[Kaylee]

Well... a local gunsmith here has agreed to teach me 'smithing in my off hours... and my first prject was an action job on grand-dad's ol' Police Positive, prior to a refinish. Needless to say, I just screwed up the fix Tam's gunsmith made on the bolt. (Tams... say sorry to Shannon for me, eh?)

Regardless, I just got a replacement bolt and rebound lever, and next time I'm in I'll be giving 'em a go. BUT... I just gotta ask..

Is it just me, or is that rebound lever/bolt interface about as Mickey Mouse a contraption as ever went into a gun? It just seems to be begging to snap, slip, wear into uselessness (ahem) and otherwise be trouble. Wouldn't working the bolt release off the trigger make more sense? Or even the hammer?

So... did Colt keep up this system into their later rounds of revolvers? Or did they replace it with something else?

-K


(On the plus side... I kinda like the "positive safety" they added -- a lot less intrusive than modern transfer bars... neat idea!)

[dfariswheel]

The system was State of the Art in the 1890's when it was invented.

In 1969 Colt discontinued almost all the older guns with this action, except for the Python, because of the extensive hand work required to fit even the "budget" models like the Official Police.

The replacements for the older Colt guns all use a system where the trigger operates the bolt.

Colt's first post-old model gun was the "J" frame Trooper Mark III.
This was the first Colt to use the transfer bar action, with the trigger actuated bolt.

It was also the world's first "no fit" parts system. These guns required very little, or no hand fitting at the factory. The down side is, the parts can't be refitted if they wear, like the older guns can. The design calls for parts replacement, not refitting.
This was so successful, every gun maker has copied the idea.

Working on the older Colt's is about as much Art as science. The actions are NOT obvious, and the critical working areas are tiny compared to other brands. This is why few gunsmiths today are qualified to work on them.

The up side is, if you can qualify as a Colt mechanic, you can work on about any thing.

My best advice is to invest in copies of Jerry Kuhnhausen's books on gunsmithing, The two books on Colt DA revolvers are worth their weight in gold.

[Standing Wolf]

When you encounter a glass-smooth Python action and very high accuracy, you're looking at proof some of those old, inefficient revolver designs actually worked very well. They tend to need more T.L.C., but they're worth it to perfectionists.

That said™, I'll have to admit I don't still do my own work on Pythons and D frame Colts. Pre-agreement Smith & Wessons are much easier to work on.

[JoeHatley]

Kaylee,

I couldn't agree more!!! That bolt tail sliding off the side, seems like a very poor design.

You can work on it forever, get it just right, and if the part hasn't been tempered correctly it only lasts a few hundred rounds.

It's the very reason I've sold all my "Python" action Colt revolvers, except one with sentimental value.

Life's just too short to mess with it...

Joe

[Mike Irwin]

I generally won't work on older Colts.

I'll work an an S&W hand ejector of any vintage.

[BigG]

You have put your finger on the classical reason the S&W is preferred by about 90% of shooters to the Colt revo - Mickey Mouse innards. JMHO

[9mmepiphany]

that is very hash...

i've always thought most folks prefered the smith because you could find folks to work on them...just about any good gunsmith can work on a smith, the same can't be said for a colt.

until you've had a colt done by someone who knows what they are about...don't like anyone else work on your colts...you can't understand what an artform the colt action really is

[Mike Irwin]

Well, I guess Rube Goldbergs could be considered artforms, too, 9mm. :D

[Jim K]

The bolt tail is supposed to slip off the front of the cam, not the side.

I think I know the Colts pretty well, but I agree that the design was outdated long before the new actions came in. As for S&W, their old and new guns need very little fitting at the factory and parts will almost always drop in and work without any fitting.

The old Colts worked OK as long as everything was OK and working together. But nothing is simple; a minor change in one place will show up somewhere else. And Colt parts almost always require fitting, in part to compensate for wear on parts not being replaced.

In all fairness, though, I have seen a lot more Colt's messed up by tinkering than failed due to wear.

Jim

[tex_n_cal]

Well, the ex kept the Python, but as I recall all it required was cocking the hammer with a 3/16" rod in between the 'V' of the mainspring - a trick courtesy of Skeeter Skelton - click - instant trigger job. Much easier than any Smith. I did it on the Python and Dad's Original Colt Trooper .357. Both worked fine.

I have heard that in the fog of a gunfight, if one yanks the trigger too hard with too strong of a finger, it can break some of the Colt internals. Having rapid fired a Python without problems I question if that's really true or not.