Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns So what makes the Python so great??

I can remember long decades ago asking exactly that question to the man who taught the Colt Revolver Armory Course. I'll tell you a little of what I learned...

Colt's DA action as seen in the DA revolvers from the New Service on are the perfected combination of the two most common DA systems used in Germany. The Python is the culmination of everything Colt has learned about making revolvers.

The V spring was a great simplification of the DA revolver action because it did away with the need for a separate spring for the trigger return spring.

Clockwise rotation was instituted so the rotation of the cylinder would push the crane inward rather than outward (as on a S&W), thus eliminating any strain to the crane from cycling and firing. The counter clockwise rotation was a factor in crane alignment issues with the early Colt and S&W swing out revolvers.
The V spring design for the trigger return also helped with reliability when the gun became VERY dirty. The S&W rebound slide design requires the addition of two more bearing surfaces for dirt, dust, grit, etc to bind the action.

The Colt action also "locks" the cylinder into perfect alignment at the moment of firing, something no modern revolver does. Contrary to common internet lore, Colt's DO NOT go out of time easily. In fact, it's VERY rare to have a Colt that is really out of time. The reason people often question Colt timing is they lack an understanding of how Colt timing works...it is VERY different from modern revolvers of today.

The trigger was designed to best accomodate both slow single action target work, and fast DA work. The thin trigger with serrations is very carefully considered. The thin is to help the finger wrap around. The serrations are for good finger tip purchase for single action work. But the serrations are a little rounded off at the tips, and the edges are carefully rounded so as to be comfortable during DA shooting.

Colt's "Beavertail" hammer is their finest target hammer. Now admittedly it is a little of a weak point, as they are known to break if dropped. This didn't stop the gun from working, but it's not a cheap fix either. Anyhow, the hammer is such that it offers their precise mix of mass for a lighter DA action, and yet light enough that locktime remains reasonable.

The frame mounted firing pin is one of the slickest in all of revolverdom. Colt called it an "unbreakable" firing pin, it wasn't. But it is VERY tough, and probably the easiest of all DA revolver firing pins to change.

The pinned front sight came right at a time when S&W moved to the milled non-removable front sights. Rear sight is of very high quality, but really not better or worse than what was available on a S&W. Colt did have the option of the Eliason rear sight, which was the sight that created the "standard" sight picture of most of the best sight's today.

Finally we come to the barrel. Barrels were initially all milled, but eventually were forged, then milled. The underlug addition was for balance and although Colt say's the King's Target Colt's weren't the inspiration; clearly there were. Lastly, the barrels were made via cut rifling that were hand lapped. In the lapping process, Colt added a very slight taper to the bore so as to milk out the last little bit of accuracy.

So there's some of the technical aspects that make the Python quite the masterpiece of revolver making.

So in your opinion as a gunsmith/armorer type, which is better, Colt or Smith and Wesson?

As much as I like to like Colt revolvers, I think Smith is the better as far as double actions. Now as far as single actions, which Smith hasn't been heavily into since the old west days, I think Colt beats Smith just on the basis of being more robust. But with double actions, I think Smith carries the day.

From what I have heard over the years is that the Colt Python has a delicate mechanism. I confess I have never owned one but I have had the opportunity to shoot them on several occasions. With two of them that I handled I was able to push the hammer forward after it was cocked without touching the trigger. The gun being empty of course.The cylinder has only one locking point as opposed to two on a S&W or three on Ruger revolvers like the old S&W Triple Locks. It was advised to limit the diet of heavy .357 loads in the Python.

They did shoot nicely and had good triggers but I'm happy to stick with my Rugers and S&W revolvers. Seeing how much they are worth today I wish I would have bought a few as investments.

It's been 30+ years since I worked in a Colt-authorized warranty shop, but here's what I remember after working on a lot of Pythons and similar D frames: the way the bolt rides up and drops off the shelf on the rebound lever was always a PITA and pretty Micky-Mouse. The rebound lever had to be a perfect fit for the teeter-totter design of the bolt to work properly and to put the correct tension on the hand. As you said, the design dates back to the turn of the 20th century, so if what was "perfected" 120 years ago is still wonderful, I guess that's a matter of opinion and yours is certainly shared by a lot of people. In addition, the cylinder latch, with the little piece of plastic that rides against the sideplate, seemed to bind way more than it should. Finally, the ejector design that requires the removal of the staked on, threaded extractor star for disassembly wasn't the best.

The action certainly stacks, and when you describe the Python's single V mainspring doing double duty as a trigger return spring as an advantage, I saw the separate coil springs of the Smith and Ruger Security-6 family as having the advantage, especially because, again, the Python's rebound lever had to be in perfect fit with the hand return the trigger reliably.

One thing that always bothered me, but, again, just opinion, is that a fast pull of the Python's trigger could make the cylinder spin around and skip a chamber. You had to sort of deliberately try to do this, but I could never get a Smith or a Ruger to do it.

I and the other gunsmiths that worked in our shop were never enthralled with the Python but they sure looked good, no doubt.
Anyway, to each his own, but there are contrary opinions out there about the greatness of the Python.
Best!




,

GunGeek: How does the "old timey" pistol used by many "pistol competitors" known as the "SMOLT" (preferred Colt barrel fitted to the preferred Smith frame/cylinder) fit into your question and your answer.
I used to see a lot of these at Police type competitions.
In other words if the Colt "frame" is also superior to the Smith frame why did so many folks go through the time, trouble, expense of making "Smolts" (using the Smith & Wesson frames and Colt's barrels)?
I did not know about the "tapered" bore of the Colt Pythons barrels.
Thank you for the information so far and looking forward to your insights (if any) on the Smolts.
TIA
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

It's been 30+ years since I worked in a Colt-authorized warranty shop, but here's what I remember after working on a lot of Pythons and similar D frames: the way the bolt rides up and drops off the shelf on the rebound lever was always a PITA and pretty Micky-Mouse. The rebound lever had to be a perfect fit for the teeter-totter design of the bolt to work properly and to put the correct tension on the hand. As you said, the design dates back to the turn of the 20th century, so if what was "perfected" 120 years ago is still wonderful, I guess that's a matter of opinion and yours is certainly shared by a lot of people. In addition, the cylinder latch, with the little piece of plastic that rides against the sideplate, seemed to bind way more than it should. Finally, the ejector design that requires the removal of the staked on, threaded extractor star for disassembly wasn't the best.

The action certainly stacks, and when you describe the Python's single V mainspring doing double duty as a trigger return spring as an advantage, I saw the separate coil springs of the Smith and Ruger Security-6 family as having the advantage, especially because, again, the Python's rebound lever had to be in perfect fit with the hand return the trigger reliably.

One thing that always bothered me, but, again, just opinion, is that a fast pull of the Python's trigger could make the cylinder spin around and skip a chamber. You had to sort of deliberately try to do this, but I could never get a Smith or a Ruger to do it.

I and the other gunsmiths that worked in our shop were never enthralled with the Python but they sure looked good, no doubt.
Anyway, to each his own, but there are contrary opinions out there about the greatness of the Python.
Best!

If you have ever fired a S&W registered 357 you would know what a piece of chit the Python is.