Anything Comparable to Python

Status
Not open for further replies.

InkEd

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
2,575
Location
Parts Unknown
I was wondering if there are any guns that are/can be comparable to a Python for less money? I've heard some tuned S&Ws or other model Colt guns can be close. I was just wondering if anyone has any thoughts or experience about it?

I would like a 4" blued Python but I just don't see myself spending that kind if money on a range toy. I would want to stay under $1000.
 
Ed, look for the a Colt .357. That is the model before the Python came out. It doesn't have the full lugged barrel, but it has all the same craftsmanship as the early Pythons.
 
Ed, look for the a Colt .357. That is the model before the Python came out. It doesn't have the full lugged barrel, but it has all the same craftsmanship as the early Pythons.
This. It is a Python without the full lug/vent ribbed barrel. Also the Colt Trooper .357, it is the same gun as the Colt 357, without the high polish blue. Do not confuse the Trooper .357 with the later Trooper MKIII, and Trooper MKV. Those are completely different revolvers.
 
I own and shoot a Python, a Trooper Mark III, and a Trooper 357. All are fine guns. The Mark III is a little larger and a little heavier than the other two. All are fine 357 revolvers and all shoot better than I do. The Mark III lock work is different than the Trooper and the Python. If anything, the Mark III is a little tougher, stronger than the other two. They are all fine examples of Colt design and workmanship. Don't hesitate on any of them!!!
 
The model 357 is the closest to the Python. I've shot one or two with truly wonderful actions and Python-quality accuracy. They're nearly as over-priced as Pythons these days, but if you look long and hard enough, you can probably find a bargain.

The Mark III isn't a Python. Mark IIIs are good shooters, and I sincerely wish I had the one I bought in the late 1970s, but they're a notch down from Pythons.

Most people are perfectly content with good Smith & Wesson revolvers made before the start of this century, which are widely available, often affordable, and can be tweaked to deliver crisp, light, consistent trigger pulls. What's the secret? A gunsmith who knows what he's about. There's no substitute.

It may be worth bearing in mind many shooters think they can tell one reasonably good trigger from another, but actually can't. Unless you've been spoiled by a phenomenal trigger, you can get by without a good Python trigger pretty well. It's definitely worth bearing in mind not all Pythons left the factory with good triggers, and many good triggers can be improved. The secret? Again, a top quality gunsmith. The problem? Finding one. Contrary to what many gunsmiths will tell you, the good ones are few and far between, and they tend to charge accordingly.

I swear by my Pythons; I'll also admit gun snobbery can be expensive and somewhat silly.
 
There is a mystique about Pythons that partially comes from the fact that they are arguably the most beautiful handguns ever made (I personally think that they are), but to pay the kind of $$ that people are asking, that mystique costs a pretty penny, because from a performance standpoint, you can no way justify paying multiples more for a Python over a GP-100 or S&W 686. I've owned all of them, multiple times over and while I loved shooting the Colt, I also love shooting the others as well.

While the Rugers have nicer triggers than they used too, they admittedly are not python level actions, but the 686's, in my opinion, can be tuned to be every bit as nice (once again personal opinion). As far as accuracy goes, the Python would probably have a 1/2 inch advantage at 25 yards over the others with its tapered barrel but that's an advantage very few could ever take advantage of.

What it comes down to is if you want to pay that kind of money for a Python, go for it, enjoy it, and be proud of a beautiful gun. But don't think that buying other revolvers means that you're giving up any level of performance worth mentioning (not unless you consider the OOH, AHHH factor when others look at it as part of the performance).
 
I was wondering if there are any guns that are/can be comparable to a Python for less money?

I would like a 4" blued Python but I just don't see myself spending that kind if money on a range toy. I would want to stay under $1000.

Comparable in what way? If your interest is primarily accuracy, maybe check out some used PPC (or Bianchi Cup) revolvers.

Neither PPC nor revolver shooting are as popular as they once were, so used PPC revolvers can be quite a deal (depending on the 'smith who tuned it), especially considering what they are.
 
I also think the S&W 686 is an excellent alternative to the Python and considerably less in cost.
 
My two cents is to get a reproduction S&W M27....they are extremely smooth and accurate...and that Smith trigger...ahhhhhhhhh
 
I have Pythons and S&W 27, and 686, but to get ..

the kind of quality in workmanship and the butter smooth action of the python you would have to have a gunsmith do some work on them first. My brother-in-law has such a S&W 686 and it is beautiful and silky smooth in action too.
 
The pre-Mark III Troopers had the identical lockwork to the Python.

The German Korth revolver is very close to the Python in smoothness. It uses a roller on the sear to attain the long, smooth trigger pull.
 
My S&W model 28 made a 3 shot clover (all three holes touching) at 25 yards. Does it get any better than this no matter how shiney the finish is?
 
I was wondering if there are any guns that are/can be comparable to a Python for less money? I've heard some tuned S&Ws or other model Colt guns can be close. I was just wondering if anyone has any thoughts or experience about it?

I would like a 4" blued Python but I just don't see myself spending that kind if money on a range toy. I would want to stay under $1000.
Erma-Werke Model ER-777. You will find it very difficult to get.
 
I also have to join a couple others here and suggest that the best alternative to the Python would be either the S&W 686 or the Dan Wesson.

I have them all; 3 Pythons, 2 686's, and 3 Dan Wessons in .22, 357, and .44mag. (one of each caliber ;) )

The trigger on the 686 is as close to the Python as you can get once it's broken in, but the Dan Wessons are no slouch and merit heavy consideration as a Python alternative.

Best yet is the "rest of the story" where if you want to shoot a .22 similar to the Python, you still have to pay big time for a .22 Diamondback.

But for much less, you can get the .22 brother to the 686 by going with the relatively inexpensive S&W 617, and of course, the Dan Wesson in .22 is also available on the used market for much less than the cost of a Diamondback.

Nothing in it's price range really replaces the Python, but a S&W 686 or a Dan Wesson is darn close considering their cost.
 
I keep seeing references to the 686 trigger being a fine one after it is broken in. I shoot several Colts and now am looking at a 586, will that rigger work out as well for me as the afore mentioned 686???
Yes, the 586 and 686 have the same internals. The 686 is stainless, the 586 is blue or nickel.
 
But for much less, you can get the .22 brother to the 686 by going with the relatively inexpensive S&W 617

eh...I need to move to South Texas! ;)

keep seeing references to the 686 trigger being a fine one after it is broken in. I shoot several Colts and now am looking at a 586, will that rigger work out as well for me as the afore mentioned 686???

Short answer: Probably.

Long answer: Admittedly, I'm a trigger snob, but I continue to hold the ol' "it'll smoothen out with use" line is largely internet lore. Sure, minor irregularities might smooth out with use, but if the trigger feels like a stick being pulled across a picket fence, you'll smoothen out the rifling before the trigger. Such a trigger needs a bona fide action job. That said, IMO, very few factory triggers, whether they be on a new MIM/IL gun, or a vintage 5-screw Masterpiece can't be improved by a good revolver 'smith.

IME, each gun is unique, so some old and new guns have good factory triggers; others, no so much. 'Course, whether a trigger is "smooth enough" also has much to do with your own needs, ability and perceptions.
 
the ol' "it'll smoothen out with use" line is largely internet lore.

+1, Amen, you bet, etc.

I swallowed the "shoot it in" legend once. I spent lots of dryfire time and expended a lot of ammunition, and it never did get where I wanted it to be. So I paid a gunsmith to polish out the works and it is now much nicer.
 
I would say a S&W 586 or 686 is comparable if it is well worn-in or if it has had an action job.

The way to do it would be to find a decent used one, then send it to a revolver smith for an action job. It will probably come back BETTER than a Python, and at a lower cost. (Python DA triggers are smooth, but they also stack and also have the longest stroke of all of them)

That is from a functional standpoint. As far as aesthetics, it is personal preference, but I think Colt's bluing is hard to beat.
 
I didn't read all of the answers, but i have two old S&W "N" frame 357's that are smoother than any Python i've ever handled, and i've owned 4 Pythons myself. I have two M-29's that are as good or better than any Python i've handled, so the answer is, go buy an OLD "N" frame S&W.

Doing so will get you a revolver that has the cylinder latch that opens in the proper direction, and you won't have to worry about dirt and rust getting under the rib all the time. (thankfully, cause it doesn't have one lol )

Of course, i'm assumeing you want this revolver to SHOOT not to look at. I don't have ANY gun that i won't shoot or hunt with.

DM
 
DM is right.

An old Model 27 is was Smith's "flagship" 357 and arguable one of the finest revolvers made.

An old one from the 50's is amazing.

The frame makes it a heavy gun but a dream to shoot.
 
The older S&W revolvers had a (bent) tear-drop shaped sear shaped like that of the Python's, which gave it a nice, long double action trigger pull.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top