Colt Python: why so valuable?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Junque............as are MOST Colt DA's.............like the fella said, never saw an old Colt in time nor an old S&W out!

Yeah, they work, for all their delicate lockwork. Damn things were overpriced and overmarketed from the git go and times haven't changed.


Naw, I DON'T like Colt!
 
Freedom Arms also uses cast parts, are they lacking in fit & finish? Or is it possible that the use of cast parts has nothing to do with the degree of fit and finish?
 
Flechette said:
I have seen many people say that the revolver they'd most like to own is the Colt Python. It often sells at prices over $1800.

Why?

Is it a superior design?

Sentimental or collector value?

What makes this gun so desired?
Click to expand...
Maybe all of the above and maybe not. I have a few nice specimens which reminds me I need a set of grips for my 6", I have a 4" and a 6". While both revolvers are a dream to shoot I likely enjoy shooting my S&W Model 27 and maybe even my S&W 586 as much as the Pythons. I ended up with the second one because my brother needed money and I loaned him $2,000 against a 6" Python and a Colt SP1 rifle. That was over a year ago so I figure that Python is mine. It was a 1 year interest free loan too. :)

Maybe after I am dead they can go to the grandsons. While it is nice to see many of my guns increase in value a $2,000 Python is really only a $2,000 Python when someone buys it for $2,000. They are sweet guns but I really do not see much in my Pythons over some of my S&W guns, especially my Model 27.

Ron
 
I'd always wanted a Python, so about 15 or more years ago (probably more), I spent $850 on a stainless six-inch (The stainless ones were easier to find, with the royal blue version all but impossible to locate). It was an exorbitant sum in those days. I think it's a very attractive revolver, and the action is amazingly smooth. But you know what, it's sitting in my safe, still waiting to be shot. And I don't think it could outperform my S&W .357's by any margin.

Anyway, considering the current demand, I think it was a pretty good investment...
 
I got my first Python in 1979 for $385.00. It replaced a revolver I had borrowed from my dad when I was working armed security. It was the first gun I actually owned. In 2007 I was able to obtain my second Python. My first is a 6" my second is a 4". Both were made in 1978. One reason they were considered the best is that each one had their internal parts hand fitted by master gunsmiths. Mine are both shooters but I could still get at least $1000 for each if I wanted.
 
I was just at my LGS today and they have several Pythons in the case on consignment. They've had them for over a year and a half. I'd say the reason for that is the prices on them. The regular ones are tagged at $5,000 each, and the 2 engraved ones are $12,000 and $15,000.

Yikes!
 
When shooters went north of $1k, I quit buying. One day, I am gonna sell my pile and buy a mansion on a hill.:D
 
AGREE! The Python really can't be compared to any other factory revolver because they are smooth, accurate and great looking! Even the overly expensive Korth look alike revolver can't unseat a Python as a fantastic handgun. IMHO, the best all around handgun ever!
 
While I'm not a Python fan (or the .357 in general) and the Korth may or may not be the most precisely built revolver in history, the Colt is infinitely better looking.
 
Junque............as are MOST Colt DA's.............like the fella said, never saw an old Colt in time nor an old S&W out!

Yeah, they work, for all their delicate lockwork. Damn things were overpriced and overmarketed from the git go and times haven't changed.
Click to expand...

This is a common misconception...meaning about the delicate lockwork. Up till the 1970s Colt revolvers were generally stronger than S&W's offerings. They were less prone to go out of time, they were more carefully made with more hand fitting.

S&W did have an advantage though, when they did go out of time they still worked. They could be shaving lead from all cylinders and loose and rattly when you shook them, but still work in a pinch. Colt's were more strongly built with a lock up that put the loose lock up on a Smith to shame, but when they began to go out of time or be worn they needed to get to a gunsmith quick or be out of commission.

Colt revolvers lost the law enforcement and military contracts battle to S&W during the 1960s-70s. Cost and ease of repair were the main culprits. When Ruger began making investment cast, quality guns at less cost than S&W could, well that settled it for Colt. They revamped the line but they could not make a reasonable profit on their revolvers. They were not selling.

tipoc
 
tipoc said:
This is a common misconception...meaning about the delicate lockwork. Up till the 1970s Colt revolvers were generally stronger than S&W's offerings. They were less prone to go out of time, they were more carefully made with more hand fitting.



S&W did have an advantage though, when they did go out of time they still worked. They could be shaving lead from all cylinders and loose and rattly when you shook them, but still work in a pinch. Colt's were more strongly built with a lock up that put the loose lock up on a Smith to shame, but when they began to go out of time or be worn they needed to get to a gunsmith quick or be out of commission.



Colt revolvers lost the law enforcement and military contracts battle to S&W during the 1960s-70s. Cost and ease of repair were the main culprits. When Ruger began making investment cast, quality guns at less cost than S&W could, well that settled it for Colt. They revamped the line but they could not make a reasonable profit on their revolvers. They were not selling.



tipoc
Click to expand...


I'm curious to see what you base this statement on because I don't believe it for a minute. Too much time actually owning and shooting revolvers has proven otherwise to me.
 
I'm curious to see what you base this statement on because I don't believe it for a minute. Too much time actually owning and shooting revolvers has proven otherwise to me.
Click to expand...

Which statement? I made a few statements there.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
Cooldill said:
I just think it's so ironic, and sad, that in today's "modern world" of computers and machines, that we can't get a reasonably affordable revolver that is equal to the smoothness and precision of the decades old Python. I mean really... 50+ years of technology, the widespread adoption of automated computer machinery, and the best one can hope for these days for $1000 (new production guns) is probably a S&W of some flavor... and let's face it, S&W quality isn't quite what it used to be.

It's really strange. Yes I know that the hand fitting and polishing would make the Python prodigiously expensive to make today, but you're telling me they can't make some robot do the same thing for half the cost? Do parts really need to be hand fitted to get the same results? A super-accurate modern CNC machine can't do it, but a clumsy squishy meat bag human can?

It's all just so, so weird to me... it's like... :(
Click to expand...
I have thought that too.

The only explanation is that so many businesses assume that people will not pay top dollar for a CNC machinist to spend the time setting everything up when they can buy a 70% quality product for half the price.

This applies to more products than guns. The disposable economy has done this with every product out there.
 
Cooldill said:
I just think it's so ironic, and sad, that in today's "modern world" of computers and machines, that we can't get a reasonably affordable revolver that is equal to the smoothness and precision of the decades old Python. I mean really... 50+ years of technology, the widespread adoption of automated computer machinery, and the best one can hope for these days for $1000 (new production guns) is probably a S&W of some flavor... and let's face it, S&W quality isn't quite what it used to be.

It's really strange. Yes I know that the hand fitting and polishing would make the Python prodigiously expensive to make today, but you're telling me they can't make some robot do the same thing for half the cost? Do parts really need to be hand fitted to get the same results? A super-accurate modern CNC machine can't do it, but a clumsy squishy meat bag human can?

It's all just so, so weird to me... it's like... :(
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that we "can't". Among my favorite rifles sits a little Ruger 44 Carbine. This little gas operated 44 Magnum rifle and I go back a good number of years. So I said to myself, why did they ever quit making these great little guns? They began making them in 1961 when I was 11 years old and the last were made in 1974 I believe. The problem was the cost to manufacture the rifle. I think I got mine (the first one) around 1966 for $120. Today I hate to think of what the cost would be to manufacture that rifle? No doubt we could reinvent the Colt Python or any of the other great guns of days past, the problem is the cost.

This is a forum loaded with gun enthusiast many of whom are content with current production guns which are mass produced and many of which can be bought new in the $500 to $600 range. How many of those same people would pay $1,000 to $2,000 for a hand honed revolver? So while it is easy for many of us to say we would buy the gun the marketing analysis don't seem to agree. Can we make them? Heck yeah! Would it be profitable? I think not.

Just My Take
Ron
 
I'm curious to see what you base this statement on because I don't believe it for a minute. Too much time actually owning and shooting revolvers has proven otherwise to me.
Click to expand...

Well, just on the "delicate" bit and in case that's what Ijnowell was referring to in a previous post I'll look at that point some more.

But first, I don't and can't know what amount of time most posters here have spent shooting revolvers or what type of wheelgun or what type shooting they have done. I don't disparage the personal experience of anyone here. I can't, I don't know it. Neither do folks know mine. I can respect when a person's personal experience leads them to another conclusion than one I've reached. I also know that personal experience is limited and not as weighty as professional experience.

Grant Cunningham is one of the most respected revolver smiths in the U.S. He's also known as a competitive shooter and instructor. His opinion on Colt revolvers and the Python is similar to mine.

There is an assertion that comes up with surprising frequency, particularly in the internet age where everyone is an expert: the Colt Python (and all other Colt revolvers) are “delicate”, “go out of time easily”, or “not as strong/durable as a S&W.”
Click to expand...
...

Why do such opinions exist if there wasn’t some basis to them? Is there some amount of truth? I think I can answer that!
Click to expand...

Cunningham goes on to explain some particulars about the actions of Colt revolvers, the strengths and weaknesses. They are stronger, they also require more care.

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.

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.
Click to expand...

He points out that some shooters make the error of comparing the older Colt cylinder lock up to that of a S&W and thus run the gun out of time and into parts breakage and thus the story that the Colt is more delicate.

You can read all that he has to say on his website here's a link...

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

I encourage all who are interested in Colt revolvers, pro or con to go there.

tipoc
 
tipoc said:
Well, just on the "delicate" bit and in case that's what Ijnowell was referring to in a previous post I'll look at that point some more.



But first, I don't and can't know what amount of time most posters here have spent shooting revolvers or what type of wheelgun or what type shooting they have done. I don't disparage the personal experience of anyone here. I can't, I don't know it. Neither do folks know mine. I can respect when a person's personal experience leads them to another conclusion than one I've reached. I also know that personal experience is limited and not as weighty as professional experience.



Grant Cunningham is one of the most respected revolver smiths in the U.S. He's also known as a competitive shooter and instructor. His opinion on Colt revolvers and the Python is similar to mine.



...







Cunningham goes on to explain some particulars about the actions of Colt revolvers, the strengths and weaknesses. They are stronger, they also require more care.







He points out that some shooters make the error of comparing the older Colt cylinder lock up to that of a S&W and thus run the gun out of time and into parts breakage and thus the story that the Colt is more delicate.



You can read all that he has to say on his website here's a link...



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



I encourage all who are interested in Colt revolvers, pro or con to go there.



tipoc
Click to expand...


I appreciate you pointing out that the colt is more delicate and prone to go out of time. That's my point exactly.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, as you squeeze the trigger the Pawl is pushing the Cylinder firmly against the Bolt to eliminate any movement.

This not only produces wear on the Pawl, but on the Bolt.

I had to replace the Bolt on one of my newly-acquired, century-old, .32-20 Colt Police Positive Specials (bullets striking the right side of the forcing cone) and it was an "in-ter-est-ing" project.

A real learning experience not to be undertaken by the faint-of-heart and/or non-mechanically-inclined. :)

A lot of dis/re-assembly while hand-fitting that pup and carefully modding & checking.
 
I appreciate you pointing out that the colt is more delicate and prone to go out of time. That's my point exactly.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you misread Cunningham. On the bright side he did offer to buy any Colt revolver you have to sell.

tipoc
 
Over the decades Colt produced a good many revolvers with different actions. Some were more delicate than others, particularly the early guns...the Army and Navy models for example. The alloy framed Colt Cobra was prone to damage if too many powerful loads of 38 Spl. were shot through it. The latter Colt Lawman Mark III, while big tough guns not built on the "bank vault tight" lock up, also were the first, or close to the first, to introduce MIM parts in a revolver. The actions Colt used were more varied than S&W or Ruger.

Jumbling them all together and making sweeping statements about the resulting heap of guns is an error. Some were more delicate. The Python and others were stronger and less prone to going out of time if properly cared for. The same was true for the New Service as well.

Geoffrey Boothroyd, in his work "The Handgun" points out that during WWI and II the British much preferred the Colt New Service to either the S&W Triple Lock or the M1917 from S&W for combat. They considered the Colt to be more durable and less likely to be fouled by dirt in the trenches than the S&W offerings.

tipoc
 
tipoc said:
Over the decades Colt produced a good many revolvers with different actions. Some were more delicate than others, particularly the early guns...the Army and Navy models for example. The alloy framed Colt Cobra was prone to damage if too many powerful loads of 38 Spl. were shot through it. The latter Colt Lawman Mark III, while big tough guns not built on the "bank vault tight" lock up, also were the first, or close to the first, to introduce MIM parts in a revolver. The actions Colt used were more varied than S&W or Ruger.



Jumbling them all together and making sweeping statements about the resulting heap of guns is an error. Some were more delicate. The Python and others were stronger and less prone to going out of time if properly cared for. The same was true for the New Service as well.



Geoffrey Boothroyd, in his work "The Handgun" points out that during WWI and II the British much preferred the Colt New Service to either the S&W Triple Lock or the M1917 from S&W for combat. They considered the Colt to be more durable and less likely to be fouled by dirt in the trenches than the S&W offerings.



tipoc
Click to expand...


I would direct you to the topic of this thread. We aren't talking about colts varying different revolvers. We are talking about pythons. Pythons with delicate actions that are prone to going outbid time much easier and faster than their S&W counterparts.
 
Except that they do not go out of time if properly cared for. That is the point of Cunningham's article. He is a fella who knows more about this than somebodies Uncle Gus, the source of some other fellas information.

Thinking of a Python as delicate is kinda like calling NFL linebackers delicate cuz their knees give out.

A few quotes from a few expert opinions, at least more knowledgeable than most others:

"The Python is expensive, and it should be." Jeff Cooper

"I rate Colt's .357 Python as the top performer in its class" Chick Gaylord

""The Python is an expensive revolver to be sure, but it will outlast the shooter." Stan Trzoniec

"Jerry Moran told me of one Python he owned that had passed 100,000 rounds of Magnum ammo and was still perking along with only minor tuning" Massad Ayoob

"I found the Python to be a superbly accurate gun with functionality that went far beyond its pricey prestige." Masaad Ayoob
Click to expand...

W.H.B. Smith called it Colt's finest revolver.

Jerry Kuhnhausen in his book "The Colt Double Action Revolvers" Vol. 1 says on page 16 "In my estimation, the Colt Python stands as the ultimate double action revolver design"

I could go on quoting the opinions of those that know but I lack the time right now.

tipoc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Jackal
  • Locked
Why are Colt Officer and Police revolvers worth so little?
2 3
Replies
71
Views
12K
Paul7
Paul7
cdahl383
  • Locked
Colt Python
Replies
18
Views
1K
BigBlue 94
BigBlue 94
M
  • Locked
Colt Python 3-inch barrel pricing question
Replies
3
Views
945
1KPerDay
1KPerDay
J
  • Locked
Why did Colt quit on the Python and Anaconda, etc.
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
AJD
A
P
  • Locked
Colt Python: Best .357Mag ever?
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
7K
syr74
S
Back
Top