|
|
|
01-27-2019, 02:50 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: PacNW
Posts: 493
Likes: 130
Liked 858 Times in 295 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by muddocktor
Nice thoughts, runscott. If you don't mind me suggesting, get yourself a set of Culina "Coke" Target stocks for your 686 and see how it feels. They will also fit K frame revolvers too. I don't own any L frames or K frames but I have 5 pairs of the Culina Targets on my N frames and they look great and also feel fantastic, even on my 44's with stout loads. They should make the K/L frames feel great too.
BTW, it seems like I told you that the Python would more properly compare to the Model 27 (or Pre 27 in your case) than to the 686 or 586. Both are the top of the line revolvers from each company, so should be compared to each other. I had a buddy in the 70's and 80's that had a Python and it was a great gun, but I still preferred my Model 27.
|
Thanks for the suggestions.
Yes, you did say the 27 would compare more favorably to the Python. After handling, firing and examining the revolvers I described, I agree with you. But I still believe that the 686 was created to compete with the Python, which is why they are compared with one another, even if that comparison seems unfair. I wasn't familiar with these revolvers back then, so I only have to go on what I've read - Sweeney's 'Gun Digest' S&W book discusses the fact that some S&W owners wanted something like the Python and were having hybrid guns built, like the one Richard described. I believe Sweeney mentioned a hybrid of the 27 and Python, but it's the same idea. According to him, this 'need' of S&W owners led to the 686. It could very well be that many S&W owners saw no comparison between the two and saw the N-frame S&W's as their alternative to a Python. Those of you who were making such decisions back then would have to speak about this, as I wasn't in the market.
|
06-15-2020, 01:57 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,023
Likes: 616
Liked 2,433 Times in 873 Posts
|
|
Python Elite Barrel on a 686-3 Frame.
Some John Culina Combat Targets to top off the goodness.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
06-16-2020, 09:01 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 109
Likes: 94
Liked 58 Times in 39 Posts
|
|
Around the year 1981 I compared (by shooting outdoors) a python and a 686.
Chose the 686.
Last edited by OttoLoader; 06-18-2020 at 10:16 PM.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
06-17-2020, 01:26 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Nevada
Posts: 11,004
Likes: 18,924
Liked 26,270 Times in 7,312 Posts
|
|
The Smolt was the answer to most of the above contentions. Sounds very superficial, but I can’t stand the anorexic Colt ejector rod.
__________________
213th FBINA
|
06-17-2020, 07:42 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 10,137
Likes: 14,250
Liked 12,837 Times in 3,494 Posts
|
|
I own both, and both are "world class" ( the Python is from 1983, not the new one). They just have a different feel. I would not hesitate to buy a 686 over the new Python. And would not pay a premium for an old Python over a 686.
__________________
John
|
06-17-2020, 07:58 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Posen, IL, USA
Posts: 674
Likes: 1,804
Liked 993 Times in 390 Posts
|
|
From a purely shooting perspective, I much prefer the 586 or 686.
For looking at or collecting, the Colt is an obvious choice.
The Colt is a wonderful gun but the Smith is better at actually being a gun.
For me it's about the action. The Smith DA stroke is just better in my opinion. Its not about the weight of pull so much as it is about feel and trigger return.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
06-17-2020, 08:42 AM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,667
Likes: 659
Liked 7,000 Times in 2,585 Posts
|
|
The obnoxious prices of Pythons have always turned me off to them. MAYBE the mystique of them (and I still don’t know where that mystique came from) earned a higher price on the classic ones, but $2000 for a new one is just stupid. I have shot them and wasn’t overwhelmed. Nice gun, sure. Twice as nice as a S&W to justify their twice the price tag? No way.
Look back at the price difference between a Python and. New Model 19. Something like $35. Not double the price!
If somebody GAVE me a Python, I’d sell it to some sucker and buy a used 686 or 27 and pocket the difference. Or I’d buy two guns and break even.
They’re not magical. They do nothing better than a 686 does. They accurately (depending on the shooter) launch a bullet at a target, just like a Smith. And the product support for them is far inferior to a Smith.
|
06-17-2020, 08:57 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 772
Likes: 1,655
Liked 1,123 Times in 435 Posts
|
|
Python = status symbol. Havent seen a blued one under $2200,or a nickeled one under $3500.personally I dont care for their grip frame. I prefer the feel of a Smith
|
06-17-2020, 10:50 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: for now ,Texas
Posts: 2,745
Likes: 191
Liked 3,305 Times in 1,529 Posts
|
|
As close as I will probably ever come to owning a Python is the OLd Model Trooper I bought last yr for less than $500 . It had been shoot very little if any . It has the same frame as a python and same internals . It lacks the vented / ribbed barrel and the lustrous finish . The single action is great , the double action really " stacks . It's probably the only Colt I will ever buy . Regards Paul
|
06-17-2020, 01:05 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 520
Likes: 55
Liked 436 Times in 201 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullseye Smith
I think you are WRONG in your thinking, the "L" frame was made to handle the loads that the "K" frame was having trouble with, not to copy a colt. Everything that colt ever made was a copy of something. The colt ranks #2 and when out because they couldn't be #1, I can take the action of a new S&W and have it slicker and better than any over price colt. So if what you say is true, then why don't they make any more "K" frames in the 357?
|
This information is correct. S&W created the L frame not to compete with any Colt but to answer a design shortcoming. The K frame was unable to handle sustained full power 357 loads. Frames actually stretched or distended creating excessive end-shake and related problems. The trick for S&W was to bolster the frame and yet maintain the very popular K frame grip size. The L frame 586/686 answered the problem very nicely.
Rick
|
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
|
|
06-18-2020, 07:50 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,023
Likes: 616
Liked 2,433 Times in 873 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by garbler
This information is correct. S&W created the L frame not to compete with any Colt but to answer a design shortcoming. The K frame was unable to handle sustained full power 357 loads. Frames actually stretched or distended creating excessive end-shake and related problems. The trick for S&W was to bolster the frame and yet maintain the very popular K frame grip size. The L frame 586/686 answered the problem very nicely.
Rick
|
Agreed, with the L Frame, S&W took the best ideas of the N Frame and the K Frame, blended them together, and the result was arguably the best all around revolver ever made, when all things are considered.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
|
|
Tags
|
1911, 357 magnum, 586, 627, 627pc, 686, browning, bullseye, colt, combats, detective, gunsmith, l frame, lock, model 19, model 27, model 28, model 57, n-frame, performance center, primer, randall, ruger, smith and wesson, winchester |
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|