Where's The Beef: Colt’s Less Than Ubiquitous Python?

[Cold Steel]

Just curious.

I've been watching YouTube videos on the S&W 686 this week. I've never had any quality time with the Colt Python...haven't even seen a new Python. I'm just trying to find out what it is about the Pythons that make them so desirable. Back when they had the gorgeous blue-on-blue finish --- the "mile deep" bluing --- I could see it.

But how about now? Is the Python any more accurate than the 686?

If YES, I can see it, but now folks are buying it in stainless, so the bluing isn't the issue. It can't be. So where's the beef? What makes a Python so desirable? Is it the hand fitting, the beefy cylinder lock release, the vented rib? In the older snakes, the grip was horrible. Don't know about now.

 

[TheOriginalMexicanBob]

I have several new Pythons...3", 4.25" and 6". I've tested them side-by-side with older Pythons in similar barrel lengths...2.5", 4" and 6". I used ammunition from the same box. In each case the new guns shot tighter groups than the old...but the older one were no slouches either. The differences could be me...the older guns were just that...older with higher round counts.

As far as better than a 686? I can't say...it's been years since I shot a 686 and even then those guns (at FLETC) were well used by the time I shot them.

If you're interested...be patient...there's a very good chance Colt will be releasing the Python in DLC...Diamond Like Coating...as deep a blue/black as you could want. The few made...custom orders...were absolutely stunning. Colt may release it as a standard option but I've heard of no final decision yet.

 

[MaxVO2]

Just curious.

I've been watching YouTube videos on the S&W 686 this week. I've never had any quality time with the Colt Python...haven't even seen a new Python. I'm just trying to find out what it is about the Pythons that make them so desirable. Back when they had the gorgeous blue-on-blue finish --- the "mile deep" bluing --- I could see it.

But how about now? Is the Python any more accurate than the 686?

If YES, I can see it, but now folks are buying it in stainless, so the bluing isn't the issue. It can't be. So where's the beef? What makes a Python so desirable? Is it the hand fitting, the beefy cylinder lock release, the vented rib? In the older snakes, the grip was horrible. Don't know about now.

*****The name and reputation of the old ones. I own several 586 and 686 revolvers, both pre and post recall and they are absolute tack drivers. I can't imagine the old or new Pythons being much more accurate but their history makes them desirable pieces. I've shot several original Pythons and one of the new ones and they are both really nice guns. The original Pythons had some remarkable hand finishing and tooling marks - very rare to see that these days with modern tech and CNC designs, etc.. It's value is somewhat its history versus anything tangibly better perhaps.

Reputation is what sells a lot of things, including firearms. Functionally, a .45 Kimber vs a Colt Government model 1911 are similar but the Colt is much more desirable by collectors due to their reputation - they hold their value well, and it is a well tested design that has been copied by *many* other manufacturers. Same with Colt AR's vs a Del-Ton or similar copy.. The Colt's hold their value well.

 

[jr88]

Hickok 45 does a comparison....He preferred the 686 to the NEW Colt

 

[rbird7282]

I have no experience with Colt revolvers (other than shooting someone else’s once), but I have a 686+ and it is an absolute tack driver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[python]

Shown is a 1972 Python (I am the original owner.) and an early 80's 586. I shoot them both. The 586 is a nice revolver. It's very accurate and well made, but not on the same plane as the older Colt. I have no experience with the new Python, except for holding one.

 

[Cold Steel]

Hickok 45 does a comparison....He preferred the 686 to the NEW Colt

Yeah, I like watching him. Loved his apology tour of the Ruger "Six" series. For years I wondered why he didn't do any test firing of the Security-Six and the Speed-/Service-Six revolvers. Then when he did get around to it, he fed into that notion that if his viewer had one, don't shoot too many "magnum" through it or it or it might "shoot loose."

He intimated that this tidbit came right from Ruger, which annoyed me because Ruger (if he got it from them) is just trying to tho increase sales by preying on the insecurities of otherwise ignorant SS owners, and, if he didn't get it from Ruger, he should have known better.

It's one reason I miss (still) Skeeter Skelton and Bill Jordan. They never wrote stuff like that in their day. Hickok45 should have taken a look at the Ruger when he had the stupid thing apart! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to hold a solid frame in their hand and compare it to a gun with a side plate. To think it could be shot loose is moronic.

The other possibility is more disturbing...that Ruger put him up to it. Ignorance or collusion? Neither one is appealing.

I have several new Pythons...3", 4.25" and 6". I've tested them side-by-side with older Pythons in similar barrel lengths...2.5", 4" and 6". I used ammunition from the same box. In each case the new guns shot tighter groups than the old...but the older one were no slouches either. The differences could be me...the older guns were just that...older with higher round counts.

Wow...do you have a will? Hey, that's not a bad idea. We ought to write each other into our wills. Think about it. It's a classic win-lose situation. One of us buys the proverbial farm and someone here profits from it. The ones here who outlive the others ends up with all the great guns! What a motivation to live! We could put doctors out of business.

As for the newer guns shooting more accurately, it's not surprising as gun manufacturing has become more efficiently. I think a 686-6 would be more accurate than a 686-0, though I would prefer the former any day. I have both and every person I've showed them to has preferred the 686-0. It's a beautiful gun. Hammer and trigger are hard-chromed, stamped side plate, integral front sight v. pinned-in front sight. Both have wood grips.

If you're interested...be patient...there's a very good chance Colt will be releasing the Python in DLC...Diamond Like Coating...as deep a blue/black as you could want. The few made...custom orders...were absolutely stunning. Colt may release it as a standard option but I've heard of no final decision yet.

I have a number of knives with DLC, and they're gorgeous. One is the SOG Agency Bowie (I think), but I also have some Cold Steel (no relation) knives DLC. I don't even have to buy a Python. It's a much better finish than bluing. One finish I'll put up next to a Python bluing is the bluing on my Browning Hi-Power. Best bluing I ever saw on a gun.

I own several 586 and 686 revolvers, both pre and post recall and they are absolute tack drivers. I can't imagine the old or new Pythons being much more accurate but their history makes them desirable pieces. I've shot several original Pythons and one of the new ones and they are both really nice guns. The original Pythons had some remarkable hand finishing and tooling marks - very rare to see that these days with modern tech and CNC designs, etc.. It's value is somewhat its history versus anything tangibly better perhaps.

Can't argue with you. I suspect all of them would be superb. Wish I'd bought and kept a 586 just for the bluing.

 

[coinboy]

Never shot a Python but when I held one at the LGS, the hammer and trigger were butter. One of the smoothest actions I have ever felt in a revolver.

Thing is, I hated the cylinder release. I didn't like how you have to pull it back rather than push it forward. It is also a tight spring on the release and trying to one finger it was tough if not nearly impossible for me.

 

[DaemonAssassin]

Everybody wants python, but nobody wants a original cobra.

 

[Michigander08]

Colt Python is expensive. I don't know if I want to buy one.

 

[teratos]

Everybody wants python, but nobody wants a original cobra.

I have one....

 

[TheOriginalMexicanBob]

I have a number of original Cobras...from 2", 3", 4" and 5". One of the 2" was my prime off-duty carry piece when I was restricted to revolvers. The 3" is a .22 and one of my favorite shooters.

 

[trickg]

Shown is a 1972 Python (I am the original owner.) and an early 80's 586. I shoot them both. The 586 is a nice revolver. It's very accurate and well made, but not on the same plane as the older Colt. I have no experience with the new Python, except for holding one.

Your screen name indicates that you may just have a bit of a bias.

With that in mind, there was a reason that shooters had gunsmiths work up their "Smolt" or "Smython" pistols - taking the barrel from a Python and fitting it to a Smith & Wesson frame. Simply put, the action, lockup and double action trigger pull was better on the S&W, but the Python barrel was more accurate - just by a touch - than the S&W.

I'd imagine that if you had an early 70s Model 19, that would be a better comparison to the Python.

 

[MaxVO2]

Colt Python is expensive. I don't know if I want to buy one.

****Well.. what if they were cheap? Would you want to buy one then?

 

[Michigander08]

****Well.. what if they were cheap? Would you want to buy one then?

No but I would buy at mid-range price.

 

[trickg]

More and more with guns I believe you get what you pay for, and sometimes you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. I think it does matter to a point, although I do believe there comes a point of diminishing returns. With that in mind, I think that there's value to be had with the Python at the current price point - they seem to be pretty well fitted, and pretty slick overall from what I've seen.

If you compared it to a Taurus - never mind a S&W - there's not going to be a comparison and it will be plain to see where the money went.

 

[TheOriginalMexicanBob]

With that in mind, there was a reason that shooters had gunsmiths work up their "Smolt" or "Smython" pistols - taking the barrel from a Python and fitting it to a Smith & Wesson frame. Simply put, the action, lockup and double action trigger pull was better on the S&W, but the Python barrel was more accurate - just by a touch - than the S&W.

I'd imagine that if you had an early 70s Model 19, that would be a better comparison to the Python.

Many years ago I was at the Cresap range outside of Frederick...the old location. I overheard a couple of guys talking and one said he didn't like Colt revolvers but he loved Colt barrels. He sounded like a good candidate to own a Smython or Smolt or even a Cougar (Ruger with a Colt barrel).

I once read a nationally known gunsmith (unfortunately I can't remember who...this was probably back in the '80s) say people underestimated Colt barrels...even their standard barrels were every bit as good as custom barrels. He stuck with the stock Colt barrel on his 1911 builds unless the customer specified a custom barrel. He said that in the end...big time gunsmiths like to sell and install barrels with their name on them...profitable for them and makes the owners feel like they have some kind of ray gun in their hands. It's kind like putting an STP sticker on your car makes it go faster.

 

[python]

Your screen name indicates that you may just have a bit of a bias.

With that in mind, there was a reason that shooters had gunsmiths work up their "Smolt" or "Smython" pistols - taking the barrel from a Python and fitting it to a Smith & Wesson frame. Simply put, the action, lockup and double action trigger pull was better on the S&W, but the Python barrel was more accurate - just by a touch - than the S&W.

I'd imagine that if you had an early 70s Model 19, that would be a better comparison to the Python.

Actually, I do have a couple of very early model 19's and pre-model 27's, but the comparison here was with a 586. No bias, however. I like them all. Most comparisons used to be with the model 27

 

[AssMan]

Hard to imagine a nicer shooting firearm than a 627 or 686. I've never fired a new Python, but I don't see how it could be an improvement.

That said, I'd like to try one some day.

 

[Mike OTDP]

The Python barrels were 1-14, IIRC. Smiths were 1-18. As a consequence, the Pythons were more accurate, especially with wadcutters. On the other hand, the S&W lockwork was much superior in DA - it didn't stack the way that Colt lockwork did.