Colt Resurrecting the Python?

[Salamander]

I'm going to wait patiently. After the initial "oh cool" reaction, I reminded myself that pretty much every revolver I've bought that's not a pre-lock Smith (including a new King Cobra) has been a distraction, I just shoot the older S&W K or N frames better than anything else I've tried. So, the money stays in my pocket for now. If in six or 12 months some of you are still reporting happy things, maybe I'll reconsider. I respect Colt's marketing savvy... but you get to beta test this time.

[Stephanie B]

Yep, I'm pretty sure the 4 1/4" is a Canadian thing.

Less than 105mm is the cutoff. So 4.25" is a safe length for the Canadians.

[Stephanie B]

So, the money stays in my pocket for now. If in six or 12 months some of you are still reporting happy things, maybe I'll reconsider. I respect Colt's marketing savvy... but you get to beta test this time.

Well, yeah. Remember the initial posts about the GP-100.44s and that a fair number of guns were going back to Ruger for various issues (which Ruger fixed).

Of course, if some people didn't effectively sign up to beta test new guns, we wouldn't have new guns. That seems to be the way it is, and not just for guns.

[Wondering Beard]

I'm not a revolver guy, I don't have any need for a service sized revolver in my life, yet the Python has always held an ineffable attraction for me. The reports and stories about the old Pythons (i.e. heavily stacking trigger, little capability to handle a constant .357 mag diet) kept me away from buying the ones I have seen at the LGS from time to time.

If this one can handle shooting .357s like the MR 73 or the Korth, and its trigger remains just as good as what is reported now, I'll probably get one. In other words, we'll see in one year how it all turns out.

Question: I seem to remember that the old stocks, while aesthetically in line with the gun and attractive, were never really good for shooting magnums. These new stocks look to be exactly the same as the old ones, but are they? and how good are they for shooting magnums?

[RevolverRob]

Question: I seem to remember that the old stocks, while aesthetically in line with the gun and attractive, were never really good for shooting magnums. These new stocks look to be exactly the same as the old ones, but are they? and how good are they for shooting magnums?

I don’t think anyone knows yet.

I hope this one retains the original Python grip shape and dimensions. Doing so will allow for the use of the excellent Nill grips.

[Jared]

I'm not a revolver guy, I don't have any need for a service sized revolver in my life, yet the Python has always held an ineffable attraction for me. The reports and stories about the old Pythons (i.e. heavily stacking trigger, little capability to handle a constant .357 mag diet) kept me away from buying the ones I have seen at the LGS from time to time.

If this one can handle shooting .357s like the MR 73 or the Korth, and its trigger remains just as good as what is reported now, I'll probably get one. In other words, we'll see in one year how it all turns out.

Question: I seem to remember that the old stocks, while aesthetically in line with the gun and attractive, were never really good for shooting magnums. These new stocks look to be exactly the same as the old ones, but are they? and how good are they for shooting magnums?

I had, at one time a 4” blue and a 6” stainless Python. The short version is that neither one was all that good for quick accurate DA shooting in my hands. The guns wanted to squirm upward in my grip as a six shot string progressed. I never had that problem with a Smith. I blamed it on the overall contour of the grip frame itself. The “hump” that meets the web of the hand is a little more pronounced on the S&Ws and helped anchor the gun for me.

I have no idea if aftermarket grips would have helped. Eventually, the prices on Pythons got so damn ridiculous that I liquidated my pair and honestly, never really missed either one.

I love that Colt is back in the DA revolver business. Something about it all just seems “right” to me. That said, I’ve never been able to shoot a Colt revolver as well as a Smith or a Ruger. I tried the Night Cobra a while back. Even with that model, it got smoked in a couple of range tests by my 442 and LCR. All three were in out of the box configuration.

I hope Colt sells these Pythons by the thousands, I really do. I doubt I’ll partake though.

ETA: of all the medium framed revolvers I’ve shot, the most controllable one with magnums has always been the GP100

[TCinVA]

There are several levels of QC certification and which is specified by the manufacturer. The only question and the one we won't get answered is what level are they buying their MIM parts to?

I have a feeling some of the MIM issues we've seen in the gun world is because to the gun world, MIM was a new technology. This means it was likely not terribly well understood at first and in involved a learning curve for how to get it done properly.

Then, of course, there's cost. The Glock-ization of the gun world has some benefits, but among the drawbacks it also brought was seeking to accomplish things as cheaply as possible. How good does the part need to be? Making it 10% better might come at a 30% increase in cost (the law of diminishing returns is immutable) when only maybe 1 in 10 customers will actually use it to the point where that extra 10% comes into play....

I read a post some time back, maybe here of P-F, that they had a Springfield Armory TRP with a ridiculous round count on it, something like 250K rounds or some such. It still had it's original MIM slide stop I think, I don't recall which specific piece it was but it was a key part, and was still chugging along. If they are doing MIM "right" I got no issue at all with it.

It's entertaining to tell someone who is bitching about MIM that the gears that make their automobile work are made mostly of sintered metal.

[Alpha Sierra]

It's entertaining to tell someone who is bitching about MIM that the gears that make their automobile work are made mostly of sintered metal.

And if you really want their heads to explode, tell them that those gears (and most likely the entire transmission) were not "manufactured 100% in house" by whoever's brand is on the car.

[HCM]

I don’t think anyone knows yet.

I hope this one retains the original Python grip shape and dimensions. Doing so will allow for the use of the excellent Nill grips.

One of the infomercials stated the grips are interchangeable between the new and old Pythons.

They also stated the external dimes toons are the same other than the 4.25” vs 4” barrel.

[HCM]

I have a feeling some of the MIM issues we've seen in the gun world is because to the gun world, MIM was a new technology. This means it was likely not terribly well understood at first and in involved a learning curve for how to get it done properly.

Then, of course, there's cost. The Glock-ization of the gun world has some benefits, but among the drawbacks it also brought was seeking to accomplish things as cheaply as possible. How good does the part need to be? Making it 10% better might come at a 30% increase in cost (the law of diminishing returns is immutable) when only maybe 1 in 10 customers will actually use it to the point where that extra 10% comes into play....



It's entertaining to tell someone who is bitching about MIM that the gears that make their automobile work are made mostly of sintered metal.

Another aspect of MIM is that MIM parts designed around the materiel properties of MIM are fine. HK pistols are a good example of this. The issues arise when using MIM to make parts designed around the material properties of forged /machined steel.