I have no idea whether Model 27 sales were affected by the Python. As I stated before there were good reasons to bring out the L-frame that had nothing to do with Colt. Occasionally S&W listens to their customer base and this was one of those times they responded with a great product.

I understand that many man-hours went into producing each Python. This made for a finely tuned revolver that was very accurate. They do require more maintenance and spare parts. This put the Python into a different class from the rest of the Colt DA revolvers and most S&W wheelguns. You'd have to go back to pre-war examples to find a Smith with similar workmanship. This is why I think it is not a fair comparison.

That's all true (your 2nd paragraph), and maybe the comparisons aren't fair, but it's easy for me to understand why people who are not as knowledgeable as you compare the two. As someone who owns one of each and has studied their history and realizes that technically it isn't a fair comparison, I think it's cool that the 686 makes that conversation anyway.

I think it had everything to do with the Colt Python. Colt beat s&w to the punch and s&w eventually had to respond.

You do know the predecessor of the model 27 was the Registered Magnum, which came out at the same time as the .357 Magnum cartridge in 1935, right? You could say that the Python was Colt's late entry into the 357 Mag market instead.

Sorry, I meant that Colt beat s&w to the punch on the Python/686 design, not on the .357 magnum cartridge.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Colt 3-5-7 magnum was Colt's late entry, and it was comparable to the s&w 357 magnum. Colt changed its 357 magnum's name to the Trooper about the time s&w changed the .357 to the Model 27 and the Highway Patrolman to the Model 28. Colt didn't wait long after introducing the 3-5-7 and came out with the Python in 1954 or 1955 (I forget) while s&w stayed pat with their three .357 models.

I get that you all think the 686/Python comparison is an unfair comparison based on price and cost to produce. I'm trying to look at it from the consumer's viewpoint and from the manufacturer's customer perception goals, not from that of hardware junkies like us.

We know exactly what each gun actually is and because of price, if we had a mint 686 and a mint Python, the Python is going in the safe and the 686 gets used. We know the Python is overpriced, but still special and still worth more, so we don't think comparing them is fair. But when they were both being produced it was about a weapon that was going to be used, thus functionality and price. Consumers eventually weren't willing to pay extra for all the extra stuff behind the scenes in the Python, and Colt couldn't continue to produce the same quality gun for a reasonable price so the Python went away. I'm sure there were other reasons, as all Colts went away, but my understanding is that that is what happened. I've also read that the reason Colt doesn't re-introduce the Python is that it would be cost-prohibitive to re-create the production process.

Given that some of you (and my friends) prefer the 686 over the Python, but see similarities, I believe comparison based on functionality is valid. Bang for the buck, obviously no longer comparable.

Do you think a more valid comparison would be the Trooper vs the Model 27 or Highway Patrolman? I have never fired a Trooper or 3-5-7, or even held one, so I don't know, but a lot of people (most) who have say there is little or no difference in the action between a 1950's or early 1960's Trooper, and a Python of the same period. But that's just what I've read. Others say there is a difference.

I sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone. I'm a historian by nature, so before I purchased any old s&w's or the Python, I did a LOT of research - googling, purchasing books, reading the heck out of this forum and the Colt forum. But that was all done in a short time, so my apologies if you guys completely disagree with my assessment.