S&W 686 v. Colt Python

[Confederate]

I'm curious as to whether anyone has ventured to test the accuracy of the S&W 686 in relation to the Colt Python. When the 686 first appeared, gun magazines compared them to Colt's vaunted top-of-the-line Pythons. At the time the verdict was that the 686's accuracy was fully compatible to that of the Python; however, has anyone recently tested the accuracy of these revolvers?

The best comparison would be with Ransom Rests, but if anyone has any practical input on today's guns, I'd be interested in hearing it.

 

[Reloadron]

I can't do a 686 comparrison but I can say I have a S&W 586 and a Colt Python in 4" and 6" barrels. As to overall shoot-ability? I like the Python better but both revolvers are well made excellent revolvers. Actually I have a S&W Model 27 as well as Pre 27 and would likely choose those over the S&W 586. Really, sans a Ransom Rest it is just about impossible to accurately compare the groups.

Just My Take....
Ron

 

[cfullgraf]

While I am pleased with my 586 and 686 Smiths, I feel there is no comparison with the Python. They two are in different leagues.

Just my opinion as I do not own a Python. Maybe someday.

With that and $5 you can get a cup of designer coffee.

 

[BobWright]

I have owned a Python and a Model 586. As to accuracy, I could discern no practical difference. If it takes a Ransom Rest to define the difference, that is of no significance to me since I do all of my shooting without one. I've owned and/or shot the Python, the Model 28, the pre-Model 27 .357 Magnum and two Model 586s. After my testing, I chose the Model 586 and never looked back.

Neither the Python nor the N-framed Smiths would chamber my heavy bullet .357 Magnum loads due to their short cylinders. And the K-Framed Smith was a tad delicate for some of my loads. The L-Framed gun fits me to a "T" for double action shooting, and is as rugged as the N-Frame for the .357 Cartridge.

Certainly the Colt is a beautifully fitted and finished revolver, but in getting bullets on target, and accomplishing their intended use, I'll take the Model 586. I believe it to be the ultimate .357 Magnum Double action revolver.

Bob Wright

 

[Confederate]

Thanks, guys.

S&W's people determined they would achieve comparable accuracy by watching the tolerances. They include b/c gap, chamber dimensions, barrel dimensions and twist -- that sort of thing. Some changes have been made in the 586/686 pistols, so I was curious. Anyone have any photos of the two guns together?

 

[Reloadron]

Thanks, guys.

S&W's people determined they would achieve comparable accuracy by watching the tolerances. They include b/c gap, chamber dimensions, barrel dimensions and twist -- that sort of thing. Some changes have been made in the 586/686 pistols, so I was curious. Anyone have any photos of the two guns together?

Yeah, I can give you my 586 and the 4" Python together.


Sorry about the flash bounce. As I mentioned earlier a better comparrison to the Colt Python would likely be the S&W Model 27 which is a sweet, heavy revolver.

Ron

 

[Speedo66]

Can't comment about a Python, never having owned one. I bought a 4" 686 when they first came out as a duty gun. I took it to the range and the first 6 shots fired with it, wadcutter handloads, were all touching in a circle at 50'. Shocked me, was never able to duplicate that. lol

We were restricted to .38Spl., which is what I carried in the gun. Later, we were restricted to only .38Spl. guns, so I sold it as it was too big to carry concealed in NYC. Regret selling it to this day.

 

[dh1633pm]

I have shot both since my dad owns one of each. I have not accuracy tested them nor do I own a rest. The quality of the Colt is outstanding. Same with the Smith. But somehow you can see you have something special when you hold the Colt.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I have several Pythons, a newer 7 shot 7" 686 and 30 year old 8 3/8" 686, plus several other .357 revolvers. The 8 3/8" 686 is by far the most accurate revolver I have owned or shot.

 

[entropy]

Back when the 586's came out a friend had one, and I had two Pythons at the time. He admitted the Pythons were better, but he said the Smith was plenty good for the price. I agreed, but I didn't tell him I got both Pythons for what the Smith cost him.

 

[joed]

All the above are capable of fine accuracy. The Colt's cylinder locks up like a bank vault aligning the cylinder with the barrel which is supposed to give great accuracy. To see this in action make sure the gun is unloaded, pull the trigger and do not let the hammer fall. Now, try to wiggle the cylinder. The S&W cylinder has some slop to it as it aligns with the barrel. That is the difference in the actions.

Is there a difference in accuracy? I owned a Python and S&W model 28, 686 and 66. Between them I could not see a difference against the Python.

 

[Bama Drifter]

Stick a Python barrel on a Smith.... voila, a hyper reliable and accurate "Smython". Good luck on your resale value, but if you have the means it'll probably be the only one in town.

 

[stiab]

I was issued a Python, but when qualification time came I used a personally owned S&W Model 19 because I thought it had a better DA. I later owned my own Python, and a S&W 586, and could determine no difference in pure accuracy attributable to the gun itself. I think the Smith is easier to shoot.

 

[ms6852]

I own both the 686 no dash and the python. I find both to be equal in accuracy but as a lefty I prefer the 686 over python. Easier access to the cylinder one handed by pushing with the index finger vs trying to unlock cylinder with the index finger on python.

 

[Jim K]

"The Colt's cylinder locks up like a bank vault..."

That statement has been repeated endlessly by Colt fans, but there is an un-mentioned problem. The Colt does indeed lock tight when the hand forces the cylinder tightly against the bolt (cylinder stop). The downside is that if the bolt or cylinder notch or frame slot is worn, the hand will force the cylinder PAST the alignment point and OUT of alignment.

Jim

 

[PlayTheAces]

Some years back I bench tested my Python against my model 28, both 6", and there was no real difference. Both shot out the center of the target. I guess I'll have to test the 28 against my 686 now.

I'd test my 686 against the Python, but I sold off the Python earlier this year. Absolutely beautiful gun, but I finally realized I just prefer S&Ws and had no real attachment to it.

 

[jmorris]

My best group out of my Python is better than my best from either of my no dash 686's but the S&W's have never had a scope mounted on them. With "irons" on all, accuracy depends more on me than them.

 

[entropy]

I was issued a Python, but when qualification time came I used a personally owned S&W Model 19 because I thought it had a better DA. I later owned my own Python, and a S&W 586, and could determine no difference in pure accuracy attributable to the gun itself. I think the Smith is easier to shoot.

And unless you put them in a Ransom Rest, you won't. With years of shooting and working on both, I've noticed Smiths have to have a trigger job done (Or be a Performance Center gun, for newer guns) to match a Python out of the box. But a Python with a trigger job by someone who knows how to do them is....<Linda Richman voice> like buttah. </Linda Richman voice>

 

[jmorris]

But a Python with a trigger job by someone who knows how to do them is...

Smoother than Ricardo Montalban.

 

[MrBorland]

Smoother than Ricardo Montalban

...but stacked like a pile of buttermilk pancakes.

The Python actions I've checked out were smooth, but they all stacked, which almost forces you to stage the DA trigger, rather than pull consistently through the break. Some like that quality in a Python; others, not so much...

 

[jmorris]

Then there is always the smython's

 

[stiab]

...but they all stacked...

Exactly, that's why as I stated above at qualification time I traded my issue Python for a S&W M19. DA stacking is a problem with most Colt revolvers, and why I have sold all mine except one.

 

[Jim K]

Colt accuracy has always been top notch and the Python is no exception. But the Python is a custom revolver, virtually hand built by Colt experts, which is why it was very costly. The truth is that the 1910 Colt DA revolver design is simply awful and required a high degree of manufacturing skill to be even marginally acceptable. While Colt's main competitor upgraded its design dozens of times over a century (most changes were not even noticed by owners) Colt did not upgrade (claiming that their design was perfect) until almost the end of production, and even then the designers were forced to conform to old-fashioned cosmetics. Skilled at the glib response, Colt salesmen tried to convince customers that serious design flaws were actually advantages, and it worked.

Colt had several periods in which money was no problem and their designers knew what was needed to revamp their revolvers; instead, Colt executives decided the old guns were good enough, and they could continue indefinitely by fakery like calling a changed sight profile a major improvement. So they continued to trade on the magic name, and went golfing. Until the bottom almost fell out and they have to depend on an almost 200-year old design to keep the lights on.

Jim





.

 

[stiab]

The most recent generation of Colt DA revolvers were not high quality firearms. I've owned most of them, including DSII, stainless Detective Special with 3" barrel, etc. The DSII had a smooth front sight, nothing to reduce light glare, and the triggers were so sharp on the edges that many people had to have them rounded by a gunsmith. The 3" Detective Special in stainless felt like a toy in your hand, certainly not the quality of the Colts I owned and carried years earlier...

 

[Dog Soldier]

The Colt Python was often considered high maintenance by many police Depts. There was a reason behind this. It also may have caused the Python to be dropped by Colt. S&W and Ruger won over the LEO revolver market for a time. I have included a link that lays out the Python legend reasonable well.

http://www.grantcunningham.com/2006/05/is-the-colt-python-revolver-delicate/