Ah. So they're a way to excuse junk quality and poor craftsmanship ?I conclude that they are part and parcel of an assembly line revolver without fitting or even the selective assembly done by Smith. Long leads, lots of allowable variation in when the bolt rises.
What word ? "Junk" ?There's that word again.
I still vote for a 22 "Garter snake"
Let me ask you for some clarification here. Are you implying that a photograph of unknown provenance depicting a sole (alleged) sample of a revolver yet to be seen on the market is grounds for accusing Colt of producing "junk quality" while exercising "poor craftsmanship?" A revolver yet to be sold, bought, shot and tested?Ah. So they're a way to excuse junk quality and poor craftsmanship ?
All this … based on a bad photograph. I also conclude that the manner in which the light reflects on the cylinder makes the leads appear longer in the photo, not that their apparent length would truly affect performance, anyway. But no matter, since an expert has concluded that this revolver is automatically inferior, we shall all sleep better tonight, knowing that it's simply not worth the effort to produce or purchase.Rings of poor quality, from my knowledge.
I have always thought the Python was over rated which is why I eventually sold mine years ago. That particular gun was my first center fire handgun. I've had others, but they were generally purchased to sell as soon as I could find a buyer at a price slightly above what I paid. It was mostly for fun and I certainly didn't make any money playing around like this.I own a couple of Pythons. They are some of the most overrated handguns ever produced, but due to their relative scarcity command very high prices.
The Python was NEVER available in 22LR. For whatever reason, they had one for a catalog cover shot.The Python as available in 22LR many years back. As 38 Special Just not as common.
"The confidence of amateurs is the envy of professionals."
As for the new Python, I never thought they would built it. And looking at the one photo we have available, it's not the same gun as before. But then nothing much else is either.
Dave[/QUOTE
Yep! Than again almost nothing stays the same. Designs change, life goes on. MIM parts , locks, no hand fitting and the list goes on. Just how it is these days, and it ain't ever going to go back. So people need to kinda just get over it and enjoy it for what it is, same goes for new Smith's too. Buy and cherish your old revolvers but they ain't ever going to be made like that again unless you pay a super high premium. Buy the new ones ,shoot the hell outta them and take it easy on the old gems and appreciate the for what they are."The confidence of amateurs is the envy of professionals."
As for the new Python, I never thought they would built it. And looking at the one photo we have available, it's not the same gun as before. But then nothing much else is either.
Dave
I have always thought the Python was over rated which is why I eventually sold mine years ago. That particular gun was my first center fire handgun. I've had others, but they were generally purchased to sell as soon as I could find a buyer at a price slightly above what I paid. It was mostly for fun and I certainly didn't make any money playing around like this.
Pythons are not SCARCE.
Ruger and Smith do get their new items out to their distributors and stores before they announce them as being available.Well those photos are a bit compelling aren't they. I’d be happy to fondle one and may even trade a Smith in to own one if I like it enough, assuming someone isn’t playing another joke. I mean I don’t doubt they were in being worked on, but I still find it a silly notion that distributors have them sitting and waiting to sell without any announcement. Seems like weird marketing even if they’re waiting for shot show.
Maybe I’ll be eating crow. Fine with me.