The New Python is a total rip off and an insult to the buyer. The buyer puts down $1500 and then has to spend another $250 to have the crappy single action trigger pull reduced and the icing on the cake is that after the rework if the owner drops the revolver and it goes off and shoots someone because he had the factory trigger altered he gets sued out of existence. What more could a buyer enjoy when owning an Ersatz Python, sarcasm.
And when you add $250 to $1500 that equals $1,750. I paid $2,000 for "a real" original Python. The point being made that when you get into that kind of money for an Ersatz Python you may as well just buy a "real Python" for a few bucks more as it already has an out of this world single action pull and if it would go off when dropped Colt gets sued, not you, because you never had to alter the gun's trigger pull.
And as one other poster mentioned he was incensed that Colt even went cheapy on the rear sight as it has no positive detents, only a continue rotation so you have to guess how much windage or elevation you are trying to achieve. Is not that kind of challenge just loads of fun on a $1500 pistol which has a crappier rear sight than some revolvers costing almost half as much (sarcasm).
Reality is you pay out the rectum and the New Python, and it's not anymore accurate or has any better workmanship or has any better single action trigger pull than revolvers costing way less money. You pay for the Colt name and Colt laughs all the way to the bank.
That is the honest to gosh real truth about this Turkey of a pistol.
You know next to nothing about the new Python. By your own admission, you handled one in a store and handed it back to the guy behind the counter. That's pretty much the extent of your "experience" with it. You've never fired the first round through one and never have compared it head to head with any other revolver. On the Colt forum, you insisted it had a MIM trigger and hammer, and it does not. Here in this thread, you said it has a 2-piece barrel, and it does not. Yet everytime the words "new Colt Python" are uttered, you go out of your way to tell everyone how much it sucks, how "overpriced and overrated" it is. Fact is, you know nearly nothing about the "honest to gosh real truth" as you have demonstrated yourself.
I just looked, and there are fully 30 revolvers in S&W's lineup that have at least the same retail price as the Python. 17 of them are priced at $100 or more than the Python. 10 of them are in .357 mag, competing directly with the Python. Of those 10 .357 mags, 4 of them are at $100 or higher retail price than the Python. Real world, you don't have to pay MSRP. The Python can be had for considerably less than $1500. Perusing GB, you can get them all day for $1300. Outside of GB, if you shop around, you can get one for $1200. I've seen them as low as $1100. So, they are priced in line with where other premium US made revolvers are priced. Yet, they are better finished and fit than competing revolvers by a considerable degree. If you look at material costs alone, the stainless Python is made of 17-4PH, which is about 20% more expensive than the 410 and 416 stainless that Smiths are made from, and 17-4 H900 has nearly twice the tensile and yield strength of 400 series stainless. The Python is a much stronger revolver that can take a steady diet of hotter loads and last longer. If you compare just the hammers and triggers alone, those parts on the Python are machined vs. MIM'd or cast in all its competitors. The average manufacturing facility has about $200 - $300/ hour shop overhead rate, so the Python easily has $150 or so more cost tied up in producing those two parts alone vs MIM parts, just based on shop time, before you factor in the increased raw material cost and the greater expense and machine time to produce the vented 1-pc machined barrel and the more extensive polishing time. Time is money. It costs more to produce a Python than it does its competitors, and that cost is passed on to the consumer. Whether or not you personally value those things doesn't change the fact it is simply more costly to make. Still, the gun isn't any more expensive than a higher end Smith, and that's a fact you can easily verify.
Declaring that a Python must be overpriced and overrated by comparing it to the price of a Taurus is a lot like being shocked that a Ford Raptor is way more expensive than a Nissan Frontier. It becomes immediately obvious why with 10 seconds of handling. Better made stuff out of better materials always costs more.
I get it, the SA trigger pull is mediocre. We can thank the commie states for that. I don't think it's as bad as you proclaim it to be, but opinions vary. I've seen worse. It's easily improved. I paid exactly nothing to improve mine which is now 2lbs, and that took me literally 15 minutes maybe. It is super easy to do if you know what to do. Other people value the DA trigger the most in a DA revolver. In that respect, the Python's DA trigger pull is superior to all of its US made competitors, way better in fact. It is around 3 lbs lighter and smoother in DA than any other revolver it competes directly against. People who own one typically think its DA pull is superior to the legacy Python, but that's subjective. It's close enough that it is a tough call. On average it has the same pull weight as a legacy Python. Smoothness and feel is likewise subjective, but the pull weight is a measurable thing. and I've measured it. Because unlike you, I own a Python as well as all the revolvers you've discussed except a Taurus. But again, if you cannot see why the Python costs more than a Ruger or Taurus, then you obviously aren't trying to understand it and aren't the intended customer. And that's fine, but you sure are adamant about your criticism of a gun you've never fired the first round out of and know very little about.
If I buy any new gun, I am more often than not unsatisfied with the out of the box trigger pull. If I buy a new Smith, the SA pull is usually ok but not great at around 4.5lb out of the box, and the DA pull, while relatively smooth, is usually 12-13 lb out of the box. I will always without fail change that unless I am buying a collectible gun that I want to remain 100% as it came from the factory. I personally accept that I will do customization mods to most any gun I buy at any price. But that's me. As icing on the cake, the Colt doesn't have the dreaded internal lock hole as most new Smiths do.
The legal liability argument is pretty ridiculous and quite the absurd stretch as a talking point. If someone is that worried about hypothetical liability scenarios like that, then maybe guns aren't their thing and they should stick to stamp collecting. Hypothetically, you could be sued for anything. If you modify any gun, you could technically be sued with your extremely unlikely imaginary scenario playing out. Even a Python with the dreaded "Cali bump" removed from the hammer has a much more generous SA sear notch than the 0.004" factory SA sear notch in every Smith, and thus the Python is still less likely to have SA push-off than any Smith is for that reason. And that all assumes you're running around being careless with a revolver left cocked in SA. Carry the gun with the hammer down and you eliminate that ridiculous concern. And your "Colt gets sued, not you" comment... wow! Anyone can get sued for anything, or even for nothing. Absurd to the extreme!
If one is concerned about voiding the warranty by doing the work on the SA trigger yourself, you can send only your Python trigger and hammer to Heffron Precision, a certified Colt warranty center. They can do the mod to your parts and have it back to you in 2 weeks for $250 and doing so does not void your warranty. Added to a $1300 revolver, you now have spent $1550, still in line with and in several cases less money than a high end Smith. And generally legacy Pythons in good to excellent condition go for $2500 - $3500, not $2000.
Yes, the rear sight sucks. I think the rear sight on a Smith sucks too, because I've had the retention nut on the windage screw of Smith rear sights vibrate off and get lost, and I've broken the thin blades. The Colt rear sight is no less usable than the factory Smith sight. I personally change both to aftermarket replacements before I fire the first round out of either; the Colt to a Wilson, the Smith to either a Bowen Rough Country or DL Sports. I accept that as the upfront cost of getting what I want, but again, that's me. No matter which revolver you buy, you kinda have to accept that some feature of it sucks and either choose to live with the suckage or change it. I'm perfectly able to change these things myself and I don't fret over a couple Benjamins needed to buy an aftermarket part or two. Everyone values different things, so the things you think are important aren't universally held as truths any more than any other person's opinion. They are all mass-produced products that have good points and bad points.
Accuracy-wise, at least my samples of Python and Anaconda will outshoot all my other revolvers except for one of my Dan Wessons and maybe my 1950s Smith K22.
From the standpoint of an owner of Colt, Smith, and Ruger revolvers, as well as other brands, I am of the opinion that the current production Python and Anaconda are the best made, highest quality revolvers you can buy today for under $3k. That's subjective opinion, but it is an opinion based on first hand experience and ownership, not speculation.
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:
