Quote:
|
Any competent gunsmith or S&W themselves can repair an S&W but I understand Colt won't work on Pythons and few gunsmiths can do so reliably-the Python trigger is smooth but stacks at the end of the squeeze unlike the Smith which does so at the outset
|
The last time I talked to Colt about this, they work on any Python. That was going on 2 years ago, but it makes sense for them to work on all Pythons since they made so many (yet another reason why the current prices are asinine), and they have problems enough (not a lot, but more than many other revolvers) to where its financially viable for them to continue to work on Pythons.
Some people, truth be known, prefer a Python trigger. They see it as a 2 step DA trigger, so the firing of the gun is predictable. In other words, you can reduce the DA trigger all the way until right before it breaks, every time. I have a 1954 Colt trooper, with the same type of action. I can appreciate its differences, and the DA trigger is nice and smooth, with a small stack, and the SA trigger is excellent. It probably has a better trigger than nearly any Python I ever handled or fired. The SA trigger of a Python is no better than most S&Ws I have handled. I don't care for the sights of the Python, the trigger grooves/serrations, the factory grips, or the sights. I also am not a fan of its heft BUT that does reduce recoil. As for the look, I can see both sides of that. I would not call them ugly, but I certainly prefer the adjustable sight N frame / K frame silhouette and look in general. S&Ws, esp from before Bangor Punta (the 4 and 5 screw K and N frames), and even some Bangor Punta guns, have just as good fit and finish. If you get into pre war S&Ws, I would say the S&Ws might even be more consistent in overall quality, and fit and finish. One has to remember that Pythons were made from 1955 until the 1990s. Its hard therefor to make blanket statements about them, since these periods of time represented vastly different periods for Colt manufacturing. Early Pythons, from the 1950s to the 1960s are universally regarded as having an excellent consistant quality. Colts in general from the 1950s into the 1960s are really nice. I know all of mine have been, as are others I have looked at. Fast forward to the 80s, and Colt was not selling as well, they had strikes, quality suffered, etc. Its a bit of a farce to assume that in the 80s, and afterwards, every Colt model suffered EXCEPT for the Python. The truth is, this all effected all of their guns.
EDIT - forgot to add - FWIW, the S&W cylinder release is far better vs the Colt style release. I'm not trying to nitpick the Python, but if its actually "the Rolls Royce of revolvers" guns such as S&W 357s, or any other revolver, should not have any significant advantage over it, from a logical sense. I'm critical of Pythons because of their rep, but if not for that, I probably would give them a little more leeway.
I don't mind if anyone thinks that Pythons are the end all be all. Its your money. I will say that its rare for people who have a lot of revolvers or revolver experience to select a Python over say a S&W, in a pure shooting sense. Then there are the DW guys, and those DWs deserve respect too. There is certainly a Python "legend" which means some of what is said is based on fact, and some of it is not. Once again, you can have your opinion, and I will have mine. I want an early Python for my collection. I also don't hate Colt. This all is just my opinion from my own experience, and knowledge of revolvers.
Quote:
|
I would not use light fast mag rounds in a Python-stick to 158 gr lead and you won't have timing problems
|
I think the timing issues are more a trademark of the older lockwork design than it is the ammo used. The 158 gr vs 125 gr and lighter was an issue with K frame S&W 357s, but not Pythons, AFAIK.