Can S&W revolvers be as smooth as a Python?

[Win1892]

My early 70s Python is by far the slickest, smoothest, best double action I've ever fired. Because of it's value I'm cautious with regard to number of rounds I put through it.

That being said, can a Gunsmith make my S&W PC629, 629 Classic, 625, 66, 63, and pair of 60s that good?

I'm fine with them all in single action, but I like to fire double action most of the time.

And don't call my Python a safe queen, I've shot that Nickel plated beauty till it turned black numerous times.

 

[WC145]

Sure they can, but they feel different. I recently picked up and old S&W Model 10 PPC gun and the action is smoother than my Python but still feels different, the pull is longer.

 

[9mmepiphany]

S&W revolvers can be tuned pretty nicely.

The N-frames and K-frames can be made outstanding...not so much with the J-frames. Of course the M63 is limited by being a rimfire.

The finest S&W action I have ever felt...and I used to shoot PPC with a K-frame...was a 627 that had been set up for ICORE competition by Randy Lee of Apex Tactical Specialties . When I rolled back the trigger, my jaw just dropped.

Randy has completely rethought the action geometry and the action is unbelievable...and I do have a old Python that I used to shoot PPC Leg matches with

 

[sixgunner455]

Absolutely. Pythons are sweet, but K and N frames can be tuned or worn in just as sweet.

 

[Guillermo]

As far as smoothness goes, the OLD Smiths can absolutely tuned to be just as good. Of course your MIM guns can't.

 

[wlewisiii]

My first revolver was a Trooper Mk III. Good, but weird to me,

I currently own a S&W M64. I can pull that in DA all day and keep every round in a 1", maybe 1 1/2" circle at 20 yards. FBI loads that I could not shoot accurately in that Colt.

My experience is mine, not yours. But, yeah, I really have found my S&W to be far easier to shoot better than that Colt. Your Milage WILL Vary. Please remember that.

P.S. = Though I didn't own it, the best, utterly best, trigger I've ever felt was a long pull pre-WWII 5 screw M&P in .38 special with a 5" pencil barrel. That chunk of blued steel is the one gun I'd give my heart to if I could.

 

[MrBorland]

S&W revolvers can be tuned pretty nicely.

The N-frames and K-frames can be made outstanding

Agreed. I have very little experience with Pythons, so I can't say how a tuned S&W would compare. I suspect it matters little at this point, though.

OLD Smiths can absolutely tuned to be just as good. Of course your MIM guns can't.

eh...my MIM-infested L-frame tuned up nicely - for those who haven't yet seen this, I submit the evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmy5mkjpUNI

 

[TonyT]

In the 50's and 60's when revolvers were commonplace in CF and even 45 byllseye matches the Colt's were preferred for SA shooting but the S&W's were preferred for DA shooting in my neck of the woods. In my mind there was never a smoother,albeit long, DA action than the pre WWII S&W's particularly the K-frames.

 

[Jim Watson]

Like 9mmepiphany, I have a Colt Custom Shop 6" Python I used to shoot for PPC and IPSC, and a Jungkind 4" for IDPA. But I think the present crop of S&W tuners like Randy Lee can equal or beat the Colt at lower cost for gun and gunsmithing.

An unaltered Python is no prize, Internet Fan Club to the contrary. The DA is smooth but stacks like mad. The only reason I bought my first one was that it was a heavy barrelled factory revolver I could use for both standard and Distinguished PPC. At the time nobody was doing work on Smiths comparable to what Don Tedford and others had developed for the Colt. But that has changed.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

My early 70s Python is by far the slickest, smoothest, best double action I've ever fired. Because of it's value I'm cautious with regard to number of rounds I put through it.


I've shot that Nickel plated beauty till it turned black numerous times.

So, you got a good shooting used gun?..It's been shot. I don't see any reason to quit shooting it now. If you properly maintain it, you won't hurt it's value. If you shoot it so much that it eventually needs a repair, Colt still works on 'em.

 

[InkEd]

Yes, they can be just as nice. Handle one that has been worked over by the Performance center. (Not to be confused with Pro-series models.)

Sorry, your python is a safe queen. (It just makes an occassional public appearance.)

 

[RugRev]

Yes and no. A good tuned S&W N or K frame can easily be smoother and lighter than a stock Python. I have had a number of S&W's tuned by Alan Tanaka and they are really smooth and the double actions are around 7.25 to 7.5 lbs. At one time Walt Sherman offered roller action tunes on Smith K, L, N frames (pre-MIM) and unlike C&S roller tunes they retained the single action. I had a 625 Mtn. Gun he did that was really nice.

And then again I had a Walt Sherman roller action tuned Python. It was unlike about anything I have ever tried (but I will admit I have not tried a Randy Lee tuned Smith (or Ruger) yet. It fired magnum primers reliably at 6.5 lbs. DA.

 

[Old Fuff]

In a double-action trigger pull there are two issues, smoothness and weight.

You can feel smoothness (or the lack of it) when you pull the trigger and the hammer is retracted and released with no apparent hitches, when the moving parts are perfectly synchronized together. If or when they aren't, you can feel the difference.

Contrary to what some believe, this smooth feeling is not restricted to tuning lockwork, because as part of the operation the cylinder has to be rotated, and any form of resistance there will be felt as part of the trigger pull.

Trigger pull weight is determined by a combination of frictional resistance in the moving parts, and the tension of various springs. Reducing spring tensions will result in a lighter pull, but too much of a good thing will affect reliability and cause the pull to feel mushy.

In both Colt and S&W revolvers, the hammer is levered backwards by a ledge on the trigger pushing against the bottom of a little lever mounted in the hammer face. But in the case of a Smith & Wesson a unique feature allows the trigger to “pick-up” the hammer and continues to rotate it backwards further then that in a Colt. As a result the point-of-release comes sooner on a Colt then on a S&W. This might seem to be an advantage, but it isn’t because in both cases the amount of trigger-travel is about the same, but all other things being equal (which they aren’t) the Smith & Wesson’s hammer should impact the primer harder.

In a Smith & Wesson the hammer and trigger are operated with separate springs, where in the Colt one “V” spring does both. In tuning a trigger pull it is easier to work with an S&W then the Colt for what should be obvious reasons.

The Python’s unquestionably good D.A. pull is based on considerable polishing, and hand-fitting of the parts, which you don’t get on a stock Smith & Wesson. However the basic design between the two allows a superior double-action trigger pull to be archived in the S&W when equal work is applied. This is especially so in those revolvers that were made with what is called a “long action,” between about 1905 through approximately 1946.

Case in point: I have one of the early pre-war / long action Smith & Wesson “registered” .357 Magnum revolvers that will beat most, if not all, Pythons when it comes to a double-action trigger pull, especially in the smoothness department.

 

[Rexster]

When Colt still knew how to build Pythons, they were hand-built, essentially custom guns. An S&W that gets some massaging of its internal parts by a truly talented custom 'smith will easily equal or beat a Python for smoothness.

Moreover, when S&W still knew how to build revolvers, some of their sixguns were so smooth, one would wonder how Colt ever managed to sell any Pythons.

FWIW, I bought a fairly late Python, made after Colt seemed to have forgotten how to build revolvers. There is nothing inherently smooth about the Python action; it has to be built by a true artist.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Because of it's value I'm cautious with regard to number of rounds I put through it.

It was designed, engineered, and built to be shot.

Smith & Wessons can be fine-tuned and made into wonderful shooters, and I know because I have a couple. Not all Pythons were top quality shooters out of the box, and I know because I own a couple of those, too.

When all is said and done, a first class Python still has a better single action trigger than the equivalent Smith & Wesson. Is there enough difference to justify the price differential? If you're a Python aficionado, yes, but for all practical purposes, no, not really.

 

[Rexster]

A Python was not "worth it" to me, because I could shoot my GP100 just as well in single action mode, and better in DA mode. IIRC, Wiley Clapp penned an article in which he got very, very good accuracy from a GP100, so the equal SA accuracy was not a surprise. In DA mode, the fit of a weapon, which includes the trigger stroke, increases in importance, and the GP100's grip shape, trigger shape, and trigger stroke mechanics fit me better.

While part of me now wishes I had kept the Python, as a collectible and occasional fun gun for SA plinking, back then, if a gun of mine didn't work for a living, it went away, so the Python went away. I still have the same GP100 as then, plus more. I don't want a Python strongly enough, today, to pay the asking prices I see.

 

[Hondo 60]

Win1892:

I think you have the question backward.
Can a Python be made to function as smoothly as a S&W?
The answer is: I don't know.
But I do know how great my 10-5s, 66-2 & 36 no dash function.
And I think even the greatest gunsmith would be hard pressed to get a Python as smooth!

 

[9mmepiphany]

And I think even the greatest gunsmith would be hard pressed to get a Python as smooth!

I gather you've never felt a Python tuned by Jungkind or Moran.

While I felt some very nice K-frames tuned by some of the S&W master tuners (Powers, Davis, Glenn) and have a very nice 642 which is a smooth as butter, I don't think there exist a J-frame that can compare to a Colt D-frame, much less an I-frame. The geometry of the J-frame actions just work against it

 

[Smokin Gator]

The IRC, International Revolver Championship is in two weeks in San Luis Obispo. Many of the top revolver shooters in the world will be there including Jerry Miculek. I don't think that any of the top shooters are shooting Colts. Out of the 200+ shooters there are only a handful shooting something other than Smith and Wesson. Most of them are good to below average ICORE shooters shooting whatever revolver they all ready had instead of going out and buying a specific gun for ICORE use. If Colts could be worked on to be more competitive than S & W's you can bet that you would see a lot more of them used. I have a 686SSR that Randy Lee (Apex) worked on and they should be about done with my 586. Mark

 

[MachIVshooter]

I've got a 686 that's 7 lbs 3 oz DA and 1 lb 9 oz SA. Does that qualify? Bought it used, no idea who worked it, but I've yet to feel a Python that smooth and light.

 

[Guillermo]

including Jerry Miculek.

who is paid to shoot Smiths

I don't think that any of the top shooters are shooting Colts

repair and spare parts eliminate a no longer made gun from being used

If Colts could be worked on to be more competitive than S & W's you can bet that you would see a lot more of them used.

A- see above


The bottom line is that a competitor that shoots tens of thousands of rounds needs a suitcase full of guns that can be easily maintained and modified.

All of this is, of course, minutia anyway.

The OP was not about whether Smiths are more competitive but rather can they be made to be as smooth.

The answer is, yes, the pre-MIM guns can.

The MIM guns can be significantly improved (like the Jerry Miculek 625) but at a significant cost and lack of durability.

 

[rishooter]

Different Actions

I have old N and K frame Smiths and a nice nickel Python from 1969/70.
I have noticed it's not that easy to compare the smoothness of the actions because the Smith double action stacks at the beginning of the trigger squeeze and the Python stacks toward the end.
It's really a matter of what you prefer.
My no-dash Model 27 is certainly as smooth an action as my Python,just different.
I usually shoot DA revolvers on double action,so I really can't say much about the single action performance.
the new revolvers don't come close.

 

[Guillermo]

My no-dash Model 27 is certainly as smooth an action as my Python,just different.

This is the answer to the OP.

A pre MIM Smith's trigger is different...but when similar care and fitting is taken the trigger is just as smooth.

The 27 is among the finest revolvers ever produced

 

[451 Detonics]

My 686 Glenn Custom has one of the best double action triggers I have felt in any revolver regardless of manufacturer. The S&W are easy to tune and there are quite a few great revolver smiths out there. I would recommend Clark or Glenn personally.

 

[RugRev]

"A Python was not "worth it" to me, because I could shoot my GP100 just as well in single action mode, and better in DA mode. IIRC, Wiley Clapp penned an article in which he got very, very good accuracy from a GP100, so the equal SA accuracy was not a surprise. In DA mode, the fit of a weapon, which includes the trigger stroke, increases in importance, and the GP100's grip shape, trigger shape, and trigger stroke mechanics fit me better.

While part of me now wishes I had kept the Python, as a collectible and occasional fun gun for SA plinking, back then, if a gun of mine didn't work for a living, it went away, so the Python went away. I still have the same GP100 as then, plus more. I don't want a Python strongly enough, today, to pay the asking prices I see."

I agree with Rexster in the above. The roller action Python an acquaintance now has and I have a GP-100 and will acquire another in the future in another barrel length. Also, outside the original question but I find the sideplace fit on my Smiths superior to the Python. As noted by another it is far easier to find a decent gunsmith to tune a Smith than a Colt. Aside from Glenn and C&S don't know who is working on Colts these days. Moran no longer does gunsmithing for the public and don't know what Jungkind is doing and Sherman only does rifles last I knew.