okcorral1881
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- East of Toronto
Don't forget that Colt made their own barrels and that the Python barrels' bore were purposely tapered....... around 2/1000 '' IIRC.
Python Problems
- Thread starter Ganderite
- Start date
Don't forget that Colt made their own barrels and that the Python barrels' bore were purposely tapered....... around 2/1000 '' IIRC.
Don't forget that the Python also had the "Silver Ball" treatment.
My load of choice is a 148's HBWC lightly crimped over 3.2 grains of 231/HP38 or 2.8g of Bullseye. Sure is a mild load at ~750fps (a bit hotter with 3.2g of W231) but will give you good accuracy. Both my '57 Python and now gone S&W 627-0 sure appreciate it.
I have some excellent 148WC loads, similar to yours, that work well in my 38s and 357s.
One day I realised that in my entire life (well over a million rounds fired) I have not fired as much as a full box of full power 357 ammo. So I decided to make some.
I am glad I did, because I learned two important things - leading and the standard primer craters and jams the revolver.
I still want to stockpile some full power ammo, so will look for some plated bullets and will try some rifle primers. When looking for the Campros, I will look for some magnum pistol, too, because I am sure the rifle primers won't work in some of the guns tuned for DAO work.
One day I realised that in my entire life (well over a million rounds fired) I have not fired as much as a full box of full power 357 ammo. So I decided to make some.
I am glad I did, because I learned two important things - leading and the standard primer craters and jams the revolver.
I still want to stockpile some full power ammo, so will look for some plated bullets and will try some rifle primers. When looking for the Campros, I will look for some magnum pistol, too, because I am sure the rifle primers won't work in some of the guns tuned for DAO work.
If you have any H110 around I prefer it to 2400 for 357 full house loads. More bang and kick it seems for the same pressures when modeled with Quickload.
Also, for the 158 Gr TC campro's the Hornady XTP data will work in Quickload as they are dimensionally the same. Campros own load data matches that of the Hodgdon's Hornady XTP loads.
Also, for the 158 Gr TC campro's the Hornady XTP data will work in Quickload as they are dimensionally the same. Campros own load data matches that of the Hodgdon's Hornady XTP loads.
Do you really think I don't know that the 158 SWC isn't a new concept? C'mon... What don't you understand about my bearing surface reference? Here's a definition for you: "A bearing surface is a mechanical engineering term that refers to the area of contact between two objects". You seem stubbornly stuck on the idea that velocity is your problem (or only problem) when most likely it is not. Why ask questions if you're not going to acknowledge all possibilities?
You don't seem to ever understand what I'm saying but clearly understand everyone else, lol. Oh well, I know how to solve that problem in future.
Cheers.
Last edited:
I have 12 pounds of 2400 and have used in the past to make full house loads for 44 MAg. I rather like it because I can down load it a bit, whereas H110/296 has to be balls to the wall.
I decided to use this medium speed powder because I have so much of it, saving the 2400 for other applications. It will get me up to around 90% velocity which is good enough for this purpose.
I just picked up 1000 Campro 158s and a 1000 Federal Mag Pistol primers. I will try the Campros with 3 powder charges, with the top load at 1200 fps.
I will try the lead 158s with a load similar to a hot 38Spl, say, 900 fps. That should be a good 357 plinker.
They are very sweet shooters aren't they? Mine's a mid '57 production in the #38xx range, it was actually shipped to Ellwood Epps on Sept. 5th 1957, only one Python in the shipment at that time!
Colt made a total of 3900 Pythons in 1957 (#1650-#5549) and started at #5550 in Jan. '58.
Good Shootin'
H.C.
I have made up some loads using the Campro 158 SWC.
The Chrony says that these shoot at least 100 fps slower than the same powder charge under a similar lead bullet.
Tried the Federal small pistol magum primer. Slight cratering, but the cylinder does not jam. Tried the CCI small rifle primer. No cratering at all.
Did not yet try the SR in a tuned revolver shooting DA. They may not fire.
Tomorrow I will shoot these for accuracy.
The Chrony says that these shoot at least 100 fps slower than the same powder charge under a similar lead bullet.
Tried the Federal small pistol magum primer. Slight cratering, but the cylinder does not jam. Tried the CCI small rifle primer. No cratering at all.
Did not yet try the SR in a tuned revolver shooting DA. They may not fire.
Tomorrow I will shoot these for accuracy.
OK. Shot for accuracy.
My main concern was reliability. I did not realise that making hot ammo would be so different than just making the good match ammo, or plinking ammo.
My first batch of hot loads discovered that lead 158 SWC bullets lead badly at high velocity. Had not noticed this with 44 Mag. I also had a terrible reliability problem with cratered primers jamming the cylinders. I was using standard Fiocchi pistol primers.
I ran a quick exercise with Federal Magnum pistol primers. 9.0 and 9.5 gr were fine, but there was some cratering at 10 (1250 fps).
So when I made ammo for the accuracy test, I loaded the 10.0 gr rounds with CCI small rifle primers, because these were less likely to crater and jam the gun.
The accuracy test ran smoothly with the first 4 guns. Everything seemed to work well, with a slight edge to some loads. I will try another dozen or so guns before making a selection for the 1500 pieces of brass I have.
But the primer substitution had a strange outcome. The rifle primers did not crater, and fired 100%, but the velocity was 75 fps slower. I guess that Federal magnum primer has lots of oomph.
My main concern was reliability. I did not realise that making hot ammo would be so different than just making the good match ammo, or plinking ammo.
My first batch of hot loads discovered that lead 158 SWC bullets lead badly at high velocity. Had not noticed this with 44 Mag. I also had a terrible reliability problem with cratered primers jamming the cylinders. I was using standard Fiocchi pistol primers.
I ran a quick exercise with Federal Magnum pistol primers. 9.0 and 9.5 gr were fine, but there was some cratering at 10 (1250 fps).
So when I made ammo for the accuracy test, I loaded the 10.0 gr rounds with CCI small rifle primers, because these were less likely to crater and jam the gun.
The accuracy test ran smoothly with the first 4 guns. Everything seemed to work well, with a slight edge to some loads. I will try another dozen or so guns before making a selection for the 1500 pieces of brass I have.
But the primer substitution had a strange outcome. The rifle primers did not crater, and fired 100%, but the velocity was 75 fps slower. I guess that Federal magnum primer has lots of oomph.
I'm just thinking outside the box here but wanted to ask you if your recoil face is damaged or worn in any way? What's the gap like around the firing pin when you manually pull the trigger and lower the hammer exposing the firing pin??? These questions mean nothing if you noticed cratering in all 4 guns you used for the test.
I only ask this because I recently devised a "full house" lead 357 round without gas checks that didn't lead my Python bores at all using 2400 with a NOE 158gr HG51 copy bullet sized to 357. I used Fiocchi SPP and had no issues at all and settled on 1200 FPS.
The only time I had cratering issues with a revolver was with a ROSSI that had the firing pin bushing come loose and slipped back into the frame revealing a small lip. When any round was fired the casing would headspace off the frame but the primer could move a bit further back and upon rotating to the next round would contact the small edge of the frame.
