Colt Python Barrel / bore

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.
Click to expand...

Dfariswheel, I understand what you are saying, and that's a good point. I know when I have a Colt that is properly timed, everything is so tight that it feels like if you move the cylinder with the trigger back, the trigger wants to come forward, like a perfect mechanical harmony.

My question is regarding the bank vault lock up of the Colt, regarding the S&W lockup - do you think that the S&W or Ruger, or Dan Wesson or revolver X that does not have the Colt style lockup, would actually be consistently (or even often) out of line with the bore? I mean obviously, based on your statement, it would have to have happen sometimes, but wouldn't the action and cylinder rotation of the gun "center" so to speak, meaning that even though there is slight movement, that the gun on its own would be lined up near perfectly, unless the cylinder was interfered with? In other words, I'm wondering if perhaps a S&W or like revolver would often line up properly even though the gun has a rotational play that is greater than a Colt. Also, since we are literally talking 1000s of an inch, couldn't a Colt perhaps "bank vault lockup" slightly off center, but do it firmly, which would also inhibit accuracy?

Just curious your thoughts on this question.
 
To Winchester 73

Sorry if I offended you, it was not my intention.

I believe it is a misunderstanding happening here.

Although I write and speak the English language fluently, my way of reasoning is different from yours, because there is a huge cultural distance between our countries, and the information can be interpreted in a wrong way.

You do not know me personally, so do not jump to conclusions just by the letters of a cold computer. It precipitated judge a person or their character without knowing them personally.

Although in my country most people do not have access to firearms, there is a minority that not should nothing to the circle of enthusiasts of North America or Europe, and I'm proud to say that I am part of this circle.

I admit I was wrong in not respect your opinion, but this does not you the right to misjudge me.

I hope to meet you in person some day to talk personally with courtesy and respect.

Netto
 
Last edited:
Sorry if I offended you, it was not my intention.

I believe it is a misunderstanding happening here.

Although I write and speak the English language fluently, my way of reasoning is different from yours, because there is a huge cultural distance between our countries, and the information can be interpreted in a wrong way.

You do not know me personally, so do not jump to conclusions just by the letters of a cold computer. It precipitated judge a person or their character without knowing them personally.

Although in my country most people do not have access to firearms, there is a minority that not should nothing to the circle of enthusiasts of North America or Europe, and I'm proud to say that I am part of this circle.

I admit I was wrong in not respect your opinion, but this does not you the right to misjudge me.

I hope to meet you in person some day to talk personally with courtesy and respect.
Click to expand...

Well, I think I agree. But my question now is - who are you - and where is Netto? :p

When I really think about it, you can't be that bad, since you're a revolver guy. I appreciate your passion for guns to the point where its a hobby for you, despite the hurdles. I don't know if I would have been as ambitious had our situations been the other way around. Chances are, we would get along fine if we met, but its like you said, in some ways, we misunderstand each other, and we're also firm in our beliefs, etc. No harm no foul.

Despite what I say, I do want a Python - a nice early one. IMO, the early Pythons from the 1950s are probably some of the best ones for fit and finish and overall quality, because the Colts I have from the same time period are great and I never saw one with any problem. They had great quality control in those days.
 
Winchester_73 :

You definitely seem like a SW person and that's fine but the question was simply whether the bore of the Python is tapered and, implicitly, whether that makes it more accurate. The thread was never about the fit/finish on revolvers or whether Colts go out of time more easily or any other perceived faults. The original question has, to my mind, been authoritatively answered -- yes the bores are tapered and yes they are at very slightly more accurate on the average, though I expect very few shooters could ever tell the difference.

I own SWs and Colts and love them both for what they are.
 
You definitely seem like a SW person and that's fine but the question was simply whether the bore of the Python is tapered and, implicitly, whether that makes it more accurate. The thread was never about the fit/finish on revolvers or whether Colts go out of time more easily or any other perceived faults. The original question has, to my mind, been authoritatively answered -- yes the bores are tapered and yes they are at very slightly more accurate on the average, though I expect very few shooters could ever tell the difference.
Click to expand...

I was simply stating, in light of the OPs remarks, that there is a lot of non-factual stuff said about Pythons, but I didn't word my post that way. I was kind of saying "no surprise that people are mentioning a tapered bore (when it could be false) because that seems par for the course with Pythons - falsehoods". I know that I didn't answer the question specifically, because to be honest, I never measured or checked a Python bore myself, so I didn't want to answer the question incorrectly. The OP also vented about how the Python guys at his club are braggers, and bs'ers, who IMO, probably know a lot less than they think. I was more echoing his statements about them, as I could not answer the bore question.
 
Colt Python

I am very happy everything has been clarified and resolved in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

I am a Brazilian sports shooter.

In Brazil, we have received direct influence from two different schools: North American, since there is a large colony of descendants of Southerners who came to Brazil after the war of secession, and the European school, mainly Germans.

Some Shooting Associations that I frequent. All these steps tournament Sponsored by ISSF, IHMSA and IPSC.

http://www.cat12.com.br/clube.html

http://www.clubedetiromontealto.com.br/

Really the two North American manufacturers, S&W and Colt are arguably the most successful and high quality in the world, is that both were copied by several countries. Also have always been innovative and revolutionary designs with elegant and robust at the same time. I think one of the few classic revolvers in the world I would dare compare the two Americans is the Enfield No. 2 Mark I, while its British "relative" Webley was not there a design attractive.

I have a S&W 19 - Combat magnum, which used in tests of central fire. This revolver is with about 20,000 shots at the time, and in a state of, say, exit the store. My Colt Python 357 magnum should be in the home of 10,000 shots. So far, no sign even of problems. I think difficult to say with precision whether a prominent quality supremacy between these two brands.

We can say that both manufacturers had their golden ages and their fantastic products. I think historically, at least in the USA, which the Colts accounted for the country, like the Winchesters, is unbeatable. For the Colts, from Patterson to the SAA, which was almost a unanimity is with civil, military, and ecclesiastical Indians too, why not?

Netto
 
Well, I guess that settles that. Colt Pythons do have tapered barrels, the "bank vault lock up" is meaningful and they are the most accurate of all American made revolvers.

I was hoping Dfariswheel would come along. He is my guru on Colt revolvers. He has forgotten more about Colt revolvers than I will ever learn.

But "rats", I wish it wasn't so.

Normally, weather permitting, I go to the range a couple of times a week. (Retirement is great!) Normally, I pack a sandwich, a bag of Cheetos and a soda. After shooting for and hour or so, I go to the clubhouse to eat my sandwich and BS with a group of other "old farts". There are two "old farts" frequently there, that are Python fanatics. I think if the group was discussing post hole diggers, these guys would explain how the Python, with it's "tapered barrel and "bank vault lock up" would do a better job.

I guess I will have to continue to suffer in silence! One morning, I shot 4 ten shot strings testing a new batch of reloads in my GP 100. I shot the strings seated, at 50 yards, stock open sights and the revolver rested on sand bags. One of the strings had all of the shots inside the ten ring of an NRA bullseye target. The ten ring has a diameter of approximately 3.3 inches.

Not bad for an old man with the beginnings of cataracts! Anyway, I was so proud of myself, I saved the target to show the lunch group. Was getting "atta boys" from all the guys at the table until it got around to one of the Python fanatics. He told me his Python, with its tapered barral and "bank vauld lock up" could easily beat that.

Boy, was I hurt! Guess I will have to live with it!

Keep 'em in the ten ring,

Jerry
 
Last edited:
Threads like this take many years worth of knowledge and experience and compress them to a few paragraphs. To me, they are always a enjoyable read and a learning experience even if they do go off topic. Unfortunately some end up going downhill at some point and it gets to the "my dog is better than your dog". Too bad.
 
Netto

I may have asked you before, what is a Python worth or cost down there? Also, have you shot competitively? I never did myself.

These type of guns are accurate farther than many realize, even at ranges over 100 yds. I usually shoot 25 or less, but I want to start shooting 50 yds more often, just for practice.

Normally, weather permitting, I go to the range a couple of times a week. (Retirement is great!) Normally, I pack a sandwich, a bag of Cheetos and a soda. After shooting for and hour or so, I go to the clubhouse to eat my sandwich and BS with a group of other "old farts". There are two "old farts" frequently there, that are Python fanatics. I think if the group was discussing post hole diggers, these guys would explain how the Python, with it's "tapered barrel and "bank vault lock up" would do a better job.
Click to expand...

I think you're being a little dramatic, if you are serious. The advantage between a complete lockup of a Colt has to be very minuscule compared to the slight movement of a S&W or other DA revolver. I mean after all, how much can you really move a S&W cylinder at lockup? 1mm? What would that translate to at 25 yds? 1 1/100 of an inch / or 2mm or something? I'd be curious to sample Pythons and S&Ws off a ransom rest. I'm not disagreeing with dfariswheel, but I wonder just how much of an advantage the full lockup gives a shooter. Also, of course, if a cylinder was not aligned with the bore, there would be irregular wear patterns to the forcing cone, and even perhaps shavings. Once the bullet leaves the cylinder, and enters the barrel, it is forced to conform to the barrel - its not like it beats off the sides of the barrel going down it, and then consequently has an irregular flight pattern or something.

I still say there has to be a reason, that even the PC S&W revolvers do not have a tapered bore, and I highly doubt its due to cost.

I guess I will have to continue to suffer in silence! One morning, I shot 4 ten shot strings testing a new batch of reloads in my GP 100. I shot the strings seated, at 50 yards, stock open sights and the revolver rested on sand bags. One of the strings had all of the shots inside the ten ring of an NRA bullseye target. The ten ring has a diameter of approximately 3.3 inches.

Not bad for an old man with the beginnings of cataracts! Anyway, I was so proud of myself, I saved the target to show the lunch group. Was getting "atta boys" from all the guys at the table until it got around to one of the Python fanatics. He told me his Python, with its tapered barral and "bank vauld lock up" could easily beat that.
Click to expand...

Well the proof is in the pudding, because you showed the target. Unless the guy did what you did with his revolver, I would take his claim with a grain of salt. The old saying talking the talk vs walking the walk comes to mind. I know I could NOT* match your accuracy, no matter which revolver I had, because I am not as good as your target and you. Chances are, if the Python guy was good, lets say he was actually a better shooter than you, he would probably beat you with any quality DA revolver, because since these guns are all close in all ways, it comes down to shooter skill more than the chosen instrument.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a Python, but I beg leave to doubt that the barrel is tapered or uses gain twist rifling (another story). Both should be easy to check by anyone who has a Python, so someone should let us know the dimensions of the barrel at breech and muzzle, and a squint should confirm or deny the gain twist story.

As to the "bank vault lockup", the down side is that with wear, the cylinder can actually be forced out of alignment the other way, past the barrel throat.

I also doubt that any from-the-factory S&W ever had as much as 1mm play when locked up! 0.1 or 0.2mm, possibly.

Jim
 
I also doubt that any from-the-factory S&W ever had as much as 1mm play when locked up! 0.1 or 0.2mm, possibly.
Click to expand...

I agree, and really I meant an insignificant amount, but logically "1mm" is significant, when we are dealing with rounds which are less than 1cm wide most often. I wasn't thinking in terms of 1mm movement vs 9mm projectile when I made my statement.
 
Colt and S&W revolvers

I shot competitively in my youth, between 18 and 25 years old, as I had no family I could travel to other locations to participate in the different stages that constitute a championship.

Today due to family commitments and my job, I participate only in internal competitions within my association.

I used mainly a Smith&Wesson 14 Masterpiece or a Colt Python.

Regarding prices, I'm used to observe:

Smith&Wesson K-Frames, like 14 and 17 models: Around US$ 2.500,00-3.000,00
Smith&Wesson L-Frames: Around US$ 3.500,00
Colt King Cobra: Around US$ 3.500,00
Colt Python and Smith&Wesson 27: Around US$ 4.000,00-4.500,00

The average time for importing a Firearm of the United States or Europe is six months, provided you complete all legal requirements such as absence of a criminal record.

One of the few things that are cheaper in Brazil compared with the United States are health plans with medical and dental care, because there is the option of public and private initiative.

Big hug.

Netto
 
He told me his Python, with its tapered barral and "bank vauld lock up" could easily beat that.
Click to expand...

Now, see. That's where you need to pull out a 20, 50, 100 dollar bill. Put it on the table and say "Match that and go for it. Remember...BEAT that group..not match it. Let's see it."

I'd be surprised if he took the bet. If he does, and he does beat your group...tip your hat and walk away.
 
I would think that the theoretical accuracy advantage of Colt's "Bank Vault" lockup would probably be most noticable with SWC or full wadcutter bullets because the sharper shoulder of those would be subject to more deformation if they didn't enter the forcing cone perfectly square. It seems to me that a round-nose, trunucated cone, or any other bullet which does not have a squared full-diameter shoulder would kind of "self-center" itself in the bore than thus suffer minimal deformation if shot from a gun with a "loose" lockup like a S&W or Ruger.
 
Before I get flamed, I will say that I like Colt Pythons based on the lore of the revolver, not based on their supposed superiority. IMO, a Ruger GP100/101 or S&W 586/686 is a better gun, mostly because it was designed a century after the Colt E Model. But the Python is a period gun, notable because it introduced a major change to the industry as a whole and to the end user market. Do not make the mistake of comparing 50-year-old designs to current production models.

That said, when Colt Pythons first came onto the market, they were "THE revolver to own". They were smoother, more accurate, and stronger than any of the competitors. Colts as a rule were considered a premium revolver. They had better triggers, better barrels, and better sights than the S&W offerings of the time. Sure, you could slick up a S&W to feel as good as a Colt, but you could slick up a Colt to feel like silk on glass, so let's leave custom work aside for now. Pythons were also a very nice medium-sized revolver. Their main competition at the time were the K frame and N framed S&W revolvers, one too small for steady 357 Magnum use, the other too big (this is where the 586/686 came in). Another big advantage a Python had was in the heavy barrel. This helped control recoil of the 357 Magnum. LEOs liked that, and Colt controlled so much of the police market that it was a real advantage. Until S&W introduced the 586 in the mid 1980s, Colt had that advantage. Once the 586/686 hit the market, the Python was done. Add the fact that many PDs started allowing LEOs to carry semiautos in the 1980s, and it was just a matter of time before the Python disappeared.

Colts also had a significantly higher retail price, so many people were torn when buying a revolver as to whether to but a Colt or buy another lower-priced brand, just as many buyers today are torn as to whether to buy a S&W or a Taurus (this is called "price sensitivity" by economists). This is one reason why you often see Spanish or Belgian or Italian revolvers from the 1930s-1950s that look like a Colt or S&W, but were made considerably cheaper (in some cases so much cheaper as to be unsafe). Heck, go to a CAS/SASS shoot and count how many real Colts you see. Most are Italian clones.

So for now, just consider the Python in the same light as you would a 1969 Dodge Belvedere GTX: it was cool then, but current production models are way better.
 
WINCHESTER73

Of course a Python can be out of proper alignment and a S&W can line up near perfect.
A S&W doesn't always allow the bullet to hit the bore slightly off center, at least some of the time it's going to enter it perfectly centered.

What contributes to any firearms accuracy whether the gun, sights, ammo, or shooter is consistency.
When everything happens the same way every time you have better accuracy.
The S&W just can't be as consistent because of the design that allows the cylinder to move on ignition.
Sometimes it enters perfectly centered, sometimes it's off-center.
Since the Colt design doesn't allow the cylinder to move at all, the bullet enters the bore the same way every time and that consistency contributes to better accuracy.

AS LONG as the action is in proper working order, the Colt has a slight edge on accuracy.
However, when the gun isn't in near perfect order, things fall apart in ways the S&W, later Colt's, and other guns don't.
The S&W and other guns can be slightly out of order and work acceptably. The old Colt action needs to be in pretty good shape or things go south on you.
If you have a Ford with a balky manual transmission you can usually still get where you need to go.
If your Ferrari has a transmission problem you probably ain't going anywhere.

All this can't take into affect anomalies. That would be the 1950's Python that's inaccurate or the Ruger that shoots one hole groups.
Even after a thorough checkout you can't find a mechanical reason for either extreme.

The most amazing example of this I ever saw or heard of was a cop who brought a gun into the shop and asked me to test fire it.
He handed me one of those horrible Florida assembled .22 revolvers that sold for around $20.00.
I told him to get lost, I wasn't risking my hands.
He insisted and would not take "No".

So I made sure I was wearing good eye protection and fired a three round group off the sand bags.
I saw a single hole way down on the extreme lower left of the target almost off the paper.
I tried to hand the junk back, and he told me to look at the target.
There was a three round group not much bigger then a .30 caliber hole.
I looked at him, he looked at me, we looked at the gun, we looked at the target.......
I loaded it and shot a full cylinder five round group off the sand bags.
Again it put all five in one hole.
He mounted the gun in a picture frame with the target as a example of the variations you can get when you make a lot of something.

The point to all this is that mechanical devices can have an edge on other, similar devices due to the design, or the quality of build.
It just happens that Colt's design contributed to better accuracy, and the Python in particular was intended from the get-go to be the finest DA revolver made in America.
 
The tapered barrels must work. My 6 inch Python is my most accurate CF revolver. But my most accurate gun BY FAR is my Anschutz 1080EDS running boar rifle... which has a bore so tapered that it almost feels like it has a choke. Yes, you can actually feel it by running a thigh patch thru the barrel.
 
I remember a Python that leaded badly with very light target loads & 148gr wc. Groove measured .354" Jacketed only for that one. In the 70's i also remember people putting S&W barrels on there Pythons,, or was it the other way around? :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top