Possible New Colt Pythons?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe you’re right, perhaps I’m getting ahead of things with my harsh criticism.

I was stoked to see the reintroduction of the Python, and I’m a Colt fan to be honest. So my disappointment to see malfunctioning guns in reviews was pretty high.

For the record I want Colt’s Mfg to do well, I want them to succeed, I want their employees who are good dues paying union men and women in a craft I value to do well.
 
Personally I'm thrilled that Colt has brought out a new Python. My hope is that they begin offering other options. I'd be first in line if they made a 3 inch.

Personally I'm thrilled to see most anyone introducing a new revolver. Or re-introducing old ones, be it Colt, Smith and Wesson, or anybody. They can't be hoping for any kind of police or military contracts, so they must have enough faith in the general gun buying public to think we're going to buy them.

I'm doing my best. After years of not buying any "new" guns, I've bought three in the last year.
 
I view a Python as a range gun, something that is just nice to shoot, bigger than a carry gun. It makes sense to me for the new offering to be more or less a reproduction and be a "Python" one would shoot, not save as a display piece, heirloom, or monument to some movie. Then there is the attraction of being more realistic in price than an original Python.
 
I am the opposite when it comes to quality, I will willingly pay for top quality materials and workmanship/QC up front. I absolutely despise guns that don’t work and need to be sent back. Plus in order for me to ship a firearm I get to burn an entire day driving to a larger city that has a FedEx or UPS that will accept firearms. That means taking off from work and missing a trip, and that means losing $660.00 minimum for me if I got no overtime, held away pay, side trips, or other penalty claims. I also want a good customer service experience in the rare event I need to use it, but my strong preference is not needing to.

I'm the same way. The problem today is that paying up front for quality, doesn't necessarly mean you're going to get it. Like you, the last thing I need or want to deal with, is a new gun that has a rubber band attached, from going back and forth to the factory. There are going to be occasional problems with most any mass produced durable good.

But it has reached critical mass when you're rolling the dice, when you spend over $1,500.00 on what is supposed to be a premium revolver. And you have to hope and pray the thing is going to work properly when you shoot it. Consumer confidence in the gun industry has never been lower. And it's no deep, dark secret as to why.

This in spite of the fact many gun manufacturers have relatively good customer service. They better have for as much as it's required today. But it has gotten completely out of hand. And I've been buying and shooting new firearms since 1971, almost half a century ago. I have never seen this many problems and recalls in regards to firearms, as I have in the past decade. And just so you don't think I'm picking on Colt, rifle through this. And all of these are fairly recent, and are by no means, all of them.

https://www.ammoland.com/tags/gun-recalls/#axzz6BVRbOdIe
 
Maybe you’re right, perhaps I’m getting ahead of things with my harsh criticism.

I was stoked to see the reintroduction of the Python, and I’m a Colt fan to be honest. So my disappointment to see malfunctioning guns in reviews was pretty high.

For the record I want Colt’s Mfg to do well, I want them to succeed, I want their employees who are good dues paying union men and women in a craft I value to do well.

Unions have been part of Colt’s problems.
 
Consumer confidence in the gun industry has never been lower.
Guessing that you're not keeping track of annual sales figures of firearms nor tracking the stock market. Not sure what analytics you base this supposition on, but most market indicators reflect the opposite.

In any case, I have confidence in Colt righting the ship (as far as the Python is concerned). The big turnaround in its 1911s -- new models, cool stuff, much improved quality --demonstrated to me that as a company, it wants to do the right thing and satisfy its loyal customer base. Why else bring back (a version of) the Python?

Some of you can continue dragging the company's name through the mud, as you are wont to do, but for those of us who've stuck by the company and continued buying its products, I'd suggest that most of us as pretty well satisfied with what we've seen. My last couple recent production Colt 1911s were exceptional, and I'm pleased as hell with my new Cobra and King Cobras, which I am coming around to believe are exceptional revolvers.

A little history may be in order for some as well. Have y'all forgotten the Bangor Punta and Saf-T-Hammer era of Smith and Wesson? The concern about the company's politics and quality control? The issues of MIM and "The Lock?" The boycott in the early aughts? The agreement with President Clinton to implement changes in the design and distribution of its firearms in return for "preferred buying program" to offset revenue loss from the anticipated boycott? The other crap in the agreement about how dealers and distributors of Smith & Wesson's products had to abide by a "code of conduct?" When thousands of retailers and consumers boycotted the company until Smith Shultz was forced out as CEO? There were so many issues with Smith and Wesson guns for a while, many of us saw no future for the company. Then, voila, the M&P, a bunch of new flavors of revolvers (still with the lock), new management, and S&W was suddenly back in the good graces of the gun consumers.

Now, my 2016 Corvette may be a totally different car than a '63 'Vette, but … at the end of the day, it's still a Corvette. Is the new Python really a Python? Far as I'm concerned, hell yeah, and I'm happy it's back.
 
There are several reasons why more recalls are out there on firearms. For example, new designs--if you went back to the 1960's and 1970's, you would see very few new designs and the reason is that firearm companies felt that handguns for example might not be legal in the future so they did not fund investment into new designs. For whatever reason, FOPA and the Reagan years began a boom in new designs and new companies entering the market in the mid to later 80's. The downside is that new designs take time to debug and unfortunately new production techniques don't always go the way you think they should. There is also a much greater risk for firearm companies of being sued out of existence so any potential safety flaw reported results in a recall before someone is injured.

There is also the fact that labor costs much more than it did in the heyday and so more of the work has been automated which reduces the human component for better or worse. The old ways of doing things with labor would result in unaffordable firearms and so we must make our peace to some extent with things like MIM, investment cast receivers/bolts, CNC, and so on etc. or else import all of our firearms where labor is dirt cheap.

Regarding cars, a few manufacturers offer 100,000 mile warranties but most do not. There are also a lot of car mfg. recalls for all sorts of things, many of them years later which if you check the NHTSA recall roster, composes of most car manufacturers on a regular basis and some of the things like the massive airbag recalls were life threatening.

One last thing, social media is not any better about credibility and worse in some ways than the classic gun mag critique. Look up the term influencer--quite a few people are now making livings or at least getting a fair amount of gimmes in return for policing and helping advertise brand name products. Many do not disclose what they are getting for the reviews and are under no legal requirement in most cases to do so. A company can hire bots, shills, etc. for posting/spamming on all sorts of discussion boards and have professional media consultants design and hire the "talent" to promote a company's stuff on multiple different social media places. Needless to say, if you worried about advertising affecting gun mags in the day, you should really be cautious about social media and being "persuaded" by someone that is getting something for it.

Personally, if you want a Colt, then be glad that someone is still making them.
 
Unions have been part of Colt’s problems.

Blaming unions for bad management decisions is always amusing.

Ask yourself why the workers felt the need to unionize? In most cases it’s because the management had a history of abusing the workforce and providing poor compensation.

I may be quite conservative and when I was younger reflexively anti-union, but having now worked in an industry notorious for mistreating employees, and witnessing the still poor attitude of management towards employees I have no issues paying dues. My employer and the other major companies in my industry (railroad) worked hard to mistreat people for a long long time, and earned the unions the employees formed in response.
 
Unions have been part of Colt’s problems.
Blaming unions for bad management decisions is always amusing. Ask yourself why the workers felt the need to unionize? In most cases it’s because the management had a history of abusing the workforce and providing poor compensation. I may be quite conservative and when I was younger reflexively anti-union, but having now worked in an industry notorious for mistreating employees, and witnessing the still poor attitude of management towards employees I have no issues paying dues. My employer and the other major companies in my industry (railroad) worked hard to mistreat people for a long long time, and earned the unions the employees formed in response.

I have to agree with Coal Dragger. Blaming unions for Colt's lousy business management practices, that have dragged on for decades is foolish. And it's simply not true. Colt is their own worst enemy when it comes to making money. (And their decision to stop selling AR-15's to the civilian market is one of many bone headed decisions they've made over the years). All of which have nothing to do with unions.

And if it were not for their government contracts, along with their other divisions, they would have been out of the firearms business years ago. I'm not going to argue either side of the union issue. But unions are not the reason Colt has such difficulty turning a profit.
 
Guessing that you're not keeping track of annual sales figures of firearms nor tracking the stock market. Not sure what analytics you base this supposition on, but most market indicators reflect the opposite.

"What analytics"? How about realistic, accurate one's for starters? Gun sales are driven by politics, not by consumer confidence in the manufacturer. But rather in spite of the lack of it. When Obama was elected in 2008 they stripped the shelves of anything that went bang. Because they feared the anti gun legislation they all thought was sure to follow. It never happened.

Since Trump was elected, firearms businesses have all taken a major hit. Because that fear has been reduced. A few have even gone under. The firearms industry is currently experiencing the largest gun glut in it's history. Sales are everywhere.

You want to talk about annual sales figures? Then go look at them over the last 3 years Trump's been in office. They're dismal. You like to look at stock prices? Examine them as well. All the major firearms manufacturers have taken big financial hits since Trump's election. Again, it's all politically driven. If Hillary had been elected, AR's would be selling for 3 times what they're selling for now. And people would be standing in line to buy them. It has nothing to do with consumer confidence, and everything to do with politics and legislation.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/01/news/gun-stocks/index.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-stocks-after-trump-win-november-9-2016-2016-11

https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/11/news/companies/trump-gun-stocks/
 
Blaming unions for bad management decisions is always amusing.

Ask yourself why the workers felt the need to unionize? In most cases it’s because the management had a history of abusing the workforce and providing poor compensation.

I may be quite conservative and when I was younger reflexively anti-union, but having now worked in an industry notorious for mistreating employees, and witnessing the still poor attitude of management towards employees I have no issues paying dues. My employer and the other major companies in my industry (railroad) worked hard to mistreat people for a long long time, and earned the unions the employees formed in response.

No argument that bad management is part of it, part of which is catering to union demands, at a time of global firearm competition. There’s a reason many businesses are relocating to right to work states. If someone doesn’t like where they’re working they can always look elsewhere.
 
There is no single factor to blame with Colt. Poor management. The union dilemma. Colt's history has been a double-edged sword. As a legendary name and brand it has been looted and pillaged numerous times in its history. They've gotten by on government contracts (just as in the beginning) and name recognition alone.

The problem with unions is that they outlive their usefulness and cannot be excised. Like a cancerous tumor you can't surgically remove. 100yrs ago when they were formed, employers were exploiting employees with little regard for their safety. Nowadays they exist mostly to perpetuate themselves and hold employers hostage. Colt needs desperately to get out of the northeast but the union is one reason why they cannot. Hartford is a ghetto, much like Detroit (another union "success story").
 
View attachment 884029 Another inconsistency with this guy. He claims to have shot Armscor ammo and proceeds to show the entire world Starline brass. Someone else commented on his video about it and he’s adamant that it’s Armscor.

Hmmmmmmmmm...Didn’t know Armscor was using Starline marked brass like some boutique ammo makers do. Hand loads maybe???? Might not have cleaned the primer pockets and failed to seat the primers home? seems to be limited to that brand in the video. Also can’t ride the trigger on these Colts like a semiauto. Will shortstroke the action. I generally take stuff I see on YouTube with a block of salt. I own four of the new Colts in the Cobra series and have had zero problems with them, period. I will buy a 2020 4” Python just as soon as my local gun guys can get one for me.
 
Something about the last video looks almost like user error. Almost like pulling the hammer back and squeezing the trigger at the same time is causing the issue. Looks like your overriding the trigger with the hammer causing a jam. Just try pulling the hammer back without having your finger in the trigger guard and see if you can still make it happen.
 
Maybe these manufacturers should be more choosy about which YouTube morons they ship test guns to???

Yeah, Hickok 45 is a "moron". The guy puts more downrange in a week, than you do in a year. He has over 1.2 BILLION views, and over 5 MILLION subscribers. And he averages 800,000 views per day. He has a net worth of over $3,000,000.00. The bulk of which was derived from his You Tube shooting channel. He has fired just about every type of rifle, pistol, revolver, and shotgun imaginable. And shoots them ALL well.

But he's a "moron" because Colt sent him a crappy revolver that doesn't run right. The whole Colt fanboy attitude around here is fast becoming a running joke.
 
I am with Bill here, Hickok is no moron and from what I have seen of him and from what family members I have that have met and talked to him, he is about as down to earth, humble and classy as it gets....just a guy that loves sharing and shooting firearms and in the process of it was blessed with a lucrative and successful hobby/lifestyle.
Now TheYankeeMarshall on the other hand as well as some others, no argument here.
 
Last edited:
Maybe these manufacturers should be more choosy about which YouTube morons they ship test guns to???

.... or maybe they should ship products that function properly.

TFB had issues as well it seems.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/01/20/shot-2020-tfb-industry-day-at-the-range-colt-python/

For all of the apologists insisting this is all user error, even if that were true which it is probably not, I think it begs the question why is the product so prone to user error? Typically any product that is super prone to user errors due to an unforgiving hard to use design is rightly considered an inferior product. Right now the current Python appears to be an inferior product, I hope Colt corrects this with improvements to manufacturing. If that is not possible then we have to accept that the inherent design is flawed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top