Do not feed your Python magnums....

[Joe Demko]

The hand is a CONSUMABLE PART.

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that this is true. The Python has been out of production for years. Is anybody still making new hands or are we talking about buying from a shrinking stock of existing parts? Is the pool of smiths who really know how to work on a Python growing or shrinking?
Ask some of the folks who chase parts for other out of production guns why they don't shoot their babies more. Original Auto Mag enthusiasts are a good place to start.

 

[RugerMcMarlin]

Thanks Cajun great analogy, lets don't use the trailer or the camper, it might wear the, ball on the hitch out.

OK so don't shoot yours. Automag parts were in short supply the 1st year out. never got any better.

 

[Overkilll0084]

Is anybody still making new hands or are we talking about buying from a shrinking stock of existing parts?

When I called Colt Customer Service to see about buying a new Python mainspring, they referred me to http://www.jackfirstgun.com/index.php
They make "obsolete" Colt parts.

 

[Joe Demko]

OK so don't shoot yours. Automag parts were in short supply the 1st year out. never got any better.

I don't have one and never did. I have done the parts chasing thing with other guns over the years, though, and I completely understand why a Python owner would decide to run lighter loads through his revolver. It doesn't matter what the gun is, heavier loads accelerate wear. No doubt the Python can take some amount of full-strength .357 fodder. How much seems to be an item of debate, even among Python enthusiasts. Pythons ain't cheap, they ain't making any more, and qualified smiths are fewer every year. If it were me, I'd get myself a current production S&W or Ruger (maybe a used one) for the days when I feel like going out and burning up boxes of hot loads until my hand aches. For the days that I feel like enjoying the things that make a Python a Python (e.g. the trigger, the accuracy, the beautiful fit and finish, the envious glances from other shooters), lighter loads will more than suffice. The vast, vast majority of the time you will only be shooting that Python at paper and for fun. A light load will poke a hole in a paper target just as well as a hot load and with less wear and tear on a gun that is an OOP collector's item.

 

[JohnBT]

"Guns were not meant to be babied or kept for others. "

Some are, some aren't. Your philosophy is obviously different than mine.

My father has said many times that he saw some of the early Pythons get loose after a great deal of fast DA shooting. They seem to last a whole lot longer if shot as a target gun in SA. He's 89 and does not shoot anymore, but I have his guns and they still work just fine.

John

 

[RugerMcMarlin]

I think you should do what you want, it sounds like your plenty old enough to decide.
I was not campaigning for you to change what you've always done, I was agreeing with Elite, up until I slipped with my own opinion, about the hand. Elite needed NO support, thats the way it is when your right. I just agreed with a guy thats right.

 

[ironhead7544]

The Python lockup is quite strong enough for full power 357 loads. An old gunsmith told me the Colt lockwork was like a watch. Finely fitted. The main problem was shooting fast double action. Puts more wear on the parts because of the design. Shoot it single action and it will last a long time. I had one six inch for many years and shot it single action 99% of the time. Never had timing problems.

 

[SwampWolf]

I often compete with a revolver in the centerfire Bullseye course of fire matches (the Harry Reeves competitive shooting event at Camp Perry is a good time to drag those revolvers out and dirty their bores again!), and use either my Smith K-38 or my Colt Officer Special (I seem to shoot them equally well-or not so well ). However, on occasion, I've seen shooters use a Python, generally stoked with mild, 148 gr. wadcutter reloads, and I've always thought they'd make a superb revolver for Bullseye competition. I believe Pythons share the same lock-work as the Officers Model Special/Match revolvers but are even more finely finished. Colt even made a limited production of Pythons chambered in .38 Special but, because I believe the Python .38s only came with 8" barrels, they were probably too heavy and unwieldy for most serious Bullseye shooters.

 

[Old Fuff]

Wear on the hand is somewhat misunderstood. "Wear" occurs when two parts rub together, and literally rub metal off of one or the other, or both. This isn't what usually happens to the hand.

The real problem is battering of the hand's lower tooth by the cylinder ratchet, which is also transferred to the hand's pin on the lower end. This can cause the hand to tip outward, and engage the ratchet further out - which in turn causes the cylinder to not turn (or "carry up") far enough so the bolt can engage the cylinder notch, or not rotate the cylinder far enough while the bolt is in the notch, to get the rock-solid lock up Colt was famous for.

A second possible contributor is a sprung crane, that can also result in the hand pushing on the ratchet tooth too far outboard.

Many of the better Colt 'smiths have a simple gauge, consisting of a steel block with a hole drilled in it which just fits the hand pin. They insert the pin into the hole, and then push the hand down so that it's flat on the block. If they see any daylight between to hand and block they'll know what to do next

 

[alienbogey]

A blog post on the subject:

http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/colt_python_delicate.html

 

[RugerMcMarlin]

alienbogey, Sincerely, Thank you.

 

[Joe Demko]

Which, even if we accept it all (the blog linked above) wholesale, doesn't change that the Python is OOP, Colt is apparently not interested in supplying obsolete parts, and qualified Python smiths are fewer as the world moves on.

 

[RugerMcMarlin]

Can't argue with logic like that. I'd say your mind was made up at post 26, like the first phrase.

 

[1911Tuner]

Pythons are more likely to go out of time earlier than a comparable Smith & Wesson in part because of the way they time.

Properly timed Smiths pre-time. That is, the cylinder locks into battery before the hammer reaches full arc. Colts time just as the hammer breaks. The Smiths have a little more wear allowance at the hand and ratchet before they start to fire out of battery.

The Colt also continues to hand the cylinder up after the stop bolt engages. It makes for a tighter lockup when it fires, but it also tends to place stress and wear on the hand, much like a SAA that keeps trying to roll the cylinder after it locks unless a positive hammer stop is installed that stops the hammer at the moment the bolt engages.

All revolvers have the advantage of momentum carrying the cylinder even after the hand stops pushing it, which compensates somewhat for wear. The drawback is that the momentum doesn't work so well if the gun is cycled slowly.

 

[oldfool]

best explanation I ever heard, 1911Tuner

IIRC, Colt came out with the Python to compete with the S&W 27. They did a truly beautiful job of it, craftsman class material, fit, and finish; one of the truly fine revolvers of all time. But their thinking on lockwork was a tiny tad off base, and if the Colt design could be said to be flawed, it was the design "philosophy" that was flawed.

We just love appealing phrases like "locks up like a bank vault" etc., but vault doors and revolvers are very different things with very different purposes.

Which is why some folks will label the fine Colts as "fragile", causing others to feel offended. "Fragile" carries far too strong connotations (they ain't made of glass), but the Python lockwork design is simply not as robust as some. All handguns will eventually wear, and all will wear a bit quicker if fed a lot of hot loads near their design limits, but some do wear quicker than others.

Advantage OP (CPE), who owns both collectibles and shooters. If you own 'em, especially in multiples, shoot 'em; if they break fix or replace 'em, that's the way to go, you aren't going to live forever.

Still, for me, a k-frame woobie guy, my k-frames are 'real' magnums, but I acknowledge their limits, so I shoot 357s through them only sparsely. Enjoy 'em too much to wear them out prematurely, and cannot afford replacements unlimited. All that aside, there is no shortage of highly accurate and much tougher 357 revolvers to be had that will handle order of magnitude higher round counts of full magnum loads no problem, just as various posters above have mentioned. Enjoy 'em all.

If you got 'em, feed 'em
(but if you have only one, discretion may be the better part of valor)

PS
re: "if could be said to be flawed.. design philosophy"
depends of course on what philosophy you favor
race cars and race guns break more often than 'turtle' guns and 'turtle' guns (as should be expected), and there are a whole lot of in-betweens
you pays your money and you makes your choices

 

[Smaug]

It's all in the priorities. CPE can apparently afford multiple Colts, and is not worried about repair costs either.

I'm with Iowegan (retired gunsmith) I'd take a Ruger with an action job over a Python, even if the Python trigger is better.
http://rugerforum.net/ruger-double-...pinions-colt-s-w-designs-compared-rugers.html

 

[Guillermo]

I can afford multiple Colts and don't worry about repair costs. Guess I don't worry because even though I shoot them often have never had one that needs repair.

(admittedly I shoot the Diamondbacks and the Cobra a lot more than the Python)

 

[1911Tuner]

Quote:

>All that aside, there is no shortage of highly accurate and much tougher 357 revolvers to be had that will handle order of magnitude higher round counts of full magnum loads no problem, just as various posters above have mentioned.<

Yep. One drawback with the old design revolvers is that they load their lockwork through the side of the frame and cover it with a sideplate which reduces the frame's strength and rigidity. The Rugers have a solid frame and load through the bottom. The GP-100 and the 586/686 Smiths are about the same size and weight, and are in direct competition, but the plain, simple truth is that the Ruger is far and away the stronger and more durable of the two in spite of the fact that the frame is a casting.

 

[CraigC]

The Colt also continues to hand the cylinder up after the stop bolt engages. It makes for a tighter lockup when it fires, but it also tends to place stress and wear on the hand, much like a SAA that keeps trying to roll the cylinder after it locks unless a positive
hammer stop is installed that stops the hammer at the moment the bolt engages.

This is probably the biggest reason. On most guns, the hand's only responsibility is to contact the ratchet to turn the cylinder. On a Python, it also serves to lock the cylinder tight against the bolt. This puts stress on the rest of the action parts. On most guns, only the bolt locks the cylinder in place. All this stresses is the bolt, the bolt notch in the cylinder and the bolt port in the frame. Bolts are also more easily replaced than hands and require less skill to do so.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I'm glad to see I generated some discussion....I'll be the first to admit that if I could only have one .357 and wanted one to last a lifetime of regular hard shooting and be as trouble free as possible, it wouldn't be a Python. However, if I could only have one, it would still have to have some good looks, so that would rule out a Ruger for me. Also, if I only could have one, I'd prefer not to have one just like every other non-Ruger toting wheelgunner, so it wouldn't be a Smith.........With all that said, if I could only have one, it would be a King Cobra. It's action has been said to be one of the strongest mid-frames made and it's looks are pretty darn sharp, IMO.

 

[1911Tuner]

I've had about a half-dozen Pythons over the years. The first one...a 4-inch model...cost me about 175 dollars out the door, and the dealer threw in a box of ammo to cinch the deal...which tells you how long ago that was.

Beautiful, scary accurate, and perfectly balanced...every single one of mine went out of time within 2,000 rounds. Admittedly, most of the ammunition that went through'em was full powered...but they just didn't hold up very well to a lot of hard use.

I don't presently own one, and likely never will again unless I'm bucks up and find a really nice one that I want just to show off and not shoot.

 

[RugerMcMarlin]

Thats too bad, buddy. 6 replaced Hands would have changed your world.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

6 of 'em going out within 2k rounds sure is a bad run of luck. I know you can beat on one enough to where it will need some tuning, but that seems like a low round count to me. If that was the norm, I doubt if Colt would have been able to produce that action for all those decades.

 

[1911Tuner]

I did replace the hands, Ruger...and then I sold the guns.

CPE...Colt recommended sending them in at about that mark for inspection and adjustment.

Only one...a 6-inch model...went out badly enough to spit, but it was tearing skin off my left thumb. That one was the worst, and it went south suddenly.

On all of'em, as long as I rolled the cylinder up at moderate speed, they'd lock in. The problem was slow DA or thumb-cocking. Had to help the cylinders lock into battery.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

...Colt recommended sending them in at about that mark for inspection and adjustment.

How did they go about making that recommendation? They didn't mention it in the Python's owner's manuals. At least not in the ones that I have. I just looked in a 1970's manual and a 1990's manual. Neither had any kind of service interval.