I've owned a couple Pythons 0(still have 1) and they are beautiful, slick and accurate. They work fine for me in single action but The S&W Double action is so much better it ain't funny. I shoot a lot of double action, practically no single action these days so it's a Smith for me. The L-Frame is about the size of the Python. The 19 is My ideal carry gun, lightweight, accurate, powerful. For the range the 4" L-frame is the ticket.
Colt Python vs S&W 19/66
- Thread starter BJung
- Start date
In my opinion the popularity of the Colt Python was due to its looks. That full underlug, and vented top rib and front sight gave the Colt a unique shape that appealed to a lot of people. In reality the "V" spring tuning was problematic and the crude method of putting a bend in it to get a lighter trigger pull was questionable as well as leading to many broken main springs.
In contrast, S&W revovers were easy to work on and to get results without damaging or modifying parts...put spring kits in, take spring kits out.
In short, take away the Python's looks, and you then loose its appeal.
603Country
New member
I’ve had a Python for maybe 40 years, and have shot it a bunch. Never any problem with it, but a year or two ago I decided to take the ‘workload’ off the Python and get a 686. The grandkids and their friends just love the Python and they ran through a bunch of reloads. The 686 would take the abuse and the Python could then be lightly used. The 686 did indeed need a trigger job to equal that of the Python. Single action trigger pulls are about the same, being excellent. Double action trigger pulls are different, as others have said. That said, I prefer the sort of two stage pull of the Python, as the 686 DA pull is abrupt. Shooting targets in DA, for me, is best with the Python. You might say, and be right, that since I’ve had the Python so long that I am just more used to that DA trigger pull.
I had a visitor here a week or so ago. He’s ex-military and ex-cop and he wanted to shoot the revolvers. We banged away for a while and then went to what I call the “one shot challenge”. We each get one shot with the revolver of our choice (or any other handgun I own) on a splatter target at 12 yards. He chose the Python. I chose the 686, since I think I do shoot it a bit better in SA than the Python and I like the grip better on the 686. I put my round in the top 1/3 of the oblong bullseye and he put his dead center. Bragging right are his till next time.
Anyway, if I had to sell one, I’d sell the 686.
I had a visitor here a week or so ago. He’s ex-military and ex-cop and he wanted to shoot the revolvers. We banged away for a while and then went to what I call the “one shot challenge”. We each get one shot with the revolver of our choice (or any other handgun I own) on a splatter target at 12 yards. He chose the Python. I chose the 686, since I think I do shoot it a bit better in SA than the Python and I like the grip better on the 686. I put my round in the top 1/3 of the oblong bullseye and he put his dead center. Bragging right are his till next time.
Anyway, if I had to sell one, I’d sell the 686.
This is another one of those annoying "back in the day" type of answers. OK, so back in the 1960s when the Python was brand new, there were no S&Ws that could compete with it. It was on a frame that was the right size for the 357 Mag (Colt 357 and Trooper E frame), it was targeted at patrol officers and PPC shooters, and it was basically a custom gun for a little more than the cost of a Trooper. It had several advantages of its competition: a reinforced frame, a heavy underlug barrel for fast shot recovery, adjustable target sights, and a great trigger right out of the box. S&W didn't have anything to compete with it. Nothing. S&W had the N frame Registered Magnums, but those were not a regular production item, plus they were heavier than most people liked. And they had the K frame Combat Masterpiece (similar to the later models 19 and 66 like you have), which was really too light for the 357 Magnum, had a light barrel, and had an annoying habit of the frame or forcing cone cracking when fed a steady diet of 357s. So the Python ruled the roost, good or not. And they really were one of the best revolvers available. A friend of mine, a S&W gunsmith, would often tell me how he could tune a S&W 19 to be "as good as" an out-of-the-box Python, but by then you had to put as much money into a S&W you might as well just buy the Colt. In the early 1970s, S&W introduced stainless, Colt stuck with blued for a few years longer. Smith switched over to frame-mounted firing pins to reduce hammer mass, Colt already had frame-mounted floating firing pins. But in the mid 1980s, S&W introduced the L frame. As soon as I saw it I understood what had happened. S&W introduced a 357 size frame with a heavy underlug match barrel and target trigger/hammer. THey basically built a Python on a S&W frame. At that point, I knew the Python was dead, there was nothing to set it apart from a Smith. So, long story I know, your 66 is the stainless version of the 19 which was too small for the 357 but worked for a lot of people. Python lockwork was antiquated in the 1960s but it felt great. Colt's later lockwork has nothing to even come close to a Python, and Colt is still trying to live on their reputation. Smith won.
Jim Watson
New member
There may be something to that, there were some far out PPC guns made by converting .22 Jets to .38 to get the frame firing pin. But I think the main reason was that you can't readily MIM narrow slots and small holes as required for a hammer with as was routinely machined for a "hammer nose" firing pin.
Depends on how you define "compete".
The Registered Magnum ended production during WWII. S&W didn't restart production of N frame .357s until 1950, and then the gun was called the .357 Magnum, and was a regular production item.
Between 1955 and 1957, Colt introduced the Python, and S&W introduced the model 19, changed the name of the .357 to the Model 27 when they went to their number system in 1957 and also introduced a lower price N frame .357 designated Model 28 Highway Patrolman.
The S&W Combat Masterpiece is a .38 Special. The model 19 was called the "Combat Magnum". And. as to the frame being "too light" I'd say that's a judgement call, considering that the model 19 served, and came to dominate the police revolver market for over a decade without any significant reports of frames or forcing cones cracking, and shooting the available .357 Magnum ammo while they did it.
Take a look at the ammo of the day. .357 Magnum was only loaded with 158gr bullets until the 1970s. The issue of forcing cones cracking didn't happen for almost 15years of service use, it didn't show up until the factories began loading the 125gr bullet, and police depts changed their policies so that practice was no longer done with .38s but with the new 125gr duty load.
The combination of a new, hot load (that didn't exist when the gun was designed) and constant use of that load exposed a weakness in the Model 19 and 66 barrel profile in the forcing cone area, one that was only found due to the hot 125gr loading and never showed up in over a decade+ of shooting the 158gr loading.
This problem did not happen with the Python, nor did it happen with other S&W .357s, the 27 and 28.
This makes me curious when your friend told you this, and what he charged for the work. My guess would be that if he charged so much that "you might as well buy the Python" means he charged a lot.
In 1974 the model 19 cost $150, the Python $215. The model 27 cost $175 and the model 28 cost $135. By 1978 the model 19 was up to $180, while the Python cost a whopping $350!!
You could, almost literally, buy 2 (two) model 19s for the cost of a single Python.
S&W switching to frame mounted firing pins didn't happen until the 90s, whether it was to reduce hammer weight (why??) or to better suited to the MIM hammer, I have no idea.
S&W built a gun with a ribbed barrel and a full underlug that resembled the Python on the outside. The rest of the gun was quite different. And there was still something that set the Python apart from the L frame S&W, Pythons COST MORE.
Also, interestingly enough, those S&W L frames weighed exactly the same as the N frame guns that "were heavier than most people liked".
The fact that Colt lasted as long as it did in the LE revolver market from the 60s on was more a matter of brand loyalty than anything else. Large metro depts that bought guns in the hundreds often kept buying Colts, because, well. they're Colts, and a product of known historical quality.
But the rest of the LE community, particularly smaller depts where officers and deputies bought their guns themselves, almost no one bought Colts, they simply cost too much.
Even when the depts covered the cost, or issued a voucher, many chose the lower cost of the S&W (and later, Ruger) over the high price of the Colt line.
When its a choice of buy a Colt,. or buy a S&W and a holster and a gunbelt and maybe some other stuff for the same amount of money, well, history shows what most people chose, and S&W was the clear winner.
My 8 inch Colt Python was built in 1981 ( pre-Strike) I thought the stacking type trigger should be remedied. Got it back ... lighter pull, smooth as butter , & no stacking.
Single action trigger break did rival my othe wheel guns , crisp like breaking glass , little take up, no creep, and a good reset for it's lightness.
S&W triggers can get that good with replacement springs and a lot of cycling. Years of use on an old Smith are the actions that a majority of folks use to compare and rate all others.
That said , trigger wise , I still feel the extra smoothness is best on my Python due to the extra tweaking . My Smith Combat magnum and combat masterpiece are great pistols too. All my wheelguns have a different feel from one to another. Different finishes too.
My fav." Go to " gun is still the Model 19. Just accustomed to it's natural balance and feel.
" Bill Jordan was no amateur Fudd" & he knew exactly of what he spoke."
Single action trigger break did rival my othe wheel guns , crisp like breaking glass , little take up, no creep, and a good reset for it's lightness.
S&W triggers can get that good with replacement springs and a lot of cycling. Years of use on an old Smith are the actions that a majority of folks use to compare and rate all others.
That said , trigger wise , I still feel the extra smoothness is best on my Python due to the extra tweaking . My Smith Combat magnum and combat masterpiece are great pistols too. All my wheelguns have a different feel from one to another. Different finishes too.
My fav." Go to " gun is still the Model 19. Just accustomed to it's natural balance and feel.
" Bill Jordan was no amateur Fudd" & he knew exactly of what he spoke."
Comparisons between Colt Pythons, S&W and Ruger revolvers are very common on all gun forums and rarely do the arguments come from posters with intensive shooting experience of the brands and models in question. Everybody has his opinion and usually the opinion is not based on first hand experience or scientific facts but personal preference, or hearsay.
I also have my preference, my very own personal preference, from extensive experience in ISSF oriented competitions with the three pictured guns - and shockingly neither the Python, nor S&W 686 emerge as the winner.
As to the statement, that S&W had no revolver that could compete with the Python, that's untrue when it comes to shooting competitions of that era. The Python was built with the underlug to add weight for use in Bullseye competitions, where .38 Special Wadcutter loads were used and the revolver Bullseye record is still held by a S&W model 14, not a Python.
I also have my preference, my very own personal preference, from extensive experience in ISSF oriented competitions with the three pictured guns - and shockingly neither the Python, nor S&W 686 emerge as the winner.
As to the statement, that S&W had no revolver that could compete with the Python, that's untrue when it comes to shooting competitions of that era. The Python was built with the underlug to add weight for use in Bullseye competitions, where .38 Special Wadcutter loads were used and the revolver Bullseye record is still held by a S&W model 14, not a Python.
Everyone's experiences are different, as they and their guns are all different.
One friend of mine told me about how he had owned 3 Pythons over the years, and let each one go, because none of them were as accurate as his S&Ws.
The lightest, smoothest DA trigger I've ever felt was a friends S&W Model 66 that had a trigger job done on it. No idea who did the work, but I've shot guns which had trigger jobs and even shot Pythons, and that individual S&W was superior to all I have encountered.
We can, and do, discuss all day long the various pros and cons of different makes and models, but all that really matters is the quality and capability of the gun in your hands.
Sometimes, the gun that turns out to be the "best" isn't what you expect.
