Another Smolt...

[D1911]

My latest project; just picked it up from my smith today. A 6" Smolt built on a 66-2:



And a pic with the rest of the family, a blued 4" Smolt and 4" stainless Couger:

[Texas Star]

Do they really shoot any better than with original barrels?

I owned two Pythons that were very accurate, but no more so than my M-27 and M-28 Smiths.

[gumpys]

Originally Posted by Texas Star

Do they really shoot any better than with original barrels?



I owned two Pythons that were very accurate, but no more so than my M-27 and M-28 Smiths.

Ditto was just hype back when someone decided to put the two together. I owned one and have plenty of prelock performance center guns that outshoot my smython and even few 27s and early 19 no dash. Don't get me wrong cool and all but was just hype. Anyways OP you have several nice ones there definitely digging that blued 4 inch.

Eric

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

[diyj98]

Double ditto ( if there is such a thing). I’m not bashing your gun in anyway. I think it’s very neat. It’s just the Pythons I’ve owned didn’t seem any more accurate on average than the S&W’s I’ve had.

[Struckat]

Why? I don’t get it.

[BAM-BAM]

That 4" Blue gun is SWEEEeeeeeeet!!!!!!!!!!

Back in the day ..... "the word was" that the Python bore had a slight tapper... which improved it's accuracy. Besides; pre-Lframes it looks so cool

[Green Frog]

Prior to the arrival of the 586/686 the only way to get a heavy barrel on your competition gun (think PPC, Bianchi Cup, & Bowling Pin Revolver Matches) was to use a custom barrel or do a semi-custom installation of a Colt Python barrel with full under lug and vent rib. That seems to have been the impetus for introducing the under lugged barrels into the S&W lines, but while competitive shooters were waiting for that to happen...

Current trends in competition have emphasized the use of bottom feeders, but that doesn’t make these heavy barreled custom revolvers any less cool, just perhaps a little less current.

Froggie

[aphelion]

Originally Posted by BAM-BAM

That 4" Blue gun is SWEEEeeeeeeet!!!!!!!!!!

Back in the day ..... "the word was" that the Python bore had a slight tapper... which improved it's accuracy.

As well as a faster twist.

[Protocall_Design]

It's the best of both worlds. The vent rib barrel on a Smith action.

[walkinghorse]

I concur with Protocall, best of both worlds.
Especially the 4"!
I had a 6" Python for years, did not like the Colt DA, trigger staging, and the 6" barrel did not balance for me, but the SA was nice.
Nice collection! 🙂

[walkinghorse]

On the conversion is the Python barrel required to be flattened In the frame as it is done on a factory 66?

[K Frame Keith]

Originally Posted by Struckat

Why? I don’t get it.

Two valid reasons jump to mind:
1. He wanted to
2. They're beautiful

[Marshal tom]

Very nice but I want a 5" Pre 27.

[Pine_Worker]

Originally Posted by Marshal tom

Very nice but I want a 5" Pre 27.

I’d rather have a 5” pre 27 also.

[D1911]

I get it, these aren't for everyone. But personally, I love 'em. I have a couple of 27s, a 5" and 8 3/8", and a 4" 28 and they all shoot great. But for me, in my hands, the Smolt is a much better shooter. I get the smooth tunable action of the K frame with the weight, tighter and faster twist of the Python barrel. The balance is also perfect for me. I've had Pythons over the years and other than the looks, never really cared for them (I had one that went out of time after the first cylinder of ammo, that was the last one I owned!). The 4" gun was built on a 2" Model 15 that I bought back in 1981. Didn't get the 2" barrel with a square butt thing and the balance was weird (for me), so I never shot. Had the Smolt conversion done with a super tune about 15 years ago, and it's now the most accurate revolver I've ever shot. I know some think I'm desecrating an S&W by having the conversion done, but hey, my gun, my money. I'm looking at another 2" square butt Model 15 for a 3" Smolt conversion; should also be a great shooter. Anyway, thanks for the comments.

[wood714]

I love it!

Seems like by the time you buy the barrel and pay for the smith work, it would cost about what the new 2020 Pythons cost?

[D1911]

Originally Posted by wood714

I love it!

Seems like by the time you buy the barrel and pay for the smith work, it would cost about what the new 2020 Pythons cost?

Close, a few hundred dollars cheaper for this one (that includes the price of the donor gun). Unfortunately, NOS or clean Python barrels aren't cheap anymore.

[S&WIowegan]

...which I acquired via internet auction(I purposely have forgotten how much it cost). I wanted it to see for myself how it ran and shot. Mine was built on a Model 19 round butt frame with a short ejector rod. A friend swapped my short rod for a normal length for a 4" barrel which helps clear 38 Special brass during IDPA COFs. The interesting fact about the Python barrel is there are no markings whatsoever on it but "looks" Python. My supposition is Colt was willing to sell unfinished Python barrels to gunsmiths working on these conversions. By doing so, the gunsmith avoids having a Python revolver w/o a barrel in his inventory.

I also own a 4" Python bright stainless gun I bought 30 years ago which I shot extensively back when Pythons were just expensive revolvers. The S&W action is far preferable to the Python for fast action shooting. Pythons which actually get used have various quirks. Mine developed minor burrs on the bolt and breech-face where the bolt engages the cylinder for lock-up. Those burrs completely froze the action...the gun was uncockable/unshootable. Since Colt revolversmiths are both scarce and pricey, I followed my Kuhnhausen manual and fixed it myself with only a minor bit of filing. Reassembling a Python is a challenge which is another reason S&Ws are preferred by many.

[Jim Watson]

How are yours threaded? I have read of several approaches.

Smolts are kewl and all, but Smith used to make some full lug K38s. I dare say a 6" could be found, but the 4" version is rare. Too bad, I think it would have a great DA balance and still be lighter than a 686.

[CLASSIC12]

Fantastic looking guns, congrats

[Pine_Worker]

Well, I disagree. I think it ruins the classic look of a classic revolver, Just my opinion.

[Fishinfool]

Nice, I like them. Back in the day, before the L frames, I seen a couple guys that had them for PPC use. Claimed the muzzle heavy balance resulted in quicker recoil recovery. I had my doubts, after all, it's usually just .38 spl. in that game. Tried one guys "Smolt", and recovery did seem a little quicker, and the front sight seemed to hang a little steadier. I bought one of the first 4 inch L frames to hit the shelves, and did quite well with it in PPC.

Larry

[D1911]

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

How are yours threaded? I have read of several approaches.

Smolts are kewl and all, but Smith used to make some full lug K38s. I dare say a 6" could be found, but the 4" version is rare. Too bad, I think it would have a great DA balance and still be lighter than a 686.

No idea how the barrels are threaded. Pretty sure it's some kind of gunsmith voodoo. This Smolt, as well as the Couger in the picture was built by Craig Maraviov in Woodland, CA. Craig worked for Bill Davis many years ago when these conversions were popular. The blued 4" Smolt was built by Mark Kearns, who also worked for Bill Davis.

[D1911]

Originally Posted by Pine_Worker

Well, I disagree. I think it ruins the classic look of a classic revolver, Just my opinion.

Like I said, not for everyone. I personally think it ads to the classic lines of the gun by using parts from two classic revolvers. Just my opinion...

[Struckat]

Originally Posted by K Frame Keith

Two valid reasons jump to mind:
1. He wanted to
2. They're beautiful

Thanks, but Green Frog answered a little more effectively.

[Green Frog]

"... a little more effectively"? I thought I was being at least eloquent.