Nobody likes a whiner. I don't want to be one, but the April 2020 issue of Guns & Ammo had a review of the new Colt Python (by Keith Wood) that has given me reasons to whine. I am of the opinion that many younger gun writers are not qualified to do the job. Sure, they can construct artistic sentences and provide accurate assessments of plastic pistols but sometimes beyond that, they are not qualified. I believe the Guns & Ammo review of the new Colt Python is a prime example of modern-day unskilled gun reviewing.
To review a gun properly, you need to thoroughly understand it. Keith Wood obviously does not understand Pythons. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but if I was a Colt Rep or Exec, I would be madder than all hell about this review, which essentially tells us, nothing.
Rather than wax poetically about the review's shortcomings, I will provide an itemized list.
1) He states that the reason for the original Python's demise was the buying publics' preference for semi-automatic pistols.
2) The TV Series "The Walking Dead" was a big part of the skyrocketing used-Python values.
3) He mentions the updated lockwork kind of in passing. The main fragility issues (it would appear) were blown top straps. The fragility apparently wasn't timing, timing, or timing, it was blown top straps. So, the big news is that Colt increased the top strap by 30% and is using a stronger stainless alloy. While this is true and beneficial, rather than providing key details about the lockwork improvements, his descriptions make the new Python sound more like a "Python Replica" as opposed to what it REALLY is, an evolved Python.
4) He mentions that Colt didn't skimp by using a sleeved barrel. Well no, they didn't. His explanation behind the "sleeved barrel concept" makes it appear that the only reason for a sleeved barrel on a revolver is to slash costs. He is wrong. The typical reason for a sleeved barrel is to provide lengthwise "tensioning" which can theoretically increase accuracy. It was stupid to even bring it up.
5) He compared the action feel of the new Python action to..... an Anaconda. TOTALLY different animals. Right now, you compare a new Python action to an old Python action, or you don't bother.
6) A contributor to the superior double-action trigger pull are the long bolt stop leads. What???
7) He noted play in the cylinder, which he says, quote: "Isn't always a bad thing". Mr. Wood; pull the trigger, keep it pulled, then attempt to wiggle the cylinder. It's called "Bank Vault Lockup".
8) I guess the grips don't have "Rampant Colt" medallions but rather "Prancing Pony" medallions. Hey; read the article. You can't make this stuff up!
9) "Surprisingly, the heavy 158gr bullets shot best". Um, yes Mr. Wood. Pythons have always preferred heavy bullets due to the rifling twist.
10) In the end, he heaps lavish praise onto the Python, then said "However, this isn't the same Python from 1955". I really feel that it's safe to ask: "How in the hell would he know?"
11) THEN he says: "Not to offend collectors, but the new Python is in many ways superior to the original". At last, he did get something right, but I really don't know how he did it.
To review a gun properly, you need to thoroughly understand it. Keith Wood obviously does not understand Pythons. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but if I was a Colt Rep or Exec, I would be madder than all hell about this review, which essentially tells us, nothing.
Rather than wax poetically about the review's shortcomings, I will provide an itemized list.
1) He states that the reason for the original Python's demise was the buying publics' preference for semi-automatic pistols.
2) The TV Series "The Walking Dead" was a big part of the skyrocketing used-Python values.
3) He mentions the updated lockwork kind of in passing. The main fragility issues (it would appear) were blown top straps. The fragility apparently wasn't timing, timing, or timing, it was blown top straps. So, the big news is that Colt increased the top strap by 30% and is using a stronger stainless alloy. While this is true and beneficial, rather than providing key details about the lockwork improvements, his descriptions make the new Python sound more like a "Python Replica" as opposed to what it REALLY is, an evolved Python.
4) He mentions that Colt didn't skimp by using a sleeved barrel. Well no, they didn't. His explanation behind the "sleeved barrel concept" makes it appear that the only reason for a sleeved barrel on a revolver is to slash costs. He is wrong. The typical reason for a sleeved barrel is to provide lengthwise "tensioning" which can theoretically increase accuracy. It was stupid to even bring it up.
5) He compared the action feel of the new Python action to..... an Anaconda. TOTALLY different animals. Right now, you compare a new Python action to an old Python action, or you don't bother.
6) A contributor to the superior double-action trigger pull are the long bolt stop leads. What???
7) He noted play in the cylinder, which he says, quote: "Isn't always a bad thing". Mr. Wood; pull the trigger, keep it pulled, then attempt to wiggle the cylinder. It's called "Bank Vault Lockup".
8) I guess the grips don't have "Rampant Colt" medallions but rather "Prancing Pony" medallions. Hey; read the article. You can't make this stuff up!
9) "Surprisingly, the heavy 158gr bullets shot best". Um, yes Mr. Wood. Pythons have always preferred heavy bullets due to the rifling twist.
10) In the end, he heaps lavish praise onto the Python, then said "However, this isn't the same Python from 1955". I really feel that it's safe to ask: "How in the hell would he know?"
11) THEN he says: "Not to offend collectors, but the new Python is in many ways superior to the original". At last, he did get something right, but I really don't know how he did it.