Colt Resurrecting the Python?

[Wondering Beard]

Frankly, I really *wanted* to like the idea of the new Python, and now—thanks to Caleb’s long track record of generally being squared away on the topic of revolvers, I’m finding my wish coming true.

That's exactly where I was and now am.

2.5-3” Python with NDLC finish

I would be all over that.

[willie]

Jetfire presented an excellent overview. I was pleased to see that he did not have distracting music. He had good lighting. He did not mumble. And this young man did not have a neck beard, praise the Lord. And he was not scratching and digging as he talked. I give him an A.

[Stephanie B]

2.5-3” Python with NDLC finish

Ruger finally releasing that scaled-up, six-shot 3” LCR

That could put me into "shaddup and take my cash" mode right smartly.

[Wondering Beard]

Here is Part 1 o @jetfire's article in Shooting Illustrated: Can the Colt Python Pass the 2,000-Round Challenge? Part I

I found the following bit interesting and raising a question as well:
"Both historical accounts and modern authors agree that one of the best features of the Colt SAA's grip was how it "rolled" recoil up, instead of slamming it straight back into your hand. This is true on the Python as well. In my career I've fired 15,685 rounds through Ruger revolvers, and 11,790 rounds through S&W revolvers, and the Colt Python has the most pleasant recoil impulse with full power .357 Mag. rounds of any medium frame revolver I've ever fired."

My question then is: if the Python's grip makes shooting magnums more pleasant by "rolling recoil up", does that make the gun more difficult to control when shooting multiple shots o full power 357s at speed?

Or maybe I just didn't understand what Caleb was trying to explain.

[Trooper224]

Here is Part 1 o @jetfire's article in Shooting Illustrated: Can the Colt Python Pass the 2,000-Round Challenge? Part I

I found the following bit interesting and raising a question as well:
"Both historical accounts and modern authors agree that one of the best features of the Colt SAA's grip was how it "rolled" recoil up, instead of slamming it straight back into your hand. This is true on the Python as well. In my career I've fired 15,685 rounds through Ruger revolvers, and 11,790 rounds through S&W revolvers, and the Colt Python has the most pleasant recoil impulse with full power .357 Mag. rounds of any medium frame revolver I've ever fired."

My question then is: if the Python's grip makes shooting magnums more pleasant by "rolling recoil up", does that make the gun more difficult to control when shooting multiple shots o full power 357s at speed?

Or maybe I just didn't understand what Caleb was trying to explain.

The short answer is, yes.

If the grip rolls in your hand during recoil, control is harder to achieve during fast DA shooting. This wasn't an issue with the SAA, since it naturally positioned the hammer closer to the thumb for cocking. This is why grip frames began to change from the plow handle shape of the SAA when DA revolvers became the norm. something was needed to secure the gun in hand to prevent it from rolling upward. The Python may be more pleasant to shoot, but that isn't the same as being efficient.

[jetfire]

My question then is: if the Python's grip makes shooting magnums more pleasant by "rolling recoil up", does that make the gun more difficult to control when shooting multiple shots o full power 357s at speed?

Yes! This is an example of me turning a design feature that I see as a negative into a positive for the "average" gun owner. I fully accept that the majority of new Pythons sold will never be shot hard or in a hurry, so for the person that's reading a Shooting Illustrated review, a pleasant recoil impulse is a selling point, vs the person that follows me where that same recoil impulse slows down fast shots.

I actually have a pet theory that Colt as a company is still enamored with single action shooting, which is why the Python has its particular set of ergonomics. The hammer spur is wide and flat and really easy to reach with the dominant thumb for cocking, the grip shape rolls recoil up and away from the shooter...placing the hammer under your thumb again.

[Wondering Beard]

Yes! This is an example of me turning a design feature that I see as a negative into a positive for the "average" gun owner. I fully accept that the majority of new Pythons sold will never be shot hard or in a hurry, so for the person that's reading a Shooting Illustrated review, a pleasant recoil impulse is a selling point, vs the person that follows me where that same recoil impulse slows down fast shots.

It's a shame.

Going by what you wrote (as I haven't even been able to coonfinger a new Python anywhere), Colt has produced a tough, reliable, accurate gun with an excellent trigger out of the box that seems to be begging to be run hard. Such a gun should work great in competition, which would give Colt even better publicity for its revolver stable (hasn't Ruger gained some on S&W by marketing revolvers specifically for competition?); such a gun would also be great as the basis for the "modern Fighting Revolver" that you advocate. But it won't with those grips.

In that other article of yours that I linked above (comparing the 686, GP100 and Python), you had basically described the Python as just what I wanted but I want to be able to run (and learn how to run well) the revolver as fighting machine not a plinking toy and those grip go entirely against that.

Now, the Python's frame (I may be using incorrect descriptors in this paragraph and will happily accept correction) has, at the top, a similar type of "hump" where the web of the hand would go that S&W has (albeit smaller on the Colt), so I imagine that creating better stocks that limit the "roll" and emphasize proper control should be doable, but I don't know anyone who does that and it would probably clash with the "expected Python aesthetic" that appeals to so many (me included), so I'm afraid they won't come to pass.

It's a shame.

P.S. When I read that paragraph of yours that I quoted, I assumed you were trying to find something positive to say about what you considered a negative, but I wanted to make sure. :-)



[QUOTE=jetfire;1206094I actually have a pet theory that Colt as a company is still enamored with single action shooting, which is why the Python has its particular set of ergonomics. The hammer spur is wide and flat and really easy to reach with the dominant thumb for cocking, the grip shape rolls recoil up and away from the shooter...placing the hammer under your thumb again.[/QUOTE]

You may be right, though, if I remember correctly, the original Python was really meant to be a bullseye type of competition gun where a lot of the shots were to be taken single action; so a wide hammer would make sense there.

[jetfire]

For those interested, here's part 2 of the article. While these were published days apart, there were written months apart. And Part 2 was written after a 500 round marathon session where I fired 500 rounds over the course of 45 minutes.

Colt Python Part 2

[03RN]

For those interested, here's part 2 of the article. While these were published days apart, there were written months apart. And Part 2 was written after a 500 round marathon session where I fired 500 rounds over the course of 45 minutes.

Colt Python Part 2

Thanks...

Nothing like a tough, accurate, good looking sixgun. I just wish I had the money for one.

Any word on replacement grips?

[Stephanie B]

For those interested, here's part 2 of the article. While these were published days apart, there were written months apart. And Part 2 was written after a 500 round marathon session where I fired 500 rounds over the course of 45 minutes.

Colt Python Part 2

This is going to cost me money.....