CAJUNLAWYER
Member
So I see in the latest Rifleman a NEW Colt King Cobra advertised. Anyone seen one in the flesh yet????? Can an new Anaconda and,dare I say it,a new Python be on the horizon???????
Colt King Cobra
- Thread starter CAJUNLAWYER
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
American1776
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,770
- Reaction score
- 4,269
It's a nice gun. I've handled them before.
If you ask me, they are testing the waters for a new python. That's just my feeling on the matter.
They see the old pythons going for 2,000. They figure they can make new ones and sell them for 1,200 and make a huge profit, and people will buy them. Imagine if they brought back the 2.5 inch python in stainless. they would sell like hot cakes.
New Pythons. Guess Colt is a snake charmer ... b/c I for one will be very interested. Sincerely. bruce.
Dieseltech56
Member
I have a new king cobra, functionally it checks out excellent. Great lockup, excellent cylinder gap and chamber alignment, no barrel cant. The aesthetics are not lacking in my opinion.
The only drawback I see, and a minor one at that, is the ejector rod isn't long enough to clear a full length magnum case.
I have not had a chance to shoot mine yet but if Colt keeps making guns like this I'll be buying more
The only drawback I see, and a minor one at that, is the ejector rod isn't long enough to clear a full length magnum case.
I have not had a chance to shoot mine yet but if Colt keeps making guns like this I'll be buying more
I shot one courtesy of a Colt rep. Nice finish, smooth action, $900 that I didn't spend, but never say never. I'd guess a new Python would exceed $1800.
gman51
Member
Colt management said they could not bring back the Python because they don't have the skilled gunsmiths now to make the gun. The selling price would have to be way to high to recoup the labor costs of today.
I don't doubt Colt could cut enough corners that they could mass produce a new Python. I seriously doubt it would ever be a replacement for the original Pythons though. I would guess the major difference would be the finish of the gun would be the biggest cost cutting difference. Finding a new gun with a polished blued finish is almost unheard of now. Even polished stainless is starting to go by the wayside now.
S&W 627-5. Granted it isn't a deep blued or even a polished stainless finish but the action is quality. Can you imagine how much higher the selling price would be if the gun had a deep blued hand polished finish or even a polished stainless finish the guns of yesteryear had. Those are the major cost cutting corners Colt would have to do to make the Python once again.
As far as the action and the gun itself the latest machinery is so high tech these days that the quality of gunsmiths of old could possibly be nearly matched today. All the steps to a finished gun it would still be time consuming which is costly.
I agree with the above statement that Colt could be seeing dollar signs bringing out the Python again. If they could make a close quality copy of the old Python then Colt might just be able to get a two grand selling price. Look at the prices Wilson Combat gets for their guns and they even had close to a year waiting period to get one. I bet Colt would love to see that for a new Python.
I just don't know if a high priced revolver could make it in todays market of concealed carry dominated by semi autos. It would in my opinion have to make its niche for Colt to have high production numbers to actually make money in the long run. Using the Python name Colt would have to make an extremely quality clone or they would be shooting themselves in their own foot. Perhaps we will see the Python make a comeback.
I have a 1968 Python and I have to say the action is one of a kind and I don't have any gun that matches its beauty. In the pic notice the sky clouds reflecting in the finish.
I don't doubt Colt could cut enough corners that they could mass produce a new Python. I seriously doubt it would ever be a replacement for the original Pythons though. I would guess the major difference would be the finish of the gun would be the biggest cost cutting difference. Finding a new gun with a polished blued finish is almost unheard of now. Even polished stainless is starting to go by the wayside now.
S&W 627-5. Granted it isn't a deep blued or even a polished stainless finish but the action is quality. Can you imagine how much higher the selling price would be if the gun had a deep blued hand polished finish or even a polished stainless finish the guns of yesteryear had. Those are the major cost cutting corners Colt would have to do to make the Python once again.
As far as the action and the gun itself the latest machinery is so high tech these days that the quality of gunsmiths of old could possibly be nearly matched today. All the steps to a finished gun it would still be time consuming which is costly.
I agree with the above statement that Colt could be seeing dollar signs bringing out the Python again. If they could make a close quality copy of the old Python then Colt might just be able to get a two grand selling price. Look at the prices Wilson Combat gets for their guns and they even had close to a year waiting period to get one. I bet Colt would love to see that for a new Python.
I just don't know if a high priced revolver could make it in todays market of concealed carry dominated by semi autos. It would in my opinion have to make its niche for Colt to have high production numbers to actually make money in the long run. Using the Python name Colt would have to make an extremely quality clone or they would be shooting themselves in their own foot. Perhaps we will see the Python make a comeback.
I have a 1968 Python and I have to say the action is one of a kind and I don't have any gun that matches its beauty. In the pic notice the sky clouds reflecting in the finish.
Attachments
Last edited:
American1776
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,770
- Reaction score
- 4,269
I think a python made to the older standards would cost 2,000+ today. But I think a python made to the current Colt King Cobra standard (high, but not custom built), then it could go for 1,200 give or take a little. The new King Cobra has a bank-vault lock up and sweet trigger. I don't know if it's the exact same lock work of the old Dick special / Python, but it's very close in feel.
Ruger makes bright polish blued gp100's. Colt could do that too. A current python with the internals of the current King Cobra, but with all the same external dimensions and finish of the python, would easily be done under 1,400. Like I said, to appeal to the concealed carry market, imagine the frenzy that would occur when they release a 2.5 inch Python? They couldn't fill all the orders for years.
white cloud
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 1,128
- Reaction score
- 1,518
I have to say that I would be very interested in 2.5" stainless Python. I haven't owned a Colt in three decades.
Two weeks ago, while purchasing my 6" 617, the salesman at the LGS (knowing I owned several Smith 38's and 357's) showed me their new King Cobra and the hard to find 2017 Cobra. I handled both. Sweet action, smooth, gunsmith smooth. I was about to spend my budget on a .22LR "cannon", so I have to wait to wish for one of those, but they are very, very nice.
Art Doc
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
A new Python would be in name only.
King Cobra is the same gun they brought out a couple years ago but with a longer barrel, I think. So you can get a 2" 38 or a 3" 357. No idea why it's 3".
King Cobra is the same gun they brought out a couple years ago but with a longer barrel, I think. So you can get a 2" 38 or a 3" 357. No idea why it's 3".
Now they need to make a 4” serviceman’s model next, call it the “Colt’s Extra New Service Serpent”.
.357 Magnum, alloyed frame, checkered stocks with emblem, horsey, stainless finish, fibro-optical night sites, speedloader cutout, fluted chamfer mouths, and laser sighting!!
.357 Magnum, alloyed frame, checkered stocks with emblem, horsey, stainless finish, fibro-optical night sites, speedloader cutout, fluted chamfer mouths, and laser sighting!!
Bought one about a month back. Went to the LGS to buy a Kimber K6s DA/SA, left with the Colt. It locked up tighter and had the best out of the box DA trigger I've ever encountered, better IMHO than the Kimber. It's smaller than the original King Cobra, but still hefty enough to be a comfortable shooter, and easier to conceal should you decide to EDC it. Will it replace my S&W Model 66 Combat Magnum as my go-to carry revolver? Ask me in the Fall when I've had more time to A-B the both of them.
Last edited:
American1776
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,770
- Reaction score
- 4,269
I agree that the internals will not be the same. The Colt lock work is very old tech, and while it does have the craftsmanship of a delicate timepiece, it was just that: delicate compared to the S&W and the Ruger.
They could probably make it cosmetically the same on the outside, but the innards are never coming back. That might be a good thing in some respects, if it ever happens.
Dieseltech56
Member
I just saw they’re coming out with a king cobra carry too. 2” barrel DAO. I probably won’t buy that only because I have a few 640-1s already
sigp220.45
US Veteran
Man, you’d think making a Python is like building the space shuttle.
Its not 1955 anymore. How hard could it be to take a vintage Python (I bet there are some in a closet or desk drawer at Colt), take it apart, do the high tech measurements available today, punch it into a CNC machine, and spew out everything you need accurate to within a billionth of an inch to put together all the Pythons you need with no fitting.
I’ll bet they don’t do it because they know of all the people who are banging the drum for Colt to make Pythons again exactly none of them would actually pony up the requisite dough.
Its not 1955 anymore. How hard could it be to take a vintage Python (I bet there are some in a closet or desk drawer at Colt), take it apart, do the high tech measurements available today, punch it into a CNC machine, and spew out everything you need accurate to within a billionth of an inch to put together all the Pythons you need with no fitting.
I’ll bet they don’t do it because they know of all the people who are banging the drum for Colt to make Pythons again exactly none of them would actually pony up the requisite dough.
Bill Lear
Member
When I was a younger man I just had to have a Python. Then I finally got one: Royal Blue, 4" barrel, beautiful gun! Then reality set it. Just as it looks in pictures the trigger reach is long, and stiff. The factory trigger is narrow, and the internal action has a "long reset" which is a very bad thing for shooting double-action under stress. Certainly, when cocked the trigger release was excellent. But S&W had, and still has a better DA trigger, both in LOP, reset, and a design that you don't feel like it's cutting into your finger when you start hauling back on that DA.
On the plus side, Colt knows which way a cylinder is supposed to turn. The reason for all the lofty praise about how well they lock up is directly due to clockwise rotation that torques the mass of the cylinder "in"" to the frame. It's analogous to kicking in a door that opens into the house, versus TRYING to kick in a door that opens OUTward from the house. On the first, you kick it and no matter how many locks, you can feel it give. On the second, you kick it, and you have to have your foot and ankle X-rayed!
Also, Colt knows which way the cylinder release latch SHOULD go - backward. This is why Colt can "get away with" a simple, single rear latching point. Under recoil, G-force on the latch pushes INTO engagement versus the S&W design that tries to pull the latch OUT of engagement. Early Smiths with shallow locking pins and softer springs were notorious for having the cylinder suddenly flop out under harsh recoil. A problem no Colt will ever have, for the reason above, plus: When cocked, the hand comes up on the LEFT side to carry-up the cylinder, and remains "deployed" until the trigger is pulled, then released, thus adding a complete bar to the cylinder coming out even if the cylinder release latch were removed from the gun! This is also why Colt's feel so solid when cocked...the bolt is locked into the cylinder notch, and the slight pressure of the hand is bearing against the lateral aspect of the ratchet, and since the crane is being torqued "IN" to the frame ever so gently by this, the thing feels "bank vault" solid - and it is.
On a Smith, at full carry-up the side of the hand is generally fitted to apply "zero" pressure because pressure against the lateral aspect of the S&W ratchet would be pushing the crane (and cylinder) "out" making the lock-up feel springy. Because of this, fitting and timing of an S&W - especially the big cylinder N and X frames, is exacting, and why those sizes are more likely than the smaller sizes to demonstrate "failure to carry up" when slowing cycling the action. Often the best "field cure" for sluggish carry up on a Smith is to apply a thick layer of "grease" to the ratchet and make sure you cock the revolver quickly as the cylinder's inertia will give it the ooph needed for the cylinder stop to snap in, and the thick grease will cushion out that hair's breadth of excess clearance. You'd be surprised how effective and long-lasting such a "fix" is. When I got my first 460XVR I discovered the cylinder was failing to carry up during slow-cycle. It would carry up with a quick cycle, but still, there's always doubt. Since I didn't feel like pulling hand and firing up my TIG to layer up the hand and work it back down, I used the grease trick....worked perfectly! After that the gun carried up even during slow cycling! WHAT?
Okay, so I got off on a tangent, but the point is, the GOOD things about the Python are in how the cylinder works. But even that isn't the real draw. The real attraction of the Python is "the LOOK". Nobody want's to admit it so they talk about the overly complex action, but what draws everyone to the Python is how it LOOKS! The lines, the "ratio" of the rear swoop where the hammer goes - longer than taller as opposed to S&W's more even, and Ruger's horrible taller than longer! This gives the Python that long, low, aggressive "stance." Then the full underlug...which apparently, only COLT knows how to do to look "right," and that longer front-to-back distance of the crane...again it creates a certain look, and of course the grips....despite being too narrow, they got the shape just right. And something only Colt seems to know - that kidney-shaped trigger opening...SWEET to say the least! Meanwhile S&W has an "egg-shaped" trigger opening that is one of the better aspects of that design.
My love for the Python began with just seeing photos of it, but when I had it in my hot little hands I quickly discovered it was not anywhere close to anything I felt comfortable carrying...well, then there was also the awareness that even a tiny scratch would mar that beautiful, "plate-like" blue surface!
Certainly with modern CNC technology, brand new Colt Python parts can be milled out with extreme precision, and not cost a fortune to do it. Also, Colt could easily use an updated lockwork of simpler and more robust design that would not require any higher level of fitting ability than everyone else has. And why not, modern locking systems are pretty good, and really, it's the LOOK that's going to pull in buyers! But let's just jump ahead - "blue" finishes are for "old guys". These days there are a myriad of super tough, extremely durable finishes that actually make revolvers look pretty sweet! And they certainly make the revolver a LOT more suited to actually being carried and handled! That reduces cost greatly. Of course they can offer a higher end version for those (we) old dudes with lots of spendable cash, and much less expensive "tactical" finishes for those more interested in the shooter than the looker.
On the plus side, Colt knows which way a cylinder is supposed to turn. The reason for all the lofty praise about how well they lock up is directly due to clockwise rotation that torques the mass of the cylinder "in"" to the frame. It's analogous to kicking in a door that opens into the house, versus TRYING to kick in a door that opens OUTward from the house. On the first, you kick it and no matter how many locks, you can feel it give. On the second, you kick it, and you have to have your foot and ankle X-rayed!
Also, Colt knows which way the cylinder release latch SHOULD go - backward. This is why Colt can "get away with" a simple, single rear latching point. Under recoil, G-force on the latch pushes INTO engagement versus the S&W design that tries to pull the latch OUT of engagement. Early Smiths with shallow locking pins and softer springs were notorious for having the cylinder suddenly flop out under harsh recoil. A problem no Colt will ever have, for the reason above, plus: When cocked, the hand comes up on the LEFT side to carry-up the cylinder, and remains "deployed" until the trigger is pulled, then released, thus adding a complete bar to the cylinder coming out even if the cylinder release latch were removed from the gun! This is also why Colt's feel so solid when cocked...the bolt is locked into the cylinder notch, and the slight pressure of the hand is bearing against the lateral aspect of the ratchet, and since the crane is being torqued "IN" to the frame ever so gently by this, the thing feels "bank vault" solid - and it is.
On a Smith, at full carry-up the side of the hand is generally fitted to apply "zero" pressure because pressure against the lateral aspect of the S&W ratchet would be pushing the crane (and cylinder) "out" making the lock-up feel springy. Because of this, fitting and timing of an S&W - especially the big cylinder N and X frames, is exacting, and why those sizes are more likely than the smaller sizes to demonstrate "failure to carry up" when slowing cycling the action. Often the best "field cure" for sluggish carry up on a Smith is to apply a thick layer of "grease" to the ratchet and make sure you cock the revolver quickly as the cylinder's inertia will give it the ooph needed for the cylinder stop to snap in, and the thick grease will cushion out that hair's breadth of excess clearance. You'd be surprised how effective and long-lasting such a "fix" is. When I got my first 460XVR I discovered the cylinder was failing to carry up during slow-cycle. It would carry up with a quick cycle, but still, there's always doubt. Since I didn't feel like pulling hand and firing up my TIG to layer up the hand and work it back down, I used the grease trick....worked perfectly! After that the gun carried up even during slow cycling! WHAT?
Okay, so I got off on a tangent, but the point is, the GOOD things about the Python are in how the cylinder works. But even that isn't the real draw. The real attraction of the Python is "the LOOK". Nobody want's to admit it so they talk about the overly complex action, but what draws everyone to the Python is how it LOOKS! The lines, the "ratio" of the rear swoop where the hammer goes - longer than taller as opposed to S&W's more even, and Ruger's horrible taller than longer! This gives the Python that long, low, aggressive "stance." Then the full underlug...which apparently, only COLT knows how to do to look "right," and that longer front-to-back distance of the crane...again it creates a certain look, and of course the grips....despite being too narrow, they got the shape just right. And something only Colt seems to know - that kidney-shaped trigger opening...SWEET to say the least! Meanwhile S&W has an "egg-shaped" trigger opening that is one of the better aspects of that design.
My love for the Python began with just seeing photos of it, but when I had it in my hot little hands I quickly discovered it was not anywhere close to anything I felt comfortable carrying...well, then there was also the awareness that even a tiny scratch would mar that beautiful, "plate-like" blue surface!
Certainly with modern CNC technology, brand new Colt Python parts can be milled out with extreme precision, and not cost a fortune to do it. Also, Colt could easily use an updated lockwork of simpler and more robust design that would not require any higher level of fitting ability than everyone else has. And why not, modern locking systems are pretty good, and really, it's the LOOK that's going to pull in buyers! But let's just jump ahead - "blue" finishes are for "old guys". These days there are a myriad of super tough, extremely durable finishes that actually make revolvers look pretty sweet! And they certainly make the revolver a LOT more suited to actually being carried and handled! That reduces cost greatly. Of course they can offer a higher end version for those (we) old dudes with lots of spendable cash, and much less expensive "tactical" finishes for those more interested in the shooter than the looker.
Last edited:
