Another New Python Variant Announced

[UncleEd]

While I don't like the IL, I think I among many
really overlook it or don't pay much attention
to it.

As to slab-sided barrels, I think they have their
place as weight savers and do not look bad at all.

 

[CajunBass]

Not bad. I don't care for the unfluted cylinder, but I understand I'm not the only person they hope to sell one too.

As always, I'm just happy to see someone who has enough faith in the revolver market to introduce something new. It wasn't too many years ago, I was thinking revolvers were things of the past.

 

[03hemi]

I agree, the negative comments are usually coming from those with sights to sell, I have no problem with mine.
I do wish CZ would take their polishing up a notch though, my one CZ version isn't quite as shiney as the Colts before, which needed a step up well imo.

 

[Babysitr]

Had my Python 4.25" for going on 2 yrs. not a single issue, I love it...looking KC .22 target, then maybe another Python...I dont dislike the new one

 

[Miracle Man]

I, like many, am not a big fan of unfluted cylinders. But I like the look on this Python.

It's on my radar now.

 

[TheHobbyist]

I’m a buyer and look forward to seeing this offering locally, prior to purchase. Would be nice for CC.

 

[Breakaway500]

I ordered a Night Cobra from my local gun shop. It may bump my 642... (I may need an intervention..)

 

[sodacan]

I have owned several Pythons over the years. Currently I have two. Both blue, 6" models. One is from 1957, the other 1972. Great revolvers that have thousands of rounds (mostly 38's) through them with no issues. IMO, the 6" barrel blue version is the most beautiful revolver ever made. I have seen and held one of the new models. I have not fired one. To me, a very different gun from the original, sharing the same name but a different look and feel. I know there are those that think the issuance of the new model was sacrilege, but to me it's no big deal. Different gun, different time, different company, same name, so what. Those who want to dislike either generation will do so, for whatever reason. The is not the hill I want to die on. Shoot what you like, and like what you shoot.

 

[ladder13]

At least they didn’t call it a “Classic” like mothership Smith has.

 

[malph]

I didn't believe they're hurting S&W sales much, but I hope the do. S&W needs to be knocked down a few pegs. I don't feel as if they're listening to their customers when it comes to QC and the IL.

I have to think Colt is taking some sales away from Smith. Kimber is making pretty good revolvers now too.

Hopefully Smith sees this as competition and wakes up. They need to wake up as in listen to their customers and improve QA or sell off the revolver business to someone who cares.

 

[A10]

Did they fix that cylinder rotation problem? My Colts all turned the wrong direction.....

I've looked at some of the new Pythons, but haven't seen one I thought was worth the money. Depending on price point I might "pony" up for this one......

 

[Well Armed]

I have to think Colt is taking some sales away from Smith. Kimber is making pretty good revolvers now too.

Hopefully Smith sees this as competition and wakes up. They need to wake up as in listen to their customers and improve QA or sell off the revolver business to someone who cares.

Smith's revolver sales have been consistently above 200k. They sold more during panic buy eras, but stay pretty consistent. 2014-2016 was the Sandy Hook, Obama AWB, and Hillary scare. Sales dropped when Trump was elected. Sales jumped after COVID and George Floyd. Now it's a buyer's market again, so their sales have dropped. I don't see anything sales wise that would make S&W take notice or change anything so far.

IMHO, the people who are buying Colt revolvers weren't interested in S&W newer revolvers in the first place, or they already had the S&W revolvers they wanted but added a Colt to compliment their collection. I don't think it's necessary a binary purchase decision for most gun owners. I purchased two 686+, a M69, and a M60-15 in the last 3 years. I also picked up a Taurus, Kimber, and Colt revolver during that timeframe. I didn't purchase my Colt and Kimber revolvers instead of buying a S&W revolver because if Colt and Kimber revolvers didn't exist, I wouldn't have spent that money buying any revolvers at all. The introduction of new revolvers simply gave me an reason to buy another.

Revolvers Manufactured:

Smith & Wesson
2013 -> 225,777
2014 -> 268,722
2015 -> 274,136
2016 -> 294,680
2017 -> 207,384
2018 -> 210,333
2019 -> 515,381
2021 -> 232,476

Ruger
2013 -> 295,661
2014 -> 281,430
2015 -> 256,185
2016 -> 249,548
2017 -> 172,104
2018 -> 145,534
2019 -> 184,197
2021 -> 276,999

Colt
2013 -> 4
2014 -> 2,217
2015 -> 1,492
2016 -> 943
2017 -> 7,342
2018 -> 16,697
2019 -> 21,049
2021 -> 65,062

Kimber
2021 -> 16,975

 

[Mark8]

IMO that revolver doesn't even resemble a Colt Python at all.

Come on, Colt did Pythons with unfluted cylinders before, and all the usual Python elements are there, too.

 

[reddog81]

It's a decent looking gun but new sights, new grips and an unfluted cylinder is a very slacker way of coming up with a new model. How long did it take to think up those design changes? 5 minutes?

 

[UncleEd]

It's a decent looking gun but new sights, new grips and an unfluted cylinder is a very slacker way of coming up with a new model. How long did it take to think up those design changes? 5 minutes?

Not much difference, for instance, than when TALO or
Davidson's asks S&W to change stocks, sans flutes,
different sights and polishing or bead blasting
variations on Model 686s.

 

[RobertJ.]

Becoming more and more "Python" in name only.

Similar to the "new" vs. "old" Ford Mustang.

If someone wants to spend their money on it, that's okay with me. But I don't get it.

 

[TheTinMan]

IMO that revolver doesn't even resemble a Colt Python at all.

It has a pony logo, backwards cylinder latch, and the cylinder rotates the wrong way. C’mon man!

My issue with calling these guns “pythons” has more to do with the action, manufacturing processes, and material specs. I made the mistake of buying a King Cobra sight unseen in 2019. The trigger was wretched and when I went inside, I found out why. Make it look like this and I’m not sure I’d take one for free.

 

[Well Armed]

Not much difference, for instance, than when TALO or
Davidson's asks S&W to change stocks, sans flutes,
different sights and polishing or bead blasting
variations on Model 686s.

Or a S&W Model 19 or 586 "Carry Comp" or "Performance Center" or "Deluxe" or "Lady Smith" or "Combat Magnum" or "S&W 3-5-7 Series" or "Pro" as in the 640 vs the 640 Pro....

Same can be said for Ruger and Taurus as well. Seems like some just don't want to like this gun or Colt revolvers at all, and they are unfairly nitpicking reasons to bash it.

It's a decent looking gun but new sights, new grips and an unfluted cylinder is a very slacker way of coming up with a new model. How long did it take to think up those design changes? 5 minutes?

It's a heavier weight, has a new rear sight design, new grips, unfluted fluted cylinder, and a front night sight. Logically and obviously being a new trim it has to have a different model number and designation to distinguish it from the other versions does it not?

 

[Oldsalt66]

Come on, Colt did Pythons with unfluted cylinders before, and all the usual Python elements are there, too.

I said IMO; not in your opinion.

 

[reddog81]

It's a heavier weight, has a new rear sight design, new grips, unfluted fluted cylinder, and a front night sight. Logically and obviously being a new trim it has to have a different model number and designation to distinguish it from the other versions does it not?

They improved the rear sight to make up for previous short comings. The front sights are user inter-changeable as are the grips. The only thing of note is the unfluted cylinder. Heavier weight makes sense for target shooting but doesn't make sense to me when the model appears to be a model geared towards carrying.