Which do you prefer?

What barrel length are you ‘New Python’ folks running?

Accuracy? Tiggers? Issues?

Give me a pre-82 S&W revolver. Pythons are pretty, and shoot well, but I prefer the old S&W revolvers.

New ones are just as crappy as the old ones. Horrible double action, azz backwards cylinder release latch, not a one makes a pimple on a good S&W revolvers azz.

I own both and have shot both. I'll take a pre lock Smith any day over the new Python

I have owned a bunch of S&W J, K, and N-frame revolvers as well as an older Python, a couple of Troopers, and a couple of Detective Specials, throw in some Ruger Security Six and GP100 and a Dan Wesson revolver too. Smith & Wesson gets my vote by a good bit.

I've always liked the way the Colt fits my hand, but that's just me. The single action trigger: no comparison; my 27-2 is miles ahead of the Python. Double action: I like the Python, but again, its the way it fits me, but it has nothing on the 27-2 as far as smoothness and weight of pull. I like the target trigger on the 27 and wish I could find a trigger shoe to fit the Python. I hope I never have to choose which one to give up. I enjoy owning and shooting both.

In a medium frame revolver, I prefer to Python.

Love my Python and so has everyone else that's shot it. 4.25, very accurate, great trigger single & double, no issues. If I get a blue probably keep it in the box.

This thread ought to stir the pot.
GunGeek has some really nice Colts and I am sure others do too. I after reading the posts and thinking about it I have a couple of Colts but they are all semi-autos. The new Pythons are nice. It’s really kind of a Ford or Chevy thing.
But in double action revolvers all I have are pre lock Smith & Wesson revolvers. So put me down in that camp if anyone is keeping score. 😁
Here’s a few to try and change anyone’s mind. 😎

SS336.......What can ya say, those are the best of the best. Anyone looking at those Smiths, and can blubber with a straight face, that a damned python is nicer.....I just don't know how to respond?
I competed, and still do in revolver sports, ICORE, Steel Challenge etc for 30+ years, local, state and international revolver matches, and have only once, back in 1984 seen a colt revolver in use. If they were the cats azz, they would be popular in the revolver action shooting sports, they are not. Smith and Wesson dominates, with a very small handfull of rugers and one taurus that I can remember. A python has always reminded me of the lines and form of the old high standard 22 revolvers.....they just look cheap to my mind, with blueing that is odd?

Excellent feedback. I enjoyed an older SS 6” Python that got sold long ago. Great trigger. Slick action. Extremely accurate. Was curious if the newer ones had any issues.

That said never had any complaints about Smiths I have had, and really wish Smith had never messed up what was not broke. Never owned one with a lock. P&R, Pre-lock, Pre-MIM to me was great. Now? Current Smith models - 🫤

Nice pics of fine pieces. No doubt older examples of Smith and Colts seem to be preferable, understandable so.

Thanks folks!

Smiths are more common in competition for several reasons. First of all it’s easier to slick up a S&W both DA and SA. Good Colt mechanics are hard to find these days compared to the 50’s and up to the late 60’s. There is one singular advantage for comp shooters that the Colt can’t deal with and that is lock time. Smiths are just faster to the primer. However Colts are a solid frame unlike the Smith where when you remove the side plate the revolver is about skeletonized. No big side plate on the Colt. Plus the Colt cylinder turns clockwise opposite of S&W. Turning clockwise forces the crane or yoke against the frame insuring better chamber to barrel alignment. Smith’s cylinder can force the cylinder out of alignment as there is nothing to hold it, unless it’s an early Triple-Lock or your gunsmith has fitted a Power yoke lock. These issues really only become a problem with high pressure ammo such as the 357, 41, 44 mag etc. around 35-40K psi and 20 thousand rounds or more heavy usage.

But good Colt shooters and lots of other Colt owners just prefer the trigger pull of these revolvers. With Colts the pull starts light and gets heavier at the end where it breaks. Smiths are opposite they start heavy and lighten up at the end of the pull. A good look at the S&W mainspring and that Smith’s have spring strain screws explains a lot. You can buy and fit a Wolf lighter spring but really good Smith mechanics will tediously reshape a factory spring and when done correctly give the shooter a DA pull that doesn’t “ stack up “. Not so easy on a Colt as their mechanism relies on flat springs that operate more than just the hammer.

I like a Detective Special as my carry, close to K frame size, six shot instead of a five like a Smith J frame. I prefer the trigger pull harder at the end as it tells my finger when to back off if I have to —safety. Otherwise S&W L frames are my go to target and comp gun cause when worked on a bit they are in my opinion the better shooting gun in the Python I frame and Smith L frame category at less money. The exception being a tuned and slicked K-frame, nothing finer with lighter ammo except the Colt Officers 1st series.
Rick

Very interesting perspective Rick.
Thanks for your thoughts.

Best,

Chuck

The MKV, King Cobra and Anaconda of old triggers had the ability to be tuned DA more like a Smith and less like an older Python and perhaps ven the new ones.

Never analyzed the guts of a new one yet.

The MKIII actions had a short coil mainspring and less easy to adjust.

I do not like revolvers, but if I had to pick one it would be new Combat Elite .357.

More great insight. Thanks folks.

Slavek - understand but I was the opposite for a long time with centerfires. It sounds like you are…wanting to pull the trigger on one 😉

Pun as well 😂 Do gives us a range report.

My 5" Python's DA trigger pull is about as light as my 686 with a reduced power rebound spring. It's not as light as my two M65s with reduced power rebound springs. The Python's SA trigger pull is on the heavy side. I have replaced the sights and grip and I like mine fine.
Dave

I don't have any experience with the old python but if you are asking about a new python I do. My example of one shows very mediocre accuracy. My guess is due to the trigger. I was shooting single action off of a bag. I tried a variety of loads, all groups were in the 3+ inch range at 25. My 686 averages about 2 with the same ammo and my Freedom Arms 97 about 1-1.5. I am sure a better shooter with better eyes could improve all of the above.

The Colts are always the smarter investment though I’m not sure at all about the new issues. The new Pythons have some subtle changes to the lock works but I’ve been out of the business too long to know much about them. I used to own an early 4” Python I bought when the gun shops had plenty under the counters. The gun writer Masad Ayoob always said his 4” Python and the early Detective Specials ( with exposed extractor rod ) were two of the finest carry guns, I can’t argue. But with a little work the L frame 586 or 686 Smiths were actually superior. No matter I still am a fan of the older Colts triggers.

I mentioned reshaped Smith mainsprings and when done properly will provide a DA Smith pull that gives a trigger that is uniform the whole travel. A good action job is not just springs though as a good mechanic will also fit up an oversize hand so timing provides carry up and lock so the shooter can index the cylinder just before it fires. Takes practice and finger muscle memory but once learned it’s the best. The only problem with rebound springs is not to get too light as fast firing can result in a locked up gun if you don’t pull all the way through. Tried to attach a photo of shaped and tuned mainsprings but the file is too big so I’m lost
Rick

Thanks again folks, appreciate the info.

I have to say… the new Anaconda is awfully slick!