Python vs 686

[SWMAN]

I've been very curious as to the comparisons between the SW 686 and a Colt Python. I have a 686 4" and from time to time I've wondered how a Python feels and shoots compared to the 686. Any used Pythons I've found are $600+ and without really knowing what to expect won't put down the bucks to get one and compare. Thanks.

 

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's SWMAN-

And a Big Ole' Hearty Welcome From The Very Cold "Deep South"

To start off with, I've always said there are two features
that S&W copied from the Python, when they designed
the model 686. That being, the full length under lugged
barrel; and with the 686-5 model's, the use of the
floating firing pin.

As an individual user, I like both of those feature's. Now
to your question regarding comparison, I've owned a total
of four; yes count 'em (4) Python's, and have NEVER kept
one of them. The reason being, the Python always has
felt awkward to me. Even when I added a set of Herrett's
Shooting Star grips to the 6 incher; things just didn't seem
the same, as compared to a good ole' Smith model 19 with
Goncolo Alves or Pachmayr's. Also, the lockwork was a bit
of concern back when I shot heavy handload's. You see,
Colt DOES NOT use the double lock work, as found on the
Smith's; instead, they say they don't need it cuz of their
cylinder rotating into the frame instead of out of the frame?
All my Colt Python barrel's were slugged at .356 diameter;
so if you shot LSWC bullet's that were sized .357 or .358,
the barrel would prove too be one leaded mess.

As a whole, the Python is a great firearm; although as you
have pointed out expensive. I won't go as far to
say they are more accurate than a good Smith; but I have
seen a few people (not myself), that have gotten
good groups with these weapons. For comparison, when
working as a LEO I purchased a NIB S&W 4" 686 and
carried it out to the PD range and shot a 100 without ever
adjusting the sight's. I don't believe I could have done
that with the Colt? Nowday's, the only .357 magnum in
my arsenal (Oops! collection) is a 6" barrel L-frame S&W
686-5; that has a $15.00 WOLFF spring kit installed. And
to close, I have NEVER looked back in the Python's direction!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[Russ]

I have a circa 1986 S&W 686. I have held Pythons from that time but never shot one. From what I can tell, the Python was finished nicer but that was about it. For the extra $300 even back then I don't think it was worth it to get the Python. A gun magazine that came out in the late 80's, maybe Shooting Times, I'm not sure compared the 686, the Python and the Dan Wesson. They rated the 686 overall best. It was more accurate than either the Colt or DW they tested and was the best value of those they tested.

 

[Sean Smith]

I've owned S&W revolvers. Past tense. I now own a Python.

Pythons definitely feel different. I'm pretty sure that even with the extra beef you get going from a 66 to a 686, the Python is still heavier. They have tighter bores and lock up tighter than a S&W does. It is for these reasons that the Python is famously accurate; in fact, I've seen folks who put Python barrels on their S&W wheelguns to make them more accurate (and yes, it looks wierd as hell). The action is strange and overly complex, dating back to the 1880s, so action jobs on Pythons are more expensive & the folks qualified to do them are more scarce. However, the better Python actions (ether out-of-the-box on older guns or tuned later) are super-sweet. Some Python triggers are atrocious, but most are on par with out-of-box S&W guns from the same eras (older being better for both).

If you want to kill your wheelgun with nothing but nuclear loads for years on end, skip S&W *or* Colt and just get a Ruger GP100. Otherwise, Pythons are nowhere near the fragile toys that some make them out to be.

 

[Corey ACP]

I have both. A 4" 686 stainless circa 1989 and a 6" python I bought new in 1978. At one time or another, I have carried both on duty. I have carried the Python on countless big game hunts. Bowling pin shoots, steel matches, etc.

Currently, I use the python for my Distinguished service gun in PPC matches., (50 yd shots). I have earned several leg points with it shooting both factory loaded LRN or LSWC ammo per NRA rules. I would say it is a very accurate gun.

I now use the 686 in the service revolver matches where the longest shot is 25 yrds. It is also very accurate with my handloaded LSWC rounds. The 686 has a Wolff spring kit installed, but no further action work. The Python's action has been honed only by the many thousands of rounds it has fired in its lengthy service.

Both guns look like they have served their owner well and they have! Numerous scratches, worn bluing, and a few nicks all add up to a thing of beauty in my eyes anyway. When I get anound to it, I will also press the 686 into service at my IDPA club matches, ( www.udpl.net ) and become classified in revolver also.

I have shot both weapons in 2" 4" & 6" bbls. I consider them to equal in most ways only that the Colt's trigger pull differs in that it tends to increase in pull at the end of its travel.

 

[JCM298]

Pythons v 686

I've had 2 Pythons. I bought the first in `61 but had to sell it in `62. I bought the second in `65 and still have it. I've shot, but never owned, 686's.

My opinion: There's no comparison. The Python beats the 686 in all areas,

John

 

[YodaVader]

I owned a 70's vintage 4" Python and it was easily the most beautiful revolver I have ever owned. Fit and finish were immaculate. Unfortunately this particular Python did not shoot very well for me. Tried the same loads that shot very good in my 686s and GP100 - but no such luck with the Python. The gun was used , if it was damaged I sure could not tell because the gun looked new. I was pretty disappointed and eventually traded it and never looked back.

As far as accuracy goes - I have at least 3 different 357 mag test sources on hand where the 686 and Python were both included and - the 686 was the most accurate overall in a few of the tests and in none of them was the Python the most accurate. Although , the accuracy with many loads was so close that it would really come down to the shooter in my opinion.

 

[LoneWulf]

No comparison, the Python is the best.

 

[45shooter]

I currently have a late 60's vintage 6" and 70's vintage 4" Python and several S&W revolvers in "K" and "L" frames and I like them both. One characteristic that I noticed about Pythons is that while they may not come in with the single most accurate group from a bunch of revolvers, they will usually have the most accurate groups when you look at the group size with all ammos. Another words, Pythons are usually very accurate with any/all ammo while S&W revolvers will usually be accurate with only one or two kind of ammo.

 

[JoeHatley]

Opinions vary... but I'd buy the Smith and use the extra $200 --> $300 on ammo. I've owned colt I frames in the past, and still own 1 last one. Overrated and overpriced. IMO...

Joe

 

[4thHorseman]

The Python shoots like a dream. A beautiful revolver in every way. Smooth as silk trigger.
You can tell the difference in a heart beat as I did. I took BOTH the Python and the 686 to the range and shot them side by side.

JCM298 was right when he said, "My opinion: There's no comparison. The Python beats the 686 in all areas."

It is truely a remarkable wheel gun.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I personally prefer Pythons, but wouldn't even consider buying a current production Python: they're no better than Smith & Wessons or Rugers.

 

[Gordon]

I shot a Reeves Jungkind tuned 62 Python 6" in the middle 70's in PPC matches, and went to the governors finals with it (came in 2nd ) , I switched to a K frame model 19 with a 1" Douglas barrel and all the cheat stuff and yes it was very slightly more accurate than a Python,. The Colt trigger arc is uncomfortable to many, you either like it or you don't, I think the smith grips and presents the trigger in a more ergonomic way.

 

[9mmepiphany]

my experience has been the opposite of ala dan's.

i own 3 pythons (2 6" and 1 4") and they range from pristine to missing so much blue it has been mistaken for stainless. htey have served in the roles of bedroom gun, competition gun (PPC) and duty gun.

two of mine have been tuned and the longer trigger pull actually helps steady my DA trigger pull.
the barrels are "choked" at the muzzle for additional accuracy.
the cylinder is "locked up" at ignition (this is what leads to the additional/accelerated wear in the timming).
the locking bolts are off-set from the chambers for additional strenght

i tried a 686 and a 586 as cheaper replacements, to save wear on my snakes, but it just wasn't the same. compared to the python the L-frame looked very "ruger-ish"...a tool compared to a work of art. adding an underlug does not a snake make

the python, with it's handwork and history, appeals to the same sense of art as a ruger #1

the only L-frame i still own is the 696

 

[Majic]

If the money bothers you then look for a Colt Trooper. Not the MkIII or MkV, but the original Trooper. A better choice would be a Colt 357, but they are getting rarer. The Colt 357 is what the Python was based upon and they can shoot as well as a Python, plus have been known to outshoot them from time to time. The Colt 357 evolved into the Trooper. It too shares the same lockwork of the Python, but being the service grade revolver can be had for less money. The Trooper changed lockwork and evolved into the MkIII then the MkV. The MkV evolved into the King Cobra.
The Python or Trooper should be pitted against the M19 as they came out in the 50's. The Trooper MkV then the King Cobra was Colt's answer to the M686.
I've always wondered why a Python which saw light of day in the 50's is compared to a M686 which came out 30 years later.

 

[BluesBear]

My personal preference is for the original Python. No contest for me.
That being said I wouldn't have a Python Elite. To call it a Python is blasphemy.


However I do prefer the S&W N-frame over the Colt Anaconda or New Service.

 

[stans]

The most impressive thing about the new Python Elite is the price tag. For the money, you could get an early Python in near new condition and it is likely to be of higher quality! I like S&W's and I like Python's, the model 19 is a great 357 for carry and the trigger reach in double action is very managable. The 586/686 is also nice, but the earlier model 19's seem to have better triggers. The Colt Python is a bit of a handful and the double action reach is a bit long, but my Python seems to be able to out shoot all my other 357's.

 

[Dorin62]

My first new firearm was a 6in nickel python -I shot in some local competitions and placed high in my divisions. It was a turly fine handgun to shoot -the trigger was smoth if some what heavy but it seemed natural in my hand. The nickel finish was a pain to keep clean -but it sure was pretty (can handguns be pretty????? )when it was clean.

Time passed.

Boy it would be kinda nice to have a smaller handgunto carry for daily use-I say's to myself one day.

So the Python gets sold and a 4in 686 is now my gun of choice. The trigger is a little lighter and it has that nice double click just before the hammer falls when shooting double action. It feels just as natural in my hand as the Colt did, but its a whole lot easier to put under my shirt.

FWIW- both guns were and are great shooters, I like the Smith but I wish I would have not sold the Colt to buy the 686. You can never be too rich or have to many firearms.

 

[Sean Smith]

The current Python Elite thing is pretty bizarre... they are widely accepted as inferior to older Pythons and cost about $300 more. Say What?

 

[9mmepiphany]

majic - the reason they are usually compared is because smith felt the m-19 coulkd not match the python, in competition, and so introduced the L-frame...it was more than just the underlug look.

the smith action can be tuned lighter than the pythons', but you give up reliable ignition to the snake when you go that light

 

[jc2]

majic - the reason they are usually compared is because smith felt the m-19 coulkd not match the python, in competition, and so introduced the L-frame...it was more than just the underlug look.

Boy! That's one that's absolutely NOT true!

 

[stans]

Yeah, seems to me the L frame was designed because the K frames were getting beaten to death by constant diets of magnum loads with light weight bullets.

 

[Majic]

the reason they are usually compared is because smith felt the m-19 coulkd not match the python, in competition, and so introduced the L-frame

That's a point I have debated over the years.

Yeah, seems to me the L frame was designed because the K frames were getting beaten to death by constant diets of magnum loads with light weight bullets.

Smith at the suggestions of well known shooters built an easier to carry revolver which could handle the standard 180gr loads. When the 125 gr loads became popular the K-frame proved to be to light and was beefed up to evolve into the L-frame which was a smart move considering the M686 popularity today. It doesn't take a genius to see that Smith beefed up a 39 oz revolver to a 44 oz revolver when competeing against a 43.5 oz revolver.

Boy! That's one that's absolutely NOT true!

But sadly alot of Smith fans simply refuse to hear that. Lately I have heard that because Colt no longer builds anything else that's all there is to compare. In the past when Colt did have products on the market there were no explanations except that the M686 was better than the King Cobra with nothing to back the statement up.

When you look back at the troubles the K-frames were having with the new hot 125gr loads and all the various "Smolts" that popped up on the PPC ranges you can see that Smith took a long hard look at the Python when they developed the L-frame.
I still can't see why you would compare Smith's modern design influenced by Colt against the Colt's original design when there exists a modern Colt to pit it against.

 

[jc2]

Smith at the suggestions of well known shooters built an easier to carry revolver which could handle the standard 180gr loads.

Actually, it was largely due to urging of Bill Jordan that S&W introduced the .357 Magnum K-frame (Model 19). It was introduced one year after the Python (in 1956), and two years after the Colt .3--Colt's first post WW2 .357 offering. It was built to handle the standard 158-grain loads (not 180-grain) in common LE usage at that time. We need to remember that the N-frame Model 27 (and 28) was available throughout this time-frame and was in common usage. Unlike Colt, S&W were offering the .357 in two frame sizes (and the Model 27 was the "premium" offering S&W offering--not the 19).

When designed, it was ensvisioned that practice would be with .38 Special loads, and it would be carried with 158-grain loads. Several things changed over the years however. LE training changed considerably, and it became common to practice with your carry loads (something the Model 19 was not designed for), and the hot 125-grain SJHPs came into general LE usage. Colt dropped to a distance third place in the LE market, and the newcomer, Ruger, was giving S&W a run for their money for number one.

With the heavier firing load of practicing and qualifying with the duty load and the hot 125-grain SJHPs, the Model 19 (and 66 by this time) were proving a little too light. The premium (and Python's competitor) Model 27 and the pedestrian Model 28 were still available, but cops being cops wanted something a little smaller and lighter (and the K-frames are probably some of the best feeling most ergonomic handguns ever designed). In response to competition from Ruger (Colt had ceased to be competition in the LE market by this time) and the need for a more robust weapon, S&W introduced the 586/686 (and 581/681) which consisted largely of a beefed up backstrap and forcing cone and introduced the full-lug barrel to the S&W line (shootability/pointability reasons with heavy loads). The 586/686 retained the popular feel (grip-size) of the K-frame 19s and 66s. So, S&W was able to beef up the frame where needed and still retain the feel of the K-frame. Which as Majic pointed out has been an unbeatable combination. The 586/686 were never a "premium" line (that was the Model 27), but every day/work day weapons for LE at which they were very successful. To say (or imply) the 686 was introduced in response to or in competition to the Python totally ignores what really happened. If anything, the 686 finally forced out Colt totally out of the LE revolver business (helped, of course, by Colt's chronic mismanagement).

 

[Ala Dan]

Very Well Done

Good post jc2, I agree totally.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member