Colt Revolvers Are Beginning To.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Colt lockwork is more delicate than the S&W system. The hand does wear. But I stand by my statement that some of you label as nonsense.

I have seen brand new Colts with zero wear fail to index when the hammer was slowly cocked. They weren't intended to be used that way.
 
I have seen brand new Colts with zero wear fail to index when the hammer was slowly cocked. They weren't intended to be used that way.
Click to expand...

Actually they were supposed to latch when the hammer was thumb-cocked - slow or fast, but you are right that some didn't, especially later production.

The design required careful fitting of the hand to each ratchet tooth by an experienced and skilled final assembler. This also took time, and as labor became more expensive, less time was allowed. Then toward the end Colt’s management decided to let many of these very important men go so they could be replaced by new hires for lower wages.

Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and Taurus revolvers work entirely differently and don’t require this sort of precise fitting, but they also don’t offer the kind of bank vault door lock-up that a correctly timed Colt does.

Unfortunately at a critical time Colt’s management realized too late that the 1908 era design couldn’t be produced the way it had to be and be right, while still selling at a price that was competitive. They believe that the name “Colt” was so strong in the marketplace that they could sell they’re products at any price, quality regardless.

And once again they were wrong. :banghead:
 
Defects out of the box

I've seen an assortment of defects in a lot of firearms as they came out of the box. So a Colt coming out of the box that doesn't carry up doesn't prove anything to me except that that particular specimen is out of time..

Over course of time I have been stuck with the following:

S&W: 4 defectives

Colt: 2 defectives

Ruger: 4 defectives

Taurus: 1 defective

Ugartechea: 1 defective

Whitworth: 1 defective

Browning: 1 defective

AMT: 1 REALLY BAD defective

And this doesn't count the ones I caught before I bought them and walked away. You'll have to forgive me, but I'm not an optimist about ANYBODY's QA. So just because a gun does so and so, that doesn't prove it was meant to work that way.
 
Gunfighter123 said:
Well , I got to TOTALLY DISAGREE with that statement. I have/had custom hi-dollars 1911s in .45acp , 10mm , and .38 Super built by some of the finest gunsmiths to have ever been born -
Click to expand...


Apples and oranges.

Revolvers are much more complex machines than autoloaders.


The Trooper was the same internally as the Python. They functioned very well and had great service lives in the holsters of policemen for many years. And policemen generally abused and neglected the hell out of their issued firearm.


Usually I hear the Trooper praised as a very robust gun.


Go figure. <shrug>
 
Bullfrog ----- Apples and Oranges

Go out and buy a American pickup truck and a Italian Ferrari.

Guess which one needs more maintenance and up keep to run correctly?
Click to expand...

I am sure you read the post I quoted it from ---- Poster is stateing that Hi-Dollar firearms {Pythons} need more maintinance BECAUSE they are Hi-Dollar etc.

I disagree with his Apple { Python } and my Oranges { custom 1911s }. And still stand by my statement that my S&W competition revolvers have over 10,000+ rounds thru them and my 2 Pythons DID NOT make it to even 5000 rds. before going out of time and needing repair.

EDIT ---- Apples to Apples = my 2 S&Ws 610/625 Vs. my 2 Pythons .
 
Take it apart and use a blunt rounded chisel looking punch on the thin part of the Colt hand. This will stretch it enough so it carries up.
Or buy a S&W like I did after owning several Colts.
 
The Python's great-grandfather was introduced in 1908 and named the Army Special. By then the Army was moving toward a .45 Pistol, so after World War One, Colt renamed the revolver the Official Police in 1927 because it was becoming increasingly popular in law enforcement circles.

After World War Two production of the Official Police continued, and the platform became the basis for the models .357 and Trooper - and of course the Python. The Official Police was discontinued around 1970.

That's not a bad record for a revolver that's supposed to go out of time if you give it a hard look... :scrutiny:
 
Anecdotes do not equal data.



Much of the later Pythons Colt made were produced with machines and tools far older than those who were assembling them. Colt got rid of the labor force who had the expertise to properly assemble the finely tuned Python. Colt was also not making the necessary capital investments needed to maintain, and in some cases entirely replace the aging equipment and tools the workers used to make the revolvers. Smith & Wesson was making good, serviceable revolvers that didn't require skill the more labor-intensive Colt needed to make.

Lower-skilled assemblers and less precisely made products will always cost less than a product requiring human skill and more precision.


When the institutional knowledge fled, or were let go, by Colt an integral part of the assembly process was lost. With less-skilled workers using worn tools and machines, quality suffered.


The Official Police is a hell of a work horse, and will last a long darn time without any problems. Same lock-work. Same bank-vault action.

The trigger on a Smith will shoot quicker. It has less to travel, and it has less to do. The Colt's trigger locks up the gun when it's pulled. The Smith's trigger doesn't.


Colt revolvers ruled the day when precision was the goal of competition. When speed became more of a concern, Smith's became more popular in those competitions favoring speed over accuracy.

No different than IPSC and IDPA. In the early days of IPSC the 1911 platform simply ruled the world. In IDPA the rules changed, and the different factors make other guns like Glocks and XD's more popular to compete with.




Anyway, it sure is interesting that we can revisit an argument guys had 50 years ago. Arguing Smith's vs Colt's is kind of like the 9mm vs 45 argument.
 
doncha' "just wish that everything was made like Rubbermaid".. (except that even Rubbermaid is not made like Rubbermaid anymore)

The old Colts when done right.. none better than
(just like I used to be in the way-back-when)
The Pythons, as 1st done, were just maybe that
but pretty is, as pretty does

after the 1st 5,000 or 10,000 rounds or so, I went out of time... and so do the "later" model Colts..
(just just like me, still real pretty, but prone to malfunction far too soon)
mebbe like a comp-class race gun vs. a cheapo single shot smoothbore, I dunno

the guy at the local shop with that pretty $1100 Python last year posted a note in front of it, "don't tell me what's wrong with it, just find one on gunbroker for the same price"
that impressed me so much, I did not look at it real close, nor tell him why, much less buy it, didn't even pick it up... (not something you see under glass around here, either)
because he still waves me on over when I walk in there, if he has an old workhorse non-pretty old S&W, knowing I will look at it

me, I just wish Dan Wesson still made revolvers, and I wish I had looked at lot harder at that DW 357 w/ 4 barrel set for same price as that Python..
but if I had, I wouldn't have a couple or so of ugly k-frames, not quite as old as that Colt, with a few scars on 'em, that will keep on hitting "X"s for another 30 years
(not saying that all S&Ws will do that, just because I like 'em, don't mean I don't look before I buy, no matter what the "woobie" factor is)..

but if I had any brains left at all, I would shoot Glocks anyway, preferably after dropping 'em out of airplanes.. go figure
 
Anyway, it sure is interesting that we can revisit an argument guys had 50 years ago. Arguing Smith's vs Colt's is kind of like the 9mm vs 45 argument.
Click to expand...

Hiya Bullfrog,
Your above quote is correct in every way ------- So , lets all argue about Fords vs. Chevy , Brunettes vs. Redheads , or Apples vs. Oranges:neener:

Just jokeing with ya Ken:D
 
How does the gun know it's being fired slow, fast or in-between?
Click to expand...
By intetia. The cylinder is a relatively massive piece of steel. When it's moving fast, it has plenty of inertia, so that a gun that is out of time will often "carry up" when shot fast, but not when shot slowly.
 
I know nothing of IPSC,IDPA or any other "action comp", with the exception
of Cowboy Action. All my experience was bullseye, iron sights, only one
hand touching the weapon, no artificial support. Started doing this in 1957
( USMC 1950 to 1974) and lasted untill 1994 when I joined in the Cowboy shoots.

All of you have valid arguments for your joice of weapon, however if I could
transport you back to the days I competed in bullseye you would see that more of the top shooters were using Pythons than any other make.

I guess my mind set is still in that mode, you see, if some one comments about a 3 gun comp, I automatically invision .22, centerfire (generally 38spl either Colt or S&W) and 45ACP (Colt of course). Each of these marcs had their detractors but to make a blanket statement that any one brand is junk
just does not hold water.

Hold em tight!!

Fred
 
The Python is a prom queen, not a rough and tumble country girl . . . and lasts/looks best if kept as a safe queen. Purdy guns . . . but Colt got out of the handgun business partly because they were too expensive to make for what you got (long-term performance wise) . . . and timing issues aren't easily fixed anymore since so few gunsmiths still work on 'em.
 
The old Colt action uses the lower "finger" of the hand to lock the cylinder tightly against the bolt (cylinder stop). The hand is attached to the trigger and MUST have enough play after locking the cylinder to allow the trigger to move out of the hammer notch. So it is common for a Colt DA cylinder to not fully carry up if the hammer is cocked very slowly. But in normal operation, the final movement of the trigger will ALWAYS move the cylinder into lock just as the hammer falls.

If that doesn't happen, and if firing pin strikes are off center, then the gun is not normal and needs work. But be sure which way the strikes are off. I recall one customer telling me that his revolver (I am not now sure of the make) was out of time because the strikes were off center, and he showed me a handful of fired cases to prove it. But when I test fired the gun, and made sure of the orientation of the cases, I found the strikes were not to the side, they were high due to a problem with the firing pin. Off center, yes, but not due to timing.

Incidentally, before folks praise the Colt system too much, it is very possible for wear to allow the hand to force the cylinder PAST proper alignment. That force can also create excess wear on the bolt, the stop notches, and the ratchet.

FWIW, in "the day", the Colt was highly praised as being rugged, reliable, and nearly impossible to wear out. The S&W, on the other hand, was derided as too delicate, full of small parts, and prone to break at any time. There is some truth to that; the Colt action has fewer parts while the older S&Ws had a lot more parts than the new ones. And the Colt parts are large and rugged, but the interaction among them is so complex that the advantages are negated, and any problem becomes part of a chain that often defies correction.

Jim
 
Old Fuff said:
Unfortunately at a critical time Colt’s management realized too late that the 1908 era design couldn’t be produced the way it had to be and be right, while still selling at a price that was competitive. They believe that the name “Colt” was so strong in the marketplace that they could sell they’re products at any price, quality regardless.
Click to expand...

BullFrogKen said:
When the institutional knowledge fled, or were let go, by Colt an integral part of the assembly process was lost. With less-skilled workers using worn tools and machines, quality suffered.
Click to expand...

I would infer from the above that there is no definitive "old action Colt" - they were not all of identical quality of fit or robustness.

Hence, it is reasonable to assume that one poster's report of a bank-vault lock-up workhorse is 100% accurate as is a different report of an example that is a bit more, shall we say, temperamental. It seems reasonable that both types can exist resulting in widely varying first-person anecdotes.

One part of the "Ferrari vs. F-150" analogy, while not inaccurate, is mildly misleading: A Ferrari can still be competently serviced in nearly every major metropolitan area with a turn around time under one week. While this may have been the case with Colt at one point it appears to no longer be so. It will usually have to be sent out of one's state of residence and will take well over one week to put back in service.

I've had both types of Colts (Colt's?) and had to learn the hard way that the local "garage" may just ruin the thing despite a claim of competence in the brand being made. It's not enough to sour one on the brand but concern over the availability and timeliness of maintenance is not unreasonable nor does it constitute a "bash" on the brand. It's a legitimate concern. Moreover it will not be trumped by personal anecdote when someone like Grant Cunningham draws a distinction between "delicate" and the need for Ferrari maintenance rather than pick-up truck maintenance.

However, "Ferrari" implies that service is easier to get than it actually is. It might be closer to Pierce-Arrow autos or Vincent motorcycles. Both Pierce-Arrow and Vincent were the hand-built uber quality products of their day but getting one worked on in 2010 is a challenge. Granted, neither Pierce-Arrow nor Vincent owners have the option of sending the product to the manufacturer - perhaps it's more of an "average" between Ferrari and Pierce-Arrow.(?)

BTW, I'm old enough to remember Vincent - anybody on this board claim to be able to remember Pierce-Arrow?
;)
 
That's where S&W got it right. Offer standard production model guns that are more forgiving for those who will never realize the 1/2" difference in precision at 50 yards, and have a high performance line for those who do.

If Colt had done that, they might still be a serious competitor in the DA revolver business. Instead, they offered the beautiful but somewhat tempermental python that had greater precision than the average shooter needed and at a cost of higher maintenance, while not being up to par with the performance center S&W's that were similar in price for the competition guys.
 
Are you FLICKING/Snapping the cylinder closed with your wrist??

Flicking/wrist snapping the cylinder closed like seen in movies will knock the timing out and shouldn't be done with any revolver. Don't let ignorent friends handle your revolvers because they'll flick/wrist snap it every time. Don't ask me how I know!
 
Last edited:
Big Wes, that's a no. I got this revolver in great shape and have babied it. I didn't get 500 rounds through it, and the timing crapped. It was previously owned, but not used much. It does still index well when brought to full cock, but if you DA slow, it will fail to fully index before the hammer drops, and relies on a further travel of the trigger rearward to completely index. The hammer falling from the slow DA pull does not throw the cylinder over to the bolt/cylinder stop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ak-kev
  • Locked
Compact revolver advice please
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
S&Wfan
S
Slamfire
  • Locked
Handled some new Colts
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Peakbagger46
Peakbagger46
Mr. Mosin
  • Locked
Colt Mk. III Trooper Lockwork and Internals
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Kleanbore
K
M
  • Locked
Help with colt DA revolver diagnosis.
Replies
1
Views
339
dfariswheel
D
F
  • Locked
Colt Revolvers
Replies
6
Views
937
flashman70
F
Back
Top