LOKs arrived this afternoon. They feel like a better fit in my hand than the factory stocks but the texture feels aggressive enough that long strings of magnums could get uncomfortable. Fortunately “long strings of magnums” is not on my list of things to do.
Lousy pics until I can get to the range or set up the table and light box.
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits - Mark Twain
Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy / Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
I know next to nothing about Colts but have a good grasp on S&W. I own several K frame 19's and they're just too light weight for .357. It makes my head hurt when someone tells me they bought a .357 J Frame. L is the minimum size for .357. I'm going to buy a model 27 or 28 sometime this year just so I can say I've owned decent .357.Originally Posted by mmc45414
Not really a correction, but maybe the way to think about it is really the L-frame is like the Python, in historical order. 357 was a N-frame cartridge that got adapted into the K-frame, that was awesome but probably too small for what is really a pretty brutal cartridge. The Python was big enough to handle it, so Smith pretty much mimicked the size with the L-frame (ETA: and the full lug barrel, but omitted the "vents" above the bore), at least that is the sequence of events as I recollect them (and not trying to be some butthead worrying about semantics...).
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Next on my list is a 4 5/8” Blackhawk and then a 4” 27 or 28 (preferably a 28) to (probably) round out the group.
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits - Mark Twain
Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy / Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
A Blackhawk was the second revolver I owned. I think I purchased it around 1973 when I lived in AZ. I traded it for a varmint rifle but I carried it for a few years while working in remote areas of N.AZ and CO. I've seriously thought about buying another one but I would rather have a S&W. That's all I have purchased since so a single action Ruger would look funny alongside all those Smiths.They have a nice balance though.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Just the thought of a .357 J makes my carpal tunnel and tendonitis flare up.
I read some interesting discussions regarding Colt 1917s converted to .357. Apparently Numrich used to sell a conversion kit with new barrel and cylinder when 1917s were cheap and plentiful. Some who'd never owned one said the frame wouldn't take it because they weren't designed or heat treated for .357, others said the frame is beefy enough that .357s aren't going to hurt it (including one of the principles of the Colt Fever website) and finally actual owners of said Colts reported they'd never had a problem with frame stretch or timing issues. I fall into the camp of the frame size makes it an acceptable conversion. To me it's not much different than taking a 38/44 and rechambering for .357. As with any sane conversion project, the condition of the base gun and the skill level of the one doing the conversion are where problems arise.
Balance is the reason I settled on ~4" as my Goldilocks size.* The kind of shooting I do doesn't benefit from a longer sight radius or another 50-75fps.
*The only real exception I've found is with the Ruger MK series. I recently shot a 4" and 6" Standard upper (pencil barrel) back to back on the same Standard frame and much to my surprise the 6" balanced better and was more enjoyable to shoot. I really expected to like the 4" more but that just wasn't the case.
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits - Mark Twain
Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy / Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
4'' balances nicely for me also. I have everything from 2.5'' to 6'' Smiths and found the sweet spot in 4". I just dropped a bid on GB for a 28-2 shooter. I'll be shocked if I win it because somebody always comes along a few minutes before the auction ends, finds my top and takes it. Seems like a fairly illogical way to purchase a firearm.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Paid out the King Cobra Target yesterday, range trip today and range report HERE. If I could put the LOK grips from the Kimber on the Colt it would be close to perfect to me. Unfortunately LOK doesn't offer them so I'll have to probably go with something from Altamont to get something with more texture. (And if I could put this trigger in the Kimber it would be close to perfect to me. They'd become interchangeable 1A and 1B to me).
Beauty pics:
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits - Mark Twain
Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy / Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
It would be nice if someone did a head-to-head evaluation of the new King Cobra and Python.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
Yes, it would be interesting to see detailed direct comparisons of the King Cobra Target and the Python.
My KC is a 3-inch and fills a completely different woods gun niche. In handling, it's not unlike a S&W model 13, with the fixed sights and shorter barrel. So for a direct comparison the 4-inch adjustable sight version is perhaps the one to look at.
I had both at the range last Sunday, shot slightly better groups at 7 yards with the KC but out at 25 the better sights of the Python (with the Harrison upgrade) had the edge. Even put a few downrange on 100 yard steel and got some hits.
Educated guess is that the King Cobra Target would do about as well as the Python if the main use is 38s. If more than a few cylinders of 357 are involved, then I'd prefer the extra weight of the Python (that said, in practice I usually run wadcutters through both of them, and sometimes a 38SC 125gr JHP handload at about 9mm velocities. With rare exceptions 357 goes in the cylinder only when in large critter country).
The comment about wanting to change the grips, well awp_101 is not the first person I've seen say that. I like the Hogue rubber grips on the 3-inch, but the wood on the 4-inch KC seems for some to be nice to look at, not as great to shoot... but that's secondhand info. Both have great triggers by current revolver standards, the Python's is slightly better but both are really good. The KC is more practical in some ways and a lot lighter, the Python is a work of industrial art, and priced accordingly. Both of mine have been 100% reliable, the KC is at about 800 rounds, the Python at 400. With either, plan on upgrading the sights at some point.
Well… I sold my Python to a forum member, and still have the King Cobra Carry 2”. My son has my King Cobra 3”, but it’s just a matter of time before I weasel that back into my possession. The Python is substantially larger, and that is immediately apparent. The Python’s frame is larger in every dimension. The Python is about the same size an L frame, plus a rib on top of the barrel. The Python’s extra heft could make for a more pleasant shooting experience, but I’m not recoil sensitive at all. I’d have to give the win to the KC for being easier to carry, but I don’t mind carrying a heavy revolver. Both carry the same number of rounds, so capacity isn’t a tie.
The triggers on each model are very different. The KC has an okay DA, but a very good SA. The trigger pull is very even all the way back, with a barely perceptible bit of stacking just before it breaks. The Python is very smooth, and doesn’t have any stacking. The trigger return on both models is weak compared to a Smith&Wesson, but the Python edges out the KC here. The internals of the Python are striking, with beautifully machined parts. The KC has mostly MIM internals, and a very trigger return spring. The KC’s trigger does return, however, and the spring is every much like the spring on a Beretta 92. The triggers are as different as night and day dimensionality. The Python has a wide serrated trigger, while the KC’s is narrow and smooth. I think I prefer the KC’s.
Accuracy in my hands is no contest past 10 yards. The Python shoots like my 686 revolvers, meaning it’s a tack driver. The longer barrel, extra weight, and rear sights make shooting at 25 yards easy. There’s little point in shooting the Python in single action, as its double action trigger is only 2 pounds heavier, and breaks cleaner. With some effort, the KC can be made to hit at 25 yards, but that effort is not a bonus.
My handguns are all intended for carry, and I don’t own “range guns”. The Python’s front sight is very visible to me, and Colt was nice enough to send out two for my King Cobras. Changing sights is an absolute breeze on both models.
Finish on both revolvers is great. The newer KC’s have a polished finish just as nice as the Python. I’d love to get a revolver the size of a 2” or 3” KC, but with the Python’s internals. I have 2.5” and 3” 686 revolvers, so I’m not planning to get a 3” Python, at least not until I get my hands on one.
Colt KC Carry and a Model 686+:
KC Carry and Model 36 J frame:
Last edited by FrankB; 08-28-2022 at 10:54 PM.
Reply With Quote