Colt Python vs S&W 19/66

[BJung]

Is the Colt Python that good of a revolver? I have a friend that likes to brag and raves about his. I own a model 66 and it works fine for me.

[Brownstone322]

To me that comparison is apples and oranges. The Model 19/66 are K-frames, and the Python might better be compared to the larger, heavier S&W L-frames (586/686). The 586/686 might not have the mythical reputation of the Python, but people seem to love them.

I would think your Model 66 would approximate the Colt King Cobra Target.

[shurshot]

Burbank, I have a hunch that (all things being equal, round count, load power, etc.), your lockwork will last longer than his Colt. Just my opinion having owned and shot lots of both makes and their various models over the years, but S&W double action lock work has always been far more durable over the long haul, as compared to the Colt double actions. The Colt Python is an awesome gun, but there is Nothing wrong with a good S&W K or L frame revolver!

[KyJim]

It's mostly personal preference. The old model Pythons (before the re-introduction of the Python this year) are almost all beautifully finished and have a lot of hand fitting (there were some that had more of a matte stainless finish when Colt factory workers went on strike). The Python triggers are usually smoother out-of-the box than Smiths, but stack some at the end of the pull. A Python will generally need its timing adjusted before a SW pistol. For sheer enjoyment of a revolver, I like Colts, especially the Python, better than Smiths. But, if I had to carry a revolver in the zombie apocalypse, it would be a Smith and Wesson.

I have three Pythons, three SW M19s, and a SW M65 (sort of the fixed-sight version of the M66).

[44 AMP]

I have three Pythons, three SW M19s, and a SW M65 (sort of the fixed-sight version of the M66).

Get a model 27 or 28 and come play with the grownups!

[rodfac]

Truth be told, I'm a Smith guy...but will say that the limited time I've spent with a friend's Python has left me with an elevated preference for a Smith M19 or 66. For carry purposes, the lighter weight of the S&W "K" frames is preferable, as is the better DA trigger on the examples I've shot. Too, as has been pointed out, if you need work on the gun, it's far easier to find parts and qualified armorers for a Smith. All that said, my Smith M27 (an "N" frame) with its 5" bbl. is a joy to shoot, easy to tote if you don't mind the weight, and has by far the best DA trigger I've ever shot. YMMv Rod

[SIGSHR]

IMHO the S&W L frame was introduced to compete with the Python, the Colt Official Police frame on which the Python is based handles a steady diet of 357s better.

[BubbaBlades]

You could combine the Model 19 and a Python like these guns. You get the easy to work on S&W action and the barrel weight and accuracy of the Python.

A Colt Python was my first duty gun. I switched to a S&W Model 66 when they became available in the 70s because my Marine Patrol duties caused damage to the Python's blue finish.

Both the Colt and the S&W had zero mechanical problems while shooting thousands of rounds of both .38 Special and .357 Magnum. (I was an active bullseye shooter and reloader for more than 20 years).

[BJung]

With good loads, both are equally as accurate, yes? Maybe the Python can handle heavy loads better because of the beffier frame.

[Drm50]

I would say Python is between 19 & 586. That is between K & L frame. No argument that the Colt Python is a fine revolver. It won’t take the steady diet of magnum loads anywhere near a L frame S&W. The S&W is more durable action wise. I would say same thing about the Colt Diamond Back 38sp. Very accurate and slick action. The J Chiefs Special Target is bit smaller and not as slick, m15 a bit larger but both S&W are as accurate and more durable than DB.
I had 4” Python bought new that I never shot a magnum in. Shot HBWCs and it was tack driver. Diamondback was most comfortable 38 I ever owned and very accurate. Long ago I went with S&Ws. No mechanical troubles and never got a lemon, all P&R era guns.

[ballardw]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Get a model 27 or 28 and come play with the grownups!

Shouldn't that be 29?

[rock185]

I was always a S&W guy, but admired the Pythons. Even back in the '70s though, when I bought I don't know how many new S&Ws, there was concern about the V-spring Pythons going out of time. I shot a Python or two, and while beautiful guns, didn't care for the DA trigger pull that stacked for about the last 3rd. of the trigger pull. FWIW, my V-spring gun at the time, a pre MK III Trooper, did go out of time. My current V-spring type Colt, a 3 5 7 model, is still in time but leads an easy, non-endurance testing, life.

I know the Pythons are considered .41 frame guns, and have the massive appearing lugged barrel. But did anyone notice they have a relatively thin forcing cone, similar to the K-Frame S&Ws, minus the flat cut across the bottom. Back in the day, I did see a fellow officer's Python with damaged forcing cone, as well as a S&W Model 19 or two. We were issued the now infamous 357 125 grain JHP ammo. After some of us started carrying L-frame revolvers, I never saw or heard of a damaged forcing cone with any of those guns. I admire the Pythons, and expect their ruggedness is similar to the S&W 19/66,etc. I don't believe the original Pythons are as durable as the S&W L-frame guns.....ymmv

I

[44 AMP]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
Get a model 27 or 28 and come play with the grownups!

Shouldn't that be 29?

If I weren't limiting the reply to .357 revolvers, then yes the 29 would be in there.

To be fair, I would also include the .357 Ruger Redhawk, if you can find one. I like large, heavy strong DA .357s, and don't know a better one than the S&W N frame 27/28.

Even though the Python was an outstandingly well done gun, I never thought what you got was worth the asking price.

[GeauxTide]

Yeah, I replaced my 19 with a 28. I did own a Python for a few months, but my hand wasn't big enough. I couldn't reach the trigger for DA operation.

[KyJim]

Get a model 27 or 28 and come play with the grownups!

[T. O'Heir]

In the olden days, Pythons were the only factory production .357 that did not require a trigger job out of the box. That was done by real skilled smithies in the Colt factory. It's also why Pythons have always been much more expensive. The current MSRP being $1499.00 vs the $893.00 for a Smith 19. The Smith needs a trigger job, but that doesn't cost $600. Which is the difference in MSRP.
"...L frame was introduced to..." Nope. It was actually to compete with the GP 100 and it's full under lug barrel. Pythons existed long before the 'L' frame was even an idea.

[Jim Watson]

Python may have been assembled by skilled workers but unless you like a double action that "stacks" like mad, it is not a good trigger. Cost of a Colt Custom trigger job was $90 when I got mine in the 1970s.

Frank Glenn now charges $360 to get the stack out of a Colt, $200 for a match trigger on a Smith.

[rodfac]

In the olden days, Pythons were the only factory production .357 that did not require a trigger job out of the box.

I've owned Smiths since the early '60's...better than a dozed of them, and shot literally dozens more as the head range officer on an Air Force qualifying range, shot Bullsyeye competition for over a decade, and have yet to fire a Smith K or N frame that needed a "trigger job" "right out of the box".

I'd opine and with a lot of support from other experienced shooters, that Smith's SA is good to go on 95+% of their guns even in today's offerings, and their DA triggers have always been the industry standard....YMMv but mine differs drastically.

Even though the Python was an outstandingly well done gun, I never thought what you got was worth the asking price.

'Bout says it all.

Rod

[Old Stony]

I've owned both of them over the years, and the only thing I really have good to say about a Python is they are pretty. I don't like the triggers on them, or the grips. I have seen many Pythons that spit like crazy out of the barrel/cylinder gap, and never had that problem with a Smith. I ordered a Python once to use for Silhouette shooting, and it was soon retired. I contacted Colt as mine had a barrel/cylinder gap of just over .010 and Colt just told me that was well within their specifications.
I'll stick with Smiths the rest of my life as something pretty is okay, but I'd rather have some that perform as I want them to.

[buck460XVR]

Originally Posted by T. O'Heir

"...L frame was introduced to..." Nope. It was actually to compete with the GP 100 and it's full under lug barrel. Pythons existed long before the 'L' frame was even an idea.

Iffin' my memory serves me right, the L-Frame was introduced in 1981 and the GP100 in 1985. Maybe those boyz at S&W had a crystal ball?

[pete2]

I've owned a couple Pythons 0(still have 1) and they are beautiful, slick and accurate. They work fine for me in single action but The S&W Double action is so much better it ain't funny. I shoot a lot of double action, practically no single action these days so it's a Smith for me. The L-Frame is about the size of the Python. The 19 is My ideal carry gun, lightweight, accurate, powerful. For the range the 4" L-frame is the ticket.

[dahermit]

Originally Posted by burbank_jung

Is the Colt Python that good of a revolver? I have a friend that likes to brag and raves about his. I own a model 66 and it works fine for me.

In my opinion the popularity of the Colt Python was due to its looks. That full underlug, and vented top rib and front sight gave the Colt a unique shape that appealed to a lot of people. In reality the "V" spring tuning was problematic and the crude method of putting a bend in it to get a lighter trigger pull was questionable as well as leading to many broken main springs.

In contrast, S&W revovers were easy to work on and to get results without damaging or modifying parts...put spring kits in, take spring kits out.

In short, take away the Python's looks, and you then loose its appeal.

[603Country]

I’ve had a Python for maybe 40 years, and have shot it a bunch. Never any problem with it, but a year or two ago I decided to take the ‘workload’ off the Python and get a 686. The grandkids and their friends just love the Python and they ran through a bunch of reloads. The 686 would take the abuse and the Python could then be lightly used. The 686 did indeed need a trigger job to equal that of the Python. Single action trigger pulls are about the same, being excellent. Double action trigger pulls are different, as others have said. That said, I prefer the sort of two stage pull of the Python, as the 686 DA pull is abrupt. Shooting targets in DA, for me, is best with the Python. You might say, and be right, that since I’ve had the Python so long that I am just more used to that DA trigger pull.

I had a visitor here a week or so ago. He’s ex-military and ex-cop and he wanted to shoot the revolvers. We banged away for a while and then went to what I call the “one shot challenge”. We each get one shot with the revolver of our choice (or any other handgun I own) on a splatter target at 12 yards. He chose the Python. I chose the 686, since I think I do shoot it a bit better in SA than the Python and I like the grip better on the 686. I put my round in the top 1/3 of the oblong bullseye and he put his dead center. Bragging right are his till next time.

Anyway, if I had to sell one, I’d sell the 686.

[Scorch]

Is the Colt Python that good of a revolver? I have a friend that likes to brag and raves about his. I own a model 66 and it works fine for me.

This is another one of those annoying "back in the day" type of answers. OK, so back in the 1960s when the Python was brand new, there were no S&Ws that could compete with it. It was on a frame that was the right size for the 357 Mag (Colt 357 and Trooper E frame), it was targeted at patrol officers and PPC shooters, and it was basically a custom gun for a little more than the cost of a Trooper. It had several advantages of its competition: a reinforced frame, a heavy underlug barrel for fast shot recovery, adjustable target sights, and a great trigger right out of the box. S&W didn't have anything to compete with it. Nothing. S&W had the N frame Registered Magnums, but those were not a regular production item, plus they were heavier than most people liked. And they had the K frame Combat Masterpiece (similar to the later models 19 and 66 like you have), which was really too light for the 357 Magnum, had a light barrel, and had an annoying habit of the frame or forcing cone cracking when fed a steady diet of 357s. So the Python ruled the roost, good or not. And they really were one of the best revolvers available. A friend of mine, a S&W gunsmith, would often tell me how he could tune a S&W 19 to be "as good as" an out-of-the-box Python, but by then you had to put as much money into a S&W you might as well just buy the Colt. In the early 1970s, S&W introduced stainless, Colt stuck with blued for a few years longer. Smith switched over to frame-mounted firing pins to reduce hammer mass, Colt already had frame-mounted floating firing pins. But in the mid 1980s, S&W introduced the L frame. As soon as I saw it I understood what had happened. S&W introduced a 357 size frame with a heavy underlug match barrel and target trigger/hammer. THey basically built a Python on a S&W frame. At that point, I knew the Python was dead, there was nothing to set it apart from a Smith. So, long story I know, your 66 is the stainless version of the 19 which was too small for the 357 but worked for a lot of people. Python lockwork was antiquated in the 1960s but it felt great. Colt's later lockwork has nothing to even come close to a Python, and Colt is still trying to live on their reputation. Smith won.

[Jim Watson]

Smith switched over to frame-mounted firing pins to reduce hammer mass

There may be something to that, there were some far out PPC guns made by converting .22 Jets to .38 to get the frame firing pin. But I think the main reason was that you can't readily MIM narrow slots and small holes as required for a hammer with as was routinely machined for a "hammer nose" firing pin.