This became the Python

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Cold Steel

    Active Member
    Sep 26, 2006
    801
    Bethesda, MD
    I bought my 686 new in 1985. I have always loved the Python but at the time the 686 was half the cost or less.
    I remember when the S&W 686 first came out. Every gun writer in creation was comparing it to the Colt Python. Even today I don't think the Ruger GP-100 is anywhere near as accurate as the Python or the 686. Ruger discontinued its brilliant Security-/Speed-/Service-Six line of revolvers just so they could increase its weight and stick an underlug barrel on it.

    The S&W Model 66 was a wonderful revolver, but it needed some kick. It also needed some work on tolerances: headspacing, B/C spacing, metallurgy, design. S&W took all the elements of what made an accurate revolver and they put it into the 686.

    And what did Ruger do?

    It put out a boat anchor. S&W made an improved revolver that was a tack driver. The GP-100 added no real improvement to its .357 D/A revolvers. It just took a great hunting, camping, fishing revolver and tried to make it look like a 686, but without the accuracy. By cutting its steel grip and throwing all the weight forward, it also destroyed the balance of the gun.

    As much as I loved the Security-Six, I also believe the 4-inch stainless steel Service-Six was an astoundingly superb revolver. Unfortunately, I never got one. I did pick up a 3-inch stainless Speed-Six, though, and it's an astoundingly accurate gun. That's because I bought it as a .38 and had it reamed out to take .357 by a great gunsmith.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,178
    Sun City West, AZ
    What many don't realize today about the Colt double-action is that it was designed in an era when labor was cheap and craftsmen were the norm. Colt even had its own school to teach polishing, machining and assembly techniques that had to be completed before the student was allowed to touch a production piece.

    The V-spring Colt action certainly has come in for some share of criticism but at the time it was state-of-the-art. The action actually has fewer moving parts than some others as some parts do more than one function. It does require careful fitting but that wasn't considered a problem then...as I said...labor was cheap at the time. Also...it was customary for gunsmiths and police armorers to be familiar with the Colt action as well as S&W. Parts like the second hand to lock the cylinder up solid were simply considered wear parts to be repaired or changed as part of the revolver's normal life. Today there are few gunsmiths proficient or even familiar with the Colt action which causes some to give it a bad name. There's no question the S&W action is simpler in many ways and can give more service before requiring a tune-up but the difference between Colt and S&W has been likened to a Ferrari vs. a Chevrolet...one is higher performance but requires maintenance to maintain that level of performance.

    The Python uses this action but to a much higher level of fit and finish. The Python also uses a tapered-bore barrel with a tighter twist than the standard for a .357/.38 Special barrel...1:14" rate of twist against a standard of 1:18.75" rate of twist. That allegedly favors heavier bullets but my Python snubby loves the "Treasury Load"...110 grain JHP +P+ that the Secret Service used to use prior to transitioning to self-loading pistols.

    Originally the Pythons were only assembled by two master craftsmen at Colt which, along with the other refinements and specs created a very expensive to produce revolver. Eventually, demand for the Python caused it to be moved to the assembly floor to meet demand...though still assembled by Colt's top line assemblers.

    Pythons are wonderful revolvers but for the money there are many comparable revolvers on the market for utility and accuracy. In the end, it still comes down to the shooter. If you do your job the gun will do its.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,178
    Sun City West, AZ
    As much as I loved the Security-Six, I also believe the 4-inch stainless steel Service-Six was an astoundingly superb revolver. Unfortunately, I never got one. I did pick up a 3-inch stainless Speed-Six, though, and it's an astoundingly accurate gun. That's because I bought it as a .38 and had it reamed out to take .357 by a great gunsmith.

    The Ruger Security-Six series...Security Six, Service Six and Seed Six...are much lamented and should not have been discontinued. They are and were outstanding revolvers (once you install better grips on them). I have nothing against the GP-100 but it's too large and heavy for police duty use or civilian concealed carry. To my way of thinking...a revolver of its size and weight there should be a bigger hole in the barrel and chambers.
     

    Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    The only complaint I heard about the Six series was that due to no side plate, they were harder to do a good trigger job on them. But this was back in the 70s, when they were new, and maybe later, they figured them out better.
     

    Magnumite

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 17, 2007
    6,564
    Harford County, Maryland
    The only complaint I heard about the Six series was that due to no side plate, they were harder to do a good trigger job on them. But this was back in the 70s, when they were new, and maybe later, they figured them out better.

    In my experience that has been an advantage. May be because I like Ruger revolvers. YMMV
     

    manderson

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 3, 2008
    1,243
    1960 Model 357 (my only birth year gun)

    Model357-4inch_1.jpg


    Model357-4inch_4.jpg


    1957 Python that put the Model 357 out to pasture

    IMG_0697.jpg


    IMG_0702.jpg
     

    Cold Steel

    Active Member
    Sep 26, 2006
    801
    Bethesda, MD
    A very underrated gun. I'd rather have one of these than a Python. There was a time when I thought the Python was the end all be all when it came to revolvers. There are others I would rather have these days.
    What made a Python a Python were 1) its luxureous bluing; 2) its action, which was finely tuned; 3) that it was laser bore sighted; and 4) that the throats of the cylinder chambers were precisely milled. The chambers and the bore were precisely aligned. The two downsides of the Python were 1) the hand, or pawl, has an undersized tip which wears quickly, throwing the gun out of time; and 2) the grips were made for an orangutan. They were narrow where the human hand was largest, and thickest where the hand was smallest.

    The S&W 686 no-dash was designed to head to head with the Python and early accuracy tests by independent magazines with Ransom rests seemed to bear this out. How do modern 686s fare? Unknown. I haven't seen any tests. One early test I did see was a 586 4-inch that was independently purchased. It's accuracy blew the testers away. Later, 686s were tested with nearly the same results. I wish GUN TESTS would do such tests today. Off handed shooting is okay, but it's not the same.





    The S&W 686 no-dash (top) and today's 686-6.

    I've always wanted a Python just because it's beautiful. Today, there are beautiful deep black finishes that wear well and can be applied to stainless steel. Cold Steel puts it on some of their premium knives, like its Recon 1. But the most beautiful deep black-blue is the titanium nitride finish on the SOG Agency. I can't afford a Python, but I did pick up an Agency. The trouble is, I can't bring myself to cut anything with it! It's gorgeous.

    In my opinion, Colt should have scrolled the cylinder where the stops are to eliminate that unsightly ring. Hard chrome companies can put their hard chrome coatings on cylinder pawls to eliminate the wear at the tips. Those coatings are very hard and they almost eliminate wear.

    --
     

    Cold Steel

    Active Member
    Sep 26, 2006
    801
    Bethesda, MD
    1960 Model 357 (my only birth year gun)
    Wow...love that Model 1960! I just have these disturbing images in my head. That gun with a bunch of others in a blue recycle bin after President Kamala Harris pries it from your cold dead fingers and decides to turn it into a manhole cover. (She recently got into trouble with the left when she announced she owns a handgun, a remnant of her prosecuting attorney days, she says.)

    According to liberal Peter Funt, "I can't be the only one who is disturbed. Keeping a handgun for personal safety is a bedrock conservative view. The best defense against a 'bad guy with a gun,' the NRA falsely argues, is 'a good guy with a gun.'" (See story.)

    The .357 magnum revolver is, in my view, one of the greatest home defense guns on the planet. They'll never get mine, but I worry about our kids!
     

    Magnumite

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 17, 2007
    6,564
    Harford County, Maryland
    "The S&W 686 no-dash was designed to head to head with the Python and early accuracy tests by independent magazines with Ransom rests seemed to bear this out. How do modern 686s fare? Unknown. I haven't seen any tests. One early test I did see was a 586 4-inch that was independently purchased. It's accuracy blew the testers away. Later, 686s were tested with nearly the same results. I wish GUN TESTS would do such tests today. Off handed shooting is okay, but it's not the same."

    The trend in the past 12 years or so has been of the "hand held" mentality. The writers tend to indicate that is what matters...almost avoiding group testing altogether. So what is the shooting ability of the writer? I loved any accuracy testing of firearms written about. So if the gun is tested what is the design's inherent accuracy? Sandbagged, benched, machine rest testing... I have seen it peek out here and there lately, but not near as much as before the currrent trend started.
     

    Cold Steel

    Active Member
    Sep 26, 2006
    801
    Bethesda, MD
    The Ruger Security-Six series...Security Six, Service Six and Seed Six...are much lamented and should not have been discontinued. They are and were outstanding revolvers (once you install better grips on them). I have nothing against the GP-100 but it's too large and heavy for police duty use or civilian concealed carry. To my way of thinking...a revolver of its size and weight there should be a bigger hole in the barrel and chambers.
    Yep, but the GP-100 also is too large and heavy (in my view) for hiking, hunting and fishing --- probably for camping as well. If you've got a camper and you can slip it somewhere where it won't have to be carried, the gun will be okay. The very thought of hauling a 6-inch GP-100 on a nice invigorating hike makes me want to stay home. The 6-inch Security-Six is far easier to carry, and I know hunters who have carried them. I don't know of a single hunter that has carried a 6-inch GP-100 hiking, hunting or fishing.

    The only complaint I heard about the Six series was that due to no side plate, they were harder to do a good trigger job on them. But this was back in the 70s, when they were new, and maybe later, they figured them out better.





    The Security-Six has a solid frame, which greatly adds to it's strength.

    The Ruger action is more difficult to do a good action job on because of the size of the parts; the lack of a side płate has nothing to do with it. The lack of a side plate does make the gun significantly stronger, however. A fellow i knew with the NRA technical service had a S&W 19. He said he needed to have it retimed after firing about 2,000 hot magnum rounds and a bunch of regular .38s. After the retiming, he he fired another 2,000 hot magnum rounds. This time, he said, the frame fatigue caused it to slightly warp, and it was impossible to retime. He then only shot .38 wadcutters through it. His next gun was a Ruger Security-Six, and he fired well over ten thousand hot magnum rounds through it, and it had no sign of wear.

    Gun legend Skeeter Skelton said he personally knew of three Security-Six revolvers that had each fired 300,000 magnum rounds. One was a bit out of time, he said. The other two were fine. And there are gun rental places that claim hundreds of thousands of rounds have been fired with no ill effects.

    This is why I was disturbed to hear that Ruger was beefing up their Security-Six when the one thing the bloody gun didn't need, and that was beefing up. I suspect that when S&W announced it was beefing up its 13/64/19/66, the folks at Ruger decided they should do the same. The 686 is a great gun, but it's heavy. Damn accurate, though. The GP-100 offers no real advantage in stregth, and no advantage in accuracy, but it does weigh a lot more if you feel like going on an 10-mile hike!


    S&W 686 (top) and a Ruger Security-Six.
     

    manderson

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 3, 2008
    1,243
    The Ruger Security-Six series...Security Six, Service Six and Seed Six...are much lamented and should not have been discontinued. They are and were outstanding revolvers (once you install better grips on them). I have nothing against the GP-100 but it's too large and heavy for police duty use or civilian concealed carry. To my way of thinking...a revolver of its size and weight there should be a bigger hole in the barrel and chambers.
    I agree with this 100%. The GP-100 is one of the few guns I have sold with no regret. But they are very popular.
     
    Last edited:

    Magnumite

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 17, 2007
    6,564
    Harford County, Maryland
    I don't know what a big deal a 6" GP-100 would be out hunting. I use a 7.5" Super Blackhawk. As a backpacking back up, I know of one individual who uses a Redhawk without complaint. Individual preference.

    The whole reason for the the L frame and GP series guns was the barrel breech face/forcing cone erosion and cracking from a steady diet of magnum class ammunition. I had a smith set back my 6" Security Six barrel back once, I did it again when it needed it then replaced the barrel when the erosion ate it up a third time. That is how much I shot that revolver. All because of the erosion issue. So the need was there.

    I can attest to the intensity of the 357 Magnum cartridge. It will erode even the L and GP frame guns. I have a 4" GP-100 and the barrel breech face shows some erosion. I only shoot it once every few years just to shoot it. It is an accurate revolver and handles well. I have shot the 6" specimens and like the way they handle as well. The 357 Magnum cartridge doesn't overly excite me. A 357 Magnum handgun size of the L frame Smiths, GP-100 Rugers, and Colt Pythons/King Cobras are as large as I care to go. The N frame Smiths and Redhawk Rugers are 44 Magnum class and larger cartridge guns for me. Make that a 41 Magnum...I don't own one but it does start the "other" class of magnums.
     

    K-43

    West of Morning Side
    Oct 20, 2010
    1,881
    PG
    My 1st Gen Trooper has a permanent mark on the topstrap over the gap between the cylinder and barrel. It's not like it's cutting it up though. In the '70s and '80s the gun rags often mentioned flame cutting as a cosmetic issue.
    The 1st Gen Trooper was internally the same as a Python and parts interchanged. Very nice trigger. Mine is a well worn police turn in I found in the late '70s for $25.
    The 2nd Gen Troopers had coil springs and some cost savings introduced.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,178
    Sun City West, AZ
    That flame cutting mark is very common on revolvers regardless of the make. The hot 125 grain .357 Magnum rounds had a reputation for causing that to a greater degree than other loads.

    Yes...the first generation Trooper had the same internal parts as the Python. The real difference was the amount of hand-fitting given them by Colt techs. The Trooper can have an action as good or better than the average Python if the guy doing the work knows his stuff.

    The Trooper Mark III, Mark V and original King Cobra (and Anaconda) were designed to be assembled with minimal handwork and less expensive than the traditional Colt V-spring lockup. They're also built like tanks and super strong.
     

    Magnumite

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 17, 2007
    6,564
    Harford County, Maryland
    When shopping for my first ever handgun) I looked over a Trooper. I liked the revolver but wow, I negated any thought to buying it because of the huge grip size. But it was a classic looking revolver.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,928
    Messages
    7,259,428
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom