All Colt V-spring revolvers are licensed descendants of the Schmidt-Galand revolver design, which uses its distinctive �double-headed hand� as a kind of sacrificial element.
While it is true that the pawl on the Colt�s revolvers is considered a wear part, it should be noted that it take a lot of shots, even with magnum ammunition to wear one out if the part has been properly installed.
As the combustion gases cause the cartridge case to expand, it briefly locks to the walls of the cylinder chamber and transfers most of its recoil momentum to the cylinder, which thereupon in its turn bears upon the hand by way of its interface with the extractor star, which at that moment is tensioned by the trigger being squeezed by the shooter�s finger. Consequently, the hand gets stressed at each moment of firing, and bears the brunt of recoil, all the more so in Magnum calibers.
The Colt�s pawl floats so as the cylinder moves back the pawl moves with it. Since the cylinder has no rifling in it, there is no significant torque either way, therefore a properly fit pawl will go a very long time before you have any issues.
With a Python firing full-power .357 Magnum ammo, you can count on around 5,000 rounds before the hand gets deformed outr of spec.
Not my observation, but you may have different experiences than I.
All this technical talk is very interesting if you�re interested in such engineering minutia. The fact remains, the Colt�s revolver is anything but a �fragile� revolver. In fact, in US military testing before the turn of the century, the reason Colt�s won out over all other revolvers is because when exposed to the elements, the Colt�s was the one that kept running while all others (including the S&W) were hopelessly locked up.
In the end, one would hope that a $5,000.00 revolver would be better than something costing 60-80% less. For the difference in price, that can cover a good two to three lifetimes of having new hands fit. As for the rest of the gun, it will hold its own with the rest of the crowd.
Accuracy wise, I�ve yet to encounter a Korth that out-shoots a Python, but admittedly I�ve only shot two examples. And also admittedly, I was shooting one brand of ammo, and the rest were handloads. Still, the Colt�s consistently out-shot the Korth in my hands, and the hands of several other bullseye competitors. Still, the difference was so minute that no one would ever say that Python was truly more accurate or less accurate; just not enough of a difference.
The one thing I did like about the Korth was the feel, it felt more like a S&W to me, so therefore it tended to feel better in my hands than the Colts. And again, the engineering that allows all the adjustments on the fly is simply brilliant.
