Problems with new Colt Pythons

JasonV

Was in a gun shop yesterday and asked if they had any of the new Pythons.
Owner said he had a couple that just came in and returned them due to timing problems. Anyone else heard this?

jimdeere

Uh oh...

Ricci.Wright

It's a Colt revolver Dude. What do you expect?? You are supposed to look at them not actually shoot them That's what S&W's and Rugers are for .Duh!!

brier-49

I have a Python I shoot a lot , nice gun. My 586 is just as smooth & accurate & I'm sure lower in price !

chiefr

Most of the people criticizing the new Pythons are the ones that have an old one they feel is worth $3 grand or more and are upset that the value of older Pythons dropped significantly because Colt started making them again.

Then there are those who paid a kings ransom for an old model and having buyers remorse.  

chiefr

Ricci.Wright said:

It's a Colt revolver Dude. What do you expect?? You are supposed to look at them not actually shoot them That's what S&W's and Rugers are for .Duh!!

Nailed it

JasonV

chiefr said:

Ricci.Wright said:

It's a Colt revolver Dude. What do you expect?? You are supposed to look at them not actually shoot them That's what S&W's and Rugers are for .Duh!!

Nailed it

I have the admit the blueing on the older ones is stunning.

BobJudy

Read the write up in the American Rifleman and even considering they might be a little biased I got a favorable impression from the article. Fit and finish appeared top notch. The author had a very favorable opinion of the trigger pull. I will have to get hands on to see for myself but it sure sounded like a winner to me. They changed the cylinder lock up and strengthened the frame. If indeed those mentioned in the original post had problems I hope it is just new product gremlins that will be taken care of. Looking at some of the premium revolver prices in the market their price doesn't seem to out of line. Will it shoot better than my Smiths remains to be seen but the cool factor is way up there. Bob

BobJudy

mrmike08075 said:

Bob,

You have struck one of my pet peeves.

It's the reason why a number of key writers left for other publications.

The NRA magazine family has never given a bad review of any gun.

Look at the Remington 51 pistol debacle...

Also one must assume that they received a hand tuned blueprinted model for there test that a gunsmith spent a bit of time making it work right...

Famously Mike venturino left after he wrote a thumbs down truthful review on a gun - and they refused to print it.

These magazines make their money from the gun companies with advertising and with gifts of guns and equipment going to writers.

The last publication or organization to give a bad gun review was consumer reports - and they suddenly ceased testing guns.

Mike

Yeah I guess it is hard to collect advertising dollars from a company you just gave a bad review. That is why I qualified my comment. Have my fingers crossed that it was accurate because I am a revolver fan. S&W does a pretty good job and Ruger builds them like tanks but we need an American "premium" revolver. Bob

select-fire

I would not think the quality control at Colt is lacking.

Ricci.Wright

"Premium Revolver" Well that depends on the criteria of the test. The Python has always been a beautiful revolver but no more so that a model 27 S&W especially a 3 1/2" gun. I grew up shooting double action revolvers fast and accurately. I could handle a DA revolver pretty well in my youth and though money was tight I managed to shoot a good selection of guns over the years and I have never thought the stack action Colt stuck in the Python was anywhere near as shootable as even a stock S&W N or K frame gun. The S&W is much less complicated than the Colt and therefore much easier to polish and smooth out a little. And yes I grew up reading in all the gun rags about the Python and how smooth it was and how accurate it was. I was always left with the impression that either the writers had never shot a S&W or were just fell of crap. If someone prefers Colt that's fine with me but with all due respect the top DA revolver shooters, and I am referring to Jerry Miculek, and Ed McGivern chose S&W for most of their serious revolver work and yes I am sure they could both shoot the wheels of any gun but mainly they went with the S&W.

select-fire

I have owned and shot them all. The Ruger is the strongest. The Smith is fine , well built and superb especially from their performance shop. The Colt is by far the smoothest. Accuracy wise it all depends what design fits the shooter. Never had a mechanical issue with any.

Grunt2

When I started law enforcement in 1974...I couldn't find a Smith or Colt .357 anywhere! I had to borrow a Ruger single six to get to work... About six months later I found a new Colt Trooper at a dealer over Forges way (100 miles)...Got to the academy in Denver but the weapon malfunctioned so many times they wouldn't let me bring it on the range... Wound up borrowing a very old S&W model 10. I took the weapon back to the dealer and they sent it back to Colt...Several months later they called and asked me to come get it. When I got home I opened the box and discovered a brand new Python!!! I thought DAMN! now that's customer service! Only problem... the box also contained about a dozen pieces of metal (from mfg?) that had damaged the bluing...Contacted the dealer who was very happy I called as the gun was not for me but another customer...Got the trooper back but it still was not functioning reliably...Ended up with a Dan Wesson for the start of my career... S&W for the most part has served me well...(Until I got my first Colt 1911...) And never looked back!

BobJudy

Ricci.Wright said:

"Premium Revolver" Well that depends on the criteria of the test. The Python has always been a beautiful revolver but no more so that a model 27 S&W especially a 3 1/2" gun. I grew up shooting double action revolvers fast and accurately. I could handle a DA revolver pretty well in my youth and though money was tight I managed to shoot a good selection of guns over the years and I have never thought the stack action Colt stuck in the Python was anywhere near as shootable as even a stock S&W N or K frame gun. The S&W is much less complicated than the Colt and therefore much easier to polish and smooth out a little. And yes I grew up reading in all the gun rags about the Python and how smooth it was and how accurate it was. I was always left with the impression that either the writers had never shot a S&W or were just fell of crap. If someone prefers Colt that's fine with me but with all due respect the top DA revolver shooters, and I am referring to Jerry Miculek, and Ed McGivern chose S&W for most of their serious revolver work and yes I am sure they could both shoot the wheels of any gun but mainly they went with the S&W.

Ricci it sounds like your  experience is a lot like mine. I have shot a lot of models from S&W, Ruger, Dan Wesson, Colt and others. Still have probably a few to many in the safe. Supposedly Colt has improved the trigger and beefed up the gun. If so then I think it might be a winner. My Smiths have always shot well but did require polishing and tuning to get the most out of them. Ruger triggers have always been the hardest for me to master but I've never wore one out. As far as Miceluk is concerned he isn't human and even in my prime couldn't do 10% of what he can with a revolver. You are right about him making any gun look good. At the risk of starting another debate - heck he even makes Mossberg look good. 😀 Bob

truthful

I canceled all my subscriptions to gun magazines years ago when it became obvious that every writer consistently exclaimed how every gun he ever reviewed was the best gun ever. Some of the old-time writers were honest, but not any of the bunch in the last 20+ years.

As to a Python, old or new, a S&W 686 is smoother and more accurate. Finish? I never saw a fancy finish on a gun that helped it run any better.

kannoneer

For a gun writer to write a review criticizing a gun is known as biting the hand that feeds you.

chiefr

mrmike08075 said:

Not to hate on colt or colt owners...

Does anybody here believe that the new python and other snake named guns are even close to the build quality and tolerances of the original run of production???

I think colt saw what some guns were selling for online and wanted a chunk of that money for themselves..

Plus I think they count on a high percentage of these guns never being fired - just purchased by collectors or speculators...

Mike

Mike, I delicately believe tolerances are not only superior, but metallurgy as well. The new Pythons are made with CNC technology which had the capability to machine in tolerances of one one-hundred thousandths of an inch. That is 1/100000th of an inch. Metallurgy, meaning both testing of processed metals and means of alloying has improved.

However and having said that, quality is determined by how much of the above Colt places into their products.  

yoshmyster

Few months late but I remember folks on youtube yapping about how the first 100/200 has issues. Even though Colt is now using less parts (15 or was it 30?) I figure they're doing less "hand fitting". I think Hickcock45 did a review and it malfunctioned. I think it was double striking the same cylinder (cylinder not turning). Give me a old S&W (pre-clinton-lock) any day.

He Dog

mrmike08075 said:

Not to hate on colt or colt owners...

Does anybody here believe that the new python and other snake named guns are even close to the build quality and tolerances of the original run of production???

I think colt saw what some guns were selling for online and wanted a chunk of that money for themselves..

Plus I think they count on a high percentage of these guns never being fired - just purchased by collectors or speculators...

Mike

Well, I am pretty impressed with my King Cobra.  I also like my Old Diamondback.  It is damn purty, but the Cobra is stainless and easy care for a carry gun.  I like the extra round over my 66-5 and I like the sights.