Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Hickok45 Has The New Python

It is, because its setting at the very back of the recess, which is also why the hand function is sporadic at the same time.

The transfer bar, as you know, is a block for the arm on an uncocked gun. With the hammer nose left long, it also acts the same way because the hammer strike isnt allowed to force it out of the way, downward, the way it's designed to.
I'm betting a pin protrusion check will illustrate the culprit.

It doesn't seem to make sense, until you check the protrusion AND the contact of the transfer bar. As the hammer face is cleaned up, the travel of the bar drops.

Like I said, I had an Anaconda that did the same thing; the hammer nose was unfinished with the casting seam untouched.

Ouch! ...but true...

Surprised by this lack of QC. Looks like the lock work isn't improved

I resemble that remark.

An idea they obviously stole from Ruger LOL. I've seen more than a few GP100 and RedHawks that had firing pin protrusion as low as 0.030", before being sorted out.

I have seen it on Rugers once, but it's a similar system.
I have heard (never witnessed it) that Freedom had issues with their hammer bar system as well.

If the hammer nose is too long (usually unfinished) the transfer bar will muck things up.

Nothing like a fat cat flopping on a short piece of rope...............oh, sorry, wrong thread!

That blows, I opened this thread trying to find out if/when Hickok was going to do a shooting video on the new Python, i'll now watch the sad sack videos with head hung low! can't believe Colt would mind fu-k this project!

19 minutes 24 seconds, I tried Hickok, that's NO PYTHON, didn't even try to stomach the other video, I don't want one, will grab an old original should another 1400 dollar clean 6 inch come by.

Hickock's videos are so bad, he has to tell you what happens at the beginning.

Because NOBODY makes it through one.

LOL.

They are youtube torture. If he's shooting something I'm really interested in, I'll run them with the sound off and cursor ahead until I think he's at a point that interests me. I wish someone he knows could convince him that no review should take more than 5-7 minutes. Tell what it is, compare it to something similar if you must, then shoot the fuggin thing and be done with it.

I spot-check Hickok, too. Unless I am really interested in a gun he is reviewing, I don't watch him load magazines or stand at the table talking unless he has a trigger pull gauge or a scale or some other comparison gun out. Even then, they are too long. (I also don't watch Paul Harrell shoot over chronographs and call out each shot.)

It's a bummer about the gun. It wasn't my cup of tea back in the day when the originals were on store shelves, but I hate to see the reintroduction suffer from glitches.

I used to enjoy Hickok45. He used to offer commentary that was fairly useful--good for small hands; safety is too stiff or poorly located; magazine doesn't drop free, etc.

Now...he's way too tied to his sponsors. I don't need a gun guy to tell me to buy gold and who to buy it from. Also, he never pimped Ballistol until he got paid to do so. (I'm not saying Ballistol is a good/bad product, but when he used to say what he liked when he had no financial motive, it meant something. Now he's just another commercial w/o credibility).

Currently, I suppose if I were interested in an a particular gun, I'd watch him shoot it and talk about it (skipping through his monologues on non-related issues).

Yeah, I don't like the increasing time he spends selling products either. I guess, though, that if you want to make a living at YouTubing, and your topic area is one that YouTube won't allow you to monetize, you have no other choice. If he were reviewing movies, for example, instead of guns, YouTube would sell advertising on his videos, and cut him a percentage of the income from it.

I can handle his videos just fine if he's working with a good weapon, that one's a POS dog.

I'll stick with my pre lock S&Ws, thanks.

I picked up mine last Friday from a local dealer, serial no. 19XX. I didn't even know until early last week that Colt was making these again. I was paging through a gun magazine at bedtime and saw an advertisement, and having regretted selling my 1978 blued 4" Python, which was unfired in the box with all tags, I had to have one. Called a local dealer the next morning to see if they had gotten any, and was told yes, we got one. I asked that they hold it for a few days, which they did, and I bought it for $1475.

Not being a real big revolver aficionado, I've got to say that the fit and finish on mine is perfect. When I cock it and pull the trigger and keep the trigger pulled back, the cylinder is locked like a bank vault. Everything about it exudes quality. I tested the trigger pull with my Lyman digital and got an average of 8.0 lbs. in DA mode over 7 pulls and 5.25 lbs. in SA mode. It's the best trigger I've ever pulled on a DA revolver, and much better than the Python I sold, which was part of the reason I sold it, as I was not impressed by the DA pull.

I shot it on Saturday and then on Sunday, shooting 150 .357 and 50 .38 +P rounds. Had a lot of fun and had zero issues with its functioning. If you have the chance to get one at or below MSRP, I'd recommend buying with confidence. No doubt a couple of videos showing malfunctions can give one pause, but we have no idea how many of the +2000 they've made have any issues. Worst case, if it doesn't work right, Colt will fix it.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, the internals are forged, not MIM. I'm not saying that I have read this from Colt or have any other direct knowledge, but this comes from a person that claims to be a Colt employee who posted on another forum. I don't think you can find any other current production revolver that is made this way.

https://www.marlinowners.com/f...ew-colt-pythons.html

Good-looking piece, BMR.

Thanks for posting.

Nah, Colt had used it since 1969 in the Trooper MKIII. I dont think Rugers used it until 1972 in anything. The Security Six came out in 1972.

Again, I have no idea what the new Python design is, just a guess, but if the hammer nose is too long, pin protrusion is going to be minimal to misfiring. If the hand is set by a spring on the transfer bar (like the MKIII and V), that too is going to corrupt function if the hammer nose is too long.

It's about QC.