S&W 686 v. Colt Python

[ms6852]

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/

Thanks for the link.

 

[entropy]

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/

Thank you for the link; Grant Cunningham is a voice to listen to and learn from. I was fortunate enough to own two Pythons (4" & 2.5") worked on by an excellent Colt (and S&W) Police Armorer, Glenn Crosby, of the ST. Paul (MN) PD. I bought my Dad's duty and off-duty Pythons when his PD went to the Glock. Glenn had worked them both smooth as silk, and I replaced parts as needed. Even with my teenage "Hot as I can get 'em" 125 gr. HP's, they took it in stride.
Yes, MrBorland and stiab, Colts stack in DA; They're what I learned shooting DA on (a Trooper MKIII, actually), so it never bothered me. Think of it as like learning how to drive a car with a stick shift first; an automatic is just that much easier.
Rugers were never big LEO revolvers in this area. You were either a Colt or Smith man. My Dad started out with a K38 6", Had a Trooper MkIII for a short while before he gave it to me, and then bought a 4" Python after shooting a friends'.

 

[Dog Soldier]

Thanks for sharing your very valuable experiences regarding the Colts. I am an old Colt addict. That is a disease that can only be treated by the exchange of Colt knowledge. Thanks

 

[sgt127]

I've owned several Pythons over the years. I would plod along carrying a S&W (27...58...66...29..686....) and read another article singing the praises of the Python and, buy another one.

They are drop dead gorgeous pieces of engineering. They are as accurate as any Smith I've owned. Maybe a little more so. But, I never could determine just how accurate they were because the trigger, for my finely calibrated S&W finger, was just awful. The stacking was a deal breaker for me.

And, I'd sell it or trade it off.

And, a few years down the road, do the same thing again.

I have a nickel 4" left that I'm going to hold on to. Saves me money in the long run. I'm sure I took a hundred dollar hit every time I traded one in.

Of course, I was buying them when they were just a little pricier than a comparable S&W. had I KEPT all of them.....sigh.

 

[Confederate]

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.

And yet your Python will most likely go out of time faster than your S&W. I'm not so sure tightness does so much for accuracy, really. My Ruger Security-Six revolvers have very tight lockups, but accuracy with the other guns are a tad better. Chances are, your chamber tolerances are a better indication of accuracy than tightness. Also, as tight as your Python may be and as wiggly as your lockup might be, chances are, as you said yourself, you'll see no appreciable difference in accuracy. But because the Python has a smallish hand, or pawl, it will tend to wear quickly and will go out of time faster regardless of how right it appears to be now.

 

[entropy]

And yet your Python will most likely go out of time faster than your S&W. I'm not so sure tightness does so much for accuracy, really. My Ruger Security-Six revolvers have very tight lockups, but accuracy with the other guns are a tad better. Chances are, your chamber tolerances are a better indication of accuracy than tightness. Also, as tight as your Python may be and as wiggly as your lockup might be, chances are, as you said yourself, you'll see no appreciable difference in accuracy. But because the Python has a smallish hand, or pawl, it will tend to wear quickly and will go out of time faster regardless of how right it appears to be now.

Confederate, read the link Dog Soldier posted in post #25; it explains exactly why that happens, and the remedy. The Python is a well tuned performance machine which requires regular maintenance; this includes replacing the parts mentioned in the article at regular intervals. Is it the handgun I want in my holster in the Zombie Apocalypse? No. (Apologies to Rick Grimes) That's what the <insert favorite auto here> is for. But a Python right out of the box was a well-tuned machine, whereas Smiths needed gunsmithing to equal that (before the Performance Center), and as I mentioned before A Python gone over by someone who knows what they are doing is a masterpiece capable of better accuracy than the hands holding it and the eye guiding it.

 

[Confederate]

Then there [are] always the "Smythons."

Beautiful gun! But other than appearance, what's the advantage?

Years ago, when gun magazines actually contained useful information, some did comparative articles in which they bolted revolvers into Ransom Rests and did accuracy tests. I remember at 25 yards that the Security-Six and Colt Trooper tended to favor the heavier bullets, which were recorded at about 1.7 inches but the lighter bullets seemed to go between 2-3 inches.The Python and the 686, however, brought in everything between 1.5 and 2.2, and the Python did better with some loads while the 686 was better with others. So, except for looks, I never understood putting a Python barrel on a 686. I would have loved seeing a before and after Ransom Rest chart to see if accuracy was actually improved by adding the Python barrel.

BTW, if you ever get some great photos of that hybrid, maybe outdoors in a nice shaded spot, I'd love to see them. The gun is beautiful!

 

[jmorris]

Beautiful gun! But other than appearance, what's the advantage?

Back in the "old days" it was something done for PPC shooters, 586&686's didn't exist.

I don't think I have ever seen a "Smython" with an L frame. Mostly K frame and an N frame from time to time.

The Python came out in the '50's the 686 didn't exist until the '80's.

 

[Confederate]

Confederate, read the link Dog Soldier posted in post #25; it explains exactly why that happens, and the remedy. The Python is a well tuned performance machine which requires regular maintenance; this includes replacing the parts mentioned in the article at regular intervals.

YES! Great post. But it raises some issues that ought to be considered.

First, are these fine tolerances the natural result of a finely crafted mechanism? Or are they remnants of a painfully out of date manufacturing process?

Colt revolvers have actions which are very refined. Their operating surfaces are very small, and are precisely adjusted to make the guns work properly. Setting them up properly is not a job for someone who isn’t intimately familiar with their workings, and the gunsmith who works on them had better be accustomed to working at narrow tolerances, on small parts, under magnification.

Colt’s design and construction is unique; it uses the hand (the “pawl” which rotates the cylinder) and the bolt (the stop at the bottom of the frame opening) to hold the cylinder perfectly still when the gun fires. The action is designed so that the hand – which is the easiest part to replace – will take the majority of the wear, and is expected to be changed when wear exceeds a specific point.

There are a great many euphemisms couched in this analysis! “Narrow tolerances”...“small parts?” To me it sounds like something that should have been addressed by Colt as technology and tooling improved.

This is considered normal maintenance in a Colt revolver, which is not the case with any other brand. To get their famous “bank vault” cylinder locking and attendant accuracy, you have to accept a certain amount of maintenance; it goes with ownership of such a fine instrument. I’ve often made the statement that a Colt is like a Ferrari; to get the gilt-edged performance, you have to accept that they will require more maintenance than a Ford pickup. Unlike gun owners, however, folks who own Italy’s finest don’t complain that they are more “delicate” than an F-150!

As much as I love the Colt Python, this is, to me, trying to put a positive spin on an old flawed design. Ruger was able to accomplish the same system with large, oversized parts. Even today, one can take the pawl and harden it using modern manufacturing techniques. Or a standard pawl can be hard chromed. Once you've got the pawl fitted perfectly, any one of a number of hard chroming places like Mahovsky's can put a hard chrome finish on the pawl and any other delicate steel part. After that, one may need never worry about replacing it again.



Finally, the Python “right out of the box" is a well-tuned machine because it has to be! But S&W revolvers also are tuned. Say what you want about MSM, S&W has been able to use these fabricated parts to standardize the fit of their modern revolvers, and only minimal tuning is necessary to make it a match for the Python. Why? Because in my view the S&W action already is inherently superior to the Colt's because of the way it breaks. Just by lightening the trigger, the action is consistently smooth and light. The early 686 models (no dash) were designed to match the Python in accuracy and performance and all I did was lighten the trigger and people thought I had had an action job. Many Smiths, and especially Ruger's revolvers, improve with use and in dry firing. Even in out of the box Pythons I prefer the action to be a tad lighter. But if I had to choose between the Python and 686, I'd go with the Python every time! But for competing, I'd take the 686. And if you were going to dump me on a small island with 2,000 rounds, I'd take the Ruger Security-Six.

Smiths don't really needequal that (before the Performance Center), and as I mentioned before A Python gone over by someone who knows what they are doing is a masterpiece capable of better accuracy than the hands holding it and the eye guiding it.

No argument there!


The S&W 686-no dash is an amazing gun, especially with a stamped sideplate and wood grips. The only problem is, I lost my keys to the lock. Oh, yeah, it doesn't have a lock! Silly me!


Chamber throat size is important to a gun's accuracy, and S&W paid a lot of attention to tolerances in its early and later (above) guns. They're also built to last. To think: some day I'll be dead and buried and some clown will be shooting MY gun...THIS gun somewhere. I think I'll be buried with it!

 

[jmorris]

The S&W 686-no dash is an amazing gun

If you have one of the first ones sold, like the ones I have, they had a recall and should have been sent back for repair.

Open the cylinder and look on the left side of the frame, there should be an "M" stamped there if it has been fixed.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I have one of the M stamped 686's. You would have thought while S&W was fixing it, they would have went ahead and fixed it's canted barrel, but they didn't. The barrel is so far turned to the left, the rear sight is hanging off the side of the gun by an 1/8 inch to the right in order to get it zeroed. I have seen many 686's with canted barrels....To be fair, I have a Colt I bought brand new that also has a canted barrel.

 

[jmorris]

IIRC the recall was on the firing pin bushing.?

 

[sgt127]

Correct. It was the bushing and firing pin nose. Both were replaced.

Problem was, with hot rounds, there was a chance the primer could flow back into the firing pin hole and lock up the gun.

Some guns did, some didn't.

 

[joed]

I've owned 2 Pythons and never had any issues with the timing. One of them was close to being out of time but in the 10 years I owned it the timing never got worse.

In my safe is a Colt Officers Target model from 1930, the first year they made it in .22 rf. Same lockup as the Python and it is still holding up. I shoot it every chance I get, so it does see use.

To be honest I've had more problems with S&W revolvers. I have seen the canted barrels and even owned one that the cylinder required more pull for 2 of the chambers. That was a strange problem that I never could get fixed.

 

[forrest r]

Growing up my brother had a 6" bbl'd python. Excellent revolver!!! He shot a mix of reloads with most of them being 38spl/target loads.The python would make it to 20,000/25,000 rounds and then need to be sent in to be rebuilt. When I got older and wanted to buy my own 357 I talked to my brother about what's out there. He brought out a 6" bbl'd nickel 586 and said he retired the python after the 2nd trip back to colt to get rebuilt. Something about colt was going to quit working on the pythons.

Having shot countless 1000's of rounds in the python we went to the range and my brother let me use/shoot the 586. Needless to say I was extremely impressed with the s&w and ended up buying a 6" bbl'd 586.


Accuracy wise I couldn't tell the difference between the colt and the 2 s&w's. I could tell the difference in the longer cylinders of the s&w's, i could load/shoot bullets/357 cases in the s&w that I couldn't in the colt. I had that 586 for decades and shot a lot of hot 357 loads in it. Pat's reloading was right down the road and the 32# cases of the wc820 were cheap. Couple that with free range lead for bullets, that 586 saw a lot of use. Sent it back to s&w when it had over 100,000 rounds down the tube. They rebuilt the timing in 1997. Shot another 100,000+ in it and sent it back in 2006/2007? They rebuilt the timing again and this time re-cut the forcing cone. Finely last year the bbl gave up the ghost. Loads that I used for decades in that 586 were doing 50fps/60fps less than they did before. The bbl was shot out.

Ended up buying a new 686 with a 6" bbl.


Wanted a load for it to use on the bowling pin table. We setup 12ga shotgun shells instead of bowling pins. And shoot the shotgun shells @50ft instead of 25ft. So I did some test loads with that 686 pictured above. They were only 6-shot groups fired @50 using a rolled up piece of cardboard with a towel on it sitting at a table for a rest. I'm sure a Ransom rest would of did better. But I did manage to come up with these loads.


I retested both loads with a 50-shot string and both of them shot bugholes in the targets. I know I only did the testing @50ft looking for a action shooting load. But I have put both those loads on paper @25yds and 50yds and they have no problem shewing the x-ring out of nra targets. That 686 that I bought last year is a lot more accurate than I am.

On a side note:
They didn't put the colt bbl's on a s&w because they were better. They did it because of the difference in twist rates and the longer bodied wc/hbwc bullets. 3 different 148gr bullets, a wc (left) and 2 different hbwc's (center & right).


Longer bullet ='s faster twist. The s&w's had a 1 in 18 3/8's twist. The colt's had a 1 in 14 twist. It was more of a target velocity bullet rpm, stability thing. The 686 next to a dan wesson 15-2 that has a custom 1 in 10 twist bbl, heavy bbl shroud and a muzzle break. The dw is setup for the longer/heavier full house loads using 170gr/180gr bullets.


A schneider built ppc revolver that that has a 1 in 16 twist in it. He made the long standard cylinder version on this ppc pistol like the 1 pictured below.


Schneider also did a 1 in 16 twist ppc revolver with a patented short cylinder that was designed to shoot flush seated 38spl wc ammo.

Anyway My brother took me to the ranges with him and I used/shot his python for over a decade. I've owned 586's/686's for almost 3 decades. With 40 years of hands on shooting with both firearms I would have no problem buying/owning/pitting a 586/686 against a python.

Personally, any 3 of those pistols pictured above will give a python all they can handle. I can afford to own/use/shoot pythons, I just feel they are outgunned and you can see where I put my $$$. Better triggers, longer cylinders & stronger longer lasting actions with no loss of accuracy.

 

[Jim Watson]

I have run side by side tests in IDPA drills. Python, K Smith, L Smith, N Smith.
Pinpoint accuracy is not a requirement for IDPA but speed is. The Colt is slower.

As far as sheer accuracy goes, the old Police Marksman's Association found a Model 19 somewhat more accurate than a Python. I think they were shooting the Perfection "Can of Lead" wadcutters.

 

[dvnv]

I have run side by side tests in IDPA drills. Python, K Smith, L Smith, N Smith.
Pinpoint accuracy is not a requirement for IDPA but speed is. The Colt is slower.

As far as sheer accuracy goes, the old Police Marksman's Association found a Model 19 somewhat more accurate than a Python. I think they were shooting the Perfection "Can of Lead" wadcutters.

Just curious...how did the 3 sizes of Smith compare for speed?

 

[Jim Watson]

Pretty much a wash.
The K (M67) was quick on the transitions, the L (M686) held down the recoil for quicker splits, the N (M25-2) was faster on the clip reload.
Overall, I can do best with the 686... If I don't blow the speedloader.

 

[valnar]

I think the 686 is the better gun overall, but the Python is cooler. No doubt due to the increasing rarity. If both were available today for roughly the same price? I do believe the S&W would "win", if that matters.

 

[Confederate]

Couple that with free range lead for bullets, that 586 saw a lot of use. Sent it back to s&w when it had over 100,000 rounds down the tube. They rebuilt the timing in 1997. Shot another 100,000+ in it and sent it back in 2006/2007? They rebuilt the timing again and this time re-cut the forcing cone. Finely last year the bbl gave up the ghost. Loads that I used for decades in that 586 were doing 50fps/60fps less than they did before. The bbl was shot.

It's amazing that revolvers can shoot that many rounds, eh? Between the Rugers and the big Smiths, they can put many autos to shame. (Some auto shooters change their springs every few thousand rounds!)

If one shoots as many rounds through their revolvers as you, you might want to have your guns hard chromed, even if they're stainless steel. The hard chroming not only stops parts from wearing, they almost eliminate barrel wear and tear altogether. Hard chroming also keeps guns from having to be retimed and it preserves action jobs.