger .357 Magnum Blackhawk. It sold for $5,000. The buyer’s premium on top of that would have been nearly a thousand bucks!

Then last month another Rock Island auction rolled around, and this one had a Ruger .357 Bisley.   The concept and history of the Bisley is interesting.  Bisley is the name of a target range in England, and when Colt introduced a target variant of its famed Single Action Army revolver in 1894, they named it the Colt Bisley.  The most obvious differences between the Bisley and a standard Single Action Army is the Bisley’s longer grip with a more pronounced hump.  Colt’s Bisley also had a rear sight that is adjustable for windage and interchangeable front sight posts for elevation adjustment.

Ruger introduced a modern Bisley version of its Blackhawk revolver line in 1985 (with revolvers chambered in .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, .44 Magnum, and .45 Colt).  I always thought the Ruger Bisley was a marketing thing and I thought the Bisley’s odd-shaped handle was visually unappealing, so I never felt the need for one.  But needs and wants can change.   A friend of mine let me try his .357 Magnum Ruger Bisley a few years ago.  I liked its heft and slightly longer barrel (7 1/2 inches versus the standard Blackhawk’s 6 1/2 inches).  Ruger stopped making the .357 Magnum Bisley a few years after it was introduced, and they are hard to find now.

A sense of scale: Ruger .357 Bisley, Ruger .357 Blackhawk, Ruger .44 Super Blackhawk, and Uberti Colt Walker.  They are all big guns.

The modern Ruger Bisley has a massive appearance, and that’s kind of cool.  At 7 1/2 inches, the barrel is an inch longer than the .357 Blackhawk and the Bisley has the larger grip frame.  The Bisley grip frame feels awkward to me, but it is easier on the hand under heavy recoil. I’m probably just used to the standard Blackhawk grip frame.  For me, the larger Super Blackhawk grip frame is the best of all.

Some might call these big guns horse pistols, which have been defined as handguns usually carried in a holster while riding a horse.  The Bisley is smaller than a Colt Walker (a monster of a handgun), but by any other measure the Bisley is a huge revolver.  It is heavier than the regular .357 Magnum Blackhawk for four reasons:  The unfluted cylinder, the longer barrel, the grip is larger, and the gripframe is made of steel instead of aluminum.

Ruger’s .357 Magnum Blackhawk (on the left) and their .357 Bisley (on the right). Note the difference in the grip shape and length.

The Rock Island folks guessed that the Ruger Bisley would go for between $600 and $900 on their website before the auction.  I bid $600.  I wanted it, but not so badly that I was willing to go crazy, which is kind of what my previous results told me you had to be to win in the Rock Island crazy competition.  To my great surprise, I won the Bisley with my $600 bid.  Then I received the emailed invoice and I was even more surprised.  There was a 17.5% buyer premium, which tacked another $105 to the price.  There was a 3.5% credit card fee, so that was $21.  The gun had to ship 2nd day air to my FFL, and that was $46.  There was insurance, and that added $7.05.  And of course, the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia sales tax for another $60.39.  My $600 Bisley suddenly became an $839.44 toy and it hadn’t even arrived.  When it did, there was the California DOJ fee and the FFL transfer fee ($74.90).  My $600 Bisley was now up to $914.34.  I guess that’s okay, though.  If I had seen a .357 Ruger Bisley in new condition for a thousand bucks, I would have pulled the trigger (literally and figuratively) and felt good about it.  In that sense, I was $85.66 ahead of the game.

Another difference between Ruger’s standard .357 Magnum Blackhawk and the Bisley is the cylinder. The standard Blackhawk has a fluted cylinder; the Bisley has an unfluted and roll-engraved cylinder.

When I saw the gun in person (the day I started my 1o-day waiting period), I was blown away (figuratively speaking, of course).  I could see that it was in excellent condition.  The quality, fit, and finish are light years ahead of what Ruger is producing these days.  You’ll recall that when I lost the Hank Williams Auction I bought a new Ruger .357 Blackhawk and its quality was terrible.  The Ruger Bisley’s quality appears to be much better in both fit and finish.  I looked up the Bisley’s serial number on Ruger’s website and learned that my gun was manufactured in 1986; I guess Ruger cared more about what was leaving the factory back then.

I’ve been to the range a couple of times with my Bisley.  On my first day out with the new-to-me Ruger, one of my friends (a bench rest shooter) came over to watch.  There was an old bowling pin laying on its side on the 100-yard line. You know the situation…like the bad guy in an old western movie, it was just begging to be shot. I asked my friend to spot for me.  The first shot went high, kicking up a dust cloud about three feet above the pin.  I held lower and my second shot sent up another dust cloud two feet below the pin.  Okay, I had the elevation dialed in (I wasn’t actually adjusting the Bisley’s sights; I was just holding the front post at different heights).  My third shot hit just to the right.  On my fourth shot I nailed it, sharply kicking the bowling pin back 10 yards and spinning it violently.  Now, just the pin base was facing me, presenting a 3-inch diameter circle.  “Okay, let’s see you make that shot,” my friend said.  I did, and the pin was kicked back another 10 yards.  I looked back and smiled.  “Piece of cake,” I said, and we both had a good laugh.

25-yard targets shot with the .357 Magnum Ruger Blackhawk (left) and the .357 Magnum Ruger Bisley (right).

On a subsequent range outing I compared the Bisley’s accuracy to the regular Blackhawk using the same heavy .357 Magnum load in both revolvers (8.0 grains of Unique and the Hornady 158-grain XTP jacketed hollow point bullet).  They both shoot groups that were about the same size, and both are biased with the sights adjusted as far as they will go.  The regular Blackhawk shoots high at 25 yards with the rear sight all the way down (the front sight is not tall enough).  The Blackhawk prints about 3 inches high at 25 yards with the rear sight adjusted as low as it will go.  I’ve contacted Ruger and they sent me their shortest rear sight blade for the Blackhawk, but that’s the one the revolver already had in it.  Custom gunsmiths offer a taller front sight (Fermin Garza comes to mind), but I don’t know if I want to do that.  It’s custom work I shouldn’t have to pay for.

The Bisley’s elevation is okay at 25 yards, but it shoots to about one inch to the left at 25 yards.  When I received the revolver from Rock Island Auctions, the rear sight had been cranked almost all the way to the right by the former owner.   He ran out of adjustment range and the gun still shoots to the left of my aim point.  I thought that the leftward bias could be due to a poor ejector rod shroud fit, or it may just be due to the fact that I was shooting max loads and it’s how the gun reacts in my hand.  I fired a few rounds of .38 Special wadcutters and the gun still shot to the left, so I don’t think it is a function of how hot a load I’m shooting or how it reacts to my grip.  Then I took the ejector rod shroud off to see if that would make a difference.  The ejector rod shroud was very poorly fit to the Bisley and it was pulling the barrel to the right, but when I took it off, the point of impact did not change.  You would think the manufacturer would deliver a gun that shot to a point that was within the gun’s adjustable sight range.  I’ve been inside a revolver manufacturing facility (not Ruger), and all they do is proof each gun with a high pressure load; that other manufacturer did not check where the gun printed.  Ruger evidently does not, either.

The regular Ruger Blackhawk ejects all cases easily (even with the max loads I was using).   The Bisley does not.  With the max loads I shot in the Bisley, one chamber wants to hang on to the cartridge case.   Less than max loads (38 Special and mid-range .357 mag loads) eject satisfactorily from the Bisley.   The Bisley has a sloppy surface finish inside its chambers (there are machine marks from the chamber reaming operation).  It shouldn’t have left the factory back in 1986 like that, but it did.

There’s one other quality-related observation on the Bisley I should mention.  The Bisley makes a firing pin primer indentation in the primer that is bigger and deeper than any I have ever seen.  Looking at the firing pin after it has been hit by the hammer, it looks bigger and sticks out of the breech face more than I am used to seeing.  I had a bunch of max load .357 rounds with Aventuras primers I had assembled earlier, and Bisley pierced the primers on the first five (so I didn’t shoot any more of those).  The firing pin is smooth and round (there are no sharp edges on it); it’s just taking the primer cup material near enough to its yield point that the pressure takes it the rest of the way.   These same cartridges worked fine in my regular (i.e., non-Bisley) Blackhawk with no pierced primers, and the same .357 load with CCI primers and Winchester primers worked fine in the Bisley.  Note to self:  Don’t use Aventuras primers for hot .357 loads in the Bisley.

The Bisley’s firing pin in the extended position. It’s smooth, but big.
Pierced primers on .357 Magnum cartridges loaded with 8.0 grains of Unique, the 158-grain Hornady XTP jacketed hollow point bullet, and Aventuras primers.

So there you have it.  My knowledge base on the Ruger .357 revolvers continues to grow (and yours does, too, if you’re reading this).  I’m still looking for that perfect .357 Magnum revolver.   I’ve owned a bunch over the last 50+ years, and I’ll keep looking.  I still dream about wandering into a rural pawnshop somewhere and finding a brass grip Blackhawk like that Hank Williams, Jr., Ruger for $200.  You never know.

More Tales of the Gun!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Don’t forget: Visit our advertisers!

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 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!

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 Sneak Preview…

Wowee, do we ever have some good stuff coming up right here on the ExNotes blog.  Guns, motorcycles, adventure touring in Transylvania, and the results of a content safari through Arizona all the way to Albuquerque.  Here’s an inkling of just a few of the topics coming your way.

What’s the real difference between a $1500 Colt Python and a $650 Ruger Blackhawk?   Watch for our side-by-side, target-by-target comparo.  It’s coming up.

Into resurrections?   Hey, how about CSC’s replica of the original Mustang motorcycle!  You read our recent story about the Al Simmons Mustang motorcycle collection and the origins of the Mustang.   CSC’s Steve Seidner went a step further, and we’ll tell you all about it.

Ever have your well dry?  I mean literally, not figuratively.   Uncle Joe Gresh has, and he’ll tell you all about it.  Gresh is a guy who makes MacGuyver look like an amateur.   You’ll love this story.

We’re going to bring in a new writer or two (or maybe more).  We have a blog loaded and ready to publish from good buddy Airborne Mike on a motorcycle ride through (get this!) Transylvania!  I kid you not.  Transylvania and the Transfagarasan Highway!

On that topic of new writers…Joe Gresh will tell you all about what you need to do to be considered for the ExNotes editorial staff.  Watch for a blog on this topic in the near future.

The Pima Air Museum in Tucson is another treasure.  Wow, that was a fun visit.  There’s so much there we couldn’t take it all in during a single visit, and it’s a place that screams for more than a single blog.  I need to return.  The photo ops were incredible.

More good Joe Gresh stuff straight from Tinfiny Ranch, including the Gresh moto stable and the world famous Gresh project bank.  Motorcycles, the MGB-GT, and more!

How about the Franklin Automobile Museum in Tucson, Arizona?  Never heard of it?  We hadn’t, either, but (trust me on this) it’s Tucson’s best kept secret!

White Sands Missile Range?  Yep, that, too.  Everything from a Nazi V-2 to current US weaponry, and we’ll have the story right here.

How about White Sands National Park?   Think Sahara Desert, and you’ll have a good idea about what these rolling snow white gypsum hills look like.  It was awesome!

The New Mexico Museum of Space History, with a guided tour by none other than Joe Gresh?  That was a really fun visit with lots of cool exhibits.  It’s coming your way.

How about sacred Native American ruins in New Mexico?  We saw several and they were impressive, including the Kuaua Native American site along the Rio Grande River.

Albuquerque is quite a town, and Old Town Albuquerque is quite the place.  We had a lot of fun wandering around and taking photos.  It’s in the mix for a future blog.

And the Albuquerque 50th Anniversary Balloon Fiesta…wow, was that ever spectacular.  The excitement and wonder of that event is one of the most impressive things I’ve ever experienced.

Stay tuned, folks.   It’s quite an adventure, and it’s onging!

Click on those popup ads…we get paid everytime you do!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

The New Model Blackhawk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Blackhawk’s trigger spring is a coil spring with two legs that extend into the grip frame area (one side of the spring is noted by the red arrow in this photo).
To reduce the trigger pull, simply unhook one side of the trigger spring (denoted by the lower red arrow) from the post against which it rests (denoted by the upper red arrow). Voilà, a New York trigger job.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

More Tales of the Gun!

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

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

Now, the rest of the story.

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

The two cartridges on the left are .357 Magnum; the one on the right is a .38 Special. The .357 cartridge case is longer so it cannot be inadvertently inserted into a handgun chambered for .38 Special. Note the slightly longer overall cartridge length on the .357 Magnum cartridge on the left (with the cast bullet) compared to the .357 Magnum cartridge in the middle (with the jacketed bullet).
A mixed set of dies I’ve been using for years for reloading .357 Magnum and .38 Special. Note the Lee shellholder marked “1.”  .38 Special used to be the most commonly reloaded cartridge in America.  Today it’s 9mm.  .38 Special was the first cartridge I ever reloaded.  The die on the right is the bullet seating and crimping die.

Reloading Gear

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

My Star progressive reloader. A good buddy gave this to me in rundown, funky, and long-neglected condition. I cleaned it, lubed it, and put in back in service. The Star does a fantastic job on .38 Special wadcutter ammo.
Old Faithful, my RCBS Rockchucker single stage press. I load non-wadcutter .38 Special ammo and all .357 Magnum ammo on this press.

Bullet Seating and Crimping

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lee’s Deluxe 4-Die Set

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

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

The Star reloader resurrection story is here.

Hit those popup ads!

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

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

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

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

Catching Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Ruger’s .357 Magnum Blackhawk

If I had to select one handgun above all others, my choice would be easy.  It’s Ruger’s .357 Magnum Blackhawk.  I don’t have one, but that’s something I aim to fix in the near term.  I’m watching two .357 Blackhawks on the auction block right now.  One is that drop dead gorgeous brass frame Old Model you see in the big photo above.  That one is not just any Blackhawk, either.  It was previously owned by Hank Williams, Junior.

The Hank Williams Blackhawk has a lot going for it.   It’s the Old Model Blackhawk, which has a feel when cocked similar to a Colt Single Action Army. There’s the provenance (this one has a letter attesting to its prior ownership and its factory brass grip frame).  And, there’s that rare (and highly desirable) brass grip frame.  Ruger only made a few of those.

Winning the auction for the Hank Williams Blackhawk is a long shot.  My backup is to buy a new Blackhawk, and I have my eye on the one shown in the photo below.

A new New Model Ruger .357 Blackhawk with a 6 1/2-inch barrel.

I guess I need to go tangential for a minute and explain this business about Old Model and New Model Blackhawks.  The basic difference between the Old Model and the New Model is that the Old Model can fire if you drop it on a hard surface.  The New Model incorporates a transfer bar to prevent that from happening.  You should carry an Old Model with the hammer resting on an empty chamber; you can safely carry a New Model with all six chambers loaded.  Naturally, geezers like me prefer the look and feel of the Old Model (and we tend not to drop our guns), but the new Model Model is every bit as good and every bit as accurate.  Geezers just like old stuff.

I found a used 200th year stainless steel one on Gunbroker about a dozen years ago, I won the auction for it, and I ran the equivalent of a lead mine’s annual output down the bore (including some ultra-heavy 200-grain loads).  I am the only guy I know who wore out a .357 Blackhawk.  The loading latch wouldn’t stay open, and when I returned it for repair to Ruger, they were as amazed as I was that I wore it out.  It was beyond repair, they told me, but as a good will gesture they paid me what I paid for it.  Nobody, but nobody, has better customer service than Ruger.

A 25-yard group with the .357 Blackhawk.  The Blackhawk will do this all day long.

Part of the reason the .357 Blackhawk I describe above went south, I think, is that it was stainless steel.  I have it in my mind that stainless steel is softer than blued carbon steel, and I think they just don’t hold up as well under a steady diet of heavy loads.  That’s why my next .357 Blackhawk will be blue steel.

To me, the Blackhawk is a “do anything” .357 Magnum.  It’s a good buy in today’s inflated world, it’s a solid defense round, you can hunt with it, and it is accurate.  I like the longer barrel for the sight radius.   You can believe this or not, but I can easily hit targets at 100 yards with a .357 Blackhawk and the right load.

Typical .357 Blackhawk groups.

It’s been at least a couple of years now that I’ve been without a .357 Blackhawk, and like I said, I aim to fix that problem.  I’ll let you know which of the above two guns (a brand new blue steel Blackhawk, or the Hank Williams Old Model) I pick up.  Most likely it won’t be the Hank Williams revolver (competition and bidding will be intense on that one and it will probably be too rich for my blood), but the New Model will make me just as happy. Good times lie ahead.  Stay tuned.

Hit those popup ads!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

More Tales of the Gun!

Rifle Primers in Revolver Ammo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Tales of the Gun!

A Bullseye Birdseye Blackhawk

By Joe Berk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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