Python 2020 "Squishy, squashy"

[UncleEd]

In the past I've praised Colt for re-introducing the Python though I've
complained about its cheap rear sight and serreted trigger. I'm not
alone in this regard.

At first I found the trigger to be quite nice but I couldn't quite put my
finger (pun intended) on something being amiss.

Today in talking with my dealer/enabler he said "The trigger is
squishy." And I added, "Yes, that's it, squashy."

Although I owned Pythons in the late 1980s, I still preferred
S&Ws. As more years rolled around, I got to like very much
the Ruger double action triggers as well.

Maybe that's it: I am just too used to the Smiths and Rugers.
Colt's new "soft" trigger just isn't for me. I believe I'll let
my enabler deal with it from now on.

I'm glad, however, so many have found Colt's Python 2020 to
their liking and have reported better DA shooting than ever in
their lifetimes.

 

[MrBorland]

I couldn't quite put my
finger (pun intended) on something being amiss.

Today in talking with my dealer/enabler he said "The trigger is
squishy." And I added, "Yes, that's it, squashy."

That's pretty vague. Can you be more specific? You mean the trigger pull doesn't have a clean break? Double action? Single?

 

[vanfunk]

UncleEd:

I’ve noticed considerable variability among new Colt Pythons, with DA pulls ranging from 9 to 7.5 lbs and SA pulls of 6 to 3.5 lbs. However, the DA pulls have been uniformly smooth and a league above new S&W revolvers. The SA pulls have been crisp although I have tried a few that have suffered from the dreaded drop-test-based positive cam engagement, moving the hammer back slightly before the fall. No bueno. My 6” Python was like that; I polished the engagement surfaces with Mother’s and a microfiber cloth and it dropped the pull to a crisp 3.5 lbs. My 4.25” was perfect out of the box with DA/SA pulls under 8/4 lbs respectively. I wouldn’t want this to discourage any potential buyer though, as I do believe that these new Pythons are best of breed as far as new .357 wheelguns go. You just have to try out each example. It’s actually no different than S&W honestly; their revolvers have exhibited even more variability with DA/SA pulls than Colt by far. I haven’t tried any Rugers; it’s weird, I know, I just don’t have any interest in them. Hope this helps!

 

[UncleEd]

To put it another way than "squishy" I prefer the standard
double action triggers found traditionally on S&Ws and
Rugers; that is, closer to 10 or 12 pounds, not 7 or 8.

Those lighter DA triggers my dealer and I labeled
"squishy" or "squashy." Perhaps some here might
find those words derogatory. So be it.

Back in October, 2021, I started a thread on what members here
thought is an ideal double action trigger weight. All want a smooth
pull but many favored the 10 pound or more actions.

Colt has targeted a large group of double action shooters, old
hands or new shooters. And as I said, that's fine with me.
But it ain't what I prefer.

 

[DS-10-SPEED]

To put it another way than "squishy" I prefer the standard
double action triggers found traditionally on S&Ws and
Rugers; that is, closer to 10 or 12 pounds, not 7 or 8.

Those lighter DA triggers my dealer and I labeled
"squishy" or "squashy." Perhaps some here might
find those words derogatory. So be it.

Back in October, 2021, I started a thread on what members here
thought is an ideal double action trigger weight. All want a smooth
pull but many favored the 10 pound or more actions.

Colt has targeted a large group of double action shooters, old
hands or new shooters. And as I said, that's fine with me.
But it ain't what I prefer.

I've been shooting S&W's DA for 50 years and never owned a Colt until this year. When I read this post I thought that's exactly how I would describe the trigger on my Colt King Cobra .22. I've been used to S&W's triggers, they seem harder to pull at first then gradually gets lighter until it fires. The Colt started fairly light and just before it fired there was a significant increase, kinda like "squishing" a soft rubber ball, the more you "squish" the harder it gets. It could be the nature of the "V" spring they use. Though it was different I could get used to it, I guess it's what you are used to and what you consider normal.

 

[Lefty38-55]

I'd for sure take a squishie over a stiffie anytime ... well, at least for when shootin' revolvers anyways!

 

[DS-10-SPEED]

I'd for sure take a squishie over a stiffie anytime ... well, at least for when shootin' revolvers anyways!

I'm glad you clarified that.

 

[Gork10]

To put it another way than "squishy" I prefer the standard
double action triggers found traditionally on S&Ws and
Rugers; that is, closer to 10 or 12 pounds, not 7 or 8.

Those lighter DA triggers my dealer and I labeled
"squishy" or "squashy." Perhaps some here might
find those words derogatory. So be it.

Back in October, 2021, I started a thread on what members here
thought is an ideal double action trigger weight. All want a smooth
pull but many favored the 10 pound or more actions.

Colt has targeted a large group of double action shooters, old
hands or new shooters. And as I said, that's fine with me.
But it ain't what I prefer.

"Squishy" is a good way to describe it. I had a 3 inch Python for about 8 months. Put somewhere around 1500 rounds of mixed 38 special and 357 mag threw it. Never could get used to the DA pull. Between the trigger pull and forgetting that you have to pull the cylinder release back not push it forward to open it during fast reload practice. It got sold off and I picked up my Smith model 19 2.5 inch. I like a smooth, consent, clean breaking trigger of around 10 or so pounds. The Python is a good gun, just not for me.

 

[vanfunk]

I find this fascinating; thanks for starting it UncleEd. I put 200 rounds through my 4.25” Python this morning and, truth be told, the DA pull (7-8 lbs) could be thought of as “squishy.” Or maybe “squishly,” like those quasi-memory foam stuffed animals. I like it, a lot. I have nothing against my Smiths and like them a lot, too, but they’re not smoooooooth like my Colts. In my S&Ws, I can feel every distinct mechanical action as the various parts interact through their respective arcs, slides and rubs. On the one hand, I admire the symphony of interaction but on the other, I find it distracting when shooting. If I were to use a revolver as a fidget toy, I’d use a Smith. There’s more going on to involve myself in. My Colts are light and consistent all the way through to a surprise break, which fits my shooting style better and helps me be more accurate (except today, when I shot my chronograph skyscreen support. Oops).

 

[unspellable]

I have both a new python and a new anaconda. In both cases the single action pull is much too stiff. I have both in vintage version and the SA pull is just fine.

 

[roval]

i have only shot about 100 rds on my 2020 python 6 inch and dry fired it maybe 300 times. i find the da pull smooth but quite heavier than a S&W with a 12 lb rebound spring with stock hammer spring. SA is definitely heavier. i did try the DA pull on an 2020 anaconda in the lgs and that DA pull was lighter than on my python.

 

[2zulu1]

I go back over 5 decades when we were issued Smiths and we trained combat shooting, I like Smiths. Currently, comparing K, L, N-frames I own, personal preference is the L-frame trigger pull/reset. A 4" 686P with a Performance Center hone and polish trigger job yields a DA trigger pull about the same as a Glock 17.3, single action for long range shooting is lighter than some 1911s.

After New Year's, I bought a Python 4.25" and liked it so much that a 3" joined it a few weeks later. To become accustomed to the Pythons ergos, trigger pull/reset, I only shot Pythons for seven months. I train DA only and only with .357mag factory/handloaded ammunition. I have no idea what squishy means for the Python, I know what squishy is with certain 1911s, and of course Glocks; the two Pythons I have don't exhibit this type of trigger.

Shoot enough and one can feel different rhythms, the 4.25" Python has a different rhythm than the 3", same for comparing Smiths and Colts. After carrying/training with Pythons for seven months, I took both a Python and 686P (PC trigger job) to our backyard range for a follow-up comparison, to my surprise, I had become so accustomed to the rhythm of the Python that it shot better pushing split times than the 686P. The two are different, and I can't say one is better than the other.

Both Pythons and 686s are designed for combat shooting and that's the way I train with them, forgetting push/pull cylinder opening is merely a lack of training IMO.


First shots out of the box, all DA with movement.



First 90 rounds with the 3" Python, group opened up a bit while egressing at a slant angle pulling the DA trigger as fast as I could, point shooting out to 7 yards; Federal 158gr JHPs. Found the 3" Python's rhythm very quickly.

I was concerned originally that it would take time adjusting to the Python's trigger reset because it's longer than the Smiths, it turned out to be an easy adjustment while pushing split times.



In my experience over the years, the 4" 686P, with PC trigger job, is the best combat magnum Smith has produced, it's a solid platform for a first time buyer to learn the magnum grasp/grip and train on. Become a proficient magnum shooter and you can shoot any service caliber well.

Two days after a six-week stay in the hospital for mouth cancer, Agent Orange, this senior citizen was very concerned if he had the strength to shoot the magnum, from six yards, double action 145gr Winchester Silvertips, a good choice for town carry; both the 686P and 4.25" Python performed like this together;

 

[vanfunk]

Fantastic post 2zulu1, thank you. I agree totally with you about the acclimation process with the Colts. I had to make minute adjustments to grip and trigger finger placement, one at a time, before I found the magic elixir. Now when I pick up a Python, especially with Roper-style grips, it feels and points like second nature. This acclimation has not come at the expense of my S&Ws; I had my model 67-1 with target grips out yesterday and it was like shaking hands with an old friend. I also agree about the direction of cylinder release and I’ve never not known what gun is in my hand. Perhaps under the extreme stress of a “combat” scenario but I still don’t think so (perhaps I am naive?).

 

[2zulu1]

Fantastic post 2zulu1, thank you. I agree totally with you about the acclimation process with the Colts. I had to make minute adjustments to grip and trigger finger placement, one at a time, before I found the magic elixir. Now when I pick up a Python, especially with Roper-style grips, it feels and points like second nature. This acclimation has not come at the expense of my S&Ws; I had my model 67-1 with target grips out yesterday and it was like shaking hands with an old friend. I also agree about the direction of cylinder release and I’ve never not known what gun is in my hand. Perhaps under the extreme stress of a “combat” scenario but I still don’t think so (perhaps I am naive?).

Thank you for the kind words. At first it would seem the pull mechanism for Colt's cylinder release is at a disadvantage compared to Smith's push cylinder release, however, during a tactical situation reload, the revolver should be at a position high enough to retain the field of view and close enough to reach the speed loader (strong side shirt pocket), not looking down. One is not in the fight during the time one's eyes are not scanning during a dynamic encounter.