Colt Python Barrel / bore

J

Jerry11826

New member
Does the Colt Python have a tapered bore? Read carefully - not a tapered barrel.

We have a few members, of my shooting club, that are always "blowing it out" that their Python is more accurate than a Smith or Ruger due to a tapered barrel.

I don't see how a tapered barrel makes a revolver more accurate, but maybe a slightly tapered bore might. Hell, all my Colt revolvers (Officers Models) have tapered barrels.

Does the Python actually have a tapered bore?

Thanks,

Jerry
 
Last edited:
It is my understanding that yes it is slightly tapered.

Do a search on colt's "silver ball treatment" and you can try to figure out what it is and what it does.

Also Colt Python barrel's "seem" to be slightly tighter bored then Smiths "in my limited experience".
 
Colt does/did use a process called "ballizing" in which a precisely measured steel ball is forced through a barrel. The purpose is to ensure that the bore diameter is the correct size and to smooth out rotary tool marks on the lands.

But the idea of a tapered bore contradicts the idea of using a ball to burnish the lands. FWIW, S&W once lapped (mechanical, not "fire" lapping) the bores of revolvers intended for target shooting, but IIRC, not for fixed sight guns. It was an expensive process and AFAIK is no longer done.

It seems to me that button rifling would do the same thing as "ballizing", and do it in one pass, plus smooth out the grooves as well.

As to tapered barrels, I know of no mass production firearms company that uses a tapered bore; while it will increase velocity given a fixed powder charge and caliber, it reduces accuracy because it distorts the bullet.

Jim
 
Obviously if you ball burnish the bore, the land tops will be smooth and the bore will be straight. Any taper would have to be done by mucking about with groove depth.
Of course they might have tapered them THEN and ball burnish them NOW.

Reduced accuracy from a tapered bore would be news to Harry Pope, Shiloh Arms, and Davide Pedersoli that I can think of offhand.
 
I cannot say with any certainty, but I have consistently heard of the Python's tapered bore and greater accuracy. This is why you got those hybrids -- Python barrel and SW action.
 
Thanks all,

Plan to print the resonses to this thread.

I am so tired of hearing how the Python's "tapered barrel" and "bank vault lock up" produce the finest accuracy ever acheived in a production revolver.

It appears no one on this thread seems to know if the Python actuall has a tapered bore. Additionally, the mere existance of the "Smolts" would seem to suggest the "bank vault lock up" may not be all that great.

I must admit, the 6 inch Royal blue Python may be the most beautiful revolver I have ever seen

But these rantings about the superiority of the "tappered barrel" and "bank vault lock up are simply not true.

I guess I am grumpy because last night one of the "talking heads" on CNN stated "the vast majority of NRA members support the assualt rifle ban, the prohibition of high capacity magazines and more stringent back ground checks. It just is not true.

Jerry
 
I'd love to chat with these "knowledgeable" revolver guys who insist a Python is more accurate because of their barrels. I still never got an answer from anyone on why the Python is no longer made, but it was also the Rolls Royce of revolvers. They are nice of course, and they've shot good for me, but compare them to a S&W 5 screw 357 and tell me the Python is the king. Most people are less experienced with 5 screw S&W 357s because Pythons were made longer and are less rare than 5 screw S&W 357s. Thats why, IMO, part of this crap is stated. I do however believe a Python would be competitve to most S&Ws (if not all) in the accuracy department. I'm not saying that the S&W is more accurate, I just think its closer than most Python fans would admit.

I think pre war S&W 5 screws often have better fit and finish compared to Pythons, and that is from my personal experience. A 1970s Colt, no matter which model was not made to the standards as a pre WWII revolver, even when talking Colt VS Colt. This is one of the reasons that the older guns, by both companies are so special - companies today could not afford to make them that way. They're relics from times that have passed many decades ago, when the world as a whole was much different.

Logically speaking, if there was truth to it, I believe S&W would have had the same thing on their revolver's barrels or at least had something similar which made for the same effect.

Another potential reason for the "smolt" or "smython" was the fact that S&W K frame 357s did not have full lugs on their barrels, which made their barrels lighter. Of course, I don't how how much felt difference between the two would have been, but Python barrels are full lug, with a vent rib as well.

Pythons are the most accurate and best DA revolvers ever made, as long as you live in fantasy land.
 
Last edited:
Also, as far as the bank vault lockup...how many S&Ws go out of time vs Colt DAs? I have personally had 3 Colt DAs, one being a 1969 Python, and the other 2 being a 1954 357 model, and a 1953 Colt OMM in 22, all go out of time. I sent them all to Colt and had them fixed. The "bank vault lockup" offers no advantage over the S&W lockup, and in my experience, its not as durable. The internals of the Colt allow for full lockup at pull of trigger, and lockup with hammer cocked, but not with hammer down. The S&W is at lockup at all times, meaning trigger pulled, hammer cocked, or hammer down and trigger forward.

I have owned many more S&Ws than Colt, but since all of these revolvers are used, I cannot prove how many rounds went through one or the other BUT its sure strange that such a great lockup would go bad on me, 3 Colts, same style actions, close in era. I admittedly don't have a ton of rounds through my S&Ws either, but from other S&W owners, and my own experience, its fairly obvious that the S&W action overall is more durable.

I of course acknowledge that many Pythons have 1000s or 10s of 1000s of rounds through them BUT I think if you look at model vs model, the failure pct of a Python would have to be higher. AT the same time, the out of time issue is not a reason not to shoot a Colt, but if you are looking at one out of time, that is often a deal breaker. I paid a lil over $100 to have the Python and OMM re-timed (total including shipping) but the bill for the 357 model was $200. I really like the older DA Colts actually, but like anything else, they have their shortcomings regardless of what some guys will tell you.
 
Last edited:
The mating of a Python barrel to a Model 19 S&W was for weight at the muzzle. When the Model 586 appeared, those hybrids ceased to be made.

Still see a few custom Model 19s with heavy custom barrels. Why? The sighting plane is lower on a K-Frame than an L-Frame.

Bob Wright
 
Colt Python

If I take seriously everything I read here, I think that probably the Colt Python is the worst revolver ever manufactured.

I believe that everyone here should at least consult a professional engineer before posting here, at the risk of not being taken more seriously.

Netto
 
This is a pretty good read on the Python. Some may have seen it before. For the others, here is the link.
Click to expand...

I think a good read on a Python would be an objective one, not one written by someone who is already biased towards Pythons and Colts.

I believe that everyone here should at least consult a professional engineer before posting here, at the risk of not being taken more seriously.
Click to expand...

I think thats good advice for someone who lives in a country where guns are much harder to find, which means the people will have less experience with guns and therefor know much less.

As for me, I don't need to consult with anyone before I post my statements about revolvers. In a country where its harder to get guns, perhaps that person should consult with someone else, someone who lives somewhere where guns are abundant.

If you think an engineer would disagree with my posts then you can feel free to attempt to pick apart my statements, and I will just shoot down your ignorant argument(s) as I have done before. I think you're out of your element here.
 
Winchester, Just trying to help. I thought there might be something in there that would be helpful. I have both Smiths and Pythons and both have their good points as you noted. :) But I think the Pythons are better looking revolvers and better single action shooters. I do not like the double action on the Pythons.
 
And you did got2hav1. Overall, I liked that site. I saw it before and even shared it with my friends. I just get all sensitive about revolvers! :o

Revolvers are my heart beat, and my heartache.
 
That's a new one on me, the Python's "tapered barrel" and I have owned a number of Colts. From what I read it was Colt using a 1-14" twist combined with good quality control and skilled workmanship that gave the Officer's Model Match-which is the Python's "grandparent"-the Trooper being the "parent"-a reputation for accuracy, expecially with 38 WCs.
 
To Winchester73

I've been watching a lot of old topics about the Colt Python, and it is clear that many people are no longer participate due to bad education of many here.

Netto
 
Last edited:
The Python bore was tapered.
As I recall it was something like 0.001".

The "silver ball" material was a Colt trade secret. People who were allowed to see the process said a silvery ball of unknown material was pressed down the unassembled barrel's bore by hand, leaving it brilliantly shiny.
Colt refused to say what the ball was made of.

Colt's rifling was a faster twist rate which contributed to better accuracy, and unlike most gun makers, Colt always made their own barrels and maintained quality at very high levels.

Another contributor to Colt's accuracy was the "Bank Vault" lock up.
In the old Colt action the cylinder is tightly locked in perfect alignment with the bore at ignition.
This means the bullet enters the barrel without any distortion, which improves accuracy.

The later model Colt's like the Mark III-King Cobra, etc. and other brands like S&W and Ruger all specifically allow the cylinder to have some rotational movement at ignition.
This is so the bullet passing from the chamber to the bore will force the cylinder into alignment with the bore.
The down side of this is that since the bullet is always off-center slightly upon entering the bore, the bullet gets some distortion and is slightly less accurate.
The upside is, these guns cost less to manufacture since they require far less hand fitting then the old Colt action which had to be totally hand fitted and adjusted.

The old Colt's were known to be slightly more accurate than other brands due to the lockup and the barrels.
When I say "more accurate" here's what's meant by that.
Say it was possible to get 50 competitive models of a Colt and 50 of a S&W revolver. Since Colt's Official Police and S&W's Model 10 were direct competitors that would be a fair test.
If you did a machine rest accuracy test, here's what you'd find:

ONE gun would be more accurate than any other. It might be a Colt or a S&W.
ONE gun would be the least accurate, and it might be a Colt or S&W.
If you averaged all 100 guns, ON AVERAGE the Colt's would be more accurate by at least a slight edge.

I don't know of any such test that was ever done, but since the 1920's a lot of people have conducted revolver tests and found the old Colt's to have an edge over other brands.
How much varied, but the trend was pretty certain. We're not talking about 8" groups versus 1" groups, but there was a slight edge to Colt.
 
Colt Python

Dfariswheel,

It is a pleasure to read a comment from you, either here or in the Colt Forum.

Class and knowledge are a few, like yourself.

Big hug.

Netto
 
I don't have to call people names to get my point across, which is one of the many differences between me and you. Most people don't like to hear that their $2000 Python is only $2000 because its out of production, not because its the best. IMO, its obvious in a way to compliment the Python, but one has to have more knowledge of OTHER revolvers in order to look at the Python more objectively. In order words, IMO, the less someone knows, the better the Python looks and is.

My opinion on the matter is apparently too hard for you to contemplate. Its all too hard for you to understand, because you lack experience in this field. I don't blame you, if guns were hard to get in this country, I would know much less too. I also don't think you would have the courage to argue with someone who actually owns the guns that you only read about on the internet. You might know a lot, for someone in your country, but that doesn't mean much here. When I was new to guns, I had thoughts and ideas similar to yours, so its really all just a learning curve, and once you gain some experience and knowledge, the picture will look clearer. On the other hand, you appear close minded, so you probably don't learn anything very quickly. Regardless of all of that, to each their own. You have your Python, and I have S&Ws, and that's the important thing - we have what we like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top