New Colt Python

[rockquarry]

I like the looks of that parkered 'Thon.

I second that. I wouldn't have thought the gun depicted in the photo would turn out nearly that well.

 

[rockquarry]

Why does one barrel have two slots and the other have three? Just curious.

Probably best to ask Colt for the real answer. This comes up with some frequency, especially on the Colt forum. Maybe someone on one of these forums knows the real answer, but ordinary responses range from speculation to bellyaching to "it looks like a Taurus".

 

[DFrame]

I love all my Pythons including the 3 inch late model

 

[bph9]

Being a lover of the "original" python I would have had it re-nickeled then it would have been worth easily double of what it is now worth parkerized. Parkerized anything is just not my cup of tea especially a Python.

 

[GaryBrantley]

Being a lover of the "original" python I would have had it re-nickeled then it would have been worth easily double of what it is now worth parkerized. Maybe it's just me but seeing a parkerized Python makes me cringe.

I understand. It was decided that it was too heavily pitted from the long-term rust to do much else with it. It's worth quite a bit to me even if for mostly sentimental reasons.

 

[MAUSER888]

I have a 1978 & 1981 6" blued Python. SA trigger is super smooth. My only complaint with them is if using just slightly hot .357 loads it's tough to get them to drop out of the cylinder after firing.

Not that big a deal but you 1968 Model 27-2 does not have this problem at all even with really hot loads.

 

[KenTheHunter]

I bought a new python early in my collecting "career". Bought it because it was my dream gun. Them I started accumulating and experiencing S&Ws. Them my python lost its lustre. Sure, it was beautiful. But the trigger bothered me. My word for it is "gummy". The final bit of trigger travel felt like you pushing the internals through a chunk of bubble gum. I could have gotten a vintage model 27 for what I paid....and with the money in lost on my sale I could have gotten a K-Frame!

It all depends on what you like and can shoot effectively. A recently passed popular gun writer asked the question of which is best, Colt or S&W ? The answer is -both. Personally, I prefer single action triggers on colt's and double action triggers on S&W.

 

[03hemi]

Probably best to ask Colt for the real answer. This comes up with some frequency, especially on the Colt forum. Maybe someone on one of these forums knows the real answer, but ordinary responses range from speculation to bellyaching to "it looks like a Taurus".

According to Colt the blued, three hole ribbed is actually a 5" and the stainless two hole ribbed is a 4.25".

 

[bph9]

Unfortunately the trigger pull is a new type of pull called "The California Compliant trigger pull". They had an engineer explain it on the Colt Forum. It supposedly has a shelf on it to prevent the gun from firing if you drop it with the hammer cocked back. To have it removed (if you can find any gunsmith that will do it) costs about $250. Its icing on the cake after only spending $1,400 plus the additional tax (sarcasm).

There are some MIM cast parts in it but supposedly not the hammer and sear. The double action pull is hard all the way through as opposed to the original Python pull that was very light in the initial stage and then stacked towards the end of the pull. It was the only type of double action pull I had no trouble mastering quickly, now it's gone forever. I hate the new type double action "pull" with a passion and was a major reason I did not buy one.

I did not know about the rear sight has no clicks, that is really going cheapy but hey the pistol only cost $1,400 so what else would you expect (sarcasm).

Colt has stated it has a 2 piece barrel (shroud) as opposed to the 1 piece barrel of the "original". This is a controversial subject. I do know that in rifle accuracy a heavy barrel has less barrel vibration and therefore greater accuracy. Now wether this is true of revolvers with a two piece barrel I have yet to test any to find out. The original "one piece" Python barrel was known for its outstanding accuracy.

The new Python supposedly has a 30% heavier top strap to prevent frame cracking and stretch with high pressure loads. Time will tell if this is true or just advertisement hype.

One of the drawbacks of the original Python was that, contrary to popular belief, there was a lot of difference in quality from gun to gun and if the "hand" was fitted on the short side the Python soon went "out of time". Decades ago I got one of these and had to hand fit a new "hand" on the "long side" and never had it go out of time after that.

The other problem with the "original" Python was that the fitting of the cylinder latch was often sloppy which required the operator to pull back slightly on the cylinder latch before closing the cylinder otherwise the cylinder would crash into the cylinder latch maring it. If anyone out there has a "new" Python let me know if this problem is still with the new model.

The finish on the new model is nowhere near the great finish found on the "original model" which was another one of its great selling points.

And I forgot to mention everyone is complaining about the heavy and lousy single action pull on the "new" Python. The "original" Python had an out of this world single action pull. The last 3 "original Pythons I owned had single action pulls of 3 lbs or less.

 

[GeeBee]

And I forgot to mention everyone is complaining about the heavy and lousy single action pull on the "new" Python. The "original" Python had an out of this world single action pull. The last 3 "original Pythons I owned had single action pulls of 3 lbs or less.

good point, do you think a trigger job on the new python can get to that pull of 3-4 lbs without compromising the gun???

 

[CajunBass]

According to Colt the blued, three hole ribbed is actually a 5" and the stainless two hole ribbed is a 4.25".
View attachment 791296View attachment 791297

I don't think that has anything to do with it. Colt does offer a 5" barrel now, as well as the 4.25 they've offered since day one, but the two I've got, (pictured earlier) are both 4.25 and marked so on the end labels on the box. One has threes slot the other two. They were purchased about a year apart, SS one first. I'm sure there is a reason why, but I got no idea what it was.

I can't decide which I like better really.

I had a 6" one, one of the very first of the "new" ones. I THINK it had three slots, but can't swear to it. I sold it when the 4.25" one showed up finally. (I have a sort of a "fetish" for a 4" (ish) barrel revolver, they just look "right.") But man, that 6" gun would shoot.

 

[03hemi]

I don't think that has anything to do with it. Colt does offer a 5" barrel now, as well as the 4.25 they've offered since day one, but the two I've got, (pictured earlier) are both 4.25 and marked so on the end labels on the box. One has threes slot the other two. They were purchased about a year apart, SS one first. I'm sure there is a reason why, but I got no idea what it was.

I can't decide which I like better really.

I had a 6" one, one of the very first of the "new" ones. I THINK it had three slots, but can't swear to it. I sold it when the 4.25" one showed up finally. (I have a sort of a "fetish" for a 4" (ish) barrel revolver, they just look "right.") But man, that 6" gun would shoot.

Yup, you sure do, interesting?
Maybe Colt heard us and decided to change it to 5" because the 4.25" with three holes looks weird?
I do like the 5" with three holes, it looks in the correct perspective, whereas the 4.25" just doesn't.

 

[Mostly Good]

A friend bought a Colt Python and brought it to the range after finally getting through the required waiting period. Nice looking piece, though it felt a touch heavy. It is bright stainless with a 4 inch barrel. I shot six rounds through it and the trigger pull was terrible when compared to my 27-2. The rear sights were not to my friends liking as there are no positive clicks when trying to adjust the windage or elevation. He plans on replacing them as soon as he can. Accuracy was decent for only firing six rounds with a terrible trigger. Since the revolver is new he hopes the trigger pull will wear itself down to acceptable shortly. I will stay with my 27-2 and not be looking for a snake gun.

Comparing a New Python to a 40 - 60 year old 27-2 ain't a apples to apples comparison. I think, (myself included) that everyone on this site would rather have the older 27. Change the 27 to a new model with a lock, and mim parts, ( not opening the mim can of worms but some don't like it), and I bet the Colt would pick up some fans.

 

[rockquarry]

And I forgot to mention everyone is complaining about the heavy and lousy single action pull on the "new" Python. The "original" Python had an out of this world single action pull. The last 3 "original Pythons I owned had single action pulls of 3 lbs or less.

Again, would you detail your (extensive?) experience with the new Pythons to add credibility to your comments?

 

[Journey]

I amuse myself quite often with my changes of opinion in matters of gun. I owned a few pythons back in the day, but never cared for them more than Smiths. I had the usual objections, but if a good deal came along, they traded well. I think the main thing I remember from my gunsmithing days was the barrels unscrewing and going past center to re tighten them. Then Smith did away with the barrel pins. When the new Pythons came out, I thought I had to have one because I didn't have one. Then the opinion change. I don't want one. Would anyone even think they wanted one if they were the same price as a 686 and Smith eliminated the Hilliary Hole? Let's see when the market gets saturated. The main thing I hear is how shiny and oh, don't you like that vent rib? I have a shiny Springfield armory 1911, but I don't shoot it because it shows use too much in scratches. I think for the time being, I'll just stick with Smith and Wesson unless a Colt deal is just too good to turn down. Just an old man's ramblings. I did like my ol New Service 45 LC though.

 

[JwesleyN]

good point, do you think a trigger job on the new python can get to that pull of 3-4 lbs without compromising the gun???

Yes it can be done.

 

[oneeyedpete]

I prefer the look, feel and trigger of a vintage S&W and always have. I can see where others love the look of the Colt better. Each camp's choice has its pluses and minuses. I think it comes down to a "Ford versus Chevy" thing. Here are my favorites, an Outdoorsman and a pre-27, each with Coke grips.

 

[Sal1950]

One notable issue with Colt. One year warranty.

Really, that's all for a $1400 Colt, shame on them.

I understand. It was decided that it was too heavily pitted from the long-term rust to do much else with it. It's worth quite a bit to me even if for mostly sentimental reasons.

I thought the same. Looking closely at the photos of the parkerized gun you can see how deeply the rust had eaten-ed into the weapon. To remove the pitting would have required removing so much material that I doubt any of the factory lettering on the weapon would have been left, more. The parkering or maybe some other powdercoated finish would have been other options. For those of us used to old military guns, it looks great!

 

[roundels]

My Python was given to me by a dear friend, now passed. He had been given the pistol by the original owner's brother. The original owner had bought it sometimes in the 1970s, I believe. It was originally a nickel-plated 6" model. The owner had some mental issues and at one point, got into a confrontation with some Sheriff's Deputies. At some point in the confrontation, guns were drawn and Dan, the original owner, had a pistol shot out of his hand. One of the deputies told my friend that after being shot, Dan told the deputy, "Goddamn, good shot!". Dan then spent some time in the nervous hospital and while away, his brother hid his guns. The Python sat in a cardboard box on a shelf in an old abandoned barn for maybe 20 years. When my friend, Joe, was given it by Dans brother, it looked like this:

Joe brought it over to show it to me and I suggested that it might could be "saved" by having it refinished. I suggested that since it was in pretty bad shape, he could have it parkerized for a different look. He and I took it to Randy Kline, aka Sledgehammer, in Jacksonville, Texas. Randy is a master gunsmith and has built several FAL rifles for me. At his shop, I lobbied to also have the barrel shortened to 5" for a truly unique look, but that idea was shot down. Probably for the best, too. Randy said that the most expensive part of the refinish was having to send the pistol away to have the nickel coating electro-chemically removed in Houston. Joe put the Pachymar grips on after getting it back.

I've heard of several other parkerized Pythons since acquiring this one. I imagine they were finished like that for similar reasons. It may well offend Colt purists, but I like the way it looks now, and it's surely much improved over the way it looked when Joe first got it.

I have a 4" S&W 686, bought new around 1987 or '88 that was tuned by a neighbor who was a gunsmith. His specialty was tuning S&W revolvers (and bedding rifle stocks) and he was fantastic at it. Gene Salach replaced the factory springs, stoneded, polished and shimmed the parts and the result is just an incredible trigger job. Many people say that it's the best they've felt. I don't know about that, but it is very fine. Recently, I had both it and the Python out of the safe and I'll say that even now, that Colt's trigger isn't that far from the trigger of that Smith. In both single and double-action mode, it's not far behind, and after all it's been through, that's quite the testament to its quality.

I don't care what anyone says, that finish looks awesome. A Python is a Python no matter what suit it wears. Now I kinda want my 4" to look like that, but it's stainless so maybe not.

 

[roundels]

The old Pythons required a lot of handwork, fitting and adjusting in manufacture.

The new ones do not. Like the new Smith's, they are designed to be put together without needing a lot of hand fitting.

Sometimes this works out and sometimes it doesn't.

All that being said, the old Python action had a reputation for not being that durable; going out of time.

The news ones should be more durable but many could use some attention to make them sing.

To be fair, that is true of Smith these days as well.

How much for the sights?