S & W Vs. Colt

[red9]

Many years ago, when police officers in my department bought their own revolvers, the range officers said that 90% of the guns on the firing line were Smiths and 90% of the malfunctions were Colts. The action of the Python and other older Colts is very smooth but prone to going out of time and striking the primer off center. If you watch closely while slowly pulling the trigger double action, the cylinder will lock before the hammer falls on a Smith and not on the Colt. The Colts with the Mark III and newer lockwork are not as smooth, but much more reliable.
I also do not care for the raised checkering on the Python grips (or are they also stocks?). They provide a good grip, but can be painful when shooting a lot of magnum loads.

Bob

 

[Vulcan Bob]

Both are fine firearms. However since I tend to be more practical as I do shoot them I think finding someone to fix a broken S&W is a lot easier than finding someone to fix a Colt. That said I do own some Colts and like them but I hope they never break!

 

[Culina]

Also, try finding some parts for a Python or someone who is willing to work on one and knows what they are doing. I had plenty of problems with mine thus my opinion.

 

[Rio Vista Slim]

I AM NOT an Expert!

Since that's established, I have owned a variety of Smith & Wesson and Colt revolvers, beginning my acquisitions in 1970.

Speaking personally, the two six inch blued Pythons I owned were the most beautiful revolvers. Those two were accurate, reliable, and I eventually got used to the triggers when fired double-action. I also owned a variety of Detective Specials and Cobras.

Since most of my revolver shooting (both then and now) was done with S&W J, K, L, and N frames, I am more proficent with the Smith & Wesson triggers and actions. Once again, this is a personal preference, as I feel there are enough differences in the two brands to make comparisons rather moot.

Additionally, there is no comparison between the "feel" of shooting a Python and a Detective Special. Same thing between a Model 27 and a Model 36.

Although most of the purchases I made in the 1970s and 80s are long gone, my current revolvers are mostly Smith & Wessons because I'm a shooter, not a collector. Plus, I shoot my Model 686 better than I could shoot my now-departed Python. That revolver went to someone who could appreciate the Python for what it is, and not be worried (as I was) about wear-and-tear.

 

[Joewisc]

I checked Guns International and the Smith 27 asking price is well below the Python. Perhaps it's supply and demand, but the snakes are fetching much more these days. Then again Colts always seem pricey. I think Hickok .45 has a YT vid up where he shoots both and the Python FTF in DA while the Smith didn't. For what that's worth.

 

[CoMF]

I agree this thread should be locked by a moderator before it gets out of control.

Before any other "experts" want to repeat the persistent myth of Pythons spitting lead if you so much as look at them funny, I would like to refer everyone to Grant Cunningham's Is the Colt Python "delicate"? (here's a cached version in case you can't get it to load).

The only valid arguments I've head against the Python or any Colt with similar lockwork thus far are that there's a markedly diminished number of gunsmiths skilled in working on those actions and that you either love or hate the stacking inherent in their trigger pulls.

Colt's aren't "weak" because they aren't as forgiving about lack of maintenance. Period. It's an established fact that you must get a new hand fitted once the cylinder ceases to go into full "welded to the frame" lockup. This is a quirk of the design, not a "flaw."

 

[CoMF]

Additionally, there is no comparison between the "feel" of shooting a Python and a Detective Special. Same thing between a Model 27 and a Model 36.

Apologies in advance if I'm mistaken, but if that statement was directed towards me, I was speaking more from an operational context as the Python and DS share more mechanical similarities than the M-27 and M-36, i.e. the lockwork performs similar functions in both. If I had to compare the shooting experience in my own subjective opinion, I'd say it's almost like shooting my 686, albeit with the characteristic DA "stacking" and straight-through pull that doesn't lend itself well to staging as another poster noted.

 

[Joewisc]

Well, it's conceded here that Colts require more maintenance. Therefore, it follows, they cost more to operate. Don't see a reason to close the thread. People are entitled to their opinions.

 

[wbraswell]

I think the vent rib barrel, on the Python, looks silly. The model 27 and 19 actions can be made just as slick as any Python. I vote straight S&W ticket.

 

[bmcgilvray]

Smith & Wesson, at least the classic, "traditional" ones win hands down in my mind. I have some neato Colts as well including a Python and feel classic Colt models are a solid number two. Not really interested in any other revolver manufacturers except Webley.

The only Colt that is superior to similar Smith & Wesson models is the Detective Special which is the best snub for the purpose. I don't like its double-action trigger pull as well as a Smith & Wesson but the Detective Special is the best, most practical snub ever made. Accurate, compact, and six shots. No need to deal with J-Frames when the Detective Special is available.

I think the Python is fine and feel it is sturdier than its modern internet reputation suggests. While I enjoy shooting the Python at targets in single-action mode I don't find its double-action trigger to be anything extra-special. I much prefer the Models 27 and 28 over any other .357 Magnum revolver including the Python. To my mind the great New Service and the Officer's Model revolvers should be ahead of the Python on a list of great Colt revolvers.

 

[PALADIN85020]

Both top-drawer, but different.

It's like comparing Halle Berry to Charlize Theron. Both are beautiful, but way different. Let's look at the differences between the Python and the Model 27.

First, the Python. The lockwork is an anachronism, using a complex system powered mostly by flat springs, and few gunsmiths really understand it well enough to work on it these days, since it was discontinued.

The cylinder rotates to the right rather than the left, which means that the hand actually pushes the cylinder into the frame, rather than out of it. Also, the hand maintains pressure on the cylinder throughout the firing cycle. You can check this for yourself. With the gun unloaded, pull the trigger all the way through; maintain pressure on the trigger. Then see if you can wiggle the cylinder manually. You can't. It's locked up like a bank vault. Properly fitted, the alignment is well nigh perfect.

The Python was, in its heyday, hand-fitted. In effect, each revolver was given a custom trigger job. The parts operated as smoothly as running your oiled finger over a glass plate.

The Python stacks at the end of the DA trigger pull. This means that if you wish, you can use the DA stack to warn you of the impending release of the hammer, and in effect, letting you squeeze that last fraction of an inch off separately, much like a SA letoff.

The action will demand maintenance after a lot of use; the comment about few gunsmiths being qualified to work on it applies.

Now, the Smith Model 27. I've often called it the "crown jewel" of the S&W lineup. It's finely finished, cosmetically. I love the checkering on the topstrap. The DA action is nothing to write home about, but any good gunsmith can tune it to rival the Python; all it needs is a little careful attention and polishing.

The Smith locks up at three places, rather than the two of the Python. The ejector rod locks into a stud under the barrel. The cylinder rotates to the left; the hand tends to push the cylinder out of its hole in the frame. The action is simpler than that of the Colt, and it's easier to tune. The DA pull does not stack, so the moment of letoff in a DA pull will not be "announced." Some view this as an advantage. More "quick fire" records have been set with the Smith action than the Colt - think Ed McGivern here. Pull the trigger all the way through on a Smith, hold it, and then try to wiggle-rotate the cylinder. Chances are, it will wiggle. Not much, but there will be some slop. The Model 27 is a large frame gun, heavier than the medium-frame Python. It's bulkier, but probably easier to handle in recoil because of its weight.

These are the major differences. Both guns are superb .357 Magnum revolvers. They are just different. I own both and like them both, just like if I were 40 years younger and single, I'd like to date both Halle and Charlize...

John

 

[snubbyfan]

Ford, Chevy, and Dodge............,which one works for you.............I had a 1968 Python. Great gun. Very smooth. Have/had many Smith's. Great guns. Very smooth. Is a red head or a brunette the best woman? Maybe a blonde? See where this is going...........Almost forgot, Which is the best beer?

Dodge, Smith and Wesson, redheads, Miller Genuine Draft.

 

[boatboy]

I am not sure why you would want to lock it down
I am getting some popcorn and a beer

I am fortunate I have them both but my best DA is my Colt Trooper 22LR It was made on another planet

Hank

 

[nipster]

Many years ago, when police officers in my department bought their own revolvers, the range officers said that 90% of the guns on the firing line were Smiths and 90% of the malfunctions were Colts. The action of the Python and other older Colts is very smooth but prone to going out of time and striking the primer off center. If you watch closely while slowly pulling the trigger double action, the cylinder will lock before the hammer falls on a Smith and not on the Colt.

I dont know if any of you watch "The Walking Dead", but one of the things that has always bothered me about it was that the lead character Rick (the former cop) always carries a 6" Python.

Seems odd to me that it has not gone out of time or broke yet. Would be very fitting if he dies at the hands of a walker because he chose Colt instead of Smith...

Ditch that python for a 686 or a 627

 

[Art Doc]

Argued many times.

Most shooters prefer the Smith trigger feel, but the Python was clearly the superior gun in fit and finish.

 

[71firebird400]

Lots of Python hate on this forum (as I'd expect) but I like the things. In my experience they are not nearly as fickle as their reputation, I've got a lot of rounds through a couple of mine and both timing and endshake are still in check. I think the Python's are finished better; even better than my Pre-29's and 27's. The bluing is more uniform and you can tell more time was spent on polishing. I like the Colt DA a lot, but in SA it feels the same (to me) as any of my older Smith's. While I absolutely love the "pre" S&W's I also love the Colt's. They're all good guns, and if you have the means I'd recommend buying both just to see for yourself. The Python's definitely get more admiration at the range!

 

[Duke426]

I think the S&W action is superior and the S&W revolvers are more elegant looking across the entire product line (19, 27, 29, etc) than anything Colt ever produced. I find the Python, Trooper and Diamondback revolvers to be clunky looking and the double action trigger lacking. As for fit and finish, I would say it's a draw. Colt polishing & bluing is gorgeous but S&W was every bit their match in the heyday. JMHO

 

[redsfan2]

My big brother .. who I loved dearly loved bourbon and handguns. He thought Colt was THE gun, and Old Fitz was THE bourbon..... Shook his head about my Smiths .. and flat out told me he wouldn't use my Jim Beam as lighter fluid.

 

[NFrameFred]

A bunch of folks here who have gone all "new age" on us . . . if you don't like their personal favorites you're a "hater" , a word in use today portending more commonization and decline of the language. Be that as it may, people are different and have their reasons for their favorites. I don't hate Pythons, never have, and have owned a half dozen through the years. I just find the S&W to work better for the way I use it and a better tool for the job. And I could afford two or three really nice S&W's for what the Pythons go for these days. The Python's claim to fame was there always was more hand fitting and attention to the small details that production S&W's usually never got. The reality is if someone gets all gushy over the finer things in life they do their best to convince themselves more than anyone else that what they pay more for must obviously be superior. If your handguns are art as well as tools to you then there is much to recommend the Colt. If you prize value and utility the S&W takes the edge. I stand by my comments in the earlier post about the practical efficacy of the S&W timing/locking sequence of the trigger cocking action when applied to accurate target shooting under time constraints.

But those wringing their hands over "Python hate" and wondering why this weighty thread isn't being locked before it warps the fabric of the universe . . . really?

 

[dscampbell]

I like them both. I have more SW 's than Colts. But my all time favorite is my Colt Lawman MK III 2" .357. My favorite SW is a 3" model 10. I like them both.



Scott Campbell Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk