You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Colt Trigger vs S&W trigger
- Thread starter ripnbst
- Start date
spacecoast
New member
I can sort of understand your results if your Smith snubby is a J-frame, but I would take a well-broken-in K, L or N-frame trigger over a Colt's anytime. Generally speaking, there is much less "stacking" and they are much easier to tune for a lighter action that works well with appropriate ammo (Federal primers). My K-22 is a tack driver both single and double action.
Can a competent smith turn the S&W trigger into what the Colt Python trigger is?
jimbob86 nailed it: No.
The Python's trigger is like butter.
I've felt some full-race K-frame triggers that are super light; and very smooth. But they are highly specialized and can only shoot Federal Primed ammo (Federal primers ignite easiest). These things are competition only guns, so it's kind of an apples-n-oranges thing. Besides, the internal workings of a K-frame Smith are completely different than a J-frame - and that difference is really apples-n-oranges.
I have a Python. And it's a safe queen. And the reason why (aside from it being a classic) is because I don't care for the trigger. Although it certainly is impressively smooth, but it also "stacks." That is, it gets heavier as you draw it back. Never cared for that. It also seems to have a bit longer reach than I care for (my hands are smaller than average).
A small gun, like a J-frame, with a lightweight hammer requires a fairly strong mainspring for reliability under adverse conditions. A gun like the Model 19 can have a much lighter trigger pull and still work well, but the factory builds in a large margin to deal with dirt, mud, cold, etc.
In working over the Python for minimum pull weight and a smooth DA, the Colt factory reduced the reliability to some extent and I have seen Pythons that would not fire with hard primers. Run-of-mine OP's and PP's have heavier pulls and no reliability problems.
Jim
In working over the Python for minimum pull weight and a smooth DA, the Colt factory reduced the reliability to some extent and I have seen Pythons that would not fire with hard primers. Run-of-mine OP's and PP's have heavier pulls and no reliability problems.
Jim
What I'm wondering is, why do people shoot it double-action.(?) My opinion is, double-action is available if needed.
If you never shoot it double action, when you "need" double action, your double action skill, and thus your results, will be predictably poor.
I do better shooting revolvers SA, because I spend most of my handgun time and ammo shooting my carry gun (1911, which is SAO, short, light, crisp, and straight back) .... but if you are going to run a revolver, run it as it was meant to be run. Skills are good things to have.
I only have two Colt revolvers and they are older ones at that. I have a larger sample grouping of S&W revolvers. Some are newer and most are older. It is hardly a fair sample group.
With the above stated, the S&W's have the better trigger pull. The best of all is a Model 10-5. I do not know whether it is original or has had trigger work, but it is far better than all the rest.
With the above stated, the S&W's have the better trigger pull. The best of all is a Model 10-5. I do not know whether it is original or has had trigger work, but it is far better than all the rest.
g.willikers
New member
Now there's a question that deserves a thread of its own.What I'm wondering is, why do people shoot it double-action.
Actually the reverse. S&W hammers and triggers up to the MIM era were always fairly soft and case hardened (surface hardened). Colt hammers and triggers were made of tool steel and usually hardened much deeper if not all the way through. Hammers on both makes occasionally broke, but I have never seen a broken trigger on either.
Jim
Jim
I have a Colt Marshal circa 1955 and a Colt OP, 1931. The Marshal was full of hardened lube when I disassembled it and had to chip and soak it clean. Best Colt DA action I have owned. Like gunsmithed or custom shopped. The 31 OP was squeaky clean and very heavy. Both favorites, very accurate, but Smiths are easier to lighten DA pulls.
When someone states that the Python is buttery smooth compared to a Smith,
I wonder if they are only referring to cocking the guns for single action fire.
If so, the Colt is buttery smooth.
But it's single action letoff is no better than a Smith's, maybe worse, and in double action usage with stock guns the Python is inferior.
Also the Python action cannot take a lot heavy double action pounding like a Smith. The Python's timing will go downhill long before a Smith's.
But as mentioned, the Python has now gone into pure safe queen collector
status because finding smiths who can work on it and repair it are getting
very scarce as are parts.
Smith revolvers rule but they have worthy competition in the various Rugers.
If I couldn't get a Smith revolver, I'd be quite happy, and have on occasion,
using the Ruger GP 100s.
I wonder if they are only referring to cocking the guns for single action fire.
If so, the Colt is buttery smooth.
But it's single action letoff is no better than a Smith's, maybe worse, and in double action usage with stock guns the Python is inferior.
Also the Python action cannot take a lot heavy double action pounding like a Smith. The Python's timing will go downhill long before a Smith's.
But as mentioned, the Python has now gone into pure safe queen collector
status because finding smiths who can work on it and repair it are getting
very scarce as are parts.
Smith revolvers rule but they have worthy competition in the various Rugers.
If I couldn't get a Smith revolver, I'd be quite happy, and have on occasion,
using the Ruger GP 100s.
Jim Watson
New member
I agree with UncleEd and I have been shooting Pythons since the 1970s.
A stock Python (or any other V spring Colt) has a fairly heavy trigger pull with a lot of "stacking" as the spring loads up. Sure, it's smooth, Python (and older Colts) got a lot of attention to that, but it is not even and it is not light.
My 6" Python was my PPC revolver from before the L frame Smiths came out. It is heavy enough and accurate enough that I could shoot the same gun for Open and Distinguished without much penalty. The action was worked by the Colt Custom Shop, then under Don Tedford. It is very smooth, quite light, and doesn't stack. But it won't reliably pop anything but Federal primers.
My 4" Python was my first IDPA SSR. It was tuned by Reeves Jungkind. Its DA is not as light as the Tedford, but it will fire other brands of primer.
I shoot them out of nostalgia, but when I want performance, I get out the Dick DiVittorio tuned 686. I am looking around for a good K frame so I can compare K vs L frame revolvers... when I am not shooting a 1911.
A stock Python (or any other V spring Colt) has a fairly heavy trigger pull with a lot of "stacking" as the spring loads up. Sure, it's smooth, Python (and older Colts) got a lot of attention to that, but it is not even and it is not light.
My 6" Python was my PPC revolver from before the L frame Smiths came out. It is heavy enough and accurate enough that I could shoot the same gun for Open and Distinguished without much penalty. The action was worked by the Colt Custom Shop, then under Don Tedford. It is very smooth, quite light, and doesn't stack. But it won't reliably pop anything but Federal primers.
My 4" Python was my first IDPA SSR. It was tuned by Reeves Jungkind. Its DA is not as light as the Tedford, but it will fire other brands of primer.
I shoot them out of nostalgia, but when I want performance, I get out the Dick DiVittorio tuned 686. I am looking around for a good K frame so I can compare K vs L frame revolvers... when I am not shooting a 1911.