S&W 586 VS THE COLT PYTHON

[chief38]

Let me just start off by saying I do not own a Colt Python but have shot many of them. I've also had a few apart for cleaning, and lubricating so I am familiar with the lock work & design.

I do own a 6" S&W 586 which I personally chose over the Python when purchased new in 1983. The M586 cost me $263 at that time while the Python price was around $460. A big monetary difference however that was not the only reason I chose the Smith over the Colt.

I originally walked into the Gun Shop to buy the Python and when the store owner gave me the price I did balk. He immediately grabbed a S&W M586 and said this one is $200 bucks less. I spent about a half hour handling both guns and kept gravitating back to the Smith. Now I was actually looking at the guns and not just the price. After feeling the actions, lock-up, grips, etc. it seemed like a no-brainer and came home that evening with a brand new M586 and $200 bucks more in my pocket.

While I NOW regret not purchasing 100 Pythons for investment purposes (yea, who knew back then that there would be Pythons currently selling NIB for well over $3,000) I never gave a second thought to the decision I made back then. I still think from a shooters point of view I made the correct one.

IMHO the OLDER 1980's vintage (out of the box) Smith 586's are smoother, have a better SA trigger, and are much more mechanically durable than the Colt Python is. Working on a Smith is a piece of cake compared to the Python and the Pythons lock-work is too fragile for my liking.

On the other hand the Pythons looks are awesome and Colt's Royal Bluing is the best in the business IMHO.

Now I do love Colts, however simply from a Shooters standpoint it is my personal belief that the older M586's are absolutely fantastic guns and (until recently) very under-rated.

I understand that S&W made the M586 with the full under-lug barrel to make it look more "Python like" and I have often thought about smithing it down to a traditional half lug as the rest of the Smiths have - but never had the nerve to take cutting tools to it.

Anyway, I do understand the allure of the Colt Python and will agree it is a fine piece of workmanship with excellent fit & finish, but for a real work horse of a .357 Magnum I truly believe the M586 is the real "shooters choice". What do you Guys and Gals think?

Chief38

 

[k22fan]

Normal wear from the innards rubbing against each other makes a Smith smoother, especially in DA. Wear from the action cycling puts a V mainspring Colt out of time. S&W parts are abundant and most repairs are easily done at home. Parts for V mainspring Colts are collectors’ items and it was already hard to find a gunsmith willing to retime a V mainspring Colt by the mid 1970s. What does a Python have to compensate for those faults? A very questionable claim of better polishing than a 27, 57 or 29, and an odd looking shotgun rib that, frankly, belongs on a shotgun.

I do keep an old V mainspring Colt around the house but for only one reason. Any time one of its stable mates looks tempting I take it out to remind myself how undesirable their heavy stacking DA pull is.

Incidentally, a few years before you bought your 586 I chose a 28. Both the V mainspring Colts I’d owned had gone out of time and repairmen were no were to be found.

Perhaps in the interest of politeness I should have kept my opinion of someone else’s favorite toys to my self, but you asked.

 

[rog8732]

What do I think ?.... I think it is about the most sensible post I have seen on this forum; when it comes to the mention of Colt's Python as opposed to anything Smith&Wesson.

I will add, that in the heyday of single action bullseye shooting revolvers; for guys with a budget that forbade custom-made revolvers, the Python most likely would begin to put groups in the 10 ring quicker than a Smith.(Despite those hard to get accustomed to, grips)

Having said that, the S&W of choice in those long gone days would have been the model 27.

I expect the 586 was aimed at a different crowd,(no pun intended) and was from the beginning, a "work-a-day" revolver.
Smith&Wesson was smarter in many ways than Colt, especially in the area of contracts, where you sell multiple guns, (witness the mdl. 10) as opposed to gun shops where you sell one a week.

I doubt Colt ever had more than a few police contracts, whereas S&W had, not only most cities and states, but also FBI and other feds.

Your point about durability is well taken. I do not doubt it. But, as you likely know, there was a time when most ALL shooters maintained there own guns. After a week or two of heavy shooting, most of us would completely open up what we used, and clean, lube, and inspect every bit of their "inards".

As times changed people did not routinely do that anymore, and like you, I think the heavy Smiths were more designed to "take it", than a comparable Colt.

A comment for your conjecture Chief. It is my opinion that, had S&W continued to hand fit, hand polish,and stick with the labor intensive parts fitting as they did on all the older long cocking stroke, "pre" stuff, then I think their revolver production today, would be much the same as Colt's.

 

[jimsguns]

Hi Chief. The 586 and Python are my favorite .357s - particularly with a 6" barrel. They both have beautiful lines, that full underlug and the Python sports that sweet vented rib and royal blue finish. Yikes! Don't cut back your 586 underlug! Suggest you get a 19 or 27 to add to your collection if you want a partial underlug model..the more revolvers the better..right?

Interesting to hear what these guns cost in '83. I was 14 yrs old back then and can remember always ogling those sweet blued revolvers in my local sporting goods store case and wishing I were older so that I could buy one or two or three... Yes, if we only knew the Python would go on to be so collectible. Running an inflation calculator, a $463 Python in '83 would be $1093 today, and with guns selling upwards of $3k I would say that is good value appreciation! The 586 on the other hand at $260 in '83 would be $625 today, so I would say they got a little more expensive.

As far as 586 vs. Python..I just got them both!

 

[rwsmith]

My 686

My 686 has an amazing trigger. I never liked the vented rib on the Python though it was a distinctive 'trademark'.

 

[Rpg]

Sort of like comparing a Ford to a Ferrari: either will get you to the grocery store. You'd probably pick the Ford for most errands but for pure esthetics, the Ferrarri wins hands down.

 

[Goblin]

In a simple comparison I prefer the Python. I happen to like the vent rib and muzzle profile. I even prefer the shape of the hammer, and while I've seen Smiths with very nice bluing, none that match my Python. When it comes to accuracy and shooting qualities, it's a toss-up for me, since I don't mind the stacking of the action. To me it's more like choosing a Ford or Chevy pickup. A lot of brand loyalty and asthetics that weigh heavier than actual performance. And by the way, I prefer the 19 to the 586, I have a Python for those times I want to shoot something with more weight out front.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Pretty goods post. Pythons are beautiful guns but I never really wanted one. To me they are too delicate-Back when I had the choice between a Python and a 27-the 27 won hands down (the L frame wasn't around yet)

 

[Rick_A]

I have three new S&W's (ETA: and had two others) that are at odds with your assessment that only the older 80's S&W's are smooth.

V spring Colts are nice guns but not a gun that I'd want to use heavily. Guys around here get giddy when a nice snake gun comes around. I could've bought one at the tail end of the production runs but even the ones sent out for review at the time had issues.

I think sometimes people don't realize that a few decades of use can slick a gun up some. Was it really made better and can you really remember what that action was like out of the box some thirty plus years ago?

 

[txbirdman]

My comparison was between the Python (stainless) and a Model 27-2. Both were 6 inch guns and I owned both at the same time. My primary basis of comparison was "how do they shoot". I tried every way I could to give the edge to the Python because I did like the looks but there's no way it could compare to the Smith in the accuracy department. That was twenty five years ago and the Smith (the most accurate revolver I've owned) is still in the safe but the Python is long gone.

 

[UncleEd]

This is slightly off base but not by much:

In the heyday of three-gun bullseye, the V-spring Colts, i.e., the Officer's Model, were preferred because the shooting was single action and cocking the Colt was butter smooth. The Smith in cocking single action invariably pulled the sights off the target.

That V-spring characteristic exists in the Python and a lot of people in playing with the Colt Python and Smith are fooled by the softer single action cocking. But if they test the double action, suddenly the Python begins to fade compared to a Smith, be it 586, 19, etc.

And as stated, in heavy use double action, the Python really goes out of time fast. But it's a beautiful revolver nonetheless.
It's just that it is not then nor now worth the money to a dedicated double-action revolver shooter.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

Now from across the isle.........I have a Python (6") from the custom shop(1980) and a first year no dash nickel 586(4"). I prefer neither. The python has had its hand stretched twice to put it back in time. And I don't like the over heavy full lug barrel on the 586. Both just occupy space. I much prefer & carry my N's & K's. One L frame that I have a soft spot for it my 686 mtn gun.

 

[armorer951]

L-Frame vs Python

For me the Python's beauty is only skin deep. From an armorer's perspective they (and the other similar Colt revolver designs) are a nightmare. Compared to the S&W design they are difficult and time consuming to disassemble and re-assemble. Most, if not all of the critical internals are expensive, hand fit parts, and no training or armorer support has ever been offered or provided by Colt.

Among other things, consider the lack of proper internal support (no slot) for the hand, the design of the cylinder latch and internal cylinder components (springs), and the operation and fitting of the bolt/rebound lever mechanism makes them difficult to assess, clean, and repair. I've never met one that carried up properly in DA.

These internals, along with the fact that power is provided by the dreaded "V" spring, the lack of support and training by the manufacturer, and the MSRP ($$$) are a deal breaker for me.
As one of the previous posts stated, kind of like comparing a Ferrari and a Ford.....only for me, the Python is the Ford. My apologies to the Ford Motor Company.

 

[UncleEd]

As one of the previous posts stated, kind of like comparing a Ferrari and a Ford.....only for me, the Python is the Ford. My apologies to the Ford Motor Company.

Now that is funny.

 

[H Richard]

I bought a 686, 6" back in 84. I shot that gun in PPC competitions, and Metallic Silhouette. I have never been disappointed. My impression is the Colt is a great investment, just don't shoot it much, and the 686 is a workhorse nearly a do anything handgun. I don't count rounds through any of my guns, but this one (a no dash) must have well in excess of 30,000 rounds through it. The only time it has seen a gunsmith is for the Hammer nose bushing recall in the 90's.

 

[brucev]

With respect, I'm not impressed with the Python. The polishing, etc. is like a bow on a box. It's pretty. But that's all. And with any significant use, carry, exposure to less than ideal conditions, etc., all the pretty appearance in the world will degrade. I've owned three Pythons all of which got shot hard. With good .38 ammo, they'd all produce nice tight groups... less than 2 inches. My first 586... with the same handloads that I at that time loaded, produced groups that were in every way clones of anything the Pythons would produce. The L-frames that I've had since then have been fully as accurate, some startlingly so.

Since about 2000 I've given much more attention to DA shooting. From about 1980-2000 most all of my shooting was SA. I focused on S&W revolvers b/c I got the best results from them in SA shooting. I had some Rugers and two Pythons, none of which were as good as the S&W's. The SA on the Ruger pistols was always heavy. The SA on the Pythons was very good, equal to the S&W's.

When I began to do more DA shooting, I very rapidly came to really appreciate the S&W lockwork. I found the Ruger's would stage to lock allowing one to then break the shot nicely, but the DA trigger pull was always heavy compared to the S&W. About 2002 I bought another Python. It shot fine in SA, like the other Pythons and like my L-frames, it was very accurate, but nothing dramatic. In DA shooting it was simply not as useful. The DA trigger pull was the problem. For such a finely fitted revolver, the DA trigger pull was unsatisfactory. Using both K, L and N frames, the S&W DA trigger pull was and is superior for careful shooting. Consider, those who shoot matches spend money to get their guns to workto the highest levels of accuracy. If the Python offered any advantage on the line, people would be shooting it. Same goes for the Ruger. People shoot the S&W's. JMHO. Sincerely. brucev.

 

[SJshooter]

The Python just might be the prettiest revolver ever made. But if you want to go to the range every weekend and shoot the heck out of your gun, the 586 can do that endlessly. My guess is the Python would be shot out of time in one session.

 

[Matt Hooper]

"IMHO the OLDER 1980's vintage (out of the box) Smith 586's are smoother, have a better SA trigger, and are much more mechanically durable than the Colt Python is."

Durable? Maybe. The rest. Not a chance. Not even close. My Python is 54 years old and is smoother than any Smith revolver I have ever had. I am a S&W fanboy and have thousands and thousands invested in my Smiths, but the Colt is just in a different league. Just my 2 cents.

 

[9mmsubgun-m11]

When I hung out in my cousins gun shop in the mid 90's he would get a lot of Pythons in on trade and usually had collectors waiting for them. I remember wanting my first real revolver and asked if I could have one of the traded for Pythons. Cousin would have let me have my pick of the crop at cost but warned of durability issues. He hooked me up with a 4" 686 police trade in from a friend of his around 1995.That was my first real revolver and is still one of my favorites. A year or so after I got it I acquired a pair of the highly sought after combat finger grooves for a $10.00 bill. The ponies are certainly pretty but the Smith is a tank.JMHO.

 

[bmcgilvray]

The Python just might be the prettiest revolver ever made. But if you want to go to the range every weekend and shoot the heck out of your gun, the 586 can do that endlessly. My guess is the Python would be shot out of time in one session.

No, the Python will hold up to a volume of even Magnum ammunition shooting. At least that's my experience. A circa 1978 6-inch blued Colt Python has lived here for a number of years and it sees use. It's not babied.

It's not politically correct these days to discriminate however, we may discriminate all we like when it comes to our guns.

The Python's not my favorite Colt revolver by a long shot. It's styling strays into wretched excess. The early Pythons have a lovely polished and blued finish but so many of the later ones appear over-polished from the factory and look a bit melted when compared with the attention to preparation for bluing given early Pythons or other Colts from bygone times.

The vent rib is an iconic feature on the Python but is an offense to the eye in my view.

I dislike both the "look" and the balance of any full-lug revolver so both the L-Frame Smith & Wesson and the Colt Python strike out on that feature in my view.

Python factory stocks are very smart looking as rendered on the 1950s guns with their rich fully checkered walnut but the later ones are mostly humdrum in appearance and the finish isn't durable.

I picked up a first-year-of-production Colt 3 5 7 a couple years back. It was the first premium Colt .357 Magnum revolver since the grand old New Service in that chambering was discontinued because of World War II. It predated the introduction of the Python by a couple of years. The 3 5 7 inaugurated the frame on which the Python was built and shares all the same design features. Only cosmetics are different and I feel the 3 5 7 is more appealing and better balanced than the Python. No one could tell any difference in action feel or trigger quality.





While we're at it, this is the very best Colt revolver of all time, the smooth, stately and elegant New Service. Much like a Python, only rendered on a larger scale and with a hammer-mounted firing pin. The blue finish on the New Service makes all Pythons eat dirt.



My old trigger finger is too acclimated to the Smith & Wesson action and trigger so the L-Frame wins because of the trigger with me. The best Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum though, hence the very best .357 Magnum revolver on earth is the Model 27.