New Colt Python

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

quote------------
but that you've never shot one and don't wish to pay the asking price and move on.---quote

One does not have to have walked on the moon to gather the knowledge we now have about it.

In other words gathering all the information from a wide variety of sources including my personal hands on experience reveals that the new Python is indeed inferior in all but "supposedly" the thicker top strap and only time will tell if the new Python lasts any longer or if it's just Colt's advertising hype.

And as I said before you do not have to live fire a new Ersatz Python to see it has a lousy single action trigger pull and a very different double action pull than the "real" Python had. Some of my fellow range friends that have bought the new Python do not wax and wane over the changed double action pull at all. I make no secret that I hate it and that the "original" double action pull of the "real" Python was for me easily mastered.

I do not relish buying a new Ersatz Python with a double action pull that feels like the continuous heavy pull of the old H&R working man's revolvers. Colts new technology is not much better than what H&R had and even the H&R could be altered with a lighter trigger return spring that often surpassed the current pull weight of the new Ersatz Python double action pull. Again Colts crowing about their new double action miracle is nothing more than just stale bread being warmed over to soften it.

Then don't buy one!

 

[bph9]

RE: your legal liability speech...I never claimed any such nonsense. All I said is you are already exposed to some degree of liability jeapardy just by being a gun owner alone, and any mods you make to any firearm increases your potential liability. Someone can sue you for any reason, and it doesn't have to be a good or logical reason. I don't worry about such things. I said if you are super worried about that, then make other decisions. I also said that if you're not stupid enough to walk around with your revolver cocked in single action mode and instead carry it hammer down, you eliminate that concern. Simple solution. But again, if you're scared then only you can determine what level of risk you are willing to accept. All of us take calculated risks daily. I don't sit around worrying about some hypothetical scenario that has a miniscule chance of actually happening to me.

On Massad Ayoob, he is typically discussing the legal consequences of messing with triggers on guns you carry for self defense, and in that regard, I agree with him. I don't mess with triggers on my EDC handguns I carry. I don't carry revolvers, I hunt with them and plink with them at the range. When I do carry them around, I never carry them cocked in SA mode, the hammer is always down. Anyone that would do so is an idiot. The only time my revolvers are ever in SA mode is right in the seconds before I am ready to fire, while aimed at the target I am ready to fire at, and that's it. If I carry one around, in a holster, in a case, wherever, the hammer is always down, period. And DA mode doesn't interface with the SA hammer ledge at all. Doesn't even come close to touching it. Therefore, that never becomes a factor.

Your dissertation about "real heat treated forgings" again shows you know next to nothing about what you're talking about. First, the hammers and triggers are not from forgings; they are fully machined from billets. No current domestic manufacturer uses forgings for those parts anymore. Even S&W stopped using forgings for their hammers and triggers after WWII. Before they started using MIM hammers and triggers, those parts were stamped, broached, and swaged out of 1018 and case hardened. Colt uses 420HC stainless for their hammers and triggers again machined from bar stock. 420HC is a fine grained high carbon steel. When it is heat treated, it is through-hardened, not case hardened. It is hard all the way through; it is NOT soft in the center core. That is the purpose of selecting such steels; they are both through hardened, yet their fine grain structure makes them very impact-resistant without needing to be softer in the core. All current MIM parts used in Smiths are likewise through-hardened, not case hardened. Again, you really need to stick to topics you know something about.

You: "The trigger pull on the new Python sucks big time so why not buy a competing revolver for half the price. They are just as accurate and their trigger pulls are certainly no worse than the Ersatz Python."

Because that statement ^^^ is not necessarily true, and also because any gun is much more than a trigger. There are many other things I value more than the trigger on a factory gun, because at the onset I know in advance that I will get the trigger to my liking, every single time. My buying decision or someone else's aren't the same as yours, so you shouldn't assume everyone thinks the way you do. Many DA revolver shooters care about the DA trigger, not the SA, and despite what you think, most people who actually SHOOT the new Python praise its DA trigger, and in fact, that's one of its most often cited positive attributes. The SA trigger is very easily fixable. It cost me exactly nothing to fix it as I wanted it. And yes, those other pistols you mention in my personal first-hand experience do indeed have inferior triggers and are not as accurate as the Python.

And what's your obsession with always using the word "ersatz" all the time? The word "Python" is engraved on the barrel. You may not personally think it measures up to the old Python, but the model name is Python. It is indeed the current Python. If you don't like it, by all means you shouldn't buy one, but you should also give up the ruse that you know anything about them. Just be honest and admit that you don't like the SA trigger but that you've never shot one and don't wish to pay the asking price and move on.

quote-------------And what's your obsession with always using the word "ersatz" all the time? ---------quote

Its not an obsession at all rather its correct terminology to describe fake new Python.

Here is the Webster definition of "Ersatz".

: being a usually artificial and inferior substitute or imitation

 

[bph9]

Then don't buy one!

I never intended on buying one but my posts were done to enable a person to get "all the real facts" about the inferiority of the New Python before they spent the big bucks and found out the truth.

The New Python is not even in the same ballpark as the original. And people vote with their wallets. If it was superior do you think the average Python Colt lover would be paying the super high prices for the originals if they were inferior. Of course they would not. The marketplace has already proven all your many excuses for this New Python are falling on deaf ears.

People who are buying the new python either cannot afford the "original" and they are not often aware of the new models deficiencies. Or if they are aware they are buying them because they like the looks of the gun and intend on shooting the "H" out of it and not feel bad when they destroy it and not lose the big money they would lose if they destroyed an original python because "no" weapon lasts forever if you shoot it enough. The destructive clock is ticking with every shot that goes down the barrel of any weapon.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

I never intended on buying one but my posts were done to enable a person to get "all the real facts" about the inferiority of the New Python before they spent the big bucks and found out the truth.

The New Python is not even in the same ballpark as the original. And people vote with their wallets. If it was superior do you think the average Python Colt lover would be paying the super high prices for the originals if they were inferior. Of course they would not. The marketplace has already proven all your many excuses for this New Python are falling on deaf ears.

People who are buying the new python either cannot afford the "original" and they are not often aware of the new models deficiencies. Or if they are aware they are buying them because they like the looks of the gun and intend on shooting the "H" out of it and not feel bad when they destroy it and not lose the big money they would lose if they destroyed an original python because "no" weapon lasts forever if you shoot it enough. The destructive clock is ticking with every shot that goes down the barrel of any weapon.

OK cool. But you really have little credibility when your sole experience with it is handling it in the store. As you have already demonstrated, you know very little about multiple aspects of its design and construction and the reasons for those design choices. You know very few of "the real facts." Do you really think your uniformed opinion benefits anyone considering buying it? Sure, talk about how you disliked the trigger. That's pretty much the extent of what you know about the gun. But that doesn't prevent you from pretending to be a voice of authority on it and slamming stuff you know nothing about and criticizing others as being "shills" and "cheerleaders" because we happen to have the audacity to really like something that doesn't interest you. You assume everyone prioritizes the same things as you, and they don't. You also discount the fact that in several ways such as materials used, the new gun is actually superior to the old. That isn't conjecture, it is fact. The materials chosen have known mechanical properties anyone can look up. There are pros and cons to both guns and pros and cons to any product you buy.

 

[GeeBee]

Please Thaddeus and BPH9, let it go, you both have made your points.

We all love guns, Pythons are great, S&W are great too, they're not perfect (MR73s are there for that but they now cost 4 large ones) but what's great about that is that their respective imperfections are not overlapping

 

[bph9]

OK cool. But you really have little credibility when your sole experience with it is handling it in the store. As you have already demonstrated, you know very little about multiple aspects of its design and construction and the reasons for those design choices. You know very few of "the real facts." Do you really think your uniformed opinion benefits anyone considering buying it? Sure, talk about how you disliked the trigger. That's pretty much the extent of what you know about the gun. But that doesn't prevent you from pretending to be a voice of authority on it and slamming stuff you know nothing about and criticizing others as being "shills" and "cheerleaders" because we happen to have the audacity to really like something that doesn't interest you. You assume everyone prioritizes the same things as you, and they don't. You also discount the fact that in several ways such as materials used, the new gun is actually superior to the old. That isn't conjecture, it is fact. The materials chosen have known mechanical properties anyone can look up. There are pros and cons to both guns and pros and cons to any product you buy.

quote-------------You also discount the fact that in several ways such as materials used, the new gun is actually superior to the old. ---------quote

Try again Thaddeus now you are contradicting your own original post which admits the new Python had MIM cast parts in it. The old Python did not which were "all" "quality parts not just some, if indeed the new Python has any parts in it that are better than the original quality parts in the "real" Python.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

quote-------------You also discount the fact that in several ways such as materials used, the new gun is actually superior to the old. ---------quote

Try again Thaddeus now you are contradicting your own original post which admits the new Python had MIM cast parts in it. The old Python did not which were "all" "quality parts not just some, if indeed the new Python has any parts in it that are better than the original quality parts in the "real" Python.

I'm not contradicting myself at all. Give it a rest. You keep putting words in my mouth, misunderstanding what I said, taking what I said completely out of context, and attributing viewpoints to me that I do not hold. The few MIM parts in the new Python are very high quality parts that are superior to the corresponding parts in the old Python. They are made by Pratt and Whitney, using their same patented MIM process they use for P&W jet engine parts. Not all MIM parts are inferior; it depends on the materials used for the MIM and how tightly controlled the process is. MIM doesn't automatically mean inferior because just like with other metalforming processes, it all depends on the process controls and part design. There are good, appropriate applications for MIM and bad applications for MIM, just like any other metalforming process. The old Python used some stamped parts, such as those in the hammer block assembly. Overall, the new Python is made of superior materials, almost across the board for most parts. This is not debatable. 17-4 is way stronger than 410 stainless. Colt even announced they were using stronger alloys in the new Python when they announced its introduction.

 

[bph9]

I'm not contradicting myself at all. Give it a rest. You keep putting words in my mouth, misunderstanding what I said, taking what I said completely out of context, and attributing viewpoints to me that I do not hold. The few MIM parts in the new Python are very high quality parts that are superior to the corresponding parts in the old Python. They are made by Pratt and Whitney, using their same patented MIM process they use for P&W jet engine parts. Not all MIM parts are inferior; it depends on the materials used for the MIM and how tightly controlled the process is. MIM doesn't automatically mean inferior because just like with other metalforming processes, it all depends on the process controls and part design. There are good, appropriate applications for MIM and bad applications for MIM, just like any other metalforming process. The old Python used some stamped parts, such as those in the hammer block assembly. Overall, the new Python is made of superior materials, almost across the board for most parts. This is not debatable. 17-4 is way stronger than 410 stainless. Colt even announced they were using stronger alloys in the new Python when they announced its introduction.

Wrong again Thadeus.

You claim superior parts but Colt was actually dumb enough to make the hammer and sear out of stainless. Even people who are not engineers know that stainless is not as hard as carbon steel and does not wear as long. In knives it is well known that the carbon blade outlasts the stainless blade hands down. There "is no stainless made" knife that equals a carbon steel knife in hardness and wear resistance period.

Smith experimented with stainless hammers and sears and then went back to carbon steel that was chrome plated to prevent rust.

Here is just two quotes on stainless steel hardness.

The Significance of Stainless Steel Hardness

The hardness of stainless steel has an important influence on its performance in practical applications. Materials with high hardness usually have better wear resistance and scratch resistance, and are suitable for occasions requiring high wear resistance, such as tools, bearings, molds, etc. Stainless steel with lower hardness has better ductility and machinability, and is suitable for occasions requiring forming processing, such as pipes, containers, etc.

Is Stainless Steel Hard Steel?

Stainless steel is not always hard steel. Although some types of stainless steel, such as martensitic stainless steel, can reach very high hardness with proper heat treatment, most stainless steel, such as austenitic stainless steel, are usually lower in hardness and more focused on corrosion resistance. Hard steel usually refers to high carbon steel or alloy tool steel, which has much higher hardness and strength than most stainless steel.

In conclusion if you want the best durability and the best smooth trigger pull (stainless is a sticky substance) stainless is inferior and always has been. Yes it can be made harder but never as hard or as smooth as carbon steel.

In stainless barrel making the rifling "has to be" lapped to smooth out the irregularities and loose and tight spots in the rifling after a carbide button is passed through the barrel to put in the rifling. This is totally unnecessary when rifling carbon steel barrels. This came right from Shilen Barrels per my conversation with them.

I might also add a quick reference to new Python trigger pulls on the Net by people who bought them had plenty of complaining about gritty trigger pulls. That was also my experience when I dry fired a Python at my local gun store. I never had that problem with the 6 "real" Pythons that I owned.

I might also add that Stainless Steel rifle actions and stainless pistols have long been know for galling when two stainless steel parts of the same harness and composition grind together. So now we have another problem with Colt Stainless sears and hammers. If both parts hammer and sear are of the same composition it is a certainty that you will not only get a rough gritty trigger pull (as witnessed already by people who were complaining on the internet) but the galling will soon come into play as well.

Gun companies often tried to use aluminum frames with stainless slides because of the galling of a stainless slide and frame. They even tried using different stainless in the slide v/s the frame and that did not work out so well either. People who owned stainless Pistols often had to resort to exotic lubricants to get them to work reliability and not jam up. The old Bauer/Fraser Company actually went out of business because of the unreliability of the pistol they made out of all stainless while the "original" FN pistol (from which they copied their pistol) worked because it was made of carbon steel.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

Wrong again Thadeus.

You claim superior parts but Colt was actually dumb enough to make the hammer and sear out of stainless. Even people who are not engineers know that stainless is not as hard as carbon steel and does not wear as long. In knives it is well known that the carbon blade outlasts the stainless blade hands down. There "is no stainless made" knife that equals a carbon steel knife in hardness and wear resistance period.

Smith experimented with stainless hammers and sears and then went back to carbon steel that was chrome plated to prevent rust.

Here is just two quotes on stainless steel hardness.

The Significance of Stainless Steel Hardness

The hardness of stainless steel has an important influence on its performance in practical applications. Materials with high hardness usually have better wear resistance and scratch resistance, and are suitable for occasions requiring high wear resistance, such as tools, bearings, molds, etc. Stainless steel with lower hardness has better ductility and machinability, and is suitable for occasions requiring forming processing, such as pipes, containers, etc.

Is Stainless Steel Hard Steel?

Stainless steel is not always hard steel. Although some types of stainless steel, such as martensitic stainless steel, can reach very high hardness with proper heat treatment, most stainless steel, such as austenitic stainless steel, are usually lower in hardness and more focused on corrosion resistance. Hard steel usually refers to high carbon steel or alloy tool steel, which has much higher hardness and strength than most stainless steel.

In conclusion if you want the best durability and the best smooth trigger pull (stainless is a sticky substance) stainless is inferior and always has been. Yes it can be made harder but never as hard or as smooth as carbon steel.

In stainless barrel making the rifling "has to be" lapped to smooth out the irregularities and loose and tight spots in the rifling after a carbide button is passed through the barrel to put in the rifling. This is totally unnecessary when rifling carbon steel barrels. This came right from Shilen Barrels per my conversation with them.

I might also add a quick reference to new Python trigger pulls on the Net by people who bought them had plenty of complaining about gritty trigger pulls. That was also my experience when I dry fired a Python at my local gun store. I never had that problem with the 6 "real" Pythons that I owned.

I might also add that Stainless Steel rifle actions and stainless pistols have long been know for galling when two stainless steel parts of the same harness and composition grind together. So now we have another problem with Colt Stainless sears and hammers. If both parts hammer and sear are of the same composition it is a certainty that you will not only get a rough gritty trigger pull (as witnessed already by people who were complaining on the internet) but the galling will soon come into play as well.

Gun companies often tried to use aluminum frames with stainless slides because of the galling of a stainless slide and frame. They even tried using different stainless in the slide v/s the frame and that did not work out so well either. People who owned stainless Pistols often had to resort to exotic lubricants to get them to work reliability and not jam up. The old Bauer/Fraser Company actually went out of business because of the unreliability of the pistol they made out of all stainless while the "original" FN pistol (from which they copied their pistol) worked because it was made of carbon steel.

You are grasping at straws, desperately trying to play "gotcha," and all you are accomplishing is further revealing how little you understand about this topic. You aren't interested in learning anything about the gun or having a conversation in good faith, so this is my last reply to you. If you wish to keep this up, please take it to PMs. The only reason I kept replying to you to begin with is because you keep distorting and misquoting what I said, taking my comments out of context, and also I thought someone contemplating buying the new Python might want to hear opinions from someone who actually owns one and has shot a couple thousand rounds through it.

"Stainless" is a category of steels that simply means it has at least 10.5% chromium. That's it. Not all "stainless" is created equal or has the same material properties, nor even close. There are lots of different stainless alloys. As a class, they are often softer, but not always, and here's the deal... that's not always a negative thing. There are times when you don't even want parts to be "hardened" or especially "hard," as that hardness often comes at the expense of fracture resistance.

Colt uses 420HC for the hammers and triggers of the Python and Anaconda...not the "sear" by the way, there is no such individual part called that in Colt revolver nomenclature. The sear is an integral feature on the hammer and trigger. I assure you that they know far more than you about what materials to use where and why. The "HC" in 420HC means "high carbon." It is a martensitic stainless, meaning it can get extremely hard through heat treat. Even in the text you copied above, it says very clearly that martensitic stainless can get very hard. Reread the source you posted. After heat treat, it is every bit as hard as the same parts in any other gun, as it is generally hardened to 55-56 RC (Rockwell C-scale). You do not want those parts to be any harder than that. 420HC is sort of like a tool steel in that it is relatively fine grained and is through-hardened while still maintaining toughness. It is also not true that stainless is always "inferior" to carbon steels as knife blades either. ALL of the current "super steels" currently used in high end knives with the best edge retention are in fact STAINLESS powder metallurgy tool steels - S30V, S90V, S35VN, S110V, S125V being just some of the many examples. Most old school carbon steels don't have the edge retention those provide. Even old school D2 that is often used in knives is technically classified as a stainless, and it is a tool steel used for punch dies, where it needs to be extremely wear and impact resistant.

"Hardness" by itself isn't always the goal or even necessarily desirable. It all depends on how the material is used, in what application. For a hammer and trigger, you want moderately high hardness, but not so hard as to be brittle, but at the same time, high "toughness" for impact resistance. Hardness and toughness aren't the same thing; they are usually competing. 420HC is one of the best materials you could ever choose for a DA revolver hammer and trigger, where you need a good mix of wear resistance and reasonable toughness, but the geometry of the parts don't require super toughness because they have reasonable cross sectional thickness. For parts like frames and barrels, tensile and hoop strength are way more important than hardness, and in fact you don't want a super hard material, you want hardness to be in the 25 - 35 Rc range, which isn't especially hard. You also need stress fracture resistance and heat erosion resistance. Super hard parts are often not desirable at all. Again, it all depends on the mechanical demands of the application where the part is used.

As for your comments about galling, that occurs when mating parts have high surface area contact, such as thread joints or a rifle bolt in a receiver, which is not going to happen with the tiny contact points between a revolver hammer and trigger that are constantly changing in geometric relationship as they pivot through their arcs. In most stainless rifle and pistol actions, different steels are chosen for parts that slide against each other to avoid galling. For example in a typical stainless rifle action, the receiver will often be out of 416 stainles and the bolt out of 4340 or something like that. Regardless, 420HC behaves more like any carbon steel and is not very prone to galling due to its high carbon content. Galling generally occurs with softer, "stickier" materials. And the whole "gritty" feeling trigger comment... you obviously haven't tried the gun for any length of time and have no first hand experience with it, and you can find people making all sorts of claims about all sorts of things on the internet if you look hard enough. If you are basing your comments on other people's reports, I assure you you'll find far more reviews from actual new Python OWNERS that directly contradict your opinion than agree with you. I'm telling you as an owner of the product in question, that I have found none of that to be remotely true. All-stainless construction firearms of all kinds have been in use for decades with none of the issues you cite if they are well designed with properly chosen materials used. It is all dependent on the mix of materials chosen for the various parts.

 

[66fan]

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 "Hillary hole" internal lock 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.

Damn, now that is a reply! Thanks S&W forum.

 

[65-2x2]

Colt makes pretty guns. I will give them that.
I much prefer the Smith action for shooting though.

My brother bought one of the new Pythons a few months ago. We shot it side by side with my Smith model 19 and as a tool, I would take the 19 any day. I will say that the Python was pretty.

 

[bph9]

You are grasping at straws, desperately trying to play "gotcha," and all you are accomplishing is further revealing how little you understand about this topic. You aren't interested in learning anything about the gun or having a conversation in good faith, so this is my last reply to you. If you wish to keep this up, please take it to PMs. The only reason I kept replying to you to begin with is because you keep distorting my comments, and also I thought someone contemplating buying the new Python might want to hear opinions from someone who actually owns one and has shot a couple thousand rounds through it.

"Stainless" is a category of steels that simply means it has at least 10.5% chromium. That's it. Not all "stainless" is created equal or has the same material properties, nor even close. There are lots of different stainless alloys. As a class, they are often softer, but not always, and here's the deal... that's not always a negative thing. There are times when you don't even want parts to be "hardened" or especially "hard," as that hardness often comes at the expense of fracture resistance.

Colt uses 420HC for the hammers and triggers of the Python and Anaconda...not the "sear" by the way, there is no such individual part called that in Colt revolver nomenclature. The sear is an integral feature on the hammer and trigger. I assure you that they know far more than you about what materials to use where and why. The "HC" in 420HC means "high carbon." It is a martensitic stainless, meaning it can get extremely hard through heat treat. Even in the text you copied above, it says very clearly that martensitic stainless can get very hard. Reread the source you posted. After heat treat, it is every bit as hard as any hammer and sear in any other gun, as it is generally hardened to 55-56 RC (Rockwell C-scale). You do not want those parts to be any harder than that. 420HC is sort of like a tool steel in that it is relatively fine grained and is through-hardened while still maintaining toughness. It is also not true that stainless is always "inferior" to carbon steels as knife blades either. ALL of the current "super steels" currently used in high end knives with the best edge retention are in fact STAINLESS powder metallurgy tool steels - S30V, S90V, S35VN, S110V, S125V being just some of the many examples. Most old school carbon steels don't have the edge retention those provide. Even old school D2 that is often used in knives is technically classified as a stainless, and it is a tool steel used for punch dies, where it needs to be extremely wear and impact resistant.

"Hardness" by itself isn't always the goal or even necessarily desirable. It all depends on how the material is used, in what application. For a hammer and trigger, you want moderately high hardness, but not so hard as to be brittle, but at the same time, high "toughness" for impact resistance. Hardness and toughness aren't the same thing; they are usually competing. 420HC is one of the best materials you could ever choose for a DA revolver hammer and trigger, where you need a good mix of wear resistance and reasonable toughness, but the geometry of the parts don't require super toughness because they have reasonable cross sectional thickness. For parts like frames and barrels, tensile and hoop strength are way more important than hardness, and in fact you don't want a super hard material, you want hardness to be in the 25 - 35 Rc range, which isn't especially hard and you need stress fracture resistance and heat erosion resistance. Super hard parts are often not desirable at all. Again, it all depends on the mechanical demands of the application where the part is used.

As for your comments about galling, that occurs when mating parts have high surface area contact, such as thread joints or a rifle bolt in a receiver, which is not going to happen with the tiny contact points between a revolver hammer and trigger that are constantly changing in geometric relationship as they pivot through their arcs. In most stainless rifle and pistol actions, different steels are chosen for parts that slide against each other to avoid galling. For example in a typical stainless rifle action, the receiver will often be out of 416 stainles and the bolt out of 4340 or something like that. Regardless, 420HC behaves more like any carbon steel and is not very prone to galling due to its high carbon content. Galling generally occurs with softer, "stickier" materials. And the whole "gritty" feeling trigger comment... you obviously haven't tried the gun for any length of time and have no first hand experience with it, and you can find people making all sorts of claims about all sorts of things on the internet if you look hard enough. If you are basing your comments on other people's reports, I assure you you'll find far more reviews from actual new Python OWNERS that directly contradict your opinion than agree with you. I'm telling you as an owner of the product in question, that I have found none of that to be remotely true. Besides, all stainless firearms of all kinds have been in use for decades with none of the issues you cite. It is all dependent on the mix of materials chosen for the various parts.

quote------------Even old school D2 that is often used in knives is technically classified as a stainless, and it is a tool steel used for punch dies, where it needs to be extremely wear and impact resistant.--------quote

I have been using and buying knives for decades Thaddeus and D2 Steel has "never" been classified as "stainless" never. And it rusts and or staines as fast as a cat can jump off of a hot tin roof. And no, Thadius, there is no new miracle Stainless that matches the hardness and durability of a high carbon steel knife. High end custom made knives made for professional big game guides and European Master Chefs are still predominantly made of carbon steel, not stainless.

I might add that in European Master Chefs still use "carbon steel knives" not stainless ,Thadius because they have to cut up tons of meat weekly and stainless blades just do not cut it (pun intended). So much for your claims about miracle stainless knives. Professional Chefs would be using them predominantly if any of your statements were correct.

Your baloney about small contact stainless surfaces not galling is pure bunk. Witness the howls from people who are complaining about the gritty trigger pull on the new Python. Galling does not magically disappear just because the contact surfaces become smaller on stainless to stainless contact. Your fantasies about stainless perfection is not born out by reality.

I might also add Ruger had Mini 14 rifles' receivers crack when using stainless but not the carbon steel receivers.

When you add up the problems with the redesign of the new python sear and hammer plus the fact that it is stainless it is no small wonder the trigger pull turned out to be a nightmare compared to the out of this world trigger pull on the carbon steel trigger system in the original Python.

You have made so many excuses for the litany of problems with the New Python I have begun to lose count of them all yet you are still insisting on how wonderful the new Python is despite the fact that the rear sight is junk and needs replaced, the trigger is junk and needs reworked and you even tried to sluff off the fact that you could be sued if you alter the factory trigger and someone gets shot from an accident when the gun is dropped. Sorry I do not need all these problems in my life.

When you add up the cost of all the aftermarket parts needed and the gunsmithing fees to rework this Turkey you end up creeping close to the price of the "real Python" not to mention all the headaches of finding a competent gunsmith and then hoping the gun does not get stolen to and from the repair shop. I could write pages of all the incompetent gunsmiths I have had to deal with over the decades and that is one of the reasons I started repairing my own guns decades ago.

Out of the 6 "real" Pythons I have personally owned and used all I had to do to enjoy them is load them and shoot them, no need of expensive aftermarket parts or trips to gunsmiths to have triggers reworked or sights replaced.

Considering the cost of the New Python compared to other revolvers and all the deficiencies of this Turkey this gun has just got to many problems and headaches coming right out of the box to be even worth screwing with.

Murphy's law "The Latest is not often the greatest" and that goes double for the New Python. Buy one and you will always regret you did not buy the "Real Python".

 

[shocker]

I can say my Model 69 and 66-8 have matured into very sweet SA trigger pulls, MIM parts and all. My Colt Anaconda, not quite so nice. I bought it with the 6" barrel to handle full power 44 mag loads.
I might get a Python in the 5" barrel to complement the short barrel 66. It's a pretty gun, no question.

 

[JwesleyN]

Wrong again Thadeus.

You claim superior parts but Colt was actually dumb enough to make the hammer and sear out of stainless. Even people who are not engineers know that stainless is not as hard as carbon steel and does not wear as long. In knives it is well known that the carbon blade outlasts the stainless blade hands down. There "is no stainless made" knife that equals a carbon steel knife in hardness and wear resistance period.

Smith experimented with stainless hammers and sears and then went back to carbon steel that was chrome plated to prevent rust.

Here is just two quotes on stainless steel hardness.

The Significance of Stainless Steel Hardness

The hardness of stainless steel has an important influence on its performance in practical applications. Materials with high hardness usually have better wear resistance and scratch resistance, and are suitable for occasions requiring high wear resistance, such as tools, bearings, molds, etc. Stainless steel with lower hardness has better ductility and machinability, and is suitable for occasions requiring forming processing, such as pipes, containers, etc.

Is Stainless Steel Hard Steel?

Stainless steel is not always hard steel. Although some types of stainless steel, such as martensitic stainless steel, can reach very high hardness with proper heat treatment, most stainless steel, such as austenitic stainless steel, are usually lower in hardness and more focused on corrosion resistance. Hard steel usually refers to high carbon steel or alloy tool steel, which has much higher hardness and strength than most stainless steel.

In conclusion if you want the best durability and the best smooth trigger pull (stainless is a sticky substance) stainless is inferior and always has been. Yes it can be made harder but never as hard or as smooth as carbon steel.

In stainless barrel making the rifling "has to be" lapped to smooth out the irregularities and loose and tight spots in the rifling after a carbide button is passed through the barrel to put in the rifling. This is totally unnecessary when rifling carbon steel barrels. This came right from Shilen Barrels per my conversation with them.

I might also add a quick reference to new Python trigger pulls on the Net by people who bought them had plenty of complaining about gritty trigger pulls. That was also my experience when I dry fired a Python at my local gun store. I never had that problem with the 6 "real" Pythons that I owned.

I might also add that Stainless Steel rifle actions and stainless pistols have long been know for galling when two stainless steel parts of the same harness and composition grind together. So now we have another problem with Colt Stainless sears and hammers. If both parts hammer and sear are of the same composition it is a certainty that you will not only get a rough gritty trigger pull (as witnessed already by people who were complaining on the internet) but the galling will soon come into play as well.

Gun companies often tried to use aluminum frames with stainless slides because of the galling of a stainless slide and frame. They even tried using different stainless in the slide v/s the frame and that did not work out so well either. People who owned stainless Pistols often had to resort to exotic lubricants to get them to work reliability and not jam up. The old Bauer/Fraser Company actually went out of business because of the unreliability of the pistol they made out of all stainless while the "original" FN pistol (from which they copied their pistol) worked because it was made of carbon steel.

Never thought of it until I read this thread. I have a 629 no dash I bought in 1980 and just for fun degreased a spot on the hammer and dabbed some cold blue on it and nothing happened! Oh no, I think it might be stainless steel! It's got to be due to be worn out soon! Where were these stainless steel experts at when I bought this piece of crap? Oh, that's right there was no internet then.

 

[bph9]

Never thought of it until I read this thread. I have a 629 no dash I bought in 1980 and just for fun degreased a spot on the hammer and dabbed some cold blue on it and nothing happened! Oh no, I think it might be stainless steel! It's got to be due to be worn out soon! Where were these stainless steel experts at when I bought this piece of crap? Oh, that's right there was no internet then.

You did not read my post in its entirety. Smith hard chromed hammers and sears in their stainless guns because they had to many problems when they made them out of stainless.

 

[MyTurn]

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 "Hillary hole" internal lock 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.

Thank you for this!! I have several of the new Colts and the old Colts. The new ones are every bit as good as the old ones in terms of mechanics and serviceability. The new stainless models have great finishes and the blue ones are as good as it usually gets these days although I agree they generally can't match the old high polish blue of some of the old Colts. The old Colts had issues at times coming out of the factory just as some do today. People don't seem to remember that old Colts, too, were frequently sent out for trigger jobs. There will never be a way to statistically verify percentages that needed work for any generation of Colts. Apparently the mystique of the old ones overrides the memory of their reality.

 

[MyTurn]

I never intended on buying one but my posts were done to enable a person to get "all the real facts" about the inferiority of the New Python before they spent the big bucks and found out the truth.

The New Python is not even in the same ballpark as the original. And people vote with their wallets. If it was superior do you think the average Python Colt lover would be paying the super high prices for the originals if they were inferior. Of course they would not. The marketplace has already proven all your many excuses for this New Python are falling on deaf ears.

People who are buying the new python either cannot afford the "original" and they are not often aware of the new models deficiencies. Or if they are aware they are buying them because they like the looks of the gun and intend on shooting the "H" out of it and not feel bad when they destroy it and not lose the big money they would lose if they destroyed an original python because "no" weapon lasts forever if you shoot it enough. The destructive clock is ticking with every shot that goes down the barrel of any weapon.

Except you are giving anything but 'real facts' and merely limited knowledge and a very biased view based on extremely limited actual experience. You take the nay sayers and extrapolate their 'feelings' and 'opinions' and, perhaps and in a few cases, limited experience and generalize to all. That's ridiculous.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

Never thought of it until I read this thread. I have a 629 no dash I bought in 1980 and just for fun degreased a spot on the hammer and dabbed some cold blue on it and nothing happened! Oh no, I think it might be stainless steel! It's got to be due to be worn out soon! Where were these stainless steel experts at when I bought this piece of crap? Oh, that's right there was no internet then.

S&W experimented briefly with SS in their hammers and triggers, but the stainless they chose wasn't very adaptable to their forming processes and was more expensive to use, so they abandoned it and started flash chroming their regular hammers and triggers to match their stainless finish guns.

For the most part, they have stayed with the color-cased look because Spanish companies started making counterfeit S&W revolvers and they trademarked that look as a way of preventing the counterfeits. That gave rise to the "Marcus Registradas" engraved on the frame. Even today after they started using MIM parts that don't need to be case hardened, they apply a "fake" color case look onto their MIM triggers and hammers to maintain that appearance to protect their patent.

 

[ViperVette]

I just bought a new 6" blued Python and can't wait to get it. I had a couple of them years ago and sold one and traded another for a Model 29.

i think the Colt Python is an awesome gun - worth every penny I paid and I also have an Anaconda - but I also am looking at a sweet 686 Plus at my dealer.

To each his own right?

 

[rockquarry]

Thank you for this!! I have several of the new Colts and the old Colts. The new ones are every bit as good as the old ones in terms of mechanics and serviceability. The new stainless models have great finishes and the blue ones are as good as it usually gets these days although I agree they generally can't match the old high polish blue of some of the old Colts. The old Colts had issues at times coming out of the factory just as some do today. People don't seem to remember that old Colts, too, were frequently sent out for trigger jobs. There will never be a way to statistically verify percentages that needed work for any generation of Colts. Apparently the mystique of the old ones overrides the memory of their reality.

Generally, I believe you're right. I have older Colt revolvers and newer ones as well. They're all pretty much good guns even if old memories can't always be counted as factual.