Good Python Article

The Python shared the same lockwork as the Officers Models before it, which were very fine revolvers in their own right. The Python was introduced to be a "deluxe" revolver, not a better revolver. Many of the Officers Model Match guns I have owned had actions just as good or even better, than the Python. And Colt Three Fifty Seven incorporated the .357 Magnum cartridge. The Python's intent was to be what the Packard was to automobiles.
Click to expand...

I have read that the Python had much more hand fitting of the parts than other Colt revolvers, even those such as the Officer's model. I believe Dfariswheel has said that. My explanation for why these older other Colts feel just as good (my two from this thread have great trigger pulls) was that there was a higher quality emphasis coupled with better technology to give guns consistancy. Craftsmen in those days, and before, took immense pride in their products. People remembered the great depression and were happy and proud to have good stable jobs and income. It was a different time.

Both revolvers are outstanding shooters and in very good shape. And the combined price of the two of them still wouldn't have covered the cost of one Python in so-so condition.
Click to expand...

I agree and thats one of my issues with the Python is that you are not getting 2 or 3x the quality with say a $1500 price tag. Vintage S&W and other Colt models, such as the OM or OMM or the 357 model are excellent guns. My 38 trooper from 1954 is one of the nice shooting Colts I've ever had.
 
While the Officer Model's Match may not be "finished" as nice as the Python or look as "sexy," the action on mine beats my Pythons.
 
It seems to me that the only folks that don’t like Colt’s Python are those that don’t own one...I purchased my ‘63 6”Python in 1970 for $112.00 including a holster and a box of .357 158 grain cartridges, the second revolver in my collection. The Pythons design was second to none in those days, an innovation that’s still is an eye catcher today. It was made back in the days when Master Gunsmiths worked for Colt’s among others. The trigger breaks cleanly at 2.75 pounds with a boot and feels like you’re squeezing your finger through a stick of butter. I learned a long time ago to listen to the ‘action’ in DA mode because I couldn’t feel the action through my hand, a result of polishing every working part in the revolver. A classic case of ‘they don’t make ‘em that way anymore’. I’ve taken the factory grips off as they have been replaced at least four times over the time I’ve had it and shoot it with Hogue Monogrips today to keep the factory grips intact. That’s really been the only gripe that I could find with my iconic revolver, perhaps too many hot loads and the grips work loose. If I’d had epoxy in those days that wouldn’t have been a issue. Otherwise it still locks up like a safe. I still see them for sale in my neck of the woods, but you have to work fast to snag one because they’re so collectable. I was taking her through the paces about six months ago and another member of the club said, ‘Looks like you’ve got that one dialed in...’ and offered me $2,500.00 on the spot. I politely said no and thought about what a great return on my 40 year old investment I’ve made on the way home.
 
It seems to me that the only folks that don’t like Colt’s Python are those that don’t own one...
Click to expand...

Or those who aren't well versed in different revolvers, such as evidently yourself:

the second revolver in my collection
Click to expand...

The Pythons design was second to none in those days
Click to expand...

Ever hear of a S&W 27? Any experience with pre war Colts or S&Ws? Pre 1970 troopers? OMMs? I guess not.

I had a Python, and it did not live up to the hype like many others I have shot or handled, and I am not alone in saying that. I sold that Python and kept my S&Ws. Over rated is a understatement when it comes to Pythons.
 
Last edited:
I was taking her through the paces about six months ago and another member of the club said, ‘Looks like you’ve got that one dialed in...’ and offered me $2,500.00 on the spot. I politely said no and thought about what a great return on my 40 year old investment I’ve made on the way home.
Click to expand...

You're a better man than me. If somebody offered me $2,500, and could pay cash on the spot, I'd probably sell.
 
My pre 1969 Colts are a 1968 Trooper .357, 1950 OMS .38, 1959 Trooper .22, 1957 OMM .22, and a 1960 engraved Colt .357 as pictured below:
P1060201.jpg

P1000225.jpg

e7588305.jpg

P1000711.jpg

P1060490.jpg
 
Wnchester73:

1)Will do!

2)The 4" 1959 Trooper .22 LR is 100% NIB(Unfired)with mint box, all papers, test target, sight tool, brush, and with mint shipper box!:eek::)
 
1)Will do!

2)The 4" 1959 Trooper .22 LR is 100% NIB(Unfired)with mint box, all papers, test target, sight tool, brush, and with mint shipper box!
Click to expand...

I'd pay $500 for just that...you know thats top dollar for that package, right?
 
Winchester 73:

No, I couldn't let the mint 1959 Trooper .22 go for just $500. You just don't find these in this condition.
 
the Python apparently became the best revolver ever made AFTER production which raises two questions in my mind: 1) How were they regarded when in production? (not the same as now, for sure)
Click to expand...
The Python was always regarded as a fine revolver, but most would not pay the price for the extra goodies when a S&W cost about 1/2 as much. When I was working in a retail gun shop, a Colt Python cost $400 or so, and a S&W Model 19 was around $230.
and 2) Why would Colt discontinue the best DA revolver of all time?
Click to expand...
No mystery, really. Colt could not make money on the Python and Diamondback any more, so they quit making them.

The Python was a better, more solid revolver than its main competitor the Model 19 (which is a fine gun as long as you don't feed it a steady diet of full-house 357s). LEOs and high-volume shooters loved the Colt because the heavier barrel makes it easier to recover your sight picture when shooting full-house 357s, something that might come in handy in a gunfight. The Colt had a better action out of the box (yes, you can tune a S&W, but you can also tune a Colt). Many PDs (long considered the bread and butter accounts) issued revolvers to officers, and the price difference made it hard for Colt to compete, which is why the had so many base models like the Trooper. Colt tried various approaches (the Trooper Mk III and Mk V, for example) to lower prices, and put less polishing and fitting into their premium revolvers (the Python and Diamondback), which you can see when you look at a 1980s Python. When S&W introduced the 586, sales of Pythons dropped like a rock, the S&W L frame was as solid as the Colt Python at about 1/2 the price, and even had the full barrel underlug. Beginning in the 1970s and exploding in the 1980s, a large volume of US-made, very reliable 9mm semi-auto pistols became available and accepted by LEO gurus. For a few years in the late 1980s you couldn't hardly trade a Python at anything approaching fair value. When Colt dropped their revolver production, it was a shrinking market, semi-autos had arrived and most PDs were allowing them and/or issuing them. The problems Colt was having with the UAW were the frosting on the cake, fewer union employees means fewer union problems and lower costs. When it costs more to make product than you can make by selling it, it becomes a very basic business decision to quit.
 
No mystery, really. Colt could not make money on the Python and Diamondback any more, so they quit making them.
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't think the Colts were ever really worth the extra money. You made a remark about the Python having a better out of the box trigger, and I think that's splitting hairs, and it also depends on the S&W and the Colt. One would think every Python would have this trigger that is unbeatable, and the only way a S&W could touch it is a trigger job but that's not true. Many S&Ws have excellent triggers out of the box.

When I call it a "mystery" that they stopped production, its because many people argue that "Pythons were so great, and so expensive to make that...." or "they were too much money for the average Joe" and many other explanations which are at best half truths. The Rolls Royce of revolvers can't be discontinued if its reputation was a reality. Look at any other well known product - when they live up to their hype, there is a demand and the company profits. The truth here is that the Python, and the Diamondback were not good enough to justify their asking price. People often make this out to be the difference between a S&W and a Ruger (Rugers are good though) meaning that with a Colt, you get much more (because they want to think it was a good purchase) when in reality, a S&W to me was never second to Colt on average. S&W price vs quality was an easy decision to make because S&Ws were as good as or better than comparable Colts in just about every category.

When someone today spends $1500 on a Python and someone else gets a S&W 27 for $750, of course they want to think that their Python is a better gun which causes it to cost more, which is a rationalization and nothing else. Part of the price difference is the Python no longer being made, and part of it is fantasy.
 
"and many other explanations which are at best half truths."

Have you found anybody who believes any of what you keep preaching?
 
I got trashed in another forum's Colt subforum for daring to write that the triggers on my two Dan Wesson 15-2s (both Monsons) were at least as good as those on my Pythons.
 
I got trashed in another forum's Colt subforum for daring to write that the triggers on my two Dan Wesson 15-2s (both Monsons) were at least as good as those on my Pythons.
Click to expand...

From me you will get praise for telling the truth. My friend has a Dan Wesson 15 and it was always a great shooting piece. I have and have owned many more revolvers and if the Python was what it as described as by some, things would be very different.
 
Pythons pretty much had a custom or semi-custom action on them as they came out of the factory. Now, each one was different so some are smoother than others. And the triggers stack (get heavier toward the end of the pull). Some people like this and some don't. Part of what makes a Python a Python is how it looks and how nicely finished it is. This doesn't make the gun any more accurate or the trigger any smoother. Some people were/are willing to pay more for this and some were not.
 
I got trashed in another forum's Colt subforum for daring to write that the triggers on my two Dan Wesson 15-2s (both Monsons) were at least as good as those on my Pythons.
Click to expand...

My father-in-law has one and the trigger is awesome. I'll vouch for ya ;).

My Redhawk has the best DA trigger of my currrent and previously owned revolvers (including Smiths), but try posting that on the S&W forum :(.
 
I got trashed in another forum's Colt subforum for daring to write that the triggers on my two Dan Wesson 15-2s (both Monsons) were at least as good as those on my Pythons.
Click to expand...

I carry a Dan Wesson everyday (have it here with me) while my Pythons stay home. Different as they are, IMHO the DW is the closest thing to a Python yet. In fact, when Colt modernized their revolvers, they came to something which is mechanically very, very close to the DW.

So, if you want a revolver that shoots like a Python and feels like a short-lock Python without breaking the bank, take a long look at early Dan Wessons!
 
Actually the lockwork that Colt used for the Mk III line (introduced in 1968)was designed by the same engineer who later designed the lockwork for the Dan Wesson revolver. I don't have time, but a Google search will turn up his name. I believe his son has a website in which he talks about his father's contributions to American revolvers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top