Question about the Colt Python
- Thread starter magnum777
- Start date
I have a Model 27-3 (pic 1) from the mid-80s and a 27-2 I never bothered to date (pic 2). My blued Python is pic 3. I do have a pre-War (@1928) K-frame (pic 4) which has the best action of all my Smiths. I think part of that is the long action.
Thanks for giving me an excuse to post the pics.
bedbugbilly
New member
I've got a 4" blued. I've shot it a couple of times. Yes, it's a beautiful handgun, yes it's well made and pretty much everything that's already been said about it. But, it's not really my "cup of tea". If I'm going to shoot cartridge, I much prefer my S & W M & P Target and my Colt Army Special. i just like "vintage guns". Over all handguns, I still prefer my '51 Navy. So call me "odd". 
I bought mine because fo the price I got it for and mainly for an "investment". It already has "appreciated" and will probably continue to do so. I'll probably pull it out once in a while and put some rounds through it but I just care for other handguns when it coms to shooting.
I bought mine because fo the price I got it for and mainly for an "investment". It already has "appreciated" and will probably continue to do so. I'll probably pull it out once in a while and put some rounds through it but I just care for other handguns when it coms to shooting.
Dfariswheel
New member
The design of the Colt cylinder release had a specific purpose.
When Colt designed the basic release in 1889, most shooting was done in the classic "duelist" style with one hand, which became the classic target shooters high thumb hold.
The cylinder release allowed resting the thumb on the release. This not only gave a good high thumb rest position, it insured that the cylinder couldn't accidentally open under recoil.
Later Colt's made before WWII actually had checkered cylinder releases to give an even better thumb rest.
S&W operates by pushing the release. For that reason you can't use a S&W cylinder release as a thumb rest or the cylinder will open under recoil.
Early Pythons had lighter barrels then later guns.
The early models had hollow under lugs and the vent ribs. The vents not only lightened the barrel, it also looked like the very popular King's Target ribs that a lot of target shooters had installed on their Officer's Model Target revolvers.
As time passed, shooters ideas of what was too heavy changed, and Colt stopped doing the hollow lower lug barrel and went to a sold lug, making the barrel even heavier.
Reportedly, some target shooters had been putting lead bullets in the hollow lug to add weight to the barrel.
This was in the days when revolver and auto barrels started getting extremely heavy, leading to the massive bull barrels you see today.
Back in those days, most shooters would have thought the super heavy bull barrels just too much. Now you seldom see an actual target pistol without a heavy bull barrel and even extra accessory barrel weights.
When Colt designed the basic release in 1889, most shooting was done in the classic "duelist" style with one hand, which became the classic target shooters high thumb hold.
The cylinder release allowed resting the thumb on the release. This not only gave a good high thumb rest position, it insured that the cylinder couldn't accidentally open under recoil.
Later Colt's made before WWII actually had checkered cylinder releases to give an even better thumb rest.
S&W operates by pushing the release. For that reason you can't use a S&W cylinder release as a thumb rest or the cylinder will open under recoil.
Early Pythons had lighter barrels then later guns.
The early models had hollow under lugs and the vent ribs. The vents not only lightened the barrel, it also looked like the very popular King's Target ribs that a lot of target shooters had installed on their Officer's Model Target revolvers.
As time passed, shooters ideas of what was too heavy changed, and Colt stopped doing the hollow lower lug barrel and went to a sold lug, making the barrel even heavier.
Reportedly, some target shooters had been putting lead bullets in the hollow lug to add weight to the barrel.
This was in the days when revolver and auto barrels started getting extremely heavy, leading to the massive bull barrels you see today.
Back in those days, most shooters would have thought the super heavy bull barrels just too much. Now you seldom see an actual target pistol without a heavy bull barrel and even extra accessory barrel weights.
Peter M. Eick
New member
Question to me from Win73 (rhymes nicely...)
I had my Python long before I had my first S&W. I did not know any better that it should not be shot with heavy loads so ignorance is bliss and I loaded it and worked up loads from the manuals and banged away. I did get a trigger job done on it by Teddy Jacobson here in Houston but beyond that it has never had an issue. My second Python is another shooter. It on the other hand was shot a lot with 38's prior to me getting it and the cylinder needed some internal cleaning. After that we have another shooter.
I actually prefer the Python as a shooter. I learned to shoot revolves on a Diamondback so the Colt style "stacking" is normal to me and I learned to shoot with it. I plan on that steady build when doing double action shooting and in single action It is just easy to shoot well as is.
Comparing my Python to my Registered Magnum is interesting. They are two different beasts. The RM has a long throw style hammer so it does not reward poor follow though or shooting techniques. It is a bit less well balanced so the front sight is a bit more whippy. The grips are not as easy to shoot well with Magna's over Pachmeyer's on the Python. I used to shoot really hot loads in my RM, basically loads that would give me 1500 fps with a 158 out of my 8 3/8" pre-27's. I figured that is what the gun was designed for so I shoot them in it. They are accurate and easy to shoot but today I have moderated to book max loads. There is no practical reason to beat up my RM anymore. So when I am really in the groove I can shoot the RM a bit more accurately than the Python but if you are bit off (coffee, tired, shaky) than the Python is much easier to perform with.
This all changes when you move the 38/44 which is the bulk of my N frames. There I have shooters that easily compare to the Python in accuracy and quality/ease of shooting.
Final comment. Yesterday I was out with my 357 Redhawk and a big 38/44 Outdoorsman. The Redhawk makes the 38/44 seem almost dainty by comparison. Glad I did not bring the Python. It would have felt svelte!
I had my Python long before I had my first S&W. I did not know any better that it should not be shot with heavy loads so ignorance is bliss and I loaded it and worked up loads from the manuals and banged away. I did get a trigger job done on it by Teddy Jacobson here in Houston but beyond that it has never had an issue. My second Python is another shooter. It on the other hand was shot a lot with 38's prior to me getting it and the cylinder needed some internal cleaning. After that we have another shooter.
I actually prefer the Python as a shooter. I learned to shoot revolves on a Diamondback so the Colt style "stacking" is normal to me and I learned to shoot with it. I plan on that steady build when doing double action shooting and in single action It is just easy to shoot well as is.
Comparing my Python to my Registered Magnum is interesting. They are two different beasts. The RM has a long throw style hammer so it does not reward poor follow though or shooting techniques. It is a bit less well balanced so the front sight is a bit more whippy. The grips are not as easy to shoot well with Magna's over Pachmeyer's on the Python. I used to shoot really hot loads in my RM, basically loads that would give me 1500 fps with a 158 out of my 8 3/8" pre-27's. I figured that is what the gun was designed for so I shoot them in it. They are accurate and easy to shoot but today I have moderated to book max loads. There is no practical reason to beat up my RM anymore. So when I am really in the groove I can shoot the RM a bit more accurately than the Python but if you are bit off (coffee, tired, shaky) than the Python is much easier to perform with.
This all changes when you move the 38/44 which is the bulk of my N frames. There I have shooters that easily compare to the Python in accuracy and quality/ease of shooting.
Final comment. Yesterday I was out with my 357 Redhawk and a big 38/44 Outdoorsman. The Redhawk makes the 38/44 seem almost dainty by comparison. Glad I did not bring the Python. It would have felt svelte!
Dfariswheel
New member
No, the front end of the under lug was closed. It was open in the rear where the ejector rod seats.
Peter M. Eick
New member
I will add that they don't feel quite right when you handle and point one. That extra metal does seem to change the feel of the gun in my experience. I am sure you would get used to it, but picking one up it was noticeable.
FoghornLeghorn
New member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I dunno 'bout that. Mine felt right from the beginning. Actually, my S&W 357s always seemed barrel light after that.
That's when I understood the purpose of under barrel weights on target 22s.
I dunno 'bout that. Mine felt right from the beginning. Actually, my S&W 357s always seemed barrel light after that.
That's when I understood the purpose of under barrel weights on target 22s.
Jim Watson
New member
There is one in town, been traded around among the Colt SHOOTERS. We call it the "Airweight Python." Nickel plated to boot, and with a non-stacking action job for PPC.
I owned it for a while, traded a Gold Cup for it, traded it back to the previous owner for a blue gun. When he was killed in a wreck, his guns dropped out of sight for a while, then were sold off by his shiftless brother. One of the club members got it as a memento. (I ended with his GM S70 with adjustable sight installation.)
Had to have used .22 or .25 bullets, that hole was not very large.
Peter M. Eick
New member
Foghorn,
I meant to say that if you are used to a non-drilled one, picking up a drilled one feels noticeably different.
I should have been more explicit.
I meant to say that if you are used to a non-drilled one, picking up a drilled one feels noticeably different.
I should have been more explicit.
In spite of the mythology, there is nothing unique or different about the Python action; it is the same as that of other Colt revolvers of the same frame size. The difference is that the Python was given special fitting and tuning, in effect a factory "action job" to smooth it up and to minimize (not eliminate) "stacking". Then it was highly polished and blued. The Colt Royal Blue was not really different from that of other Colt guns (Carbonia), but the high polish made it look so much better that stories (encouraged by Colt) spread that the bluing was a special "charcoal blue" or some other secret process.
Had Colt been able to carry out its plans to convert the DA revolver line to the new design, the Python would certainly have been changed also. It was kept "as is" because it was a money-maker for Colt at a time when they were losing money by the ton, and they didn't want to rock the profitable boat.
Jim
Had Colt been able to carry out its plans to convert the DA revolver line to the new design, the Python would certainly have been changed also. It was kept "as is" because it was a money-maker for Colt at a time when they were losing money by the ton, and they didn't want to rock the profitable boat.
Jim
jackcorbett
Inactive
My personal opinion is the Smith and Wesson revolvers are going to hold up better than the Python, and back when I used to be married I got my step son a Smith and Wesson 686 while I had a Python. We could both shoot the two guns equally well. And my Python did go out of time. The reason was a friend foolishly snapped the cylinder shut with a flick of his wrist. However, I used to write gun articles for a small adult magazine, and recently I wrote and published those articles as a book, Extreme Guns and Babes an Adult World . You can find an excerpt from it on the Python Dirty Heather and the Colt Python
My whole idea for the initial article was to appeal to an audience that was not firearm centric. So that was the reason for choosing "Dirty Heather", a stripper I knew who had a lot of attitude. In the article I compare Heater to Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry. Rightly or wrongly, I chose the Python ever all other revolvers because I felt it had more Panache. Still, my thoughts are that Pythons are relatively finicky so they might not always be the best choice out there.
But are they just a little more accurate than a Smith and just a little more polished? Well, at the time I was writing my articles for Xtreme I went through a number of reviews on Colt Pythons and their competition in the gun magazines and this is what I wrote in Extreme Guns and Babes for an Adult World
In 1955 about the time Smith and Wesson was first introducing its new .44 magnum, Colt unleashed what would soon become a true classic, the Python. Name identification with the powerful snake combined with the ventilated rib and overall graceful appearance of the new revolver might have been enough to win it everlasting fame alone, but it's under the hood where the true beauty of the Python lies. Originally intended to be a target revolver in 38 special only, critical parts were custom honed and fitted by hand. The inside of the Python barrel was engineered to taper from the cylinder outward giving them a slightly narrower barrel diameter at the end of the tube than at the breech which gently forced the bullet into the rifling. Since the frame was already substantial enough to handle the pressures of the .357 magnum cartridge Colt decided to chamber the Python in .357 magnum instead of .38 special only. Painstaking attention to detail made the Python twice the price of a good Smith and Wesson, but whereas a typical Smith could be expected to group within two inches at twenty-five yards, a good Python can put six shots into an inch at the same distance. For most this would be a moot point since there are very few shooters who can shoot that well with either gun, but for the purists, the Python's unparalleled fit, finish and accuracy, put it into a class of its own.
Ironically I'd wind up choosing a much more pedestrian revolver over my Colt Python when it came down to keeping just one .357 magnum revolver when I felt I had to sell nearly all my guns. I moved to Thailand eight years ago and sold 31 guns, while keeping just seven which are now in the hands of my nephew. The .357 magnum we retained was a Ruger GP-100 stainless. The reason I kept it over the Python was 1. I could shoot it nearly as well, 2. Ruger GP-100's are the opposite of "finicky" and 3. I could get a lot more money for the Python to help finance my condo here in Thailand.
My whole idea for the initial article was to appeal to an audience that was not firearm centric. So that was the reason for choosing "Dirty Heather", a stripper I knew who had a lot of attitude. In the article I compare Heater to Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry. Rightly or wrongly, I chose the Python ever all other revolvers because I felt it had more Panache. Still, my thoughts are that Pythons are relatively finicky so they might not always be the best choice out there.
But are they just a little more accurate than a Smith and just a little more polished? Well, at the time I was writing my articles for Xtreme I went through a number of reviews on Colt Pythons and their competition in the gun magazines and this is what I wrote in Extreme Guns and Babes for an Adult World
In 1955 about the time Smith and Wesson was first introducing its new .44 magnum, Colt unleashed what would soon become a true classic, the Python. Name identification with the powerful snake combined with the ventilated rib and overall graceful appearance of the new revolver might have been enough to win it everlasting fame alone, but it's under the hood where the true beauty of the Python lies. Originally intended to be a target revolver in 38 special only, critical parts were custom honed and fitted by hand. The inside of the Python barrel was engineered to taper from the cylinder outward giving them a slightly narrower barrel diameter at the end of the tube than at the breech which gently forced the bullet into the rifling. Since the frame was already substantial enough to handle the pressures of the .357 magnum cartridge Colt decided to chamber the Python in .357 magnum instead of .38 special only. Painstaking attention to detail made the Python twice the price of a good Smith and Wesson, but whereas a typical Smith could be expected to group within two inches at twenty-five yards, a good Python can put six shots into an inch at the same distance. For most this would be a moot point since there are very few shooters who can shoot that well with either gun, but for the purists, the Python's unparalleled fit, finish and accuracy, put it into a class of its own.
Ironically I'd wind up choosing a much more pedestrian revolver over my Colt Python when it came down to keeping just one .357 magnum revolver when I felt I had to sell nearly all my guns. I moved to Thailand eight years ago and sold 31 guns, while keeping just seven which are now in the hands of my nephew. The .357 magnum we retained was a Ruger GP-100 stainless. The reason I kept it over the Python was 1. I could shoot it nearly as well, 2. Ruger GP-100's are the opposite of "finicky" and 3. I could get a lot more money for the Python to help finance my condo here in Thailand.
geodimeter
Inactive
This thread has been extremely enjoyable to read. I've only collected a few revolvers (S&W and Ruger) and have read much about the Holy Grail, i.e., a Colt Python. Lots of good info here about the differences between S&W and Colt actions, etc. I'd love to shoot a Python but I may need to save up some $$ even to get a shooter. I did find a well used Trooper .357 at a pawn shop with the factory stocks but it was a little beat up for the asking price. Maybe a truck gun. Meanwhile I'll shoot the hell out of my 686-4 with the 8-3/8" barrel, a real tack driver, especially with the Leupold scope on it.
S&W-Keeper
New member
I have several, and love them, the fit and finish is outstanding. My 6" is the best shooting gun that I have ever shot.That being said I simply would not pay the price that they are asking now days.
jackcorbett
Inactive
I'd pay it even though I sold mine. Provided I were still living in the U.S. that is. Been a bit out of touch but last I heard a Freedom Arms .454 Casul would go for around $2000 or so. I'd pay that too, provided that until the moment of purchase I was getting the absolute best there is.
Uhhh.....Just checked the prices. They've changed, a lot. Freedom Arms model 83 Premier Grade $2450. Okay with that, but the Pythons? Looks like $3000 and up for like new or new.
Uhhh.....Just checked the prices. They've changed, a lot. Freedom Arms model 83 Premier Grade $2450. Okay with that, but the Pythons? Looks like $3000 and up for like new or new.
I have a 1970 6" Colt Python. I have a hard time deciding if I like it or my S&W 6" Model 19-4 better.
They are both great revolvers with good triggers.
I better take them back out and shoot them both again.
My wife likes the Model 19 better because it's a little lighter. She keeps trying to call it "hers" but I've never said that she could have it.
They are both great revolvers with good triggers.
I better take them back out and shoot them both again.
My wife likes the Model 19 better because it's a little lighter. She keeps trying to call it "hers" but I've never said that she could have it.
I went through several Pythons. The looks kept me coming back. But, for my S&W tuned finger, the trigger just felt "wrong". I never doubted thier design, strength, accuracy or looks. They are outstanding guns. I still have one, an older nickel 4" just because I want to own a Python. As a shooter, I'll take a Smith any day.
My first gun was a Colt Diamondback .22. My next gun was a 6" model 27. After that one 27, I pretty much stuck with Smiths.
I would never try and discourage anyone from owning a Python, they are beautiful pie es of machinery.
My first gun was a Colt Diamondback .22. My next gun was a 6" model 27. After that one 27, I pretty much stuck with Smiths.
I would never try and discourage anyone from owning a Python, they are beautiful pie es of machinery.