SW 686 versus COLT Python?

[swagmeister]

Pythons are great guns; I have owned a few over the years. I just prefer the L Frames (586/686). I currently do not own a Python but I have a 586-4 with 4" barrel and have had several L Frames, all with no problems whatsoever and were great shooters. The ongoing debate about Python's being fragile and going out of time quickly seems to be valid for some people. Also, there are very few Python gunsmiths left and the ones who work on them supposedly have long waiting periods. I would not trust sending a Python back to Colt to be worked on because just my luck they would go bankrupt (again!) and my gun would sit on a table somewhere for who knows how long. Just my opinion for what little value it is.

 

[Trooper224]

If you're going to use it for any form of defense you need to train with it. Training induces wear and tear on any machine, which requires periodic maintenance. Guns that are long out of production can be problematic in terms of obtaining spare parts and finding people really qualified to work on them. This is especially true for a gun like the Python. All of this, combined with the Pythons ridiculously prohibitive cost, removes it from contention as a practical weapon. The 686 is the clear choice. It's still in production and more easily and readily serviced. The Python has become a collectable safe queen.

 

[xfarfuldog]

I have 2 Pythons an 3 686’s. All in 4 inch I carried one of the Pythons on duty for 10 years. Love them all but the Pythons come up on top every time. That being said I mostly shoot a 66 or a 3” model 65 now.

 

[diyj98]

The Python's cylinder rotates clockwise. The 686 goes counter-clockwise. In the northern hemisphere, the force of the rotation of the earth assists the Python 's action, making it smoother.

Also, the Python has left hand rifling twist. This also takes advantage of the earth's rotation, and also explains why so many great curveball pitchers were left handed.

Of course, our military struggled with their issued Colts when empire building in the southern hemisphere, and for the same reason, little if any baseball is played south of the equator.

So that's why the Python is the more desirable handgun.

I agree, but you failed to discuss the how the moon phase factors in.

 

[rbmac52]

I've never cared for the looks or handling characteristics of the Colt Python or the L-frame 357 revolvers. All are unnecessarily muzzle heavy. And I thought S&W's going with a full-lug barrel at the time was just a blatant ripoff of the Colt Python's looks, sans the ventilated rib.

To me, the N-frame was a far superior platform to the 586/686 L-frame for .357 Magnum usage. And the K-frame Magnums, though inferior in durability to the L-frame, have the L-frames beaten hands down in carry ability.

I know there are a lot of you who favor the L-frame. To each their own!

 

[Ribwizzard]

I've been playing with revolvers for 30 some years now and will say that my recent purchase of a 686-1 , after a good cleaning and new ejector rod and spring, is the slickest, smoothest, sharpshooting, rooting toting darn six shooter I've ever handled . I've got 4 686's of different configurations, but seriously, this thing is sweet.
$500 plus $150 in parts/new grips, and I am happier than snot.

 

[oink]

I recently acquired a 4" 686 after not having one for over 10 years. While I've had a 6" 686 since the 80s I'm kinda surprised how much I'm liking the 4". I don't remember liking it as much when I had one before. I did carry the original 4" on duty for several years but recall not liking it as much as the 66 I traded in on it. I then carried a 6" N frame for many years which may be why the 4" seems so small and light to me now.

I had a co-worker that carried a 6" Python. I have shot it several times. I never liked the stacking of the double action but that may be because Smiths is what I cut my teeth on.

As I recall Smithons were fairly common at one time. I haven't seen one in a good many years.

I kinda wish I had some snake guns in my safe but I still prefer the Smith action.

 

[Loyaljeeper]

I didn’t even see the fascination with Pythons 20 years ago when they were under $500. I certainly don’t see the appeal of them now.

 

[cowboy4evr]

I don't own a python . Have all Smiths . That said , if I could afford a python I would buy one . I have never been one to just go on what others say . I need to find out for myself . That said , I truly think Colt will come back with the Python . It won't be the same as the older ones . They came back with the Cobra and I just have a strong feeling that a Python is " in the works " . I have handled one , only once . It belonged to a guy that was a retired Az DPS officer . He told me that when he was in training one day at the range another trainee walked up to him and asked if he wanted to trade his Smith model 19 for the other guys Python . He made the trade , carried the Python his entire LE career . It is in real need of some TLC now . The right side finish is almost completely gone , but that Python is still his one and only , he trusts his life to it yet today . So , yes I am open minded about Pythons and their future . Regards , Paul

 

[gman51]

I have a 4" Python and I have a S&W 627-5. I had a Ruger GP100 Match Champion.
IMO the Python is a collector item. There will be no more made, the action is super and it is a beauty in its own right. It is like a Mona Lisa.

When I bought my 627-5 I was disappointed in the trigger action feel right out of the box. I adjusted the tension spring and oiled up the action and now I consider the action right up there with the Python though it does feel different.

I feel the Match Champion is like a tank centerfold. Beautiful and well built however I could not shoot it with great accuracy. I sold it after buying the 627.

I shot all three in a comparison shoot. For accuracy and feel the 627 was first then the Python very close 2nd and the Match Champion was last place in this match. For me gun to hand fit means it all for accuracy for me.

I will probably never sell the Python because it is sort of a Mona Lisa to me. I seldom shoot it but it is eye candy to me.

I have never shot or even held a 686 or a 27 or a 28. From what I have read all three are outstanding handguns. I believe the S&W 27 is probably the Python's greatest completion all around.

For really good quality shooter, keeping in mind the more affordable pricing, I would buy the S&W 686 or the Ruger GP100. Pricewise and all considered I believe the 686 or the GP100 would be the two highest ranking choices. The GP100 is considered the toughest most durable built 357 made today. The Python would be the safe queen for nostalgia and beauty. Occasional shooting just because you can.

I am not a fan boy of any gun brand. The brand isn't what I shoot or depend on. What meets my needs is what I am a fan boy of. That might be a Colt or S&W or Ruger or even a lesser expensive brand as long as it fulfills the need.
I heard so much about the FN 5.7 accuracy but I couldn't hit the barn door if I was standing inside the barn. It's all about what works for you not someone else.

I suggest if you can find a Python in fair to good condition for $800 that you jump on it. I seldom if ever see a Python going for that cheap. I am seeing decent looking so called shooters on GB priced around 2 grand right now. BTW The CEO of Colt has said they will not bring back the Python because the expense to make it today would be so great that few could buy one. Colt no longer has the gunsmiths of old to bring back the Python.

 

[CheyenneBodie]

I have a 6 inch Python and 6 inch 586. IMO the Python is more accurate especially with wadcutter ammo-- IIRC the twist of the Python barrel favors wadcutter ammo. The action of the Python does tend to "stack" slightly at the end of the DA pull--I prefer the Smith action. The Python is a pain in the "A" to work on and finding a good Pistolsmith that knows how to work on one very difficult. Additionally, spare parts getting hard to find too. The Smith is the better "working gun" for everyday use. Much less expensive, easier to work on, spare parts are everywhere to be found.

 

[rubiranch]

Did you go to a Colt forum and ask the same question??

 

[S&WIowegan]

I bought Pythons in the early to mid-90s because they were cool and I liked their look. I even shot a 4" in USPSA matches for a while. But, it became clear that Smiths were far better for gun games and tuning. My Pythons are safe queens now.

 

[runscott]

I haven't yet received my Python, so maybe things will change, but...

My 1955 .357 magnum was delivered yesterday, I had it passed by a gunsmith this afternoon, I cleaned and lubed it shortly thereafter, I fired about 100 rounds of 357 158 grain through it an hour later, and I'm in love. To be fair, I gave my 686+ 14 rounds first. But there was something about the .357 magnum (I know it's correct, but it seems ambiguous to call it that?) that was just incredible. I immediately thought that a previous owner had done something special to the trigger, but maybe all pre-27's and '27's have that same special feeling? I'm truly a .357 newbie, so I'll lean on ignorance. Since I'm 60, hopefully you all will forgive me. How many of us get to go back to the excitement of youth at 60?

I had put a 1984 target grip on the 686 earlier, and it was too big for my hands, so I went back to the factory rubber grips. The pre-27 came with similar late 1950's target grips which I immediately replaced with period dark walnut service diamond magna grips. They look great but are too small. I'm starting to feel like Goldilocks. Even with my right palm wrapping around the bottom of the service grips, it was still a great experience. I planned on shooting two cylinders worth, but ended up shooting a box of Fiocchi and a box of Black Hills, then two cylinders of PMC 38 special. The 38's were like throwing darts (if you are good at that). It felt like shooting my old Ruger single-six 22.

I'm a very happy guy right now. I can't imagine what introducing the Python into the equation will do, but that should happen this Friday. Honestly, as happy as I was with the Python deal, I would give it back right now - there just isn't any need for a Python. But listen to me Friday and I'll look like a flip-flopping moron.

edited to add: By the way, L vs N frame didn't matter much, but the thickness of the forcing cone was hugely larger in the N-frame. I would guess the larger N-frame was part of why I liked the .357 magnum so much.

 

[JFrames4ever]

I own both. My Python was built in 77. I will never sell it cause it can't be replaced. It was my primary shooting 38/357 for many years. I've heard a lot about Pythons being delicate, but after 10's of thousands it is still in good time and scary accurate. I have 5 different 686s and 686+s . My Python is the sexiest revolver I own but has I big problem for any competition which requires reloading on the clock. The ejector rod is too short to clear even 38 cases. My 386+ 2 1/2 inch suffers the same problem. All my other 686s have 3 inch or longer barrels, so have ejector rod are long enough. As far as comparing actions and triggers they are different. I love them both, but they are different. I like apples, and I like oranges. I like blonde, and I like brunettes

 

[Mehutch]

Love the Python, but I own and shoot my 586 and 686's.
Owner and shooter...



Now this is a work of Art.

 

[Jim Watson]

Just to add to a nine year thread...

I own both.

In 1978 I was shooting PPC where the standard outfit was a bull barreled Bomar ribbed K frame for Open and a smoothed up but otherwise stock K38 for Distinguished.
Several of us here concluded that we could shoot both events with a Python, heavier than a K38 and with a smooth light trigger from the Colt Custom Shop. That worked very well, no complaints.
Some years later I shot IPSC Revolver for a while, loads much heavier than target wadcutters and semiwadcutters. The old snake shot them with aplomb, no loss of fit or timing. Its only weakness was a demand for Federal primers, more sensitive under its "raftered" mainspring.

So when I got into IDPA and needed a four inch gun for SSR, I traded a German automatic for another Python and sent it to Reeves Jungkind for tuning. It did OK but I got sucked into the moon clip fad. A sawn off M25-2 was kind of hefty, so I had a 686 converted and tuned. The long skinny .38s did not clip load all that well, so I went back to speedloaders and concluded that the Smith was faster shot to shot than the Colt.

A couple of years ago, I ran side by side by side by side tests.
Python, M68 K, M686 L, and M25 N.
The Python is accurate but the long pull and soft reset make the splits slower. The M25 is great on the clip reload but heavy to swing.
It is a tossup between the K and L. I think the L better with older power factor 125 loads but the K is very handy and soft shooting at the present 105 power factor, which is about like a wadcutter.

Gunsmithing has marched on; 40 years ago a tuned Colt trigger was unbeatable (a stock Colt stacks like mad, which I do not like) but now you can get better in a Smith.

 

[runscott]

Just to add to a nine year thread...

Killing things that were brought back to life is what the Python was about starting in 2010 when Rick began shooting zombies. Once this one is dead again, I promise not to bring it back for at least another five years.

(edited to add: I have never seen the zombie t.v. show, so I am only assuming it's all true)

 

[RMFnLA]

Another party I am late to, but here's my $0.02:

The 6" Python is my hands-down favorite pistol for handling, especially for full-house .357 magnum DA shooting. I carried one in nickel with Mustang combat grips for years and couldn't have been happier.

That being said, that Colt action is significantly less-robust than any modern S&W, especially the cylinder stop and trigger block.

Also, Colt never made target or combat triggers for these, nor colored sight inserts or white outine blades; if you wanted such touches you had to go custom or, in some cases, aftermarket.

It also wasn't available in stainless until almost the end of it's production life.

That 6" cost $300 new, BTW; the insane prices today are the final straw as to why the 686 makes vastly more sense.

 

[Bacon]

I don't get how the L-frame could have been S&W's answer to the Python. The L-frame is larger. It also came out 26 years after the Python. You'd think Smith & Wesson would have had an answer sooner than that. The Python was Colt's flagship. S&W already had a flagship (357 Magnum/Model 27) two decades before the Python.

I believe Colt was trying to up it's game to compete on the high end without directly taking on the Model 27. Seems more logical to me.

The L-frame, as many here already know, was meant to provide a more compact 357 than the N-frame and to give more durability than the K-frame. Also, the L-frame is not considered S&W's flagship so there is no direct comparison.