New Colt Python

[daveboy]

The new Python I bought cost me $1299 without the 7% Va sales tax. Stainless, real wood grips and beautiful. I got $400 off the list price at a Pawn shop that was changing hands and the owner loved the cash I handed him. It sits next to my bed upstairs with 5 rounds in the cylinder

If you don't mind my asking, why only 5 rounds? I know the reason to carry old SA revolvers with an empty chamber under the hammer. But, why do the same with a modern Python on a nightstand? It's your business to do as you wish, I'm just curious is all.

 

[McPherson]

In what way is it "overpriced?" It's about the same price as a S&W 627 PC, and in every respect, it is better made than the Smith. I own both revolvers and many others to compare it to. The 627 is very nice, among my favorites. Truthfully, I prefer the overall internal lockwork design of a Smith because it is easier to work on, easier to tune, and has better aftermarket parts availability. Otherwise, the Python is made of much better, more expensive stainless steels, uses more CNC machined parts, is better fit and finished, has a smoother action out of the box, and has better attention to details. The finish is much more flawless than any Smith or Ruger, with more shop time to produce. The Python is quite a bit more costly to manufacture with more CNC machining and finish time involved. It has more geometrically complex parts, which means more machine cycle time to produce those parts. So naturally from the standpoint of cost to produce and getting a normal profit margin, it will have a higher retail price than an average Ruger or Smith. Despite this, it is roughly the same or only a couple hundred less than the higher end Smiths. Given the price of competing revolvers, its $1300 - $1400 going rate is about what you can expect at today's gun prices. Mine is my second most accurate revolver I own behind my Dan Wesson 44 with 8" heavy barrel. It shoots circles around the rest of my revolvers. The SA pull is mediocre out of the box, but is very easy to correct, and that feature has no impact on the production cost to Colt. I think overall it's a bargain for what you get compared to competing revolvers, and I truly believe with no hyperbole and no brand loyalty that it is the best USA made revolver on the market today.

Way too much emotional investment in these responses….just turn the page

 

[greenwellg]

After shooting it to adjust the sights to my eyes there were only 5 rounds left. I also have a 44 MAG Marlin rifle a couple of inches away from the Python. Not really a reason just a coincidence. The rifle has 10 rounds in the mag and an empty chamber. Maybe I don't trust my wife HE HE.

If you don't mind my asking, why only 5 rounds? I know the reason to carry old SA revolvers with an empty chamber under the hammer. But, why do the same with a modern Python on a nightstand? It's your business to do as you wish, I'm just curious is all.

 

[cec66]

Yesterday I brought my new Anaconda 45LC 4 inch to the range along with my S&W Nickel 25-5 . The Colt is a heavy well finished revolver that makes shooting heavy load 45s a pleasure and I had no problems with the sights other than the windage lock screw being loose. Single action hammer pull is very light but the trigger is not crisp. Double action just feels stiff with no staging. Accuracy is very good. It is a nice revolver and I'm sure will loosen up over time, if I give it time. It's no 25-5, but it has promise and is more accurate than my Ruger Redhawk 45LC. (attached target is Colt at 25 yards hand held with 220 gr flat point 780 fps}

 

[phoebeisis]

Then don't buy one!

Thanks all for this posting
.I am not young 74 and the new Python has caught my eye.Years ago I sold my 3 or so 1970s vintage pythons 2 of which were nickel plated yeah I like gaudy and pretty Pythons blue nickel or SS are both
Nothing in this posting would discourage me from getting a new Python not sure which blue or SS probably blue just for the look thanks all charlie

 

[phoebeisis]

Needless to say I regret a bit selling trading off the Pythons One I traded for a new M 59 Smith wonder 9 which had a miserable trigger pull DA SA CRUMMY! OH well trading a 4 inch nickel plated python for a nickel plated model 59 Thanks all charlie in 1980 or so.hi cap 9s were in

 

[JwesleyN]

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.

Like I said I never really thought about it in the 45 years I've owned that S&W 629. From what I have researched it appears that they did flash chrome those parts. It seems they did that because of galling on the parts where they contacted the frame. Back then stainless guns were a new thing and the early automatics had a tendency to gall using the same steel for both the frame and the slide. That is not an issue today because they use different alloys. I have 2 stainless steel 1911s both have a nice frame to slide fit and I've never had any issues with galling. They are just as smooth as my carbon steel 1911s. I lubricant them all with synthetic motor oil. I started working at a company in 1978 that made jet engine parts for GE, P&W and Rolls Royce. Those are the aerospace companies I can remember. They machined parts from titanium, inconel and stainless steel and many other alloys. Everything we made there was a ring of some kind like the burner cans we machined. The first time I machined stainless steel they brought in the rough rings from out in the yard where they have been out in the weather for who knows how long. I was young and new there and was surprised at how much rust were on these stainless rings. I asked an engineer there about the rust. He just said " There are many types of stainless alloys and this type you won't find in a kitchen sink" that was in the late 70s early 80s. I highly doubt they would use an inferior alloy in a jet engine. Now jet engines and revolvers have only one thing in common, they are both made from some type of metal. What S&W used in the early stainless guns I'll admit I don't know. I do doubt at that time they used anything like what they used in the aerospace industry due to the costs involved. Stainless alloys in firearms today is not a new thing and the problems they had early on are not an issue now. I own a new SS Python and I can say the DA trigger pull is very nice. My 629 has a nice DA pull. I can only say that I don't think one is better than the other, just different due to the mechanics of the revolvers. Some people will have their guns worked over to get a great DA pull just so they can pull it out when their pals are over and say " feel how smooth that is". When they do shoot the gun they rarely do in DA. I have friends with old Pythons and S&Ws that I have for many years shot with and they always shot their DA revolvers in SA. One guy I remember had a M 19 that he was always talking about how smooth and easy his DA pull was but never shot it in DA. Once I asked him if I can try it and shot it DA and 2 out of 6 didn't go off. Light primer strikes. He said he had taken the strain screw and backed it out. The thing with shooting DA in any revolver is practice. I say don't worry about the durability of the new Python in stainless or blue. I will say this though with the crappy QC of all firearms manufacturers today I would not buy one sight unseen. I waited for a few years after the new Python came out because I heard about the problems they had at first and there were hard to find any LGS that had one. I pay a few bucks a month to subscribe to AL and found mine not far from me NIB way below what they were going for. I have been very happy with this Pythons performance. I say if you want one buy one! Compared to where a new car will be 10, 12 years from now if you drive it daily a S&W or Colt revolver that you enjoy shooting and maintain will outlast just about any other thing you have.

 

[jkbrecht]

Like I said I never really thought about it in the 45 years I've owned that S&W 629. From what I have researched it appears that they did flash chrome those parts. It seems they did that because of galling on the parts where they contacted the frame. Back then stainless guns were a new thing and the early automatics had a tendency to gall using the same steel for both the frame and the slide. That is not an issue today because they use different alloys. I have 2 stainless steel 1911s both have a nice frame to slide fit and I've never had any issues with galling. They are just as smooth as my carbon steel 1911s. I lubricant them all with synthetic motor oil. I started working at a company in 1978 that made jet engine parts for GE, P&W and Rolls Royce. Those are the aerospace companies I can remember. They machined parts from titanium, inconel and stainless steel and many other alloys. Everything we made there was a ring of some kind like the burner cans we machined. The first time I machined stainless steel they brought in the rough rings from out in the yard where they have been out in the weather for who knows how long. I was young and new there and was surprised at how much rust were on these stainless rings. I asked an engineer there about the rust. He just said " There are many types of stainless alloys and this type you won't find in a kitchen sink" that was in the late 70s early 80s. I highly doubt they would use an inferior alloy in a jet engine. Now jet engines and revolvers have only one thing in common, they are both made from some type of metal. What S&W used in the early stainless guns I'll admit I don't know. I do doubt at that time they used anything like what they used in the aerospace industry due to the costs involved. Stainless alloys in firearms today is not a new thing and the problems they had early on are not an issue now. I own a new SS Python and I can say the DA trigger pull is very nice. My 629 has a nice DA pull. I can only say that I don't think one is better than the other, just different due to the mechanics of the revolvers. Some people will have their guns worked over to get a great DA pull just so they can pull it out when their pals are over and say " feel how smooth that is". When they do shoot the gun they rarely do in DA. I have friends with old Pythons and S&Ws that I have for many years shot with and they always shot their DA revolvers in SA. One guy I remember had a M 19 that he was always talking about how smooth and easy his DA pull was but never shot it in DA. Once I asked him if I can try it and shot it DA and 2 out of 6 didn't go off. Light primer strikes. He said he had taken the strain screw and backed it out. The thing with shooting DA in any revolver is practice. I say don't worry about the durability of the new Python in stainless or blue. I will say this though with the crappy QC of all firearms manufacturers today I would not buy one sight unseen. I waited for a few years after the new Python came out because I heard about the problems they had at first and there were hard to find any LGS that had one. I pay a few bucks a month to subscribe to AL and found mine not far from me NIB way below what they were going for. I have been very happy with this Pythons performance. I say if you want one buy one! Compared to where a new car will be 10, 12 years from now if you drive it daily a S&W or Colt revolver that you enjoy shooting and maintain will outlast just about any other thing you have.

Re: "I pay a few bucks a month to subscribe to AL..." What is 'AL' (other than the abbreviation for Alabama)? Thanks.

 

[phoebeisis]

Then don't buy one!

Pythons are beautiful and in general have very very nice trigger pulls Unlike ugly Glocks whose original models had triggers very similar to my1959 cap guns No Kidding first time I tested a Glock trigger it brought to my a 1959 cap gun .Pretty with a very good trigger-the finer points of the metallurgy Heck they are rarely fired enough for that matter Smith vs Colt both experienced manufacturers Python slightly prettier I will own one more thanks all charlie

.

 

[MyTurn]

Glock triggers aren't great for target shooting and that's for sure. Just fine for urgent needs because you really don't notice the trigger that much then and the guns are almost always highly reliable.

 

[Yendor357]

If you don't have a trigger pull gauge, your opinion on trigger pull weight is worthless. Opinions vary.

Mike Heffron makes a lot of money replacing hammer and triggers on new Colts because someone decided to grind on them.

Just pay Mike to do do the trigger job.
Nobody buys Colt Pythons or Anacondas to save money.

 

[JwesleyN]

Re: "I pay a few bucks a month to subscribe to AL..." What is 'AL' (other than the abbreviation for Alabama)? Thanks.

Armslist. A nationwide firearms classifieds with vendors and personal sales. Guns and accessories. I think it's $6.99 a month and you can cancel anytime. If you're looking for a handgun you can search just personal sales. Here in Ohio you can still buy a handgun person to person. Most people selling a gun just want your drivers license to make sure you are an Ohio resident. Everyone sellers and buyers just pay the monthly fee. No fees for buying or selling.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

If you don't have a trigger pull gauge, your opinion on trigger pull weight is worthless. Opinions vary.

Mike Heffron makes a lot of money replacing hammer and triggers on new Colts because someone decided to grind on them.

Just pay Mike to do do the trigger job.
Nobody buys Colt Pythons or Anacondas to save money.

I couldn't agree more. Just for basis of comparison...

Here are the SA and DA pull weights of my new Python 5" and Anaconda 6" compared to the SA and DA pull weights of my S&W 627 PC 5" and Dan Wesson 44 8VH (8"), in that order. In each photo the SA trigger pull is shown next to the gun followed by its DA pull.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

Full disclosure:
I stoned the SA hammer notch to remove the "Cali bump" on both the Python and Anaconda. Each took about 15 minutes total. I did nothing to the mainspring. DA is close to what they were out of the box, but by polishing the trigger ledges (they were already pretty nicely polished), the sides of the transfer bars, and the contact surfaces of the rebound levers, plus lots of shooting, both are now about ½ lb lighter DA than they were when new.

I did some work on the S&W trigger. Out of the box, it had about a 4 lb SA pull and a 12 lb DA pull. I changed to a TK Custom trigger I already had from a previous project, plus changed to a Wolff "Power Rib" style mainspring and 13lb rebound spring, plus polished up the rebound slide and mating surfaces inside the frame.

I did no work whatsoever on the DW 44 and never even opened it up. Its trigger was great from day 1 when I bought it. I bought it used, so it is possible whoever had it before me had trigger work done, but again I have never taken it apart to confirm. I only changed to aftermarket grip and front sight.

 

[ZGrand]

I've been following this thread for a while, and find the information useful. That said, I don't have any issues with the single action trigger pulls on either of my new Pythons. They are only marginally less pleasing than my classic model 27-2. Lots of people on the Colt forum have mentioned that the cocked hammer travels rearward slightly before falling when the trigger is pulled. Maybe I got lucky, but I can detect no rearward travel on either of mine. I also have no issue with the number of slots in the barrel rib. I did replace the rear sights on both - one Wilson and one Eliason (I like the Wilson better). I also replaced the grips on both - one with new Deer Hollow grips and one with classic Python grips.
I love my Colts and my Smiths equally.

 

[AJ]

He bought a 2.5 inch to go with the 4 inch. Shot it on Friday. Double action is acceptable, but the single action is atrocious. My opinion.

 

[cookieman]

I've been following this thread for a while, and find the information useful. That said, I don't have any issues with the single action trigger pulls on either of my new Pythons. They are only marginally less pleasing than my classic model 27-2. Lots of people on the Colt forum have mentioned that the cocked hammer travels rearward slightly before falling when the trigger is pulled. Maybe I got lucky, but I can detect no rearward travel on either of mine. I also have no issue with the number of slots in the barrel rib. I did replace the rear sights on both - one Wilson and one Eliason (I like the Wilson better). I also replaced the grips on both - one with new Deer Hollow grips and one with classic Python grips.
I love my Colts and my Smiths equally.

View attachment 793110

Is it me or do many Colts and S&W seem to not get the blueing as deep on the side plates.
I have 1978 Python and it is much deeper on the barrel and cylinder. Similar to this Python. Not nocking yours and I see this on S&W too.
edit; That could be oil in your photo too.

 

[Abbotson]

Way too much emotional investment in these responses….just turn the page

The Pythons today are not the Pythons of yesterday.

 

[ladder13]

Bought two new Pythons with the proceeds of this one, don't miss it for a millisecond.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

The Pythons today are not the Pythons of yesterday.c

Nor is anything else you buy today the same as their counterparts of yesterday... and in many cases, that's not a bad thing either. Change is constant and inevitable. As technologies change, so do the products we buy, how they are made, and what they are made of. Sometimes that means product improvements, sometimes not. Things from "the good old days" aren't always better than today, but it's human nature to believe it so.

 

[ZGrand]

Is it me or do many Colts and S&W seem to not get the blueing as deep on the side plates.
I have 1978 Python and it is much deeper on the barrel and cylinder. Similar to this Python. Not nocking yours and I see this on S&W too.
edit; That could be oil in your photo too.

That photo was taken outside in somewhat mottled light - that's part of what you're seeing in the picture. But you're correct - the polishing before blueing is not as good as a classic Smith or first gen Python, and the blueing is not as deep. But it's not bad compared to any other new revolver (except Manurhin, of course).

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

Unfortunately, the level of extreme polish that was required to get the Python "Royal Blue" requires a lot of time and skill to get right. Time is money. Even old Pythons vary some in finish quality. I've seen some that were so deep and rich, they looked wet, and then others that were nice but not quite to the standard of what they were capable of. Some classic Smith bright blue finishes were close to approaching the Colt bluing, but they never seemed to consistently be quite at that level. The new blued Pythons have a pretty nice finish though, better than anything else out there except for a Manurhin MR73. The Manurhin finish is every bit as good as the old Python royal blue.

 

[Bobby Ironsmith]

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.

I agree with all you've written, and will add my experience. I have a 1964 nickel plated Python, a 1976 blued, and a 2022 Stainless. I have Smiths in .38/.357: Model 10, 14, 15, 19, 66, 67, 686. I've shot most of these since 1976...I love revolvers. To my delight, the 2022 Stainless Python is tied with my Model 14-4 K-38 Target Masterpiece for sheer joy and quality. The Python is more beautiful than any other handgun, and pleasantly heftier than my Model 14. The 2020 series of Pythons incorporates some Smith & Wesson internal parts, and that gave me a gorgeous 9 pounds 11 ounces DA pull (10 pull average on Lyman digital pull gauge). SA pull is 5 pounds 14 ounces, but I don't care. Fine revolvers are meant to be shot DA in my book. Zero cylinder end shake or rotational play, typical of Pythons. I've had to "perfect" nearly every gun I've bought since the late 70s. For my 2022 Python, I needed to finish clocking the barrel onto the frame. The rear sight needed to be adjusted really far right until I clocked the barrel top dead center to the frame. The rear sight had a lot of lateral wiggle to it. I used a feeler gauge set to find what width snugged it up, cut of that gauge, and made a custom shim for the roll pin to pass through that made the rear sight perfect, solid. Finally, the trigger's face serrations were way too deep and sharp. It hurt to pull the trigger after 30 rounds or so. I filled in the serrations with 1-part UV-activated clear epoxy, and now the trigger looks original but feels great. No discomfort at all. These actions are typical of what I do to every gun, since I'm really picky, so I give Colt credit for a very fine gun in the new series Pythons. I was surprised to find the trigger pull superior to my 1964 and 1976 Pythons. Lighter and smoother. Very pleasantly surprised. Those who value a heavy-duty, well-made DA revolver should grab Pythons before Colt decides to end the run...as they always do, too soon. The 2020-series are magnificent! I'll never sell or trade mine.

 

[Abbotson]

How true!

 

[Capt29]

OK, I will weigh in on this one. I bought a Python in 1962, 5 digit SN. Still got it. Colt refinished it for free after it did not react well to SE Asia-tip to anyone planning a trip there-leather holsters and blue steel do not do well in that environment, no matter how well you maintain them.
Anyway, I packed that Python all over, including my first 10 years as a Chicago Cop. It worked well, still does. Now however I just cannot see packing that nice old gun in todays environment (social, not meterological). So I decided to get one of the new Colts. I went hunting for prices and spent some of my grandkids legacy on: Cobra 357 2", Python SS 3", Viper 3" and a Blue Python 5".
No complaint about prices as not getting screwed too badly is a good deal these days.
However, the following conditions are extant with the 4 new guns:
3" SS Python: Works as advertised, DA is smooth, SA slightly heavy but no backlash, shoots to POA with no sight adjustment with 125 gr mag loads.
5" Blue Python: DA pull, harsh, not smooth, SA is very heavy but very little backlash, trigger reset in DA is slow and sometimes sticky.
2" Cobra: Now on its third trip back to factory because trigger reset failed twice (broke) and some little MIM parts fell out of the action causing it to jam completely. Has not fired one shot yet, is over a year old.
3" Viper: Yeah I know just another variation of the above, it is also on its way back after it went crunchen ticken before successfully firing a shot (and some MIM particals dribbled out).
I love my Colts (and Smiths), I am a wheelgun guy, however it seems like CZ cannot build Colts any better than Colt could build Colts after they crashed and burned.
I will continue to try to get my current Colts up and running right, however only 1 out of 4 guns doing well after 4K invested is not doing well. Does not auger well for the future of Colt. I am not angry, just very disappointed.