Colt Python vs S&W 686/Ruger GP100

mcb said:

And yet one of the fastest double action shooter in the world (Jerry Miculek) chose to set most of his world records with a revolver with even bigger diameter cylinder an N-frame. ...

Click to expand...

Pretty sure he often uses Titanium with 8 chambers like the Performance Center 929. So that only proves my point.

labnoti said:

My points are all valid, and I gave no reason to presume I'm ignorant of the fact that all L frame cylinders are the same diameter regardless of whether they are 5, 6, or 7 chambered.

A heavier cylinder with more widely spaced chambers does take more force to accelerate with the trigger. That's just a fact. It also take more force to decelerate with the stop and notches. Fact.

Are there any 6-shot revolvers known to wear stops or notches or are Colt's characterized by heavier and long trigger pulls? It doesn't matter. Colt could have made it better regardless.

Are Colt's known for weak topstraps? No. But they made it "30% thicker." How much better could they have made the trigger and the rest of the gun had they made it 7-shot? Whatever it is, it would have been better than a 30% increase in the cross-sectional area of the top-strap. What does that even do?

Click to expand...

Now is the weight saved by that additional 7th hole mostly negated since you stuff and additional round in it anyways?

labnoti said:

Pretty sure he often uses Titanium with 8 chambers like the Performance Center 929. So that only proves my point.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but he set the record for 12 rounds (6, reload, 6 more) with a steel cylinder in an N frame.

CraigC said:

Wow, we are really nitpicking now! If Colt had made them 7-shot, the traditionalists ....

Click to expand...

Well maybe I did get carried away, but the whole sake of my argument was to argue that Colt has indeed appealed to tradition, and therefore the new Python must be compared to the old one. My point is not so much to lament that they didn't give us a seven-chamber Titanium cylinder, as to show how the fact that they did not makes a comparison to the old Python legitimate. And that was my response to post #24 that suggested such a comparison was inappropriate.

If Colt had given gun-gamers a high-tech shooter, then comparisons to the old Python would be pointless.

They didn't. They very much appealed to tradition and comparisons to the traditional Python are not only valid, but the old Pythons are really the only thing with which this gun competes.

I'm more interested in chamber mouth dimensions. If the cylinder is shorter than the L frame, meh. Otherwise it looks nice. Good for Colt.

GP100 Royal Phoenix.

9mmepiphany said:

A seventh round wouldn't have made any difference and may have actually been an impediment if it had been available to them.

They emptied their guns and reloaded, so it wasn't capacity. What failed them were their tactics and mindset during the encounter. That is why that point in time is considered the birth of officer survival training.

A seven shot revolver is slower to reload, because:
1. The speedloaders available for them are substantially slower
2. If they weren't using speedloaders, it is substantially slower to load 7 loose rounds than it is to load 6...as you can only load two rounds at the same time

Click to expand...

You don't know that. Pence's 7th shot might have been a hit. He was never able to make a 7th shot. Alleyn also was not able to make a 7th shot, and even when Kness picked up Alleyn's gun, it was empty. If it had started with 7 it could have had one left.
They emptied their guns and they failed to reload. Having 7 chambers doesn't result in a requirement that all 7 be loaded before the gun is loaded and able to fire. People often practice loading 2, 4, or 6 from a speed strip or loose rounds regardless of whether their cylinder is 5, 6, or 7 shot.

In studying gunfights, the observation is commonly made that people most often fight with what is in or on the gun, and especially for civilians, reloads are very uncommon. I've never heard of someone complaining that they brought too much ammo to a gunfight. The question, "Can I have more capacity?" is a question that is very often asked and answered by a great deal of innovation in gun design. You suggested a higher capacity cylinder that is not larger and is actually lighter rather than heavier is something that's not been asked for. I don't agree, for all the reasons I've stated.

labnoti said:

Pretty sure he often uses Titanium with 8 chambers like the Performance Center 929. So that only proves my point.

Click to expand...

His revolver speed world records were all set before the 929 existed (2014). His three most famous were done in 1999; 8-shots on one-target in one-second and his 8-shots, two-shots on each of four different targets in 1.06 second were both done with a 627 V-Comp and his 6-shots, reload, 6-shots in 2.99 seconds was done with a 625. Both of these revolvers have stainless steel cylinders that measure ~1.71 inches in diameter.

mcb said:

His revolver speed world records were all set before the 929 existed (2014). His three most famous were done in 1999; 8-shots on one-target in one-second and his 8-shots, two-shots on each of four different targets in 1.06 second were both done with a 627 V-Comp and hit 6-shots, reload, 6-shots in 2.99 seconds was done with a 625. Both of these revolver have stainless steel cylinders that measure ~1.71 inches in diameter.

Click to expand...

Imagine how much faster he could have been. He himself does not doubt the advantage of lighter cylinders. Otherwise, he still wouldn't use them.

labnoti said:

Imagine how much faster he could have been. He himself does not doubt the advantage of lighter cylinders. Otherwise, he still wouldn't use them.

Click to expand...

He never used the 929 or a titanium cylinder in another revolver in serious competition. The last time he was at the USPSA Revolver Nationals match was 2013 the year before the 8-shot revolvers were allowed to play and the year before the 929 was release. All his USPSA revolver National Championships were won with a 625 with a stainless steel cylinder. If he though the slight reduction in mass moment of inertia of the titanium cylinder was worth it he could have easily had S&W give him a 325 or even had a 325 titanium cylinder fitted to his 625 and yet he didn't. No doubt the titanium cylinder makes a slight difference to trigger pull and possibly hand and cylinder-stop wear but not enough to make it worth the liabilities the titanium cylinder has when used in high volume shooting. The 929 and their titanium cylinder are moderately notorious for sticking cases. The S&W 646 (40S&W L-frame with a titanium cylinder) it was a server problem. Titanium cylinders are for revolvers carried a lot and shot a modest to moderate amount. For high volume competition the stainless steel has negligible performance cost for significant longevity.

Man, so much nit picking going on with this thing . Why can't we just appreciate the return or recreation or what ever the hell you want to call it. No it's not the same as the original, yes it has changes... No it's not perfect... But ain't no one here got their hands on it to give a true opinion, nor has anyone here personally put thousands of rounds through one to see how it holds up...

It's refreshing, a trip down nostalgia lane at a reasonable price (relative to the current used ones), and it's yet another revolver to choose from in a world dominated by plastic fantastics..... So why the fuss?

MidRoad said:

Man, so much nit picking going on with this thing . Why can't we just appreciate the return or recreation or what ever the hell you want to call it. No it's not the same as the original, yes it has changes... No it's not perfect... But ain't no one here got their hands on it to give a true opinion, nor has anyone here personally put thousands of rounds through one to see how it holds up...

It's refreshing, a trip down nostalgia lane at a reasonable price (relative to the current used ones), and it's yet another revolver to choose from in a world dominated by plastic fantastics..... So why the fuss?

Click to expand...

It’s the same nonsense that went on when Sig introduced a new version of the P210.

Too much nitpicking about a gun that hasn't even hit the shelves yet and a lot of mental masturbation, not enough shooting. When it does hit the shelf, pick it up, look at it and if you like it, buy it. Shouldn't matter how it "compares" to the original.

I've always been a hard-ass about Colt and don't care about the .357 at all but I'm more positive about this new re-introduction than some folks.

I eagerly await the Anaconda.

Other things I want to see:

1.) Engineer the top strap of the revolver to directly mount an Aimpoint ACRO P-1.

2.) Royal blue carbon steel models offered as an option.

3.) A hard use model with the optic ready top strap in stainless steel but finished in DLC or salt bath nitride for a harder less reflective surface finish.

labnoti said:

Imagine how much faster he could have been.

Click to expand...

Oh, please....

Coal Dragger said:

I eagerly await the Anaconda.

Other things I want to see:

1.) Engineer the top strap of the revolver to directly mount an Aimpoint ACRO P-1.

2.) Royal blue carbon steel models offered as an option.

3.) A hard use model with the optic ready top strap in stainless steel but finished in DLC or salt bath nitride for a harder less reflective surface finish.

Click to expand...

You're getting me all hot and bothered there

That Colt chose to name the new revolver Python makes comparisons to the original warranted and valid.

Lots of speculation going on...

labnoti said:

Imagine how much faster he could have been.

Click to expand...

You're on a roll!

Just a thought. Machines have been getting so that they are closer to being able to produce products with tolerances in the micron range, then I think the products will be better than hand fitting.

Colt had me at "Python" -- but

Coal Dragger said:

Royal blue carbon steel models offered as an option.

Click to expand...

would really set my heart a-flutter ...

What I’d go for is a blued 6” Python and a stainless Anaconda with a 4.25 or 5” barrel.

But I’m just happy the Python is back for now.

labnoti said:

You don't know that. Pence's 7th shot might have been a hit. He was never able to make a 7th shot. Alleyn also was not able to make a 7th shot, and even when Kness picked up Alleyn's gun, it was empty. If it had started with 7 it could have had one left.
They emptied their guns and they failed to reload. Having 7 chambers doesn't result in a requirement that all 7 be loaded before the gun is loaded and able to fire. People often practice loading 2, 4, or 6 from a speed strip or loose rounds regardless of whether their cylinder is 5, 6, or 7 shot.

In studying gunfights, the observation is commonly made that people most often fight with what is in or on the gun, and especially for civilians, reloads are very uncommon. I've never heard of someone complaining that they brought too much ammo to a gunfight. The question, "Can I have more capacity?" is a question that is very often asked and answered by a great deal of innovation in gun design. You suggested a higher capacity cylinder that is not larger and is actually lighter rather than heavier is something that's not been asked for. I don't agree, for all the reasons I've stated.

Click to expand...

Wow.

Let me get this strait.

You are writing word forts to argue the merits of a 7 shot cylinder Python for 2020 based on the 7 shot cylinder equipped S&W 686 introduced in the late 1990’s (maybe 1997 or 1998) because it might have saved some LEO lives. Never mind the fact that almost all LEO agencies with two pennies to rub together had started issuing semiautomatic pistols with 15+ rounds on board by that time.

Yep if we had access to a time machine we could have given those poor guys 7 shot S&W revolvers and maybe it would have made a difference. Hell better yet issue them Browning Hi-Powers, no time machine needed!

What’s next? Some illogical nonsense about needing belt fed weapons and that Custer would be alive today if he’d had six or seven M240 variants with tripods and T&E mechanisms and 20K rounds of linked 7.62?

Where is the time machine? I need to borrow it for some investing activities....

No. You missed the whole point. I was simply refuting the statement in post #39, "The 7-shot cylinder was an answer looking for a question that was never asked."

I proved the question has been asked, and it's been asked for more than half a century. It has also been answered, but not by Colt. My point is very relevant, valid, and logical.