Why?

RevolvingGarbage said:

There's only name and rough form in common between the old classic Colt double actions and the new offerings with the Colt name. That's not to say the new ones are no good, or that they can't serve the same functions because by all accounts they are pretty decent on the whole with only about an average amount of factory lemons cropping up among a lot of mostly satisfied customers.

The thing is, knowing how the fit and finish is on the old Colts versus the new offerings, it's very clear that the classic guns will always command a high price. Theres just no replicating the craftsmanship that made the hand fitting possible, or even the basic mechanical results of what the old jigs and fixtures produced. Theres a soul of sorts in the tooling and once it's worn out and gone it can't come back. Something similar in a lot of ways can be made, but it will just not ever be the same.

Click to expand...

The thing is - as time goes on, there are less and less people alive who are cognizant of the difference. Even then, many will just have "heard about" the difference (like myself) and be aware of it, not actually experienced it to any degree.

Only the heirs of those with today's "legacy/Old" Pythons will be in on that.
Or those willing to pay that premium.

We know the S&W "pre-model 17" was made to a different standard than a 17-3 or 17-6... but at what point is it just another model 17? At what point do you stop asking for a premium? Granted that they were made continuously, unlike the Python situation...


If they keep continuously making "New" Pythons, in 40 years it will just be another Python to the average buyer. But there will always be those who know the difference and be willing to pay (dearly) for it. However small that pool of buyers may become over time.

When it comes to revolvers, a lot of us aren't buying "just" a gun. We're buying a piece of history. The new guns may or may not be better than the old, but they're not the ones used by Elmer and Skeeter and Dirty Harry, so...

I personally don't know if the new Colts are better than the old, having very little experience with either. I know I'd far rather have an old one regardless.

Has the "new" python been out long enough to prove it to be more durable than the"old" python? I think at this point in time it is much like the covid vaccine that was pronounced safe after four months.Time will tell but it will take longer with something made of steel.

CNC machining has removed much of the need for hand fitting of about anything made today and is faster. The machines are very expensive but are they more expensive that the humans that used to do the work over the long run. You didn't just run out and hire someone off the street that was capable of doing the skilled fitting needed with intricate machinery and it wasn't just guns. It required years of training all while drawing a salary and benefits. If skilled workers were cheaper over time they would still be used today.

I have now seen "twin " 6 inch Pythons in two different gun shops. One brand new and an older one, both selling for $1400 at both places. At the shows, their prices have come down quite a bit. The only time they are a little higher is when they have papers, box or presentation case. But there is a guy who says his is extra special and wants a guszillion for his. It surprises me that with inflation, his price never changes. lol

bigpower491 said:

Today's might be more reliable and better made, but it'll never be the icon the original was.

Click to expand...

Faster, safer but not only will it not be the icon the original was, in another 50 years only the old one will be running... But I bet the new pythons beat modern cars in that respect.

The older Pythons have a more complicated set
of internals than the Python 2020s. As long as the
older one is not stressed in a lot of double action
shooting, it should be fine. But the newer models
are definitely designed more for DA shooting; their
triggers are much better. However the SA on the new
ones is nothing to write home about.

The older ones certainly have a bit more refined polish
in small areas such as the cylinder latch release.

Barmcd said:

Over the same 120 years that $20M machine will be much cheaper than the labor force they used to have to make the old guns.

Click to expand...

That same machine will also put out more units faster than humans can.

Speedo66 said:

Just like the newer S&W’s.

I’m sure despite their MIM parts, 2 piece barrels, lock holes, etc. they’re great guns, but I’d still pay extra for a good used one without all of those “improvements”.

Click to expand...

People mostly buy old S&Ws because of the lock. That is the main motivating factor. Only a handful of models have 2 piece barrels, so that's not really an issue. MIM parts aren't really a problem and can be replaced.

The value and demand for older prelock Smiths will drop right along with the value of the millions of Interal lock (IL) Smiths if or when S&W eliminates the IL. Everyone who purchased a S&W prior will lose value, but all the IL revolvers will get hit the hardest (which is great IMHO). I'll be happily waiting to buy them up for cheap and then simply remove or keep the IL.

Styx said:

People mostly buy old S&Ws because of the lock. That is the main motivating factor. Only a handful of models have 2 piece barrels, so that's not really an issue. MIM parts aren't really a problem and can be replaced.

The value and demand for older prelock Smiths will drop right along with the value of the millions of Interal lock (IL) Smiths if or when S&W eliminates the IL. Everyone who purchased a S&W prior will lose value, but all the IL revolvers will get hit the hardest (which is great IMHO). I'll be happily waiting to buy them up for cheap and then simply remove or keep the IL.

Click to expand...

I’m going to eventually get a lock Smith, I think they are fine for shooting! my 1st revolver was a S&W .460 and I shoot full house loads and they lock has never activated on me

Old model (original) Pythons had a mechanism that was supposed to be (it was designed to be in a sort of way) hand fitted even by today's machining standards, which actually are not that different than 70 years ago. CNC is not a panacea for keeping close tolerances, but just spares you a lot (and I do mean a lot!) of manual operations involved in the machining of parts - apart from the CNC lathe's cost, the process is much cheaper and faster, but not necessarily more precise. MIM technology on the other hand, is a revolutionary in its own way for giving you rather uniform and precise parts, requiring verry little to none additional machining, but it's not correlated to CNC - both are rather different tochnologies, serving different purposes. And hand fitting, apart from it's modern heretical understanding as a fetish for "made-by-hand" goods, is needed only when a machine is not capable of keeping the desired tolerances or finish, or if the price for it would be too high.
All this rant goes to say that even with today's technologies, an old model Python would still require a lot of manual fitting, or the price for it will be astronomic if we insist for "all machine, no human" manufacture, because the amount of scrapp parts produced (you are paying for them also) while chasing those close tollerances will be too high and only a selected few "luddites" will be able to afford it. It's just an older technology that requires more money, skill and time to be prodused - not necessarily better, neither worse, but just different.

Jamesishere said:

With the new Python's out for awhile now, and the blued one's just showing up. Why are people still trying to sell the old pythons for so high of price? They usually have the same wording like "I know what got, so you ain't low Ballin me!" Then you see their sale add and it has a cheap ass Uncle Mike's holster! I say if you know what you have, why do you have suck a cheap ass holster!

Click to expand...

Like old end of the jm marlins that were made on such worn out machinery no one would buy and carry on. Just buy and move and start over. My Rem. marlin is perfect as any 600.00 rifle could be. Shoots fine. Try to sell it and you'll hear, oh my it's junk. Just junk I say

Older Colts, S&Ws, Challengers, Mustangs and Camaros/Corvettes...
Common denominator--the new ones are demonstrably better then the old ones, but:

Many of us grew up lusting after the former, and while the new ones are "better", they come up short in some respects...and these respects are more subjective than objective.

If what you really want, and have wanted for 40-50 years, costs a bit more than the modern "replica", you will pay it (if you can).

Just watch a Mecum Auto Auction sometime (there are a bunch of them). There are plenty of Olde Fahts (and I fall into that category myself) who have the money to bid up a 70 Hemi Cuda or Challenger up to $3 million (yeah, I definitely do not fall into that category, although I wish I did).

Corvettes started this phenomenon in the mid-80s. The values of the "mid-years" (63-67) started to blossom...first the big blocks, then the small blocks. Then the earlier ones (53-62) and then later ones (68-75 or so). When buyers could not afford Corvettes, they bought Camaros and Chevelles...again, big-blocks, then later small-blocks. Novas, Mustangs, Chargers, Challengers, Cudas....on and on it goes.

And it did not stop there. GTOs, 442s, anything high-performance and 60s or 70s...check. If you can't afford what you really want, buy the next best thing.

Motorcycles...same thing. I grew up in the age of the Honda 750 Four, and (more to my taste) Kawasaki H1 500 and H2 750 two-stroke triples, and later, the 4-cyl, 4stroke Z1 900. At last week's Mecum, with very light attendance, a 72 H2 went for $44k. Consider that this bike sold new for $1386 (yes, I remember vividly, I was in 10th grade and trying desperately to earn that kind of money...but doing a paper route and washing dishes at a local restaurant at $1.65/hour it wasn't happening.

Perhaps when everyone of my generation is gone, the demand (and therefore price) of these currently desirable items will drop....

However, I have my doubts about that, at least in the near future. These days, it is difficult to find any investment with a decent rate of return. As long as "collectibles" of any description are appreciating rapidly, speculators will buy, until that market segment crashes.

"Not necessarily better, neither worse, but just different" said by Mizar. Describes it basically.
I know the strengths and weaknesses of the older ones, but also the strengths and weaknesses of the new ones. I have one of Jim Kuhanhausens manuals on fitting old Colt revolvers.
There's something that cant be replicated about the old ones; it was just made to a different standard, that required very mathematical tolerances to work together and the end result is something beautiful if you can appreciate the traditional ways. The newer ones are built much more efficiently, much more precise but there is something about them that I just feel the people who are building them just don't truly understand revolvers. It is possible some concepts just require a different type of craftsmanship to be the best at being that thing. Revolvers were a product of the industrial revolution, with a workforce that still was capable of monitoring it's manufacture by hand, thus fitting it like so. The polishing and smoothness of it's traits went right with it. Modern revolvers are made with better materials, the parts are much more replaceable but something feels off about a highly polished outside but quickly assembled parts on the inside.
Could be just my problem alone but when I went out for the first time with my Colt Night Cobra, the third cylinder or so the primers wouldn't go off. I changed rounds, and tried firing it again and it wouldn't fire. Didn't know what was wrong or what happened, only that next range trip I fired a box of 50 no problem.
The Night Cobra has a much more durable finish than the older ones, I like the weight better.
With all this being said, I can't completely diss on the new ones nor unlogically praise the older ones. I know the weaknesses and strengths and for certain applications I know why I'd prefer the older ones. As machines they're inherently going to have flaws, no matter what. The older ones were fitted in a way that had to be mathematically timed to be exact; over time they grow to be out of time with wear. Whereas the new ones that mathematical principle has been inherited into the parts themselves, so they're exact each time. But feels like MIM parts break more easily or CNC just has sharper edges.

I use a "cheap ass holster" that I got on amazon for $8. Why?? Because "I" "Me" like it. I have a box full of more expensive holsters that "I" "Me" hate. Not because it cost more or less, or what Anybody Else thinks. Because "I" "Me" likes it. Simple as that.

Jamesishere said:

With the new Python's out for awhile now, and the blued one's just showing up. Why are people still trying to sell the old pythons for so high of price? They usually have the same wording like "I know what got, so you ain't low Ballin me!" Then you see their sale add and it has a cheap ass Uncle Mike's holster! I say if you know what you have, why do you have suck a cheap ass holster!

Click to expand...

1. The collector market is based upon desirability, not practicality.

2. Many do not actually carry a collectible, blued revolver revolver, so, its holster is irrelevant. The cheap holster may simply have served as a protective cover, during handling or storage. (Not that I recommend storing a weapon inside a holster, but that is exactly why many holsters are purchased, for “storage” of the weapon.)

Edited to add: Had I bought a Python, back in the day, and then learned that it had become an investment-quality firearm, there is NO way that I would entertain low-ball offers, especially from random internetters. I have a son, who appreciates nice firearms as being generational wealth, even if he is not a “revolver guy.” (I did buy an early-Nineties Stainless Python, but, it was not my cup of tea, and not all that well fitted/finished, anyway, so, I did not keep it.