Why are Pythons worth double the $$$ of a Smith?

[41mag]

I'm about 1.5 hours from buying my first Python.(lunchtime)

When I was checking it out wednesday evening I was more than impressed w/both the looks(secondary)& the lockup/feel of this thing.

Standing Wolf,you're right.W/the factory stocks the DA trigger is basically unreachable.It does,however,come w/a set of Herrets target stocks(at least I think that that's what they were).The single action pull was....wow!

As impressed as I was/am w/this revo I still wonder why-even used-it's worth more than a list priced S&W?The serial number was,IIRC,K36056 which I reckon makes it about 20 years old?

I have Rugers,Smiths,& Dan Wessons.I've never felt a revolver lock up like this one does.It'd be like comparing shutting a door on a new Chevy vs a Mercedes.

Oh yeah,6in nickelplated.(I didn't like nickel guns until I looked at this 'un in a strong light either)
puzzled but excited in Mi.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Woth double the ducats? I dunno, but seeing in that I have two, both of which were purchased used (because CHEAP is my operative mindset), I think so.

BTW, even with my small size hands, I prefer the factory target grips. I do a lot of DA shooting with those stocks on either Python.

 

[dfariswheel]

The Python is more expensive because it's basically a hand-built revolver.

S&W and all other modern revolvers are largely "machine-fit" in that the parts are designed so they can be fitted with little, or no fitting by a assembler.

The Python has the old 1900's Colt action that requires extensive fitting of each and every part by a highly trained 'pistolsmith/assembler JUST to work.
The Python action's parts are even more carefully fitted and polished to a higher level.

Next, the Python finish is totally hand polished, and this requires the services of someone with years of experience at the polishing wheels.

Where most gun's polishing stops, Colt's is just beginning. Colt always made their own leather covered, wooden polishing wheels, and the Python is polished with progressively finer media until the final polish which is the consistency of flour.

Colt's famous Python Royal Blue is NOT a special chemical bluing process, it's the polishing. Colt's Ultimate Bright Stainless is also the result of the efforts of a Master polisher.

In general the Python is fitted and finished to a MUCH higher lever than any other revolver, and the Python is acknowledged as the world's finest production DA revolver.

All this takes human hand labor.
Human labor is EXPENSIVE. You can buy an "off the rack" 1911 pistol from many companies at reasonable prices.
But models from custom makers like Wilson, Brown, or others cost MANY dollars more than even the most expensive production models.

The reason for the higher cost is human labor. You're paying a Master gunsmith to custom build a 1911 by hand, versus one built and fitted largely by machine.

So it is with the Python.
From the "get-go" in 1955, Colt intended the Python to be the finest production revolver in the world, and they lavished their best efforts on it.
No expense was spared, from the hand-fitted and tuned actions, to the tapered bore of the barrel, to the mysterious "silver ball" treatment, to the extensive hand polishing of the finish.

All of this cannot be done by even todays CNC machines. Only a human's hands can do this level of work, and today people who can do this level of work don't work for minimum wage.
The worker's time is expensive, so the gun is expensive.

When you buy a S&W or Ruger you're buying a good solid Ford or Chevy.
The Python is a Cadillac.

 

[41mag]

& in two weeks,the Caddy will be in the garage!(I have to apply for my "purchase permit" )

I had a nerve wracking few minutes while waiting to be waited on.The three guys in front of me were all looking at it!Thankfully(& isn't THIS wierd!)those same three actually fondled guns left,right,& above my Python.I thought that I'd have a heart attack!

4v50Gary?I neglected to say that it has an 8(?) in barrel & also comes w/a Burris 3x scope & mount.& the price was just lowered to $600 too....

dfariswheel?Thank you for the Python primer!I get the feeling(& truth be told was expecting this to happen ) that this won't be my last & that there is considerable reading to be done in my future.

Oh yeah,& I can't wait to shoot it!

 

[Old Fuff]

>> It'd be like comparing shutting a door on a new Chevy vs a Mercedes. <<

I think you answered your own question ...

In addition they represent a good investment - "best quality" always goes up when it comes to firearms. Incidentally nickeled Pythons are less common then blued ones, which makes them an even better investment. I don't know what you paid (and don't care) but I doubt you paid too much considering what you got.

 

[Jim K]

Dfariswheel said, "The Python has the old 1900's Colt action that requires extensive fitting of each and every part by a highly trained 'pistolsmith/assembler JUST to work."

Yep. And that is why Colt dropped all those old style revolvers from production; they simply could not compete with S&W, Taurus and Ruger, let alone with auto pistols. They did revive a couple of models, the Python Elite and the Anaconda (the latter has the new action), but those are on the verge of extinction again for lack of interest.

Jim

 

[Standing Wolf]

The Python is a Cadillac.

Let me amend that, please: the Python was the Cadillac of American revolvers. Current production Pythons are weak imitations of their predecessors.

They did revive a couple of models, the Python Elite and the Anaconda (the latter has the new action), but those are on the verge of extinction again for lack of interest.

The "lack of interest" is due to the fact that very few people are willing to pay $1,200 for a revolver with a trigger as bad as anything that ever left the Smith & Wesson factory and a finish inferior to that of the average Ruger. I'd be delighted to pay that much for a real Python, but the Python Élites on the market today are fraud in blue plastic boxes.

 

[HSMITH]

Why is the Python worth double what a good Smith costs? Well, it isn't. That IS what they cost though. If you want one you pay the price.

 

[Bullet]

I agree with HSMITH.

 

[MrPhil]

I haven't purchased a new gun in years. Generally can't afford it. The few Colts I've seen are priced beyond my means. A good friend has an older Python. Frankly, except for finish, my Smith 686 is a better gun.

 

[Wil Terry]

WELL, I HATE TO TAKE A WHIZ ON ANYONE'S PARADE, BUT..

I have had three Pythoms over the years. None of them would shoot worth a hoot in hell with 357MAG ammunition of any kind, type, or gender. Both my K38 and the M36-1 would and could outshoot those three pythons with any kind or style of 38SPL ammunition, though the third Python did shoot 38 wadcutters quite well.
Now this may be nothing more than luck of the draw but you'll be an old gray haired curmudgeon--I am already one-- before you ever see another COLT PYTHON darken the insides of my gunbox or safe. In all candor I do believe the Python is the most over rated, over priced, sixgun ever foisted upon the American public.
I have owned every style of every model in every barrel length of Smith&Wesson 357MAG sixguns and to the last gun all of them would outshoot those three Pythons with any kind of 38SPL or 357MAG ammunition.
So, in hindsite I still have a suspition that it was nothing more than luck of the draw, but I'll never buy another without test firing it first.

 

[denfoote]

Average smith Vs Python

I dare say that I'd put my 28-2 up against any python!!
And that IS pretty bold talk for a four eyed fat man!!!

 

[thatguy]

Worth is in the eye of the consumer. There are reasons for the Pythons expense, such as the great amount of hand-fitting that goes into them. Does that make them worth the price? I dunno, but I have two and you bought one so maybe it does.

The typical Python is extremely accurate. Mine shoot as good or better than any S&W revolver I have owned. Colts bored their barrels .001 inch smaller than S&W did and the Colts usually shot better with lead bullets because of this fact.

A 28 against a Python? If you're comparing relative strength, OK, the Smith wins. Fit and finish? No contest unless the Colt was assembled during a union strike. 99% of the Pythons I have seen were fitted like Swiss watches and the finish is outstanding. The 28? Well, it makes a nice working gun which what S&W intended.

 

[PlayTheAces]

I have both a Python and a 28-2, both in 6". They are both accurate as heck. Offhand, I'd say the only handgun I own that outshoots them is a MKII-10" with a scope.

The Python is the prettiest of the two, no doubt about it.

They both have superb actions, but different. If you've shot a S&W and a Colt side by side, you know what I mean. The colt has a longer pull.

But, as accurate as the two are, the S&W is marginally better for me. I've shot both off a bench at 25 yards with the same ammo several times, and the S&W always turns in slightly tighter groups.

Course, with a different shooter, the Colt might come out on top.

 

[Black Snowman]

Easy answer to this one . . .

free market supply and demand econimics.

 

[SnWnMe]

The Python has the old 1900's Colt action that requires extensive fitting of each and every part by a highly trained 'pistolsmith/assembler JUST to work.

Is the action design all that special?
ALL my Smiths are based on an 1899 action

Pythons have nice finishes. Would love to use one for gun games just to see if it can run with Smiths in FAST da shooting.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Is the action design all that special?

Truth to tell, it's not. The design is finicky, antiquated, and redundant. When all's well, it delivers an extremely fine single action trigger pull—but that's it. The double action pull stacks heavily, which most shooters today dislike. The cylinder's lock up is very tight, but realistically speaking, it's tighter than it need be.

There's no reason a very well tuned Smith & Wesson revolver couldn't deliver as crisp and light a single action pull—except that it's almost impossible to find a gunsmith who's content with nothing short of perfection.

All that saidâ„¢, I have five Pythons, and am currently looking for a sixth. It just won't be a current production model: that's all.

 

[bg]

Back in the late 90's, I heard that Colt was going to stop making the Python
so I went and bought a Royal Blue in 6" for I think it was 640. It was new
and looks like late 70's or early 80's made from what I can tell by the
lil owners manual that came with it. I've never shot it. It just sits in a gun
bag in the safe. I thought I'd be slick and buy something that wouldn't be
made again and it'd collect some valve in the coming days..

When Colt started makin' em again, that pretty much rained on my parade..
I guess one of these days I'll go and fire it, see how it shoots and the like.
Just never know how things will go, I guess..

Here's a pic of it with it's two brother's. 2g SAA, and a Mk IV Ser.80 GM.
I have a set of Hogues grips on it as I don't have a full right hand anymore
and it gets a lil hard to hold it with the stock Colt walnut grips..Oh well.
http://pic14.picturetrail.com/VOL544/713502/1204867/19134110.jpg

 

[41mag]

Those are real nice bg.

They are also examples of three of the four guns that come to my mind when someone says COLT.The fourth being the M-16.

 

[bg]

Those are real nice bg.

They are also examples of three of the four guns that come to my mind when someone says COLT.The fourth being the M-16.

Thank you. That's nice of you to say so.

 

[sadp40]

you want a fine colt revolver

that won't cripple your bank account? get an official police i have one made in 1950 that will outshoot my friends python all day any day and in my humble opinion the most overrated colt is the diamondback sure it looks snazzy but it still won't hang with my OP in finish or accuracy or anything else. there i said it i feel better.

 

[JohnBT]

There is something to be said for looking good while you're shooting (even, or especially, if you're not a good shot.)

And I wonder how many of the folks who think a Python costs too much are making monthly payments on a new vehicle instead of driving something a little older.

John

"They cost what they cost." - Arnold Jewell

 

[BigG]

The old style Colt DA required lots of hand fitting because, IIRC, the machinery used to make them dated back to the early days of Mr. Sam. It was just plain clapped out and could not be calibrated, or so I remember. They just got close with the machine, then got to work with the files, etc. Jim Keenan or Ole Fuff would know fer sure.

I had a NIB Python and while nice, I have never felt they were the equal let alone better than a comparable S&W, but that's me. I look at the Python as sort of analogous to a Walther PPK; great looking, sexy as hell, but not that great and surely not worth the premium price. Actually, that's a little unfair to the Python, since I truly believe the PPK is a worthless, albeit racy looking, POS, whereas the Python is a usable revolver despite the frills.

Also, I don't think anybody mentioned this: Colt used a different rifling twist than S&W in their 38/357. It was more accurate with wadcutters AFAIK.

If I were to buy another it would be the old style in perfect condition and nickel, I would hope. YMMV

 

[41mag]

There is something to be said for looking good while you're shooting (even, or especially, if you're not a good shot.)

So,how didja know that I can use all the help I can get?

 

[JohnBT]

Re: being a poor shot: I was talking about me.

I would expect the Python to be good with wadcutters - hasn't it been primarily used as a single-action target pistol? I know that the one my father shoots the most is quite accurate with Federal Match-somethingorother wadcutters(I found him an old case of them at less than half price, too.)

Of course, I expect that the mention of shooting targets single-action with wadcutters will likely lead to a discussion similar to the one about why we can't shoot cases of full-power .357s through J-frames - you know, "Well, it's marked .357 isn't it? And it's double-action isn't it? So why can't we?" The answer is to use the right tool for the job at hand.

John