Python vs 686
- Thread starter SWMAN
- Start date
- Status
I did make the mistake of the load as the 158 gr was standard (typical brain fart), but the thread started with price concerns. I pointed out alternatives that balanced the pricing scales. The thread started with a deluxe model vs a service grade model and I was offering service grade models vs service grade models. The Python is a medium framed revolver and nowhere was a large framed revolver mentioned.
Colt was not actively pursuing the LEO market for handgun contracts as they had their hands full with military contracts for rifles. Colt began backing out the Leo market back in the 60's as the war started to heat up. Ruger then set out to filled the void as Smith virtually had no competion. Smith had to struggle to stay in the game as Rugers were not only a stronger revolver, but cheaper too.
Smith did drop the ball on the M19/66 as they built a revolver that couldn't take extensive use of the chambered cartridge. The hotter loadings proved that point to them. No other major manufactor took that route in bringing their product on the market. Smith in time corrected that fault, but in doing so they also added a design found in a Colt by using the full lug. Colt pioneered the full lug for it's improved balance and handling. The original Python's lug was hollow, but as the loads became hotter and recoil rose they went to the solid lug of today. Of course Smith kept the similarities common to it's products when building the L-frame, but also borrowed ideas of other makers.
There were more factors than just the LEO's influenced in building the L-frame (they did learn that lesson). Rugers did quite well in the LEO department without a full lugged revolver.
But back to original question, the 2 revolvers will shoot comparably to one another. They have 2 very different trigger designs and you may or may not like a stacking trigger. Since you are apprehensive of the price of a Python, which is understandable of people not knowing of them, then I suggest you look at the Trooper MkIII. They can be found in excellent condition in the $300 to $350 range with a little shopping. They are very good revolvers without the refinements of a Python and a modified lockwork.
Colt was not actively pursuing the LEO market for handgun contracts as they had their hands full with military contracts for rifles. Colt began backing out the Leo market back in the 60's as the war started to heat up. Ruger then set out to filled the void as Smith virtually had no competion. Smith had to struggle to stay in the game as Rugers were not only a stronger revolver, but cheaper too.
Smith did drop the ball on the M19/66 as they built a revolver that couldn't take extensive use of the chambered cartridge. The hotter loadings proved that point to them. No other major manufactor took that route in bringing their product on the market. Smith in time corrected that fault, but in doing so they also added a design found in a Colt by using the full lug. Colt pioneered the full lug for it's improved balance and handling. The original Python's lug was hollow, but as the loads became hotter and recoil rose they went to the solid lug of today. Of course Smith kept the similarities common to it's products when building the L-frame, but also borrowed ideas of other makers.
There were more factors than just the LEO's influenced in building the L-frame (they did learn that lesson). Rugers did quite well in the LEO department without a full lugged revolver.
But back to original question, the 2 revolvers will shoot comparably to one another. They have 2 very different trigger designs and you may or may not like a stacking trigger. Since you are apprehensive of the price of a Python, which is understandable of people not knowing of them, then I suggest you look at the Trooper MkIII. They can be found in excellent condition in the $300 to $350 range with a little shopping. They are very good revolvers without the refinements of a Python and a modified lockwork.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
One thing about Pythons, which I think was noted in passing, is that they are capable of VERY light (think 4.5-5.5 lb !!!) DA pulls that will still reliably ignite magnum primers. Not typically a practical concern, and few if any guys around probably even do Python action jobs like that anymore, but food for thought. More commonly, folks like Cylinder & Slide will take the DA pull down to 7ish with a "super action job." Lighter than that, and aside from an extreme game gun I'm not sure what the point would be for ANY wheelgun.
Bottom line is, the Python has an archaic but quite capable trigger system. In fact, the whole gun is a rather funny combination of clever and innovative features for its time with 1880s innards. The 686 is just an all-around more straightforward gun.
Bottom line is, the Python has an archaic but quite capable trigger system. In fact, the whole gun is a rather funny combination of clever and innovative features for its time with 1880s innards. The 686 is just an all-around more straightforward gun.
I own a 686, but have never owned a Python.
I have handled a lot of pythons over the years and the smoothest actions I have ever felt were on pythons. The most beautiful revolvers I have ever seen have been Colt Pythons.
If I had the choice of a nice python from the golden years or a 686 of any vintage, I would take the python.
The 686 is a fine revolver, but to me it is blah.
I have handled a lot of pythons over the years and the smoothest actions I have ever felt were on pythons. The most beautiful revolvers I have ever seen have been Colt Pythons.
If I had the choice of a nice python from the golden years or a 686 of any vintage, I would take the python.
The 686 is a fine revolver, but to me it is blah.
Yes, the Python is somewhat smaller than the Model 27 (about 3 ounces weight difference in the four inch versions), but the Model 27 was S&W's "premium" offering while the Python was Colt's "premium" offering. It is probably more realistic to compare the two lines' premium offerings than compare one's premium revolver with the other's service revolver. Certainly, it would more apt to compare the Trooper (no "Mark")--the service version--with the 686 than the Python.
Actually, you're kind of stretching it. The 19/66 served well when used as designed--practice with .38s and carry with .357s--and it also served well with ammunition for which it was designed (the 158-grain loads). The problems with the 19/66 did not develop until the concept of usage changed (practice/train with the carry loads) and the loads changed the hot 125-grain SJHPs (with were notoriously hard on weapons). Remember the 19 was introduced in 1956, and the 586 did not come along for another 26 years, and even when it was introduced the 19/66 were not dropped, but remains a viable offering even today (almost fifty years after their introduction). To say Smith "drop[ped] the ball" on the 19/66 is a gross mischaracterization of the history of the 19/66.
As to the full lug, heavier barrels for better handling had been issue for some time. There had been a number of calls for them by many shooters over the year, and it was no infrequent modification. Smith had already, for the most part, dropped their thin barrels (pencil barrels) and gone to the "heavy barrels" for most of their line-up. You might also note that Colt did not offer the full lugged barrel on their service models (Trooper and its various "Marks"). Matter of fact, you could probably say that Smith was the first company to offer a full lugged barrel in a service model. There is nothing indicate that the full lugged barrel on the 586 was directly (or indirectly) influenced by the Python. Don't forget the Python had been in production for 27 years before the 586 was introduced--kind of long time to wait to copy something, you think? To suggest "they [S&W] also added a design found in a Colt by using the full lug" is just as ludicrous as suggesting Colt added a design found in S&W by shrouding the Python's ejector--it can get real funny after a while. FWIW, the Ruger GP100 (the Ruger competitor to the 686) also has a full lugged barrel (though it is also offered in a "short shroud" version).
Last edited:
i guess we all speak from our own prospective or area of expertise
the 586/686 was certainly introduced, within the PPC community, in response to the inability of the 19/66 to keep up with the python in "leg" (stock) matches. the K-frame (mostly m-10/13) ruled the "open class" when they were evenly matched with "bull" barrels, but they were found wanting when shooting leg matches (either 4" or 6")
it was much like the detective specials kicking K-frame heine, until they changed the "snubby" rules to include the 2.5" m-19
in the service arena, ruger was making huge inroads into smith's monopoly with their security/service/speed-six family compared to the 19/66. the comparison between the gp100- and 586/686, in LE circles, would have been most interesting if it hadn't been for the emergence of the "wundernine"
the m-27 vs python comparison is much closer. in fact, too close for me to call. a 8.375" m-27 and a 6" python will always be part of my collection
the 586/686 was certainly introduced, within the PPC community, in response to the inability of the 19/66 to keep up with the python in "leg" (stock) matches. the K-frame (mostly m-10/13) ruled the "open class" when they were evenly matched with "bull" barrels, but they were found wanting when shooting leg matches (either 4" or 6")
it was much like the detective specials kicking K-frame heine, until they changed the "snubby" rules to include the 2.5" m-19
in the service arena, ruger was making huge inroads into smith's monopoly with their security/service/speed-six family compared to the 19/66. the comparison between the gp100- and 586/686, in LE circles, would have been most interesting if it hadn't been for the emergence of the "wundernine"
the m-27 vs python comparison is much closer. in fact, too close for me to call. a 8.375" m-27 and a 6" python will always be part of my collection
I do agree Sean, the Python was the pinnacle of a time gone by. Classics live long lives and die hard. Smith was thinking of what was needed today while incorporating what was successful in the past to create the L-frame. Sometime in the future the M686 will be the classic from this time era as they are the one other models are being judged by today. They may fall victim to future designs and be the topic of the M686 vs whatever may be new and improved then, but their classic status will be what's holding them up too. You can't become a classic without the attributes to get you there and the L-frame is well on it's way to that status. Who knows what the future may bring us fifty years down the road. If the firearm industry still be in business, it will certainly be an improved design over what we have today.
Jc2, Smith line a thought when building the new stretched K-frame to mainly shoot .38sp and restrict usage of .357 was the problem. They didn't take into account shooters using heavy loads extensively. They had the N-frames which could take all loads, but in pleasing just one market they failed in another. Maybe they should have expressed the recommended the usage or restricted the sales to LEO's only. The potential problems cropped up in time and they corrected it admirably by looking at the whole market and not just a segment of it. They have learned from past mistakes as we can see certain lightweight revolvers have warnings not to use loads with bullets over a certain weight.
As far as heavy barrels, Colt also made use of them in the late 40's on certain target models to appease certain needs asked for by the shooters.
The Python was built as the deluxe model with all refinements built in as standard. The full lug was created for the exceptional balance wanted by target shooters. The service models, the Trooper and Lawman, were created as holster revolvers for general usage and not target models so the extra balance of the lug was not deem necessary and omitted.
Ruger made it's bid to the LEO market in the 70's with the Security and Service Six, which had no lug. The newer GP-100, with the full lug, didn't come on the market till the mid 80's after most Leo's were transitioning to pistols.
Why Smith waited so long in creating the L-frame while at the same time repairing the K-frames that had been shot loose is probably because their sales were up due to the price tag hung on the Colts. When Ruger started eating into their profits with a stronger and cheaper revolver, they took notice and found themselves playing catch-up.
True you can say Smith was the first to offer full lugs on a service revolver, but they also don't offer a deluxe model in the L-frame series unless the M586/686 is suppose to be deluxe to the M581/681 because of the addition of adjustable sights. Makes good business sense, but you still just end up with a choice in sight selection in service revolvers with no refined deluxe model. Maybe that's the way of the industry today. Instead of limited runs for various distributors I wish all manufactors would create a deluxe model with refinements that would set itself apart from the service models and be something special we all (instead of the lucky few) would have the opportunity to collect like the days of the past.
As far as heavy barrels, Colt also made use of them in the late 40's on certain target models to appease certain needs asked for by the shooters.
The Python was built as the deluxe model with all refinements built in as standard. The full lug was created for the exceptional balance wanted by target shooters. The service models, the Trooper and Lawman, were created as holster revolvers for general usage and not target models so the extra balance of the lug was not deem necessary and omitted.
Ruger made it's bid to the LEO market in the 70's with the Security and Service Six, which had no lug. The newer GP-100, with the full lug, didn't come on the market till the mid 80's after most Leo's were transitioning to pistols.
Why Smith waited so long in creating the L-frame while at the same time repairing the K-frames that had been shot loose is probably because their sales were up due to the price tag hung on the Colts. When Ruger started eating into their profits with a stronger and cheaper revolver, they took notice and found themselves playing catch-up.
True you can say Smith was the first to offer full lugs on a service revolver, but they also don't offer a deluxe model in the L-frame series unless the M586/686 is suppose to be deluxe to the M581/681 because of the addition of adjustable sights. Makes good business sense, but you still just end up with a choice in sight selection in service revolvers with no refined deluxe model. Maybe that's the way of the industry today. Instead of limited runs for various distributors I wish all manufactors would create a deluxe model with refinements that would set itself apart from the service models and be something special we all (instead of the lucky few) would have the opportunity to collect like the days of the past.
That was one of the points I was trying to make: the Python was a deluxe model from the beginning. The Colt service offerings were the .357 and then then the Trooper. The 586/686 was never intended to be a deluxe mode--just an improved service model. It was probably never a very good idea to even try to compare them directly.
I do think you are underestimating the oveall durability of the of Model 19/66 with reasonable normal usage (not that the 586/686 wasn't an improvement in the durability department). I'm not sure the Python would have held up as well in the durability department in day-to-day LE use (abuse) and fed a steady diet of the hot 125-grain SJHPs of the 70s and early 80s. There just were not enough of them in LE holsters to make a valid judgement. For better or worse, the Python did have a reputation fragility when compared vis-Ã -vis with Smiths of the same time period.
It would have really been very interesting to see whether the 686 or the GP100 would have "won" if the "wundernine" revolution had not occurred. Ruger could have certainly won the "price war" (and still can)--though there is something about machining versus casting that appeals to me.
BTW, less I appear somehow anti-Colt, I much prefer the DS to the J-frame. I have a hard-chromed (from Colt) Custom Shop DS that probably has the best DA pull of any revolver I've ever owned (which is really saying something when you consider the size of DS versus N/L/K-frames)--I almost have to treat it like a SA.
I do think you are underestimating the oveall durability of the of Model 19/66 with reasonable normal usage (not that the 586/686 wasn't an improvement in the durability department). I'm not sure the Python would have held up as well in the durability department in day-to-day LE use (abuse) and fed a steady diet of the hot 125-grain SJHPs of the 70s and early 80s. There just were not enough of them in LE holsters to make a valid judgement. For better or worse, the Python did have a reputation fragility when compared vis-Ã -vis with Smiths of the same time period.
It would have really been very interesting to see whether the 686 or the GP100 would have "won" if the "wundernine" revolution had not occurred. Ruger could have certainly won the "price war" (and still can)--though there is something about machining versus casting that appeals to me.
BTW, less I appear somehow anti-Colt, I much prefer the DS to the J-frame. I have a hard-chromed (from Colt) Custom Shop DS that probably has the best DA pull of any revolver I've ever owned (which is really saying something when you consider the size of DS versus N/L/K-frames)--I almost have to treat it like a SA.
Last edited:
the DS is superior to the J-frame in everything except size and availability of thhe internal hammer. the longer trigger travel helps steady the snubby where the J-frame's shorter DA trigger takes more work to get a smooth letoff.
back when they issued us the m-15 as a duty gun, many of us carried the DS as a BUG, because you could use the same speedloader for both
i carried my 4"python (ex-CHP gun) as a duty gun, after the academy and before i could switch to a pistol, and it never had a problem with our issue winchester 125gr magnum load. you have to remember that the colt I-frame is actually a .41 sized frame
back when they issued us the m-15 as a duty gun, many of us carried the DS as a BUG, because you could use the same speedloader for both
i carried my 4"python (ex-CHP gun) as a duty gun, after the academy and before i could switch to a pistol, and it never had a problem with our issue winchester 125gr magnum load. you have to remember that the colt I-frame is actually a .41 sized frame
SWMAN
Member
Thanks for all the information that was provided. It was a good point bringing up the fact that the Python was classed with the M27 rather than the 686. Alot of history on the .357 was shared here. I get the impression that if I want to buy a Python, it should be an older one (begs the question how old) as the current Pythons are overrated and not as well built as the older ones. I'll just have to keep my eyes open and do some reserach in a Colt book. By the way, I've also become attracted to the GP100. I have a Service Six 4" that I shoot 38 specials +P through on occassion and find it a very nice shooter, accruate shooter. So, now I have two non-SW .357s on my want list for now Thanks.
JPM70535
Member
Throwing in my 2 cents worth
I own a 4" Python purchased new in the mid 60s, (Nickel) that became my duty weapon after using a 4" 66 for a couple years. With one glareing fault it was without a doubt the sweetest shooting revolver, out of the box, that I have ever come across. The trigger was typical Python with almost a 2 stage effect, the action was glass smooth and accuracy was excellent. I still have it and always will even though it has become a Safe Queen. The one fault I found with Pythons was the set of "Target" grips they came equipped with. My best description of them is Gorilla Grips, because you needed hands like a Gorilla to gain a firm controlling grip. Pachmyar grips solved that problem. In fairness, I have shot several newer Pythons and the Stainless ones just don't seem to have the quality of construction found in the older ones, but that is true of most all OTB revolvers today.
Trying to compare Pythons with 686s is like trying to compare Apples and Oranges. Other than the fact they are both 357s and both have full length underlugs they are words apart. My 686 shoots like a dream, is impervious to weather, strips down to its frame in a heartbeat for cleaning, and is less likely to shoot itself out of time, as Pythons are prone to do. took my Python apart for cleaning one time. The lockwork is considerably more complicated and delicate than that in the Smith. These statements are made with reference to the older model 686 with the firing pin on the hammer, the newer ones may be totally different.
Both revolvers are first class firearms. If I wanted one strictly for target shooting or PPC matches my choice would be the Python, but for a carry gun exposed to real life conditions, I'd opt for the 686 (older) every time.
I own a 4" Python purchased new in the mid 60s, (Nickel) that became my duty weapon after using a 4" 66 for a couple years. With one glareing fault it was without a doubt the sweetest shooting revolver, out of the box, that I have ever come across. The trigger was typical Python with almost a 2 stage effect, the action was glass smooth and accuracy was excellent. I still have it and always will even though it has become a Safe Queen. The one fault I found with Pythons was the set of "Target" grips they came equipped with. My best description of them is Gorilla Grips, because you needed hands like a Gorilla to gain a firm controlling grip. Pachmyar grips solved that problem. In fairness, I have shot several newer Pythons and the Stainless ones just don't seem to have the quality of construction found in the older ones, but that is true of most all OTB revolvers today.
Trying to compare Pythons with 686s is like trying to compare Apples and Oranges. Other than the fact they are both 357s and both have full length underlugs they are words apart. My 686 shoots like a dream, is impervious to weather, strips down to its frame in a heartbeat for cleaning, and is less likely to shoot itself out of time, as Pythons are prone to do. took my Python apart for cleaning one time. The lockwork is considerably more complicated and delicate than that in the Smith. These statements are made with reference to the older model 686 with the firing pin on the hammer, the newer ones may be totally different.
Both revolvers are first class firearms. If I wanted one strictly for target shooting or PPC matches my choice would be the Python, but for a carry gun exposed to real life conditions, I'd opt for the 686 (older) every time.
- Status
