Smith & Wesson vs Colt

[Dave T]

For a couple years in the late 1970s I was involved in PPC competition and shot a K-38 at the beginning of my journey. When I was looking for a better gun, but hadn't quite convinced myself to get a "bull gun", someone recommended a 6" Python. I looked around (they were available back then) and found a clean used one. After one match I sold it because the stacking Colt trigger was a problem. Smith's straight pull, consistent trigger was vastly superior for DA work, and I shot the whole course DA.

So for me it will always be the old (pre IL & floating FP) Smith & Wesson when it comes to a DA revolver.

Dave

 

[SwampWolf]

I like full size 38 Special revolvers so my response would be get both.

Of course you would be violating the stipulation "...if you could pick only one." I'm finding the feedback so far very interesting. I am surprised though how easy and quick some are to make their choice. Deciding between the two for me is the answer to why God made coins with different sides.
I do think it's apropos to remember the basis for the genesis for these two revolvers way back in the day: serious Bullseye competition. When target shooting, the direction of the cylinder release and the nature of the double-action isn't especially germane for competitors.
But returning to cfullgraf's solution to the dilemma posed: I have already taken your advice.

 

[Mizar]

CraigC, I believe that this topic is too complex and deserves a whole new thread - "Pros and cons of different revolver double action mechanisms" for instance. In my defense, about S&W actions, I can say that this is only my opinion from purely mechanical standpoint.

 

[Sarge7402]

Over the years, I've used/carried quite a number of Colts (Police Positive Specials, 1917, New Service and Cobra's) and very few S&W's. The Colts just fit my hands more naturally and the trigger was never a problem. Sadly I only have one left - a Colt Army Special in .41 Long Colt Circa 1923. Carried it for two years in the Army and it was in my Dad's care while I was overseas. Still shoots fine and it's a very close cousin to the Colt Officers Match

 

[Hondo 60]

I've owned a couple of kframes but only 1 similar sized Colt, a 1915 Army Special38.

Even though the Colt is over 100 yrs old, the trigger is much heavier than the Smiths.

 

[Walkalong]

I shoot the Smith 14-3 & 14-5 a little better. Not getting rid of the Colt OMM though.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

In my Experience:The Colt Officers Model dominated Bullseye for many years IIRC. I cannot remember seeing one for sale recently. The real problem with the Colt's including the Python was being out of time and the crane sprung. Getting work done became more difficult as the old guys who worked on the passed. My friends who liked Colt's pointed out that the fault came from abuse. I am partial to Smith's. Have several including a Clark custom K14 and a 38-44 Outdoorsman.There were no K38's around so I settled for a 19. Shoots just fine with 38 Special. You should try the action on an Officer's Model. Those that I have handled are as slick as a Python.

 

[Waveski]

I really appreciate the function and fit of my "poor man's Colt" , which is a very nice Official Police from the '40's. The lock-up is remarkable ; the revolver points very naturally. That said , I will never understand why Colt decided to leave the ejector rod free standing. Always looks unfinished and vulnerable to me.

My Colt mainly rests in the safe. I shoot all of my S&W revolvers, including and especially my model 14.

 

[John Joseph]

I've owned and shot both Colt & S&W DA revolvers. The most accurate were the Smiths and as much as I like Colts, the proof as they say, is in the pudding and the S&Ws it's easier to pud 'em all in the black.

 

[If1HitU]

I shoot the Smith 14-3 & 14-5 a little better. Not getting rid of the Colt OMM though.
View attachment 797168 View attachment 797169 View attachment 797170

Nice family!

 

[joed]

I had both a K38 and a 1930 OM Target. The Colt shot better then the K38 and I still have it, not so the K38. They could both shoot but the Colt was unbeatable.

 

[SwampWolf]

I shoot the Smith 14-3 & 14-5 a little better. Not getting rid of the Colt OMM though.

Those photos remind me why a flip of the coin would be my decision maker between these two splendid revolver renditions. I've used both in Bullseye competition for many years and could never find an objective reason for choosing one over the other. For strictly subjective reasons, I'd lean slightly toward the Smith. Very slightly.

 

[SwampWolf]

I will never understand why Colt decided to leave the ejector rod free standing. Always looks unfinished and vulnerable to me.

There is an admittedly unlikely but real advantage an exposed ejector rod might have over an enclosed one: in the, again, unlikely, event that an ejector rod gets bent while the cylinder is open (say in the haste of a reload under stress), the ejector housing will prevent the cylinder from closing until the rod is straightened while the "free standing" ejector rod will not keep the cylinder from closing. I seriously doubt that's why Colt made them that way (many later Colts had ejector housings, of course) but even if the concededly limited advantage was unintended, it is real.
All of which isn't to say that an enclosed ejector rod is not better suited for protecting it from damage in most conceivable cases.

 

[Mn Fats]

Dan Wesson for me

 

[Mizar]

The real problem with the Colt's including the Python was ... the crane sprung... My friends who liked Colt's pointed out that the fault came from abuse.

Aside from the "out of time" issue that has been beaten to death here and on other forums as well, a sprung crane is not a Colt specific problem and your friends are right - it comes from abuse. If the revolver is properly timed and fitted that cylinder aligns the chambers perfectly to the barrel. That allows Colts to have the tight cylinder lockup, with no movement at all. That also allows them to not need a second, front lock of the crane/cylinder assembly - the crane simply did not experience such forces at firing as a S&W for example. The problems start when one allows his revolver to develop side play at lockup, when the cylinder stops being perfectly aligned to the barrel every time. With every bullet shot and entering the forcing cone it forces the cylinder to align to the barrel thus transferring those forces to the crane. And it simply was not designed for such abuse.

 

[mcb]

My perspective for what its worth. I would take S&W over a Colt any day of the week and twice on match day. I have been shooting revolver in USPSA and IDPA matches for the past 10+ years. S&W dominates both sports, especially USPSA. If there was an advantage to running a Colt in the practical pistol competition world then someone would be doing it and I have never seen a Colt at a USPSA or IDPA match. A heap of S&W a fair number of Rugers and a Chiappa and a Webley even but never a Colt.

 

[Tallball]

My experience with Colt revolvers is very limited. I only own one, an Army Special from 1921. I also own a S&W "pre Model 10" (M&P) from around the same time period. It's from 1916, IIRC.

Of the two, the Colt has a better trigger and I like the sights a bit better, too. It's a very small and somewhat unusual sample size, but that's all I can offer.

Colt Army Special

• Tallball
• Mar 4, 2018

View media item 1666

 

[CajunBass]

I've owned several of each, although not those specific models. I'm a Smith & Wesson guy. Colts just never felt right to me. Nothing wrong with them, they shoot just fine. I just never could make myself really like them. Maybe it's that cylinder turning the wrong way or something.

This is why you should never say "never." I put a beautiful Colt Officers Model on layaway just yesterday.

I guess I'll get used to the cylinder turning the wrong way. I just hope it doesn't upset the time/space continuum.

 

[sarge83]

My preference is either a S&W Model 19-4 with a four inch barrel or a Colt King Cobra. The Colts look better but the Smith's have better triggers.

 

[ACES&8S]

K38, runs good & cylinder drops easier so that's my choice.
Colt is still a good one however.

 

[Iggy]

When I started shooting revolvers over 50 years ago, I couldn't afford the vaunted Python. I had to settle for a used K-38. I shot a Python back then and liked the K-38 trigger better.
I got use to S&W guns which is fortunate. I still can't afford a Python.

 

[BobWright]

Around 1960 I was into NRA Bull's eye shooting. I had two Colt OMMs, one in .22 r.f. and the other a .38 Special. Then I just liked the fit and feel of the Colt's grips, which carried over in the Python. Even after leaving target competition I went through several .38 Spec. OMMs. The grip and heavy barrel just felt natural in my hand.

This the last one through my hands:



Bob Wright

 

[CraigC]

My perspective for what its worth. I would take S&W over a Colt any day of the week and twice on match day. I have been shooting revolver in USPSA and IDPA matches for the past 10+ years. S&W dominates both sports, especially USPSA. If there was an advantage to running a Colt in the practical pistol competition world then someone would be doing it and I have never seen a Colt at a USPSA or IDPA match. A heap of S&W a fair number of Rugers and a Chiappa and a Webley even but never a Colt.

Probably has a lot to do with the fact that Colt's are no longer made and finding someone to do some tuning or parts replacement is problematic. A newer S&W or Ruger is all too easy. S&W's the most popular because of their faster trigger return.

 

[oldbear]

The K-38, model 14 would be my choice. Two reasons, I'm a life long Smith and Wesson guy. The Colt series of revolvers never seemed to fit my hand very well. There magna style grips were to small, and the target grips were way to big.

 

[golden]

I found the COLT had the better single action trigger, it was as good as a COLT PYTHON. Since I usually shoot double action and I love the combination of HOGUE grip on the K-frame S&W size guns, that would be my choice. If you are just looking for a field gun, either one, but the COLT could take a heavier loading. COLT used to brag that their medium frame guns could handle the .38-44 rounds, while S&W K frames could not take a steady diet of them.

Jim