I have owned many blue and nickel Pythons during the past 35 years, 2.5-inch, 3-inch, 4-inch, and 6-inch. I always bought them because I thought that I should have at least one example, but because they never really jazzed me, I would dump one and get another variation hoping that it would be "the one." My last one was an ANIB 1967 blue 4-inch, but it didn't do it for me either.
My best .357 is a 3.5-inch PC 27-8. Although it doesn't have the vintage charisma of the Smiths of Olde, and it doesn't have, as one member appropriately remarked, the mystique of the Python, the PC 27-8 has everything I want (including something I don't want -- the IL).
Perhaps I am out of step with the rest of the world, but Colts, including the Python, just don't float my boat. With the exception of the historical Victorian charm of the single action army, I just don't think they are interesting guns. The only two I would want now are the .45 Colt New Service and the 1908 .380 "hammerless" pocket auto, but of course these haven't been made since WWII. Smiths, on the other hand, are interesting; they have panache and have so many different models and variations that they are just plain fascinating.
Here are a few of my observations between Colt and Smith & Wesson. They are, of course, not really practical day-to-day concerns, but they do highlight a few differences between the brands:
Colt:
1. Cylinder rotates in same direction it closes, so cylinder rotation and lockup push against the frame (probably a negligible benefit considering modern manufacturing).
2. Cylinder stop notches are offset from the chambers, so the stop won't peen the metal into the cylinder, like what happened to one of my M15s.
3. Very simple cylinder locking mechanism: one large-diameter bin at the back of the cylinder. Unlike the Smith, Colt doesn't rely on opposing pins and springs for lockup. The ejector rod doesn't have those parts to bind, and a damaged ejector rod won't render the gun inoperable.
Smith & Wesson:
1. I like the lockwork better than Colt's; it operates smoother without the need to flex parts (Colt's "shelf and lever" gizmo).
2. Smith has a single-leaf mainspring, unlike Colt's "V"-shaped mainspring. I had these springs break at the point of the "V" in two old Colts I once had.
3. Even though more complicated than Colt, the fore-and-aft cylinder lockup on the Smith seems like a better idea, even with the drawbacks noted above. (As an aside, my 27-8 doesn't have an under-barrel locking pin; it has a ball detent on the front of the yoke that locks into a "V" notch in the barrel shroud.)
That said, I would go with the Smith. I agree with the other members' assessments of the Python, but I can't recommend buying one just because it is a Python. The Smith will be every bit as durable, parts availability and factory service should be good, and properly cared for, the Smith will likely give you many years of reliable service.
Just my humble opinion.
