A couple of weekends ago in an effort to clear away all the accumulated stuff on my reloading bench, I loaded a bunch of .38 Special wadcutter ammo on my old Star progressive reloader.
A machine ahead of its time: the Star progressive reloader.
I wrote a series of blogs on my resurrection of the Star (I’ll provide a link at the end of this blog). It’s a wonderful machine and it does a superb job making .38 Special ammo. The Star is set up for what is widely recognized as the premier .38 Special target load: 2.7 grains of Bullseye with the 148-grain wadcutter bullet.
The Star reloader stages: 1 is where an empty case enters the shellholder plate, 2 is where the case is deprimed and sized, 3 is where the case is primed and flared, 4 is where the case is charged with propellant, 5 (out of view behind the press’s axis) is where the bullet is seated, and 6 is where the completed round falls through the loader into a net beneath my reloading bench. I can reload about 200 rounds per hour on this press.
I shoot .38 Special ammo loaded in the Star in three handguns: A Colt Python, a Smith and Wesson Target Model 52, and a snubnose Smith and Wesson Model 60.
The Colt Python, a marvelous revolver. This one had its trigged reworked by TJ of TJ’s Custom Gunworks.The elegant Smith and Wesson Model 52, one of the best target handguns ever made. It’s a semi-auto.My Model 60 Smith and Wesson, which was extensively tuned by TJ. This is a delightful little gun, one that is on my concealed carry permit.
As I was reloading my 300 rounds of .38 Special target ammo, I wondered: How would the velocities vary from one handgun to the next? It would be a perfect opportunity to use my Garmin chronograph, and it would make for an interesting blog. I’ve never read anything on this topic before (i.e., comparing wadcutter velocities from the above three handguns). Here’s what the Garmin chrono revealed:
Not surprisingly, the Colt Python and its 6-inch barrel took home the top velocity honors, the Model 52 and its 5-inch barrel was right behind it, and the Model 60 Snubbie and its 2-inch barrel was about 90 feet per second behind the Model 52. The Model 52 had the lowest extreme spread and the lowest standard deviation, but the Model 60 did well with regard to those two parameters as well. Actually, all three of the handguns did well.
So there you have it. It was an interesting topic to explore, and it made for a fun day on the range.
In two previous blogs, I wrote about adding the Wilson Combat rear sight (which caused the Python to shoot too high) and the Harrison Design front sight (which brought the Python back on target). This blog discusses two heavy Python loads, their ballistics, and the Python’s accuracy at 25 yards.
The two loads evaluated in this comparison. The one on the left is loaded with the Missouri Bullet Company’s 180 truncated roundnose (a cast bullet); the one on the right is loaded with Hornady’s 180-grain jacketed hollow point.
The two loads are:
Hornady’s 180-grain jacketed XTP bullet with 13.6 grains of Winchester 296 propellant and a Winchester small pistol magnum primer, and
Missouri Bullet Company’s 180-grain hard cast, truncated roundnose bullet with 14.0 grains of IMR 4227 propellant and a Winchester small pistol magnum primer.
Both are max loads.
I first tried the Hornady bullet load at 25 yards, shooting from a bench, with a two-hand hold. My point of aim was at 6:00. I fired two groups of 20 shots each. The groups were a bit low, and very slightly to the left.
A 25-yard, 20-shot group with the 180-grain jacketed hollow point Hornady bullet and 13.6 grains of Winchester’s 296 powder.A second group with the same combo.
I next tried the Missouri cast bullet load at 25 yards, firing 20 rounds under the same conditions. Surprisingly, the group size and the group center were similar to the Hornady load, even though the velocity was higher and I was using different bullets and propellants.
A 25-yard group with Missouri’s 180-grain cast bullet and IMR 4227 propellant. The two loads are of comparable accuracy.
I felt the cast bullet load’s recoil was slightly lower than the jacketed bullet load, but the difference was miniscule. Both loads have significant recoil. The ballistics of both cartridges (fired from the Python) are summarized below:
Chronograph data for the two loads tested. The IMR 4227 load has a much smaller standard deviation.
The above surprised me a bit. I always thought that Winchester’s 296 would provide the highest velocities and the smallest standard deviations. For me, an amateur ballistician, the Garmin chronograph was a good purchase. My reloading is frequently guided by the additional information it provides. I knew IMR 4227 was a good powder for magnum handgun cartridges; I just didn’t know how good. It’s very good.
After firing the first 20-round group with the Missouri Bullet Company load, I moved on to the next target. I adjusted the rear sight for elevation and windage, realizing while doing so that I had no idea how much each click of elevation and windage adjustment represented on the target, so I made a guess. I came up 6 clicks in elevation, and I moved the rear sight 6 clicks to the right.
I was disappointed that the three 20-shot groups I had shot thus far were larger than I thought they should be, so I tried harder. I poured everything I had into the next 5 shots on the second Missouri Bullet Company target, concentrating intensely, focusing on the front sight. The front sight. The front sight only. I willed myself to not think about anything except the front sight while slowly and gently increasing pressure on the trigger. The target disappeared as into fuzzy black blur. The big Python barked and bucked. I did it again four more times and then got up to check the target in my spotting scope.
Damn, that looked good! All 5 shots were in the 10-ring. This formed a dilemma. That was a nice target. Should I stop now and save the target for a photo, or should I fire the next 5-shot group, potentially ruining the target’s bragging rights?
A deep breath, let halfway out, with intense concentration on the front sight. This is a sweet combination: The Colt Python, 14.0 grains of IMR 4227, and the 180-grain Missouri cast bullet.
I went for Door No. 2, and sent 5 more 180-grain cast bullets downrange, concentrating so hard the rest of the world vanished. I checked the spotting scope. All 5 shots went into one ragged hole. This is good stuff; both the above loads are acceptably accurate and they are suitable for taking hogs. I think I’m going to go with the cast bullet load when I next hunt pigs in Arizona, which will occur later this year. When I do so, you’ll read about it here on the ExNotes blog.
Subscribe to ExNotes for free!
We need your support! Do what you can to help ExNotes stay in the black!
More Gresh and Berk? You bet! Check out A Cup O’ Joes!
I am enjoying my Colt Python more and more every time I shoot it. The latest improvement is the Harrison Design front sight, as seen in the photo above. Just prior to installing it, I had installed the Wilson Combat rear sight, as seen in the photo below. I covered the Wilson Combat rear sight in my previous blog.
The Wilson Combat Python rear sight. It’s much sturdier than the stock rear sight.
The Wilson Combat rear sight is a solidly built affair, but it sits higher than the stock Python rear sight. That caused my shots to hit high.
Typical targets fired with the Wilson Combat rear sight. These targets were shot at 15 yards, or 45 feet.
I needed a taller front sight to work with the Wilson Combat rear sight. I researched this issue, and apparently I was not alone. Numerous comments appear on various forums identifying the Python shooting high issue with the Wilson Combat rear sight. Harrison Design did something to address it: They offer taller Python front sights.
Turning to my junior high school geometry, I calculated the required front sight height based on where my shots were hitting, and the following formula:
The stock Python front sight height is 0.180 inches, the distance to the target is 45 feet, and the distance from the front sight to the rear sight (the sight radius) is 7.875 inches. Plugging those values into an Excel table based on the above formula, I found the front sight height increase I needed.
To go up 2.88 inches at 45 feet, I needed a 0.042-inch taller front sight (the front sight would have to be 0.222 inches high, which is obtained by adding the 0.042-inch additional required front sight height to the stock 0.180-inch stock front sight height). Harrison Design offers taller Python front sight heights of 0.200 inches and 0.230 inches. I chose the 0.230 Harrison Design front sight, as it was closer to the calculated front sight height I needed. I knew I could account for the small difference between the calculated required front sight height increase by simply raising the rear sight.
Colt Python stock front sight (left) and the replacement taller Harrison Design front sight. I prefer a plain black front sight as it makes for a clearer sight picture.
I opted for a plain post front sight, as seen in the above photo on the right. Harrison Design offers high visibility front sights (ones with a translucent plastic cord within the sight), gold dot front sights, and perhaps others. For precision work, I’m old school. I greatly prefer a plain post. For me, it’s harder to focus on the top of a red ramp (like the original Colt front sight, shown on the left) or on a gold dot front sight. The gold dots have another issue for me: My point of impact on the target moves around when the lighting changes. I’m not a fan of “gee whiz” front sights. I learned from a master (Sergeant Major Emory Hickman) and I learned on a plain black post front sight. Your mileage may vary.
Harrison Design does a nice job in what they include. In addition to the taller front sight, they provided a separate set screw (not necessary, as I could reuse the original one), a tiny Allen wrench for the set screw (also not necessary, as I already had one), and a set of installation instructions (not necessary for me, as how it all goes together is obvious). But I thought it was nice Harrison Design included all these things. The new front sight slipped right into place. Replacing the original Colt front sight with the taller Harrison Design front sight took less than a minute.
So how did it all work on the range? Pretty much just like the numbers said it should.
A 50-foot target shot with the new Harrison Design front sight and the Wilson Combat rear sight. Point of aim was at 6:00 on the orange bullseye. The load I used for this target was Missouri Bullets’ 180-grain truncated roundnose cast bullet and 14.0 grains of IMR 4227 (a max load).Same as above, but with 148-grain wadcutter, 2.7-grains of Bullseye target loads, fired at 50 feet.A “first look” type of target at 25 yards. The load was Missouri Bullets’ 180-grain truncated roundnose cast bullet and 14.0 grains of IMR 4227 (a max load). There’s a little more spread than I find acceptable, but I attribute that to bullet casting defects I’ll cover in a subsequent blog.
The bottom line is I am a satisfied customer. Harrison Design makes a good product.
Coming up? I’m going to run another set of Python tests assessing cast bullet base imperfections and their effect on accuracy, and then yet another assessing accuracy at 25, 50, and 100 yards. Then I’m going pig hunting with the Python.
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to ExNotes for free!
We need your support! Do what you can to help ExNotes stay in the black!
In a previous blog comparing Ruger’s .357 Bisley, the Ruger Blackhawk, and the Colt Python with the Missouri 180-grain bullet and IMR 4227 propellant, I mentioned that the Colt Python rear sight is a real rinky dink design. Specifically, the set screw that holds the windage adjustment in place is not up to the job. Mine wouldn’t secure the windage blade, and when I tried to tighten it, the set screw’s Allen socket surrendered. Surrender would be good for the IRGC; on a high-priced revolver component, not so much.
The stock Python rear sight. The windage blade is secured in place with a tiny set screw denoted by the red arrow.
Faced with this situation, I did what Wilson Combat wanted me to do: I ordered their upgraded, more robust rear sight. At $119, it’s not cheap. It probably cost less than $3 to manufacture. The high price was undoubtedly due to the nonrecurring engineering that went into it, but based on my results on the range, I don’t think Wilson got what they paid for from their engineering department. I sure didn’t (more on that in a second). I bought the Wilson Combat rear sight on Amazon Prime, so I saved a few bucks on shipping and that was good. I received the part the next morning, and that was good, too.
The Wilson Combat Colt Python Adjustable Battlesight.A look at the Wilson Combat Python rear sight components.
The Wilson upgrade comes in a nice plastic display package, and it includes everything needed: A complete rear sight assembly, a spring, the elevation adjustment screw, and installation instructions (although the thing is so basic the instructions aren’t really needed).
A set of brass punches. Using these helps to prevent marring the stainless steel Python.The Universal Gun Bench Block. Everyone who tinkers with guns needs one of these.The Universal Gun Black out of the box. I’ve had this one for years. It is a very handle tool.A small gunsmithing hammer. One side is brass; the other is rubber.
I installed my Wilson Combat replacement sight the day I received it, using simple gunsmithing tools I had previously purchased: A set of brass punches, a universal bench block, and a small brass hammer. The brass tools are necessary because the Python is made of stainless steel, and I didn’t want to mar any of the revolver’s polished surfaces.
The Python’s rear sight roll pin must be removed to remove the rear sight. On firearms, removal is always from left to right. Installation is always from right to left.
The first step was to tap out the stock rear sight’s roll pin. Colt uses a roll pin instead of a simple pin, and that’s a good thing. Roll pins stay put. Other manufacturers use simple pins, and my experience has been that they constantly back out under recoil.
Once I had removed the Python’s stock rear sight, I compared it to the Wilson Combat replacement.
The Python stock rear sight (top) and the Wilson Combat rear sight (bottom). Note the heavier spring in the Wilson Combat rear right. I used the stock Python spring with the new Wilson Combat sight.The two rear sights side by side.Another look at the stock rear sight (top) and the Wilson Combat rear sight (bottom). Both use screws for windage adjustment, but the stock rear sight requires locking the rear sight blade in place with a very tiny set screw. The Wilson Combat rear sight uses a click-detented windage adjustment screw. It’s a better setup for windage adjustment.A view from the driver’s seat. The stock rear sight is on the left; the Wilson Combat rear sight is on the right.
I like the Wilson Combat’s clean look, it’s slightly longer sighting radius (i.e., distance from the front sight), and the serrated rear sight blade. The theory behind a serrated rear sight blade is that it cuts down on reflections (although I think that’s more a marketing shtick than a real advantage). I like the look better, though. The width of the rear sight slot appeared to be about the same as the stock Python rear sight. The notch’s depth was greater, so that’s good. What wasn’t good, though, was that the Wilson Combat rear sight appeared to be taller than the stock part. That would make the gun shoot high. I hoped I was wrong about that, and that once I had new sight installed, it would not be any taller. As I had that thought, I was reminded of the old saying: Poop in one hand, hope in the other, and see which one fills up first.
The Wilson Combat rear sight spring is way stronger than the stock spring, and I had a hard time attempting to get everything aligned so that I could tap in the roll pin. I gave up and used the stock spring (the one that was originally under the stock rear sight).
When I had the gun reassembled, I examined it. The rear sight was indeed taller than the original equipment Colt sight, even with the elevation adjustment lowered as far as it would go.
The Wilson Combat rear sight installed on my Colt Python. It is all the way down; it cannot be lowered further.Another view of the fully-lowered Wilson Combat rear sight. It’s taller than the stock rear sight, which causes the revolver to shoot high.
I went to the range the next day, and shooting my 180-grain Missouri bullet load (with 14.0 grains of IMR 4227), I found that the Wilson sight absolutely did shoot high. As can be seen from the photo at the top of this blog, the Python now shoots about 2.880 inches high with the rear sight in its lowest position. Hmmm. I looked at both my hands. Neither contained any hope.
I tried another load I like (a 158-grain jacketed hollowpoint with 15.0 grains of IMR 4227). It, too, was high at 45 feet. I expected it to be slightly higher than the 180-grain bullet load. It was about the same, which is to say it, too, shot too high.
The Wilson rear sight has no wobble; the stock Colt rear sight can be wiggled around quite a bit. Because of that, I think the Wilson sight will group better, although I have no data that proves this. Unlike the stock Colt rear sight, the Wilson rear sight has positive clicks for windage adjustment. That is a definite improvement. There’s no more Mickey Mousing around with a microscopic set screw. I think the Wilson rear sight presents a cleaner sight picture than the stock Colt rear sight. That’s subjective on my part, but it was definitely there for me.
Overall, I was disappointed with the Wilson Combat rear sight. For a part that costs $120, I expected more. It’s not beyond the state of the art to engineer a rear sight that will work with the stock front sight. It’s ludicrous to offer a “replacement” rear sight that makes the revolver shoot high.
On this business of shooting too high, and just for grins, I took a few shots at a rock about 130 yards out. With the Wilson sight, the Python and I were hitting it consistently. But that’s with the sight adjusted as low as it will go. I guess the good news is that I can now adjust the Python to hit targets in the next county (sarcasm alert here, folks).
Given the current design, the answer is a taller front sight, and that will become the topic of a future blog. Not surprisingly, there are outfits out there selling those, too. Maybe that was the plan all along, and on this issue of a better set of Colt Python sights, I’m not done yet.
Stay tuned, my friends.
A Few Thoughts On “Windage”
The left-t0-right (or right-to-left) windage adjustment on a firearm’s rear sight is seldom used to compensate for wind. It’s used to account for a firearm’s printing to the left or the right of the shooter’s aim point. A shooter moves the rear sight’s windage adjustment to the right or to the left to bring the center of the group in line with the aim point (the spot where the shooter aligns the front and rear sights on the target). Usually, once this “windage” adjustment is made for a particular load or brand of ammunition, it is left there. We don’t move the windage adjustment to compensate for the wind blowing; if the wind is blowing, we simply hold to the left or the right of the target to compensate for the wind moving the bullet.
You might think that if there’s no wind blowing, a gun’s rear sight could be placed exactly along the centerline of the firearm to hit the target. That’s seldom the case, though. The bullets’ impact on the target will be biased to the left or the right due to factors built into the gun and the way the gun recoils in the shooter’s hand (which varies from shooter to shooter). We compensate for this left or right bias by adjusting the rear sight’s “windage.”
Subscribe to ExNotes for free!
We need your support! Do what you can to help ExNotes stay in the black!
This blog focuses on an evaluation of the Missouri Bullets 180-grain cast lead bullet with IMR 4227 powder in the three .357 Magnum revolvers shown above: A 6-inch Colt Python, a 6 1/2-inch Ruger Blackhawk, and the 7 1/2-inch Ruger Bisley. All three revolvers have graced these pages previously (I will provide a link to the earlier blogs below); today’s story specifically assesses the Missouri cast bullet and IMR 4227 performance.
Missouri Bullet Company’s 180-grain truncated roundnose (TRN) bullet. Notice that many of the bullet bases have cast lead overflow (not a situation conducive to great accuracy).
The Missouri bullet is heavier than most .357 bullets, which I like. I generally prefer heavy-for-caliber bullets. The jury was out on these, though. I was not too pleased with an earlier batch due to casting imperfections on the bullet base. Missouri gave me a credit for that box and I ordered another thousand. These were better, but still not what I expected (the bullets still had some base smears and runs, as can be seen in the above photograph).
My reloaded .357 Magnum ammo. 14.0 grains of IMR 4227 comes right to the base of the RCBS 180-grain cast bullet.
The Missouri bullets made for a nice-looking load. I loaded the ammo used for this test on my Lee Classic Four Turret press, which is my go-to reloading setup for just about any handgun cartridge. I can’t say enough good things about the Lee gear. It’s been great.
An 8-lb bottle of IMR 4227 powder. I’m just about out of this very good propellant. I hesitate to think what a replacement bottle will cost (it’s probably close to $500). It works real well with cast bullets in reduced rifle loads, too.
As mentioned above, all loads used IMR 4227 powder. I loaded in increments of 13.5 grains, 14.0 grains, and 15. o grains. The 15.0 grains is above what most reloading references list as a max load. I found a reference to that load on the Missouri Bullets website so I thought I would try it. It is a very hot load. I would not advise using it and I’m not including data for it here.
I used brass as identified in the table below, and CCI 550 small pistol magnum primers. All cartridges were loaded to an overall length of 1.585 inches and firmly crimped with Lee’s crimping die. My Garmin chronograph recorded all velocities.
How did I do? The chart below summarizes what I found.
Tough to read, I know. Click on it and a larger version will pop up.The 6 1/2-inch Blackhawk target. The top two were shot with 13.5 grains of IMR 4227; the bottom two with 14.0 grains of IMR 4227. All shots were at 50 feet with a two-hand, rested hold. I know it looks like there are only four bullet holes in the lower right target; one bullet went through the same hole as another (it happens sometimes).The 7 1/2 inch Bisley target. Same thing here; 13.5 grains of IMR 4227 on top and 14.0 grains on bottom.The Python target. After noticing the 13.5-grain load shot way to the left, I noticed the rear sight problem. After moving the blade to the right, it wouldn’t stay in position, and the horizontal spread increased as the windage blade moved around.
With respect to accuracy, the above loads were mediocre. Both Rugers did better with the 14.0-grain IMR 4227 load; the Python did better with the 13.5 grain IMR 4227 load (but I wouldn’t take that to the bank, as will be explained in the next paragraph). None of the loads are what I would call target grade accuracy. That may have been due to me (I’m not a world class target shooter), or it may have been due to the bullet base imperfections mentioned above. Note that one particular combination (the 6 1/2-inch Blackhawk with a 14.0-grain load) shot a 0.721-inch group. Maybe I just got lucky on that one, or maybe those particular cartridges had bullet bases with no casting imperfections.
Colt Python rear sight. The blade that adjusts for windage is on a non-detented adjustment screw. When the sight is in the desired position, the tiny Allen head set screw denoted by the arrow is tightened to secure it. The Python’s rear sight was obviously designed by a guy who doesn’t shoot .357 Magnum ammo very much.
Regarding the Python, I noticed that my shots for the first two groups were way to the left. That’s because the rear sight blade had drifted to the left. I unscrewed the tiny set screw that is intended to secure the blade in place, adjusted the windage, but the sight blade moved again when I fired the next two groups. When I tried to tighten the set screw further, its Allen head socket stripped. The Python’s rear sight is the gun’s weak point. I’m replacing it with a Wilson combat sight. The Wilson rear sight replacement will be the topic of a future blog.
With respect to velocity, the differences in barrel length between the 6 1/-inch and 7 1/2-inch Rugers can be seen (the 7 1/2-inch Ruger was faster). The shorter 6-inch Python did well, most likely because it’s very tight barrel-to-cylinder gap, a slightly tighter bore (I’ve read that Pythons have a marginally smaller bore diameter than most other .357 Magnums), and a more polished bore overcame the longer-barreled Rugers’ length advantage.
I think IMR 4227 is a good powder in the .357 Magnum. It gives velocities comparable to Winchester 296, another great choice for this cartridge. The Missouri bullets do not provide, in my opinion, target grade accuracy. I may load some of these with the 14.0 grain load using bullets that I screen for good bases (i.e., no casting defects) to see how they do. I think these bullets are good enough for hunting, though, and I plan to use the 14.0-grain load in my 6 1/2-inch Blackhawk on my next pig hunt. Stay tuned.
Our earlier blogs on the Python, the Blackhawk, the Bisley, and a whole bunch of other cool stuff are here.
Subscribe to ExNotes for free!
We need your support! Do what you can to help ExNotes stay in the black!
Man, I love my Colt Python. I thought I’d get that out of the way first in case anyone had any doubts. The Python is one of those things that just feels right. I’m glad I bought it and every time I take it to the range I feel good because I know I made a good decision.
I’ve been on a kick lately developing different loads for the Python with a focus on 158-grain and 180-grain jacketed bullets, and different propellants (including Winchester 296, Bullseye, IMR 4227, and Unique). Not to be combative and before you get your inner keyboard commando up, let me state at the outset that I can hear the comments already: What about 2400, or Power Pistol, or (fill in with your favorite powder). You go to war with the Army you have and I had to put a cap on the development work (and the above listed powders are what I had). If you want to see more development work with other powders, hit the donate button below and send me a note. Or start your own website.
158-grain DKC bullets, .357 Magnum reloads, and the Colt Python: A marriage made in Heaven.
I keep a stash of Hornady jacketed bullets as my preferred projectiles in the .357 Magnum, mostly because of their consistent quality and accuracy. Recently, I received an email from Raven Rocks for DKC 158-grain jacketed hollowpoint bullets, so I thought I’d try those. DKC is a Turkish bullet maker, and I know from prior defense industry experience that the Turks usually do a good job on armament components. You may recall that I recently tested some of DKC’s 147-grain 9mm bullets in three different handguns and I wasn’t too impressed with them (that blog is here). I wanted to see if the DKC .357 bullets were any better than the 9mm bullets (spoiler alert: they are).
For this testing, I fired all loads at 50 feet, I used my Garmin chronograph to measure the velocities, and I used my Lee classic four turret press and Lee’s .38/.357 four-die set for loading the ammo. I believe in Lee reloading gear, and when it comes to getting a good crimp on hot revolver cartridges, the Lee dies work best (you can read about that here). That’s especially critical on the Colt Python, which has a very short cylinder compared to some other sixguns). Making sure the other bullets in the cylinder don’t jump forward under recoil is critical with the Python (see our earlier testing).
So what’s the bottom line?
It’s 15.0 grains of IMR 4227, CCI 550 primers, and the DKC 158-grain jacketed hollowpoint bullet. Here’s how I got there:
I know the table’s font is too small to read as presented here. If you click on the table, a larger table will appear. You can thank me by clicking on the Donate button.
Oh yeah! A 50-foot target shot with the 15.0-grain IMR 4227 load. Point of aim was 6:00 on the orange bullseyes.
As stated above, I found that 15.0 grains of IMR 4227, a magnum primer (I used CCI 550 primers), and the DKC 158-grain bullet gave the smallest groups, but several of the other recipes were not too far behind. Just about any load combo worked well. But that 15.0-grain load…wow, it was a honey. The velocity (which averaged 1140 fps) was what I would consider moderate for a .357 Magnum. The recoil was correspondingly moderate.
Every gun is different, and it’s interesting to see what works best in different guns chambered for the same cartridge. The Unique load at the top of the table above was the accuracy load for my 6 1/2-inch blue steel Ruger Blackhawk. The 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollowpoint load with 16.7 grains of Winchester’s 296 worked best in my 6 1/2-inch Ruger stainless Blackhawk and it was stunningly accurate in my 8 3/8-inch Model 27 Smith and Wesson 40 years ago. But 16.7 grains of 296 makes for a religious experience type of load. Recoil is impressive and steady servings of those cartridges beat both the stainless Ruger Blackhawk and the Smith Model 27 to death. I only tried a few of those monster loads in the Python, and I’m glad they weren’t the accuracy winner.
I keep a stash of the .38 Special standard target load (2.7 grains of Bullseye with a 148-grain Hornady hollowbase wadcutter bullet) on hand. It is a one-hole load in my Model 52 Smith, and it’s been accurate in other .357 and .38 Special handguns. I wanted to use it in the Python as a standard of comparison, and it surprised me. It was the least accurate of any of the loads tested in my Python. Like I said above: Every gun is different.
After settling on the 15.0-grain IMR 4227 load, I wanted to see how it would do at 25 and 50 yards. I went to the West End Gun Club on a beautiful Sunday morning and set up targets at both distances.
I first shot at the 25-yard target and shot a great group, but it was high (it’s the group circled in red in the target below). The rear sight only had four more clicks left in the down direction, so I dialed those in and fired another five rounds. That produced the group circled in green in the target below. I used a 6:00 hold on the black bullseye for both groups.
A 25-yard target with my 15.0-grain IMR 4227 load. Two groups…one in red before lowering the rear sight, and one in green after lowering the green sight.
After firing the first 25-yard group, I shifted to the 50-yard target before adjusting the rear sight. That produced the group outlined in red in the target below. After lowering the rear sight, I shot the group outlined in green in the target below. It was a good group at 50 yards, but still too high (I was using the same 6:00 bullseye hold mentioned above). Because I was out of adjustment on the rear sight, I tried to hold about 4 inches below the bottom of the bullseye, and I shot the group outlined in yellow.
I couldn’t get the rear sight low enough at 50 yards, so I dialed in a little Kentucky droppage to get the group in yellow.
I’m pleased with these results. I might need to move the rear sight a scosh to the left, but I want to shoot a few more groups to confirm that. That will happen in the near term. I am also thinking about a taller front sight. The rear sight is already in its lowest position; a taller front sight would bring the point of impact in line with the point of aim. We’ll see.
What’s next? I’m thinking a trip to Arizona for some more pork. I’d like to see how this combo works on a pig, and I think there’s enough energy and accuracy to humanely take next year’s stash of bacon. Well, okay, you got me: I’m just kidding about the bacon part. There’s no belly fat on a wild pig. There’s plenty of other meat on one of those Arizona hogs, though, and I’m already thinking about a cookbook featuring recipes for the same.
A few days ago I blew up my 9mm Springfield Armory 1911. It was hellaciously frightening. I wrote a blog about it and I’ll provide a link at the end of this post. My initial conclusion was that I had committed the cardinal reloading sin: I double charged a case. Instead of the intended 5.4 grains of Accurate No. 5 propellant, I cycled the round twice at the charging station and I inadvertently loaded 10.8 grains. I know what you are thinking and that’s okay. If I read about somebody doing this, I’d think they were a dumbass, too. I’ll get back to that later.
5.4 grains of Accurate No. 5 behind a 125-grain powder coated bullet is good. 10,8 grains is not.
Thinking about the double charge issue more, several additional thoughts emerged. Were there other possibilities?
One other possibility is that instead of the failure being due to a double charge, it might have been a squib charge (which would lodge a bullet in the bore) followed by another round. This was dismissed for several reasons:
I knew it wasn’t preceded by a squib charge because the prior round felt normal.
If it was a squib charge, the following round probably would not have chambered. Squib charges resulting from no powder and pressure being provided by the primer only (in a handgun) tend to push the bullet into the barrel a very short distance (the bullet doesn’t go into the barrel far enough to allow another round to chamber).
The were 5 holes on the target, which is the number of rounds I had fired.
The barrel was not bulged (TJ inspected it and pronounced it good).
Count them: 5 holes on the target. The fifth hole is the one at the bottom. This bullet was tumbling due to its low velocity. When the case blew out, the pressure vented elsewhere.
A friend asked if I could have seated two bullets in the case. I set bullets (one on top of the other) next to a cartridge case. I think you can see that seating two bullet in the case is not possible. The bottom bullet would set higher in the case than you see in the photo below (the web near the case base and the thickness of the case “floor” would cause it to seat much higher in the case). I would not have been able to seat the second bullet even if there was no powder in the case.
A photo showing that two bullets in a single case is not possible.
I pulled the bullets in the photo above from two cartridges using an inertia bullet puller. Both had exactly 5.4 grains of Accurate No. 5 propellant, which is what I intended. These are the pulled bullets on top of their cartridge cases:
125-grain powder coated bullets pulled from their cases and then placed back on top of their cases.
After I pulled the bullets and put the powder back in each case, you can see the level at which the right amount of propellent (5.4 grains) sets in the case.
5.4 grains of Accurate No. 5 in 9mm cartridge cases.
I wondered: Would a double charge (i.e., 10.8 grains of Accurate No. 5) fit in a cartridge case without it spilling out of the case? The answer is yes. I took the powder from one case and poured it in the other. The case can easily hold 10.8 grains of Accurate No. 5. Take a look:
10.8 grains of Accurate No. 5 in a 9mm cartridge case.
It would be better if the powder was bulky enough that it would spill over the case rim if I double charged it. I know that my 9mm Unique load sits higher in the case (my Unique load for the 125-grain bullet is 5.0 grains).
Trickling 5.0 grains of Unique onto the powder scale.
Here’s what 5.0 grains of Unique looks like in a 9mm case:
5.0 grains of Unique in a 9mm cartridge case.
The question then was how much Unique can a cartridge case hold? I was specifically interested in determining if a double charge of Unique would overflow the case. To answer this, I completely filled a 9mm case with Unique and weighed that amount of propellant:
A 9mm cartridge case completely filled with Unique.
I weighed the amount of Unique held by a completely-filled 9mm cartridge case. The filled 9mm case held 7.9 grains of Unique.
Weighing the Unique held by a completely-filled 9mm case.A completely-filled 9mm cartridge case can hold a hair over 7.9 grains of Unique propellant.
A double charge of Unique would be 10.0 grains. I concluded that a double charge of Unique would overflow the 9mm case, and this would provide an additional safeguard against an inadvertent double charge. I was careless enough to not notice a case double-charged with Accurate No. 5. I’d like to think I wouldn’t be careless enough to miss powder spilling out of the case, as would occur with Unique. The next time I load 9mm ammo, it will be with Unique.
You might be wondering about the numbers here. Bear in mind that Unique is a less dense propellant than Accurate No. 5. 10.0 grains of Unique occupies more volume than does 10.8 grains of Accurate No. 5.
The challenge now is what to do about the approximately 1400 rounds of 9mm and .45 ACP I already have loaded on the Lee Turret press. I thought I might be able to quickly screen the rounds by weight, but that’s not going to work. The weights of the powder, the brass case, and the bullet all vary, with the bullet (as the heaviest item) having the greatest variation. On the 9mm cartridges, I found that the weight variation of the completed 9mm cartridges varies from 192 grains up to 198 grains. The powder charge is 5.4 grains. If a cartridge weighs 198 grains, would it just be at the upper edge of the weight distribution with the correct single charge, or would it be a 192-grain cartridge with a double charge? It’s even worse on the .45 ACP rounds, because the weight variability of the completed cartridge is more than the 9mm, and those powder charges are in the range of 5.0 grains or 5.4 grains (they are lost in the case compared to 9mm ammo). I can’t take the chance that there’s another double charge in there. I’m breaking down and checking every cartridge. It’s a lot of work, but it’s better than blowing up a gun.
This is the .45 ammo I loaded on the Lee turret press. It’s 700 rounds. I have another 700 rounds of 9mm ammo similarly loaded.
You might be wondering what it’s like to get back on the range after blowing up a gun. I was afraid I might return with a very serious flinch (you know, when you jerk the gun in anticipation of it firing). I’m happy to report (and maybe brag a little bit) that I’m just fine. I had my 9mm S&W Shield out with ammo that I tore down, checked, and reloaded, and I also had my Colt Python (in which I shot .38 Special wadcutters).
An S&W 9mm Shield target shooting the 5.4 grain Accurate No. 5, 125-grain powder coated bullet load described in this blog.A Colt Python target shot with 148-grain powder-coated wadcutters. I’ve done better and I’ve done worse.
At this point, I’m convinced that I screwed up and double-charged the 9mm round I wrote about last week. TJ (of TJ’s Custom Gunworks) disassembled the gun and pulled out the case you see in the photo at the top of this blog. There was a lot of pressure in there (about 10.8 grains of Accurate No. 5’s worth, actually). Like I said in the earlier blog, it’s an opportunity. More good news is the barrel wasn’t damaged. Even more good news is that TJ is doing an action and reliability job on my 1911. TJ is replacing the two piece guide rod (two-piece guide rods are a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist) and doing a few more good things to this pistol. I’ve already purchased and received replacement grips and a new 9mm magazine. I’ll provide an update in a couple of weeks after I get the 1911 back, and I’ll do another blog on what it’s like disassembling and reassembling 1400 rounds of reloaded ammo.
I’ve owned three Colt Pythons. Back in the ‘70s I had a blue 6-inch Colt Python and another 6-inch nickel-plated one (they were only about $250 back then, and I could buy them for even less through the Post Exchange). Both those Pythons went down the road, and yeah, I’m sorry I sold them. Who wouldn’t be?
Please click on the popup ads…it keeps us going!
These days, I have a 6-inch bright stainless Colt Python, the new model, and I love it. It’s the one you see in the photo above. I’ve been to the Colt factory to see how they are made, and both the Python’s design and its production are impressive. I’ll let you in on a secret: The new Pythons are better guns. I shoot my Python a lot. In the last few months I’ve been hitting the range with it at least a couple of times every week. I’m old school, I guess: I prefer a revolver to a semi-auto, and I prefer .38 Special and .357 Magnum over 9mm. Your mileage may vary. I know what I like.
Winchster 110-grain jacketed hollow point bullets waiting to be seated and crimped.
I remembered that back in the day I found a 110-gr jacketed hollow point bullet with 10.0 grains of Unique (the max load in the Hornady manual in the 1970s) and it was extremely accurate in my blue steel Python. I mean, like one-hole accurate. Accurate enough to keep that load in my memory for five decades.
Fast forward 50 years and you’ll find me scrounging for reloading components on a fairly regular basis. On one of those scrounging expeditions Rick Phillips (of Phillips Wholesale) had Accurate No. 5 propellant in stock. It’s a handgun powder, and Rick told me that Accurate No. 5 has a burn rate about like Unique. Hmmm. Unique, huh? That stuck in my mind, mostly because I had some 110-grain .357 pistol bullets in my components stash: I had Winchester jacketed hollow points, and Hornady jacketed hollow points. I bought a bunch of the Winchester bullets during the Obama years when everything was scarce, and I was down to one unopened bag of 100. I had an unopened box of the Hornady 110-grain bullets, too.
Winchester, if you’re paying attention, this bag was 15 bullets light.
I loaded the last of the Winchester bullets recently using some junk 357 brass. I have Unique, but I wanted to see if I could get good results with Accurate No. 5. Rick’s comment about Accurate No. 5 being about like Unique stuck in my mind. The max load on the Accurate site for 110 grain bullets is 11 grains, so I loaded some at 10.1 grains and some at 10.5 grains, both with magnum CCI primers.
Winchester shorted me on that last bag of 100 grain bullets. The last bag I had was unopened, but it had only 85 bullets in it. I wrote to Winchester customer support, and they responded with an answer that was left blank. I wrote to Winchester again after receiving the above non-answer for an answer, but I’m not holding my breath.
The results with both the Hornady and Winchester bullets were great. Here’s a 5-shot group at 50 feet with 10.1 grains of Accurate No. 5 and the Winchester bullets. This was the best group this morning, but they were all good.
That’s how we like to do it. I know the brass is dirty. This was a quick and dirty test. The laod was 10.1 grains of Accurate No. 5, a CCI 550 primer, and Winchester’s 110-grain jacketed hollowpoint bullet. The distance was 50 feet.
The 10.1 and the 10.5 grains of Accurate No. 5 loads shot about the same from an accuracy perspective, but the 10.5 grain loads made the primers flatter, so I’ll load the 10.1 grain load the next time I reload this ammo. No sense burning up more powder and stressing the gun and the brass if there’s no accuracy improvement. It’s already excellent at 10.1 grains.
Rugged, reliable, regal, and rewarding: Today’s Colt Python.
The Winchester bullets looked cruder than the Hornady bullets but I think they maybe had a slight accuracy edge. I went online to buy more, but I learned Winchester discontinued them. One of my buddies had two bags and he gave them to me, but the odds of me ever getting any more are slim. Hornady, Speer, and Sierra all make JHP 110-grain bullets, but nobody has any in stock. I have 85 left of the Hornady bullets (I used 15 of the Hornady bullets to make up for the ones Winchester shorted me) and now, an additional 200 Winchester bullets. You still owe me 15 bullets, Oliver.
Another day on the range, and another set of test results. These are the first loads I’ve tried with Boudreau’s 158-grain powder-coated semi-wadcutter bullets. I loaded the Boudreau bullets into .38 Special cases for evaluation in a Colt Python and a Smith and Wesson Model 60. My first reloads were with Accurate No. 5 powder.
158-grain Boudreau bullets in candy green. Boudreau’s makes a good bullet.Fresh .38 Special reloads. The candy green color goes well with brass cases.
These days, you take what you can get when it comes to reloading components. I previously developed accurate .38 Special loads with Bullseye, Unique, Power Pistol, and WW 231 propellant (you can read about them on our Tales of the Gun page), but I haven’t previously loaded .38 Special with Accurate No 5. It was the only powder my reloading shop had in stock, so I bought a couple of bottles to try.
Classy-looking ammo.Accurate No. 5 propellant.
Finding data for powder-coated bullets is a bit dicey, and it’s even more difficult with Accurate No. 5. There’s load data on the Accurate website, and they recommended a load range of 5.3 to 5.9 grains for this powder with a 158-grain powder-coated bullet. I loaded at 5.4 grains (0.1 grain above the minimum) to try in both my Colt Python and my Model 60 Smith and Wesson (both of which have been massaged with custom triggers from good buddy TJ’s Custom Gunworks).
Colt Python results at 50 feet. Not bad for an initial load. Subscribe to the ExNotes blog for future load tests.Smith and Wesson Model 60 load results at 50 feet. This is not too shabby for a snubnose revolver.
I recently tried Boudreau’s 9mm 125-gr bullets and I was very pleased with the results (you can read about that here). I’m just getting started developing loads for the .38 Special with the Boudreau powder-coated bullets.
9mm ammo reloaded with Boudreau’s powder-coated bullets.
You may have noticed that Boudreau’s Bullets is now an advertiser on the ExNotes site. I like the product and we want to share the knowledge with you. You can call the number on their site; ask to talk to Ralph. He’s very knowledgeable and you will be in good hands.
R. Lee Ermey was the real deal. A United States Marine and a drill instructor hired to advise the actors in Full Metal Jacket who was so impressive in showing the phonies how to be a real Marine the folks in charge hired him to play the role (or so the story goes; there are various versions floating around). We’ve all seen the movie; I watch it every time it airs.
What grabbed my attention is that the late R. Lee Ermey’s gun collection is about to go up for auction. I looked through the guns listed out of curiosity to see what Gunny Lee had, and he had good taste in firearms. Lee Ermey owned a lot of shotguns, a few handguns, and a few rifles.
Here are a few of the Gunny’s guns that got my attention.
The first is a Colt Python that is part of a three gun cased set Colt offered several years ago (the set included a Python, a Single Action Army, and a black powder revolver). What’s interesting to me is that Gunnery Sergeant Ermey used his Python (it’s got the scratches and finish wear showing that).
Another one that’s interesting is the Model 62 Winchester. I have one of those that my Dad left to me; he bought it when he was a kid. One of these days I’ll do a blog on it.
And one more of the many that are going on the block. It’s a 1932 Mosin. If you’ve spent any time on the ExNotes blog, you know I love shooting my Mosins. Gunnery Sergeant Ermey was a man who knew his guns.
You can view the complete Lee Ermey auction here. I’ll be watching the auction as it unfolds, especially on the Mosin pictured above. It’s likely it will quickly go beyond my pay grade, but you never know.
