Colt Python vs S&W 686/Ruger GP100

[Mr. Mosin]

Nothing that I know of as:
Optimism is a mental attitude reflecting a belief or hope that the outcome of some specific endeavor, or outcomes in general, will be positive, favorable, and desirable. So I'm not quite sure what you are asking

If you meant optimization. : an act, process, or methodology of making something (such as a design, system, or decision) as fully perfect, functional, or effective as possible .

How it applies to hammer leverage, is to maximize the mechanical efficiency of the leverage as the hammer is drawn to full travel in DA by the trigger


The easiest example would be to roll back the hammer of a tuned S&W revolver and note the difference in force required compared to a similar revolver equipped with an Apex Tactical Specialties Evolution 4 hammer...which has been optimized.

I haven't thumb cocked a revolver hammer in years, maybe because none of my everyday use revolvers have hammer spurs, but then I seldom shoot beyond 50 yards with them...even at 100 yards during fun matches I've found shooting DA acceptably accurate (it was a 3'x 1' metal gong)

I absolutely despise autocorrect. I handled a few old Smith's, mainly J frames and K frames, *no* Colt revolvers, old or new, and a few old Ruger's as well. The Smith's triggers, from the "only shot twice M36" and the "almost wore out M&P .38", with several in between; have all been (in my limited experience) exceptionally smooth, and (relatively) light DA/SA pull. I'd be willing to say that they were every bit the equal of a new Performance Center, if not surpassing them. Definitely better than 99 percent of the stuff on a shelf today, even the old Ruger's.

 

[mcb]

It’s at least twice as good looking though....

That's not saying much in comparison to a Ruger....

I haven't ever really liked that vented rib on the Python and the hammer spur always seemed huge. Ascetically I have always preferred the full under-lug round-butt S&W with a small hammer spur over nearly all other revolvers except maybe a Webley. But then again there is no accounting for tastes.

 

[Master Blaster]

Have a question. Looking for *unbiased* answers. Is there anything that objectively warrants the $1500 MSRP on the new Python ? Anything functionality wise that makes it double the MSRP ? Forget the Colt pony on the side, just compare apples with apples. Anything better than a slicked up GP100 or Performance Center 686 ? Because I can buy roughly 2 GP100's or 686's (though I wouldn't buy a new one) for the price of a Python.

First Off No answer is going to be *unbiased*. No one here has shot the new Python so its impossible to answer your question as to function. Do you plan to carry two revolvers on your person? If so it would be better for you to buy two GP 100s or two 686+ for the same price as one Python. A revolver for each hand or a NY reload much better than one Python for the same price. I would advise you to buy two of the other brands instead. Some folks are good with one Revolver so they may choose a Python instead.

 

[Jack B.]

Does anyone know where I can go to see and maybe handle a new Python I the Central Florida area? I haven't heard of any place yet.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Does anyone know where I can go to see and maybe handle a new Python I the Central Florida area? I haven't heard of any place yet.

They were announced yesterday so you’re probably going to have to just patrol your local shops and watch. The initial rush will make them hard to find.

Or just order one from your local shop and pray.

 

[Kleanbore]

The Smith's triggers, from the "only shot twice M36" and the "almost wore out M&P .38", with several in between; have all been (in my limited experience) exceptionally smooth, and (relatively) light DA/SA pull.

In reality, the geometry of the trigger mechanism, with the and attendant limit in mechanical advantage necessitated by the shape and size of the frame, makes the DA pull of any J-Frame less desirable than that of a K-Frame, the old Colt Detective Special, the Colt Cobra, or the Kimber K6. The Performance Center versions are a little better, but the degree of improvement is limited by the design.

The Ruger LCR has a better trigger than a J-Frame.

It's not a matter of workmanship. It's the design.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

In reality, the geometry of the trigger mechanism, with the and attendant limit in mechanical advantage necessitated by the shape and size of the frame, makes the DA pull of any J-Frame less desirable than that of a K-Frame, the old Colt Detective Special, the Colt Cobra, or the Kimber K6. The Performance Center versions are a little better, but the degree of improvement is limited by the design.

The Ruger LCR has a better trigger than a J-Frame.

It's not a matter of workmanship. It's the design.

I get that. I was just saying that it's smooth, compared to today's "sandpaper" pull J frames.

 

[CraigC]

It stands to reason that a heavily used +50yr old gun is going to be a lot smoother than a brand new one out of the box. No revelations there. That's what gunsmiths are for.

And PC guns are not the standard by which all others are judged. I have a model 29 and a model 14 that were "tuned" by factory gunsmiths and there is little or no difference. One tuned by a professional gunsmith not bound by S&W factory doctrine is another thing entirely.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

And PC guns are not the standard by which all others are judged.

You ain't kiddin. I am pretty unimpressed with what I've seen from the PC.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

It stands to reason that a heavily used +50yr old gun is going to be a lot smoother than a brand new one out of the box. No revelations there. That's what gunsmiths are for.

And PC guns are not the standard by which all others are judged. I have a model 29 and a model 14 that were "tuned" by factory gunsmiths and there is little or no difference. One tuned by a professional gunsmith not bound by S&W factory doctrine is another thing entirely.

You are correct, but it *is* a standard.

 

[labnoti]

You ain't kiddin. I am pretty unimpressed with what I've seen from the PC.

I have had PC-branded guns and guns worked on by the PC after-sale. The PC-branded gun has a few "features" and it has the action very minimally "tuned." The most critical surfaces are stoned, but there is no polishing on most of the action parts that a gunsmith would do. The action is noticeably smoother and lighter than factory S&W-brand (though that's not saying much).

The gun "tuned" by the PC after-sale is quite different. They did at least twice as much stoning and there is some polishing. I could detail this further but it's another topic. The PC also added a number of "features" (like a cylinder for moon-clips with chamfered chamber mouths, cutting a recessed muzzle crown, and resetting the b/c gap). They did also change the rebound spring and tune the length of the strain screw. They did all this work for less money than a lot of other gunsmiths would charge for just changing springs. I am very happy with the work the PC did after-sale.

As for the PC-branded guns, I am very likely to start with one when setting up a revolver, if one is available in the frame-size and barrel length I want. The features they typically add are well worth the prices they sell for on Grabagun and they can be had immediately instead of waiting for turnaround times from TK Custom, Magnaport, Cylinder & Slide or a local gunsmith to add all the features and do an action job. Whatever the PC does before-sale is something I don't have to wait for. For me, this is a drawback of the new Python because it would take a lot longer to get one set up. Ruger and Colt both have yet to set up a custom shop and offer the after-sales work that S&W does.

As for after-market action jobs, I have seen some that do go to greater lengths to extensively polish the internals or even jewel (engine-turn) the sides of the hammer and so on. This is partly decorative, and the internal polishing might reduce the friction imperceptibly, but much of what I've seen doesn't really add to the result. Some smiths polish things that don't matter at all. I've seen them polish the side of the frame behind the rebound slide that the rebound slide never touches, and many things like that which just don't matter. All that is not to disparage after-market gunsmiths, but to say that their work varies from spring-changing to luxury finishing. The work I've received from the PC is somewhere in-between. It's very much focused on practical results, and I appreciate that.

 

[labnoti]

The 7-shot cylinder was an answer looking for a question that was never asked.

Tell that to James E. Pence Jr., George Michael Alleyn, and Gary Kness. They never had the chance to ask.

Chambering a Python for 7 rounds would compromise one of it's advantages over the S&W/Ruger...off-set bolt notches

It is only an advantage over 6-round S&W cylinders. The 7-round S&W cylinder has the bolt notches right between the adjacent chamber centers. Colt's offset notches are a little more to one side where the cylinder is thinner.

The new Colt's cylinder is advertised as 1.55" and with only 6 chambers it will be massive. The additional inertia to overcome and accelerate that large mass with the trigger is meaningful. So is the stress on the bolt and notch to stop it. There is a reason S&W uses Titanium in some of its big 8-shot N-frame competition revolvers. It's the same reason Ruger more extensively fluted their Super GP100 cylinder than is typical. Super-thick chamber walls on a .357 aren't desirable.

7-shots may be impractical for popular competitions that either allow for 8 or limit to 6, but it was Colt's decision to choose this in-between frame size.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I have had PC-branded guns and guns worked on by the PC after-sale. The PC-branded gun has a few "features" and it has the action very minimally "tuned." The most critical surfaces are stoned, but there is no polishing on most of the action parts that a gunsmith would do. The action is noticeably smoother and lighter than factory S&W-brand (though that's not saying much).

The gun "tuned" by the PC after-sale is quite different. They did at least twice as much stoning and there is some polishing. I could detail this further but it's another topic. The PC also added a number of "features" (like a cylinder for moon-clips with chamfered chamber mouths, cutting a recessed muzzle crown, and resetting the b/c gap). They did also change the rebound spring and tune the length of the strain screw. They did all this work for less money than a lot of other gunsmiths would charge for just changing springs. I am very happy with the work the PC did after-sale.

As for the PC-branded guns, I am very likely to start with one when setting up a revolver, if one is available in the frame-size and barrel length I want. The features they typically add are well worth the prices they sell for on Grabagun and they can be had immediately instead of waiting for turnaround times from TK Custom, Magnaport, Cylinder & Slide or a local gunsmith to add all the features and do an action job. Whatever the PC does before-sale is something I don't have to wait for. For me, this is a drawback of the new Python because it would take a lot longer to get one set up. Ruger and Colt both have yet to set up a custom shop and offer the after-sales work that S&W does.

As for after-market action jobs, I have seen some that do go to greater lengths to extensively polish the internals or even jewel (engine-turn) the sides of the hammer and so on. This is partly decorative, and the internal polishing might reduce the friction imperceptibly, but much of what I've seen doesn't really add to the result. Some smiths polish things that don't matter at all. I've seen them polish the side of the frame behind the rebound slide that the rebound slide never touches, and many things like that which just don't matter. All that is not to disparage after-market gunsmiths, but to say that their work varies from spring-changing to luxury finishing. The work I've received from the PC is somewhere in-between. It's very much focused on practical results, and I appreciate that.

I'm glad you have had good luck with the PC. Here's my experience.

When the 686 and 629 competitors came out I knew I wanted one. This gun.
View media item 95At first glance it looks great, if a bit impractical for anything but range time.

I didn't want to wait so I paid just about $1400 about 6 or 7 years ago. Whenever they came out.

Within a month I noticed that it was not reliably firing in DA. That's totally unacceptable for a gun that's meant for competition. It always fires in SA, and it is very accurate, but I'm not ok with it failing to fire in DA. I tried several different ammo brands also and the problem was consistent. I double and triple checked the strain screw, and it was TIGHT. Additionally I noticed a little bit of back spray from what I figured was just a little bit of warm ammo.

I sent the gun into S&W and their solution was to put in an extended firing pin. I didn't mention the back spray as I didn't think it was a real issue.

The issue seemed fixed, for a month or so then it started having failures again. So I again tried different ammo. Some were worse than others. Still unacceptable in my mind. I got disgusted and put it aside for awhile. Recently I picked it up again and tried some really warm loads. This was after I had even shimmed the strain screw to increase tension on the mainspring. I believe the problem is that the DA sear has been smoothed to the point that the hammer is not traveling far enough backward to reliably ignite primers. It makes sense since the gun fires fine in SA.

I could learn to love it even if I only used it for SA shooting, as I don't compete, but it would bother me that it didn't function properly. However on two separate occasions now, the warm loads I was shooting in this gun has sent a bullet fragment back at me fast enough to cut my ear open, and force me to stop shooting. Thank god I wear glasses when shooting. It shaves enough lead to leave a deposit between the forcing cone and the top strap. Really? On a PC gun?

If all that wasn't enough, the name "Competitor" is stamped on the right side of the gun, and my particular gun has a light double stamp, so it has a cosmetic issue to add insult to injury. So all in, between the gun, the aftermarket grips, gasoline to take it to the FedEx location (90 mile round rip), a bunch of test ammo, and what is now going to be a second trip to the factory (time), I am in to this gun for probably close to $2000, and it still isn't functioning properly.

If Colt can give me a gun with about the same MSRP, that shoots straight, probably has just as smooth and light of a trigger as this PC gun, and it works properly out of the box, and I'm not pissed off, then Colt is going to get my money and Smith and Wesson can take their PC guns and forcefully insert them in a dark place.

Now I know that's only a sample of one, and there are a lot of really happy PC gun owners out there. It's important to acknowledge that I think. But I am pretty well disgusted. When I bought this gun I thought it was going to be my dream target 357. Instead it's been a very expensive pain in my rear end. I'm not saying all S&W's are junk, I'm saying I'm ready to try something different.

Sorry for the thread drift, but comparisons are bound to happen given the new Python's release.

Edit: If the gun comes back fixed, I may change my tune, but I shouldn't have to send a "premium" revolver in twice for the same issue.

 

[Mizar]

The new Colt's cylinder is advertised as 1.55" and with only 6 chambers it will be massive. The additional inertia to overcome and accelerate that large mass with the trigger is meaningful. So is the stress on the bolt and notch to stop it. There is a reason S&W uses Titanium in some of its big 8-shot N-frame competition revolvers. It's the same reason Ruger more extensively fluted their Super GP100 cylinder than is typical. Super-thick chamber walls on a .357 aren't desirable.

7-shots may be impractical for popular competitions that either allow for 8 or limit to 6, but it was Colt's decision to choose this in-between frame size.

I have a hard time following you, because a S&W 686 cylinder measures almost exactly the same diameter - 1.56". And L frames are not known for beating on the bolt and cylinder notches - .357 N frames are much more prone to that. Can it happen when used extensively and hard, like in competition? Sure it can, but 686+ was not made because of that. And what "in-between" frame size does Colt chose, as we don't have yet the said revolver in hands to compare and judge?

 

[CraigC]

You are correct, but it *is* a standard.

Maybe for those who don't know any better.

 

[Jack B.]

I just watched a video that was done by ,looks like Colt about the new python and it sounds like they have tried to make it better than the old one. Won't really know till I get my hands one.

 

[labnoti]

I have a hard time following you, because a S&W 686 cylinder measures almost exactly the same diameter - 1.56". And L frames are not known for beating on the bolt and cylinder notches - .357 N frames are much more prone to that. Can it happen when used extensively and hard, like in competition? Sure it can, but 686+ was not made because of that. And what "in-between" frame size does Colt chose, as we don't have yet the said revolver in hands to compare and judge?

Yes. The Python has virtually the same diameter as the 686+ but only has 6 chambers and weighs substantially more. L frames might not be known for beating on the bolt and notches because many of them are 7-chamber and lighter, and others are Titanium. Colt doesn't offer those options.

Besides the extra mass of the large-diameter 6-chamber cylinder, the trigger also has to rotate it farther around from one chamber to the next besides accelerating the greater mass.

Colt chose to make a frame and cylinder size in-between sizes that fit 6 and 8 shot, but they didn't chamber it for 7. What is all the extra metal in the cylinder doing except making the trigger heavier and banging the bolt harder and reloads more frequent? Where is the win?

 

[Old Dog]

What is all the extra metal in the cylinder doing except making the trigger heavier and banging the bolt harder and reloads more frequent? Where is the win?

It doesn't make the trigger heavier. Banging the bolt harder? Making reloads more frequent? (Since when have revolver guys worried about that?) Have you fired one of the new King Cobras yet? I've got two, have shot a few, and I can tell you the triggers are not heavier in the slightest, just purely excellent -- far better than any recent S&W offering I've shot the past few years (and I am a noted S&W fan, for the record). I think you'll find out, should you care to, that your concern in this area is misplaced.

 

[Jack B.]

Starting to see more video's about the new Python but all I have seen are Colt people touting the gun. They must be proud of it.

 

[Mizar]

Labnoti, 686 and 686+ have the same cylinder diameter. 6 shot L frames were on the market for a looong time, long before the 7 shot cylinder was introduced. BTW, S&W still offers a steady bunch of 6 shot model 686 revolvers, including 3 PC models, and doesn't seem to have the intention to drop the model off the production line soon, despite the fact that the Internet told us they beat themselves to death. Because it is simply not true.

 

[sabbfan]

Gp100 has about the same cylinder diameter as well at 1.557 and has only been a 6 shot until recently. They are not know for beating themselves up with an overly heavy cylinder either.

 

[MidRoad]

Gp100 has about the same cylinder diameter as well at 1.557 and has only been a 6 shot until recently. They are not know for beating themselves up with an overly heavy cylinder either.

Just looking way to far into it is all.

 

[labnoti]

My points are all valid, and I gave no reason to presume I'm ignorant of the fact that all L frame cylinders are the same diameter regardless of whether they are 5, 6, or 7 chambered.

A heavier cylinder with more widely spaced chambers does take more force to accelerate with the trigger. That's just a fact. It also take more force to decelerate with the stop and notches. Fact.

Are there any 6-shot revolvers known to wear stops or notches or are Colt's characterized by heavier and long trigger pulls? It doesn't matter. Colt could have made it better regardless.

Are Colt's known for weak topstraps? No. But they made it "30% thicker." How much better could they have made the trigger and the rest of the gun had they made it 7-shot? Whatever it is, it would have been better than a 30% increase in the cross-sectional area of the top-strap. What does that even do?

 

[mcb]

My points are all valid, and I gave no reason to presume I'm ignorant of the fact that all L frame cylinders are the same diameter regardless of whether they are 5, 6, or 7 chambered.

A heavier cylinder with more widely spaced chambers does take more force to accelerate with the trigger. That's just a fact. It also take more force to decelerate with the stop and notches. Fact.

Are there any 6-shot revolvers known to wear stops or notches or are Colt's characterized by heavier and long trigger pulls? It doesn't matter. Colt could have made it better regardless.

Are Colt's known for weak topstraps? No. But they made it "30% thicker." How much better could they have made the trigger and the rest of the gun had they made it 7-shot? Whatever it is, it would have been better than a 30% increase in the cross-sectional area of the top-strap. What does that even do?

And yet one of the fastest double action shooters in the world (Jerry Miculek) chose to set most of his world records with a revolver with an even bigger diameter cylinder, an N-frame. The N-frame dominates USPSA competition and it is likely the choice of a majority of IDPA revolver shooters. They both shoot nothing but double action and very fast double action when they can. I agree, the greater the mass moment of inertial the cylinder has, the more toque it's going to take to start and stop is spinning but that has not been a serious issue for S&W revolvers of any size. Most competitor can put several tens-of-thousands of rounds through their N-frame revolvers before having timing issues. It does happen, but at relatively larger round count interval and can be repaired fairly easily in most cases.

If you can shoot enough ammo through your S&W that it has timing issues the cost of repairing the timing issues will be small in comparison to the amount of ammo you have burnt through to create the issues.

 

[CraigC]

Yes. The Python has virtually the same diameter as the 686+ but only has 6 chambers and weighs substantially more. L frames might not be known for beating on the bolt and notches because many of them are 7-chamber and lighter, and others are Titanium. Colt doesn't offer those options.

Besides the extra mass of the large-diameter 6-chamber cylinder, the trigger also has to rotate it farther around from one chamber to the next besides accelerating the greater mass.

Colt chose to make a frame and cylinder size in-between sizes that fit 6 and 8 shot, but they didn't chamber it for 7. What is all the extra metal in the cylinder doing except making the trigger heavier and banging the bolt harder and reloads more frequent? Where is the win?

Wow, we are really nitpicking now! If Colt had made them 7-shot, the traditionalists would be whining about it. Plus it looks stupid to have 7 flutes. The critics are definitely out in force. Sorry but this is just silly.