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.
I had one years ago. I didnt see anything great about it. For one it wasnt chambered in 44 Magnum. Now it would have been great if it had been chambered in "The Miracle" 9MM. With that cartridge it would have been great but alas, it wasnt , so it was mediocre at best, if it could make mediocre. But that is with doubts. All one has to do it look at the "The Miracle". It is what make handguns 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.
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.
Well of course I have to ask "best for what?".
Colt's tended to rule the roost on the target range, and S&W tended to rule the roost in LE holsters. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. In .357 the Python is much better than anything S&W has ever made. Mostly because the S&W's had some holes in their game. The K frame .357's weren't quite strong enough for a steady diet of magnums, and had issues with split forcing cones. The N frame S&W's are big, heavy, and have a .38 Special length cylinder. What's more, I have corrected timing on N Frame .38/.357 more than any other revolver I can think of...by a good margin too. Regardless, the S&W M19 will always be special to me.
The S&W L frame is a wonderful revolver, but its still not quite as tough as an I frame Colt, nor as accurate. So in the .357 realm, the Python rules the roost for American made DA revolvers.
With all that said, I have always been a S&W man more than a Colt man. Now mostly that's because my whole life I could always find great deals on used S&W's. Colt's were pricey.
S&W "won" the revolver wars because S&W was lead by competent leaders, not because their revolvers were better (although, I don't really think they were "worse" either). Colt was just bound and determined to cut their own throat...they been that way since day one!
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!
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.
The delicate mechanism is a common internet myth. Python's are brute strong (stronger than a S&W L frame), and the lockwork is FAR from fragile. The issue comes from the lack of understanding of how Colt DA timing works; it's very different from the modern revolvers of today. I can't count how many times Colt's were brought to me to "fix the timing" only to be in perfect time.
The Python is a very fine and refined revolver. To be honest, it's a bit of overkill. S&W's and Rugers are just plain excellent revolvers. Colt probably should have moved to their MK III a good 20 years earlier than they did to better match what was REALLY important to the vast majority of the American shooting public.
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!
,
Yeah I tend to agree with you; it is a delicate balance to get it all right. But in my experience (and maybe yours is different), when I got Colts to work on it was rarely much work to set things right again. My comments were based on how Colt saw things more than my personal opinions. I understand their points and agree with some of them, but I don't necessarily agree it all makes the "best" revolver in the sense of what the vast majority of the shooting public was looking for. Colt ruled the the bullseye world for a LONG time, so they always had target on their mind where revolvers were concerned. It was like auto racing, as long as they were "winning" the Colt brass felt great about their design.
So DA performance at speed was not something Colt paid nearly enough attention to, and S&W did. When the 1950's came and Auto's supplanted the revolver, Colt found themselves with the wrong revolver at the wrong time, and S&W was in a fantastic position to move in. Just one of the many of Colt's blunders.
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
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
So the pre Mk III Colt's were the best of the target revolvers. And S&W's M19 was the number one cop .357 because it was lighter, and the action could be manipulated blindingly fast. So when PPC came along, many flocked to the S&W's because they're easier to work on, and the action is extremely reliable during fast shooting. So one of the "cheap" ways to get a damn good PPC gun was to just screw a Python barrel. I worked at the Bill Davis Service Center. Bill Davis was a famous competitive shooter and when PPC came along, Davis guns pretty much owned PPC for the first 20 years. I had always been told that Bill was the many who came up with the Smolt idea. I really don't know if that is true (it certainly could be), but what I do know is; we did a good 5x more Smolt's than anyone else in the nation. Being from the West Coast, it was actually very rare to see a Smolt that wasn't a Davis gun.
While they're cool, I have never personally been a big fan. Just my opinion (which means, it's worthless), but when you change to a Python barrel, you have to move the front locking location for the cylinder from the end of the ejector rod to the crane. We would put in a ball-detent setup that took the place of the front lockup. It was extremely difficult to get the detent cut perfectly right and lockup was never as good as the factory setup in my opinion. The reason S&W's require that front locking point is because the cylinder turns counter clockwise and therefore the hand pushes the cylinder out of alignment with the bore as it rotates. So the front lock was added. Colt's solution to to rotate the cylinder toward the crane lock, removing the need for a front locking point.
All that said, I would love to have a Smolt in my collection. It's kind of sad, I worked at several gun companies where I have been involved in the manufacture of 1911's, Browning M2's, AR10's, and a bunch of rather iconic competition revolvers. How many examples do I own from the companies I worked at? Not one!
The Colt I frame just doesn't fit my hand, I wanted to like the old first-model Trooper I had, but it just didn't fit my smallish hands worth a hoot. At the same time I was trying out that Colt, I had a round-butt 4" CS-1 686 (Custom Service overrun) that fit me like a glove. It made the Colt feel awkward, it sure shot good (both of them did), but my hand would cramp with it. The fit/finish on a Python is to be conjured to, but if the basics ain't right, the gun ain't right, at least for me.
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.
LOL, I have a five screw, I think they call it pre-27 357 mag, it's a sweetheart, Smith said my very early Colt Trooper was a Python without the ribbed barrel, it a smooth shooter too, guess I'm not too picky, I like em both.
long time ago i was firing probably 500 to 1000 rounds a month. another deputy who had more money had a python, i had a model 19. he never did outshoot me.
I'm not gunsmith enough to go into all the details, but to me, Smith's overall are just a better gun. I think they're more robust and thus, more reliable in the long run. To me, the 686/586 series are the best 357's ever made. The only thing wrong with N frames are their size as they are a bit large for the caliber. The K frames are a bit small and delicate with full loads. If I'm going to have a small 357 though, make mine a Colt Detective Special (Magnum Carry) as they are smaller than the K frame and I'm never shooting that many full power loads anyway. They are better IMO than a Smith 640 or the like.
IMO the way the Python got such a great reputation was not Bullseye or whatever, but the look and size. They beat Smith to the punch on size, smoking them by almost thirty years. Why? I have no idea what took Smith so long to come up with the L frame. The over and under barrel lugs just look cool and mean. Hutch carried one. No need for Dirty Harry's .44.
The bottom line though is that once the L frames came along and certainly within a few years after the bugs were ironed out, Smith had the better gun. IMO Ruger, a company I am not highly enamored of, makes a better 357 than Colt, whether you're talking Security Six or GP-100. The only thing the Python beats any of them on is looks-which although highly subjective I think most would agree on. The Python to me is inferior to the Mk III Trooper/King Cobra as well. They certainly are smoother though.
I have several piles of Colt DA's and Smith DA experience here. Here's my observations, Pros and Cons of both; Colt DA's don't accumulate the lateral cylinder/frame play that Smiths do, or even Rugers for that matter. You can take a Colt that doesn't even lock up in the bolt properly and notice almost zero slack with cylinder to frame fit. There's no washers/spacers there as well. The barrel twist and rotation gets theoretically gets tighter with every shot in a Colt. Colt rifling distorts the projectile less. Smiths are miles easier to tune, have a better engineered DA pull and parts from one generation to another aren't drastically different; Colt DA revolvers of the Python type are literally hand fitted because to work correctly they had to be. This translates into Smiths being better suited to mass production. They also didn't have the overly tight throat and barrel dimensions the early Pythons had. Smith was also not stuck with making just 357 revolvers...
I've never thought the Python was that great, other than the obvious workmanship that was put into them. Many Smith guns also had similar treatment up into the 1960's. I think the King Cobra/MKV revolvers were better simply because you could tune them to have both the DA/SA pull that rivals a Smith, the parts could be interchanged easily and the gun was cheaper to produce. Unfortunately they never exhibited the glittery touches that Pythons had applied to them, so externally they were deemed junk and the MKIII they were based on internally were comparatively heavy and gritty on the trigger, due to its short mainspring and probably its less finished parts. By the time its design was corrected revolvers were not as popular and Colt still treated the Python as its premium product.
This forum need s alike button. Good insights here that show how Colt just made all the wrong decisions in going against S&W. Actually the Boa (or King Cobra) is a much closer comparison to the S&W L frames.
the answer is "not a damned thing". :-) It's all hype. Colt's DA's have always had a rep for going out of time with fewer rds than the Smiths. The rugers put them both to shame in that regard, but the smith's trigger pull will always be a touch smoother. Reaslically, the Python is overprice by a factor of 10.
the answer is "not a damned thing". :-) It's all hype. Colt's DA's have always had a rep for going out of time with fewer rds than the Smiths. The rugers put them both to shame in that regard, but the smith's trigger pull will always be a touch smoother. Reaslically, the Python is overprice by a factor of 10.
Can I buy a new Python? No? Why not? Could it be that Colt's design was a POS and the market spoke loud and clear?
the answer is "not a damned thing". :-) It's all hype. Colt's DA's have always had a rep for going out of time with fewer rds than the Smiths. The rugers put them both to shame in that regard, but the smith's trigger pull will always be a touch smoother. Reaslically, the Python is overprice by a factor of 10.
Can I buy a new Python? No? Why not? Could it be that Colt's design was a POS and the market spoke loud and clear?
Too expensive to manufacture for a reasonable market price. Skilled labor costs too much today vs pre-1960s. Same reason Winchester overhauled all their products post-1963.
there's no way that a python costs a damned dime more to make than an $800 smith. Colt just refuses to re-tool. They know that they are only selling their name. When they lost the M16 contracts, they were dead as a company.
the answer is "not a damned thing". :-) It's all hype. Colt's DA's have always had a rep for going out of time with fewer rds than the Smiths. The rugers put them both to shame in that regard, but the smith's trigger pull will always be a touch smoother. Reaslically, the Python is overprice by a factor of 10.
Can I buy a new Python? No? Why not? Could it be that Colt's design was a POS and the market spoke loud and clear?
Too expensive to manufacture for a reasonable market price. Skilled labor costs too much today vs pre-1960s. Same reason Winchester overhauled all their products post-1963.
You've got a warped sense of what skilled labor costs in the gun industry. The firearms industry is the only one I know that relies on charity to exist. Folks who do it, do it because they love guns and it's what they want to do. Most of them could make alot more money doing something else. Firearms are a relatively low profit margin product and wages for those who build them are comparatively low.
But not low compared to assemblers of guns whose parts pop out of CNC machines basically ready to assemble.
Not much higher on average and lower in some instances trust me. Just depends on the outfit you work for. I've worked for several over the years and been offered employment by others and know what I'm talking about. I was recently offered employment by one of the biggest names in custom 1911's. I have been building them professionally for 7 years for another outfit. The wage offered was higher than what Glock pays a simple assembler fresh off the street by a whole 3.50 an hour. It was also 5.00 an hour less than a buddy of mine makes packaging pills at a pharmaceutical company {good place to work, high profit margin product and a labor union} and 2.00 an hour more than I'd make running a forklift at a local warehouse.
there's no way that a python costs a damned dime more to make than an $800 smith. Colt just refuses to re-tool. They know that they are only selling their name. When they lost the M16 contracts, they were dead as a company.
Not having worked in this part of the industry, I don't have firsthand experience, but it's not hard to believe that UAW wages are likely higher than non-union shops, and, given the amount of hand fitting the older design requires and the kind of finish, especially the blued ones had, that Pythons are more expensive to produce than Smiths and Rugers.
Less than a year after buying its West Hartford headquarters and manufacturing plant with financial help from the state, Colt’s Manufacturing Co. has been sued in federal court over accusations that it has shifted work out of the plant to save money and has laid off workers.
The number of union jobs at the gun factory has dropped by more than 200 since 2016, according to the United Auto Workers.
United Auto Workers Local 376 filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New Haven last week. It seeks a halt to plans by the gunmaker to move “substantially all parts manufacturing” from West Hartford. It also asked the court to order Colt’s to reverse a Feb. 21 layoff of 74 workers and return them to their jobs.
It’s the latest sign of financial trouble at the manufacturer, which emerged from bankruptcy in January 2016. Colt’s and the union negotiated a“memorandum of understanding” that sought to strengthen a labor contract by reaffirming job security and identifying areas where investment can be increased. But cost concerns forced Colt’s to move in a different direction, the union said in its lawsuit.
there's no way that a python costs a damned dime more to make than an $800 smith. Colt just refuses to re-tool. They know that they are only selling their name. When they lost the M16 contracts, they were dead as a company.
Not having worked in this part of the industry, I don't have firsthand experience, but it's not hard to believe that UAW wages are likely higher than non-union shops, and, given the amount of hand fitting the older design requires and the kind of finish, especially the blued ones had, that Pythons are more expensive to produce than Smiths and Ruger.
Yes, the union shops do pay considerably more. Remington used to pay very well at the Ilion plant where they were a union shop. I'm sure Colt being union pays alot more than Ruger. I was offered employment by Ruger at their NH plant back in the 90's and turned it down because the wages sucked. Minimum wage was 4.35 at the time and they offered me 6.00 an hour to hand checker stocks all day. No thanks.
the answer is "not a damned thing". :-) It's all hype. Colt's DA's have always had a rep for going out of time with fewer rds than the Smiths. The rugers put them both to shame in that regard, but the smith's trigger pull will always be a touch smoother. Reaslically, the Python is overprice by a factor of 10.
Can I buy a new Python? No? Why not? Could it be that Colt's design was a POS and the market spoke loud and clear?
Too expensive to manufacture for a reasonable market price. Skilled labor costs too much today vs pre-1960s. Same reason Winchester overhauled all their products post-1963.
You've got a warped sense of what skilled labor costs in the gun industry. The firearms industry is the only one I know that relies on charity to exist. Folks who do it, do it because they love guns and it's what they want to do. Most of them could make alot more money doing something else. Firearms are a relatively low profit margin product and wages for those who build them are comparatively low.
the answer is "not a damned thing". :-) It's all hype. Colt's DA's have always had a rep for going out of time with fewer rds than the Smiths. The rugers put them both to shame in that regard, but the smith's trigger pull will always be a touch smoother. Reaslically, the Python is overprice by a factor of 10.
Can I buy a new Python? No? Why not? Could it be that Colt's design was a POS and the market spoke loud and clear?
Too expensive to manufacture for a reasonable market price. Skilled labor costs too much today vs pre-1960s. Same reason Winchester overhauled all their products post-1963.
You've got a warped sense of what skilled labor costs in the gun industry. The firearms industry is the only one I know that relies on charity to exist. Folks who do it, do it because they love guns and it's what they want to do. Most of them could make alot more money doing something else. Firearms are a relatively low profit margin product and wages for those who build them are comparatively low.
As much as I love the Python, and even though it’s the “better” (to me) revolver, I too prefer the S&W. I just go WEAK in the knees when I see a S&W model 19 with TT, TH, RR, WO!!
I can tinker on a revolver; some, polishing, tuning etc, but wouldn't make a pimple on a gun smiths azz. I am a shooter though, and concentrated the last 15 years of competitive shooting using revolvers. From a shooters prospective, the Colt is a non starter, S&W is really the only one in the game. In 15 years of highly competitive revolver shooting, a couple International Revolver Championships and many state and local matches, I have never once, seen a Colt revolver on the line. Oops, I take that back, at the 1984 Steel Challenge I saw the one and only Colt, a Python, shot by the then somewhat renowned gun rag writer Dave Arnold. He was the first one to pop a cap at the 84 Challenge, when he drew, he was shakin like a dog [bleep] a peach pit, the revolver spun a time or two in mid air and landed in the parched alkali California dust. I wish I had a half dozen tucked in the safe so I could make some scratch on them, but for what they were made for, shooting, they just don't cut it.
LOL a lot of idiots who have no idea about the Python action the way it was designed in the 50's and that is why it had to be hand assembled.
The new Pythons being released for sale in less than 3 weeks will look identical on the outside dimensionally with a improved rear sight, even has a red ramp front sight. Will be SS only for obvious reasons with a brand new action in 6in and the 4in to follow in 60 days or so.
New action is fast like the original and still very smooth. Just be patient all questions will be answered soon but not today. That is all.
LOL a lot of idiots who have no idea about the Python action the way it was designed in the 50's and that is why it had to be hand assembled.
The new Pythons being released for sale in less than 3 weeks will look identical on the outside dimensionally with a improved rear sight, even has a red ramp front sight. Will be SS only for obvious reasons with a brand new action in 6in and the 4in to follow in 60 days or so.
New action is fast like the original and still very smooth. Just be patient all questions will be answered soon but not today. That is all.
LOL a lot of idiots who have no idea about the Python action the way it was designed in the 50's and that is why it had to be hand assembled.
The new Pythons being released for sale in less than 3 weeks will look identical on the outside dimensionally with a improved rear sight, even has a red ramp front sight. Will be SS only for obvious reasons with a brand new action in 6in and the 4in to follow in 60 days or so.
New action is fast like the original and still very smooth. Just be patient all questions will be answered soon but not today. That is all.
The S&W action is faster which is why record setting speed shooters use S&W.
The Phyton action was very smooth if I were purchasing a Phytkn I would want the original action smoothness
If we're going for semantics, the I designation was indeed in the 1950s (but wasnt first used in the Python in 1955).
It wasnt any more than minor changes of existing design dating into the 1890s.
Parts for I frames dont interchange with prior models, but the same can be said for Police Positives in the 1920s where different frames and internal parts vary as well.
LOL a lot of idiots who have no idea about the Python action the way it was designed in the 50's and that is why it had to be hand assembled.
The new Pythons being released for sale in less than 3 weeks will look identical on the outside dimensionally with a improved rear sight, even has a red ramp front sight. Will be SS only for obvious reasons with a brand new action in 6in and the 4in to follow in 60 days or so.
New action is fast like the original and still very smooth. Just be patient all questions will be answered soon but not today. That is all.
The Phyton action was very smooth if I were purchasing a Phytkn I would want the original action smoothness
Well all I can say now is your expectations will be Exceeded! Just get ready!
Not only is Hawkeye correct in this instance, he's also one of the members here who's knowledge and willingness to share it makes this place worth coming to. I salute his patience.
That is what I said. Design is required prior to manufacturer as you know. HawkI is the one who needs to do more due diligence.
GFY....
Because nothing says "I've lost the argument " any better than a GFY!
HawkI normally knows what he's talking about.
Well not in this case on the development of the original action for the Python . Just be patient and watch the magazine rack and the internet after the New Year. It is awesome!
The Python was always a nice revolver, but the Walking dead series really jacked up the prices....everyone wanted one. Same as the Smith Model 29....when the Dirty Harry series ran, Model 29s were selling for 3X their price. Instill like the "no dash" and 1 and 2 series Model 27 and 29 revolvers.
How would you explain the Trooper and 357 models built on the identical frame and lock work prior to the introduction of the Python?
. Do some more research. "Identical"???? Need to use Google better than that. Very close on the actions.
I’ve been inside dozens of them and handled dozens more. For my education, without simply suggesting Google, what is different aside from cosmetics and possibly finish of the parts?
there's no way that a python costs a damned dime more to make than an $800 smith. Colt just refuses to re-tool. They know that they are only selling their name. When they lost the M16 contracts, they were dead as a company.
I think you should study firearms manufacturing a bit more. A Python is a LOT more expensive to manufacture than ANY S&W.
The Python was always a nice revolver, but the Walking dead series really jacked up the prices....everyone wanted one. Same as the Smith Model 29....when the Dirty Harry series ran, Model 29s were selling for 3X their price. Instill like the "no dash" and 1 and 2 series Model 27 and 29 revolvers.
I remember wanting a Model 29 S&W back in the early 1980s. It was almost unobtainable, unless you were willing to pay a huge premium over suggested retail. I ended up ordering a Model 57 instead. Once I eventually did acquire a couple of Model 29s, though, the 57 got sold.
How would you explain the Trooper and 357 models built on the identical frame and lock work prior to the introduction of the Python?
. Do some more research. "Identical"???? Need to use Google better than that. Very close on the actions.
Not close, identical. Parts are 100% interchangeable between the first model Trooper, 357, and the Python. There are some subtle differences to the frame, but that is only aesthetic. Python's got a little (only a little) more attention in the way of hand fitting of the internals. The main difference is in the barrel.
The Python was always a nice revolver, but the Walking dead series really jacked up the prices....everyone wanted one. Same as the Smith Model 29....when the Dirty Harry series ran, Model 29s were selling for 3X their price. Instill like the "no dash" and 1 and 2 series Model 27 and 29 revolvers.
I remember wanting a Model 29 S&W back in the early 1980s. It was almost unobtainable, unless you were willing to pay a huge premium over suggested retail. I ended up ordering a Model 57 instead. Once I eventually did acquire a couple of Model 29s, though, the 57 got sold.
Long story, but I was on the set of The Dead Pool a few days when it was being made. So obviously a guy like me is going to mosey his way over to the weapons guy. The revolver that was on the set THAT DAY, was a 6.5" model 25 in .45 Colt. The guy (I'll think of his name later, when I don't need to remember it) said they had both the 29 and the 25. He said "something broke" on the 29 and went back to the shop, so they were using the 25 on that day. So, I can confirm Dirty Harry used both a 25 and a 29.
The Python was always a nice revolver, but the Walking dead series really jacked up the prices....everyone wanted one. Same as the Smith Model 29....when the Dirty Harry series ran, Model 29s were selling for 3X their price. Instill like the "no dash" and 1 and 2 series Model 27 and 29 revolvers.
I remember wanting a Model 29 S&W back in the early 1980s. It was almost unobtainable, unless you were willing to pay a huge premium over suggested retail. I ended up ordering a Model 57 instead. Once I eventually did acquire a couple of Model 29s, though, the 57 got sold.
Long story, but I was on the set of The Dead Pool a few days when it was being made. So obviously a guy like me is going to mosey his way over to the weapons guy. The revolver that was on the set THAT DAY, was a 6.5" model 25 in .45 Colt. The guy (I'll think of his name later, when I don't need to remember it) said they had both the 29 and the 25. He said "something broke" on the 29 and went back to the shop, so they were using the 25 on that day. So, I can confirm Dirty Harry used both a 25 and a 29.
The actor, Clint Eastwood, may have used a 25 from time to time, but Callahan never did.
How would you explain the Trooper and 357 models built on the identical frame and lock work prior to the introduction of the Python?
. Do some more research. "Identical"???? Need to use Google better than that. Very close on the actions.
Not close, identical. Parts are 100% interchangeable between the first model Trooper, 357, and the Python. There are some subtle differences to the frame, but that is only aesthetic. Python's got a little (only a little) more attention in the way of hand fitting of the internals. The main difference is in the barrel.
Not identical but close that is why hand fitting is not a desirable thing in a production environment. The new action is smoother in both single and double action when comparing new old to new generation unfired. Going to be fun to watch the Forums light up.
Saw that one in the theatre. Complete with harpoon ending.
If you're ordering parts for an I frame Colt, they're all apparently the same, except for parts for Pythons. Good luck with finding distinctions, other than the hammer spur.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/114945.jpg)
