Colt Python action

C

Cousin Pat

New member
I've been handling a Colt Python: To me, both the DA trigger pull and the hammer pull are pretty amazingly smooth and light compared to the Smiths and Rugers I have handled. Is this just a highly --- and expensively -- tuned action or are there actual design differences that make the Python action so good?
 
I don't know. I think it's both: hand fitting labor, and design.

They sure are like glass though, aren't they!? Mine's from 1983. Bought it new. It was my first gun. A safe queen that does come out to play occasionally. It's quite a pleasure to shoot - to say the least.
 
I worked at a LGS back in my youth. I got to handle just about every gun made back then (late 80's).

I never saw a Python whose action i didnt just drool over. Colt came out with the bright stainless that didnt appeal to me.... But the actions!!!! WOW

Of course working at the LGS i couldnt afford a python... Got a great S&W 66 and was content.

Maybe now is a good time to fulfill the Royal blue 6" Python dream...( dont go there people.... Lets stick to guns) :cool:
 
Mine's a 6" blue ;)

Model 66's a nice too. They've always been one of my favorite guns to look at - they have a nice, "balanced" look to them.
 
I have two 1981 era pythons with different trigger feel in that one stacks like a typical python while one pulls more straight-through like a s&w. They are both 7 to 7.5 #. That said, my pal has a model 66 with an impressive sweet double action pull that was done by our local gunsmith. I use my python to shoot bullseye. If I was to use his Smith I'd expect to shoot a similar score.
 
My 4" blued was produced in 1978. I will say that both the SA and DA trigger are very nice and that it is accurate. Now I know this will "ruffle" some feathers . . . :D . . . but I really don't like it that much to shoot it. A personal thing I'm sure . . . just too much iron hanging out up there for me. I bought it primarily for an investment and am just hanging on to it. It's about 99% . . well oiled and taken care of and "tucked away".

Given my "druthers" . . . if my Python and my 1952 S & W M & P were sitting side by side on the table - I'd pick my Smith up every time. I should say also that I am a 38 spl. shooter and don't care for the 357 although I do shoot them once in a while.

For those that like the Python . . . it IS a well made revolver that had a lot of effort put in to the internals. I don't foresee something like that ever being done again unless it is a "limited" run and it will be priced so high that few could afford it. If the Python is your "holy grail" - save up your pennies and just keep looking and something will turn up eventually. I was at a LGS two years ago and they had just put a 6" blued Python out in the case that they had taken in - I did a double take on the tag - $850.00. I asked to look at it - it was about 95% and tight as a drum. I was in a hurry and told 'em I'd be back - well I came back in an hour and it was gone. My screw up as I should have told them to hold it but I didn't think it'd go anywhere in a short length o time. Although I don't care to shoot 'em, that one would have gone home as an investment as well! If you like them a lot and they are your "holy grail" . . . then keep looking and when you find a good buy, treat yourself. They aren't going to go anywhere but "up" in price. :)
 
I've owned 2 Pythons, both extremely accurate with super S/A pulls, neither as good as S&W double action, with tuning the Clot can be as good as the S&W.
 
That degree of hand tuning is what makes the Python so desirable, but also made it too expensive to produce at an affordable price. Cherish those guns; there will be no more.

Jim
 
I sold this one a couple of years ago. It had the best action of any Python I had seen, but was horribly inaccurate after 20 feet. It was custom lightened by Colt for my uncle after he bought it. He sent it and a Colt Gold Cup in to have the worked.... This Python was shot 24 times....sad...

Python_zps4d9b5d8d.jpg
 
It was custom lightened by Colt for my uncle after he bought it.
Click to expand...
Any ideas on exactly what Colt did to make that custom work happen?
Did they remove metal somewhere?

This seems like a curious operation -- more so for the original manufacturer of the firearm to undertake. Especially on something this small, I just don't know where you find a slew of metal to remove to lighten it up.

It's interesting.
 
All the old type Colt's like the Official Police, Officer's Models, original Trooper, and Python and the small action like the Detective Special, Police Positive Special, Diamondback, etc all have very smooth actions.
It's the nature of the design.

The Python was even smoother because Colt spent extra time doing more smoothing of internal action parts.
In the pre-war days, the older Colt's were nearly as smooth as the Python, especially the then-top of the line Colt Officer's Models.

To do an action or "trigger job" on a Python involves doing even more smoothing and rounding of critical sharp edges and surfaces.
In addition, the "vee" mainspring is given a slight bend to lighten the pull slightly.

Master Python tuners like the late Reeves Jungkind actually altered parts like the trigger to give an even lighter, smoother pull without the typical stacking of the old Colt action.
 
I've felt good Python DA triggers and mediocre Python DA triggers.
When it comes to SA triggers, nothing is better than a well tuned S&W. They can be simply perfect. You can't improve on perfection.
 
This is a Colt Marshal from 1956. I disassembled the shooter and chipped out a ton of dried lubricant etc. and cleaned all of the internals. This was a limited run I'm told apx 2500 and I don't know if it got any special attention to the action, but this has the smoothist DA pull of any Colt I've handled. The rounded grip frame is the only difference I can find to the OP.

 
Every time this Python v. "whatever S&W" comes up I am confused. I own most types of S&Ws. My favorite model is the top of the line Model 27 and I own several. I also have the near total custom predecessor to the 27, the Registered Magnum. I have a couple of 29s, some 1950 44 Target Models, 19, 25, most of the good ones. But none of them are as smooth as a Python.

I guess the expressions of preference for the Smiths is based on brand loyalty rather than reality. I've tried real hard to convince myself that my 27s are as nice on the trigger as my Pythons but I can't do it.

As nice as this is...

standard.jpg



This is nicer.

standard.jpg
 
I guess the expressions of preference for the Smiths is based on brand loyalty rather than reality.
Click to expand...
But we have other folks on here that simply don't agree.

It be can be absolutely true if you've tried all the different S&W that you mentioned, but they don't feel as nice as a Python, but someone with a different opinion can't simply be written off as having "brand loyalty."

When you say that, you're effectively saying, "well -I- am right, because I know what -I- feel, but your answer must simply boil down to brand loyalty..."

That's not realistic.
 
I've had my SW 686 for about 30 years and was my only handgun for close to 20 years until I decided to get my CCW. The colt python was given to me by my brother who traded a NIB M&P for it about 3 years ago. I find the 686 to have a smoother trigger than the python but in all honesty it could be that I have used it for 30 years consistently and do not know if the python was used as much by the original owner. I can not really say if it is design or just wear and tear that makes one smoother than the other one, since this is the only python I have ever fired, but it is definitely smooth as well.

 
"I guess the expressions of preference for the Smiths is based on brand loyalty rather than reality."

:rolleyes:

IF action smoothness were the only consideration, then maybe you might be right.

But you're not.

I've fired any number of Smiths whose actions are very comparable to similar Colts. Yes, it required some work to achieve that. But with a Smith, it's not a difficult job at all. It's a lot more daunting with a Colt.

Sorry, but the Python, given its status and the amount of hand fitting needed to achieve its action, isn't comparable.

My personal preference for Smiths over Colts is based on a couple of things.

Esthetics is high on the list. Sorry, by the Python is one of the ugliest guns ever made. And most Colts look somewhat unfinished with the uncontoured hammer.

Functionality is also big on the list... Specifically, the thumb latch. I HATE Colt's "pull it back" thumb latch. The latch on the Smith is FAR easier to operate. I can thumb the latch on my Smiths and pop the cylinder with my right hand while my left hand is pulling a speedloader out of the pouch.

Can't do that with a Colt.

Last is ergonomics. Colts simply don't sit well in my hands. Smiths sit FAR better.
 
Cousin Pat said:
I've been handling a Colt Python: To me, both the DA trigger pull and the hammer pull are pretty amazingly smooth and light compared to the Smiths and Rugers I have handled.
Click to expand...

The DA triggers on the Pythons I've handled were smooth, but stacked terribly. I supposed the action was designed that way, but I prefer a nice consistent DA trigger through the break.

Pythons are fine guns, but I've never warmed up to them partly for that reason.
 
The DA triggers on the Pythons I've handled were smooth, but stacked terribly. I supposed the action was designed that way, but I prefer a nice consistent DA trigger through the break.
Click to expand...

Agreed, a consistent (whether light or heavy) DA trigger pull makes it much easier to hold the aim steady in an aim-critical match like Bullseye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top