I'm inclined to agree with most of Confederate's assessment of the Smith-Python thing.
It would be harder to come up with an endorsement of the Python better than Smith having to pull out all the stops to match up. The 686 is indeed superb. I had a chance to get some good use of a friend's heavily-modified four-incher and it was really good. For me, the 586 would be better still, as I do tend to prefer blue. Sadly, I hesitated on a (also modified) six-incher last fall and it was gone when I went back for it. No doubt I was going to like it and shoot it plenty.
It's also a testament to a 19th-century design that it's still such a hot topic long after its departure, and still the model the remaining high-end DA sixgun maker is seeking to equal.
My Python is a mid-'70s one, and was heavily used before I got it for not too much money. I've been almost merciless, as pointed out in my previous post. I am pretty sure the gun hasn't seen any maintenance beyond cleaning. I estimate its round count to be upwards of 15,000, likely closer to 20,000. The hand is unmodified and original, and there's nothing amiss in the timing. Even today, it does not spit and has almost no gap flash, something I've never been able to say about any of the Smiths I've had. A contemporary Model 19 that I had and loved, with no more hard use than my Python, was a forest-fire menace.
This, and the other Pythons I've had, were nothing like that. My conclusion, based on my own experience over three-plus decades, is that the hand wear issue is of little practical significance. I understand others have had wear troubles, but I can't help but wonder, given the number of folks like myself with no noticeable hand wear issues, that something else, possibly even misuse, could be a factor. Closing a cylinder on a cocked gun, hand exposed, is one possiblity and might be considered a weakness of the design.
During the active life of the Colt D-E/I frames, the hand repair/replacement thing was simply considered maintenance. When there were plenty of Colt-skilled smiths about to do the work, it wasn't a big deal. Besides, not really all that many shooters pounded so many rounds through a single gun way back when. Nowadays, with the diminishing of the Colt legacy, it has become somewhat more of a deal. Time passes and things change.
Since none of the many D-E/Is I have show any signs whatsoever of needing hand work, I tend to ignore it. When the time comes, I'll send the thing back to Colt, where their shop continues to do excellent DA work at very reasonable rates.
The other issue for many is the different DA actions between the two makes. I hold that the Smith style, which I think of as a breaking neck break, is better for bullseye-type shooting such as PPC and NRA Action Pistol. The stage-and-break is suited for such work and frankly, during the longer shots of the PPC course I sometimes wish my Colt could turn into a Smith.
On the other hand, once accustomed to it, the Colt "stack" works better for fast stuff. For me, at least, during the fastest shooting such as USPSA and IDPA, a proper sweep of the Colt DA lets me shoot faster with equal or better accuracy, as the stack (slight in a proper action) tends to minimize the impact of the trigger and finger at the end of the firing stroke and helps keep the sights aligned.
I've tested myself against the timer enough to be satisfied with that description.
What the Python had best of all was handling and balance. While I never considered myself a "Python person", I've come to realize that when it comes to leaving holes in the center of action-shooting silhouettes, the Python nearly always gives me the best overall results.
I will agree that the Colt E/I handle shape isn't the best, especially for people with none-too-large hands. But equipped with Hogue finger-groove stocks, especially the Monogrip, the disadvantage disappears. I prefer the V-frame Colt ergos best of all, followed by the Smith K, but a rubbered-up Python is so little less good it really doesn't matter.
But I guess I just plain like my gun.
Bill
