Which is more accurate, the S&W Model 27 or the Colt Python? I have seen the question raised several times. Both revolvers are deluxe, top of the line guns for their respective makers and either will serve if one needs a premier .357 Magnum revolver.
There are differences between the two guns, and many shooters don’t like the Colt trigger system that does feel unlike the S&W trigger. Colt fans find the fit and finish of the Python to be first-class and don’t understand the S&W folks’ complaints about the Colt trigger.
I own numerous examples of Pythons and 27s and like both, and after reading yet another forum post asking which was more accurate I decided to find out for myself. I admit this test was not scientific and the research was cursory to say the least. To really judge the pistols we would need several examples of each revolver type fired from a machine rest using a variety of ammunition. But for now this is what I have in the way of results. I predicted what would happen fairly closely.
I tested a 5” S&W Model 27-2 made in 1968. This gun shows virtually no wear and is very tight. I understand that there are numerous variations of this pistol, starting with the Registered Magnums and leading through to the current crop of N frame .357s, but I figured this was a good representative choice.
Same with the Python. Made in the late 1970s the Colt had a 6” barrel and was in almost new condition like the Smith. It was as good an example as any.
Ammunition was full-power .357 Magnums with a 125 grain JHP loaded to around 1600 FPS. Although some folks think this load is a little on the warm side this is my favorite .357 load and I use it in all of my guns in this caliber. I think about it when shooting this ammo in my K frames. I still shoot it, but I think about it. I don’t worry at all about firing it in my N frame guns. The Python isn’t as robust as the 27, but if the Ks can live on this load then I figure the Python should, too.
I started at 10 yards, firing five shot groups from both guns. The Python won this round by averaging (yes, averaging) about .9” in group size. The best was a group with all shots touching that measures about .65” (see the pic). The 27 averaged 1.9” at this distance.
I backed out to 25 yards and tried again. This time the round ended in a split decision. The Colt had the best average at 2.5”, barely topping the Smith’s 2.8” average, but the 27 turned in the best single group at 1.75”. I'm not sure why the 27 was able to close on the Colt so much at this distance except to admit it may be the shooter influencing the results.
Moving back to the 10 yard range I fired six rounds from each revolver, shooting double action from a standing position. The Colt topped the Smith again with a 3.2” group to the 27’s 4.6” performance.
As I expected, the Python prevailed. Colt traditionally bored their barrels .001 smaller than did S&W and I think this is why the Colts tended to outshoot the Smiths. Old-timers have told me the S&Ws were service pistols, not target guns. It does seem to me that photos of matches from the good old days show many more Colts on the line than Smiths. Of course, your results may vary, and as I said, this test was not scientific.
There you go.
There are differences between the two guns, and many shooters don’t like the Colt trigger system that does feel unlike the S&W trigger. Colt fans find the fit and finish of the Python to be first-class and don’t understand the S&W folks’ complaints about the Colt trigger.
I own numerous examples of Pythons and 27s and like both, and after reading yet another forum post asking which was more accurate I decided to find out for myself. I admit this test was not scientific and the research was cursory to say the least. To really judge the pistols we would need several examples of each revolver type fired from a machine rest using a variety of ammunition. But for now this is what I have in the way of results. I predicted what would happen fairly closely.
I tested a 5” S&W Model 27-2 made in 1968. This gun shows virtually no wear and is very tight. I understand that there are numerous variations of this pistol, starting with the Registered Magnums and leading through to the current crop of N frame .357s, but I figured this was a good representative choice.
Same with the Python. Made in the late 1970s the Colt had a 6” barrel and was in almost new condition like the Smith. It was as good an example as any.
Ammunition was full-power .357 Magnums with a 125 grain JHP loaded to around 1600 FPS. Although some folks think this load is a little on the warm side this is my favorite .357 load and I use it in all of my guns in this caliber. I think about it when shooting this ammo in my K frames. I still shoot it, but I think about it. I don’t worry at all about firing it in my N frame guns. The Python isn’t as robust as the 27, but if the Ks can live on this load then I figure the Python should, too.
I started at 10 yards, firing five shot groups from both guns. The Python won this round by averaging (yes, averaging) about .9” in group size. The best was a group with all shots touching that measures about .65” (see the pic). The 27 averaged 1.9” at this distance.
I backed out to 25 yards and tried again. This time the round ended in a split decision. The Colt had the best average at 2.5”, barely topping the Smith’s 2.8” average, but the 27 turned in the best single group at 1.75”. I'm not sure why the 27 was able to close on the Colt so much at this distance except to admit it may be the shooter influencing the results.
Moving back to the 10 yard range I fired six rounds from each revolver, shooting double action from a standing position. The Colt topped the Smith again with a 3.2” group to the 27’s 4.6” performance.
As I expected, the Python prevailed. Colt traditionally bored their barrels .001 smaller than did S&W and I think this is why the Colts tended to outshoot the Smiths. Old-timers have told me the S&Ws were service pistols, not target guns. It does seem to me that photos of matches from the good old days show many more Colts on the line than Smiths. Of course, your results may vary, and as I said, this test was not scientific.
There you go.
