Colt Forum banner

COLT PYTHON REVIEW FRUSTRATION

5K views 25 replies 18 participants last post by  azshot 
#1 ·
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.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
There are no standards required to be a journalist. Sadly...that holds true throughout the journalistic profession...not just gun writers. All you need to do is to generally be able to conjugate and string some words together and look good if you have a job on camera.

Also...keep in mind that gun magazines...like others...have to make a profit to stay in business. If they say bad things about an advertiser's product the ad money could disappear. If the writer says something good about an advertiser's product the inaccuracies don't matter as long as the publicity is good. Besides...do you really believe some of the management at Colt really understand their product? They're businessmen first and gun people last.
 
#4 ·
I truly do understand what you are saying. My frustration originates from my experiences with Colt revolvers over 30+ years in business and my experiences with the new Colt Python due to owning a 4.25" and a 6" plus performing action jobs on several. The Python is a revolver with numerous features that set it apart from the rest. None of these were really mentioned and this clown didn't even understand how the basic lockup of a Colt Python worked. The new Python is an excellent revolver. I want to see it succeed and I want to see Colt succeed. This review was so incompetently executed it presented virtually no reason to purchase a Python over a 686, which to the connoisseur, there is plenty of reason to do so. This article fails to inform average shooters OR connoisseurs of the essential differences that justify $1500.
 
#5 ·
I get your point...believe me, I really do. But do you think the new generation of gun buyers who have been brought up on Tupperware guns in movies, TV shows and computer games are any more knowledgeable? Even if they are, I doubt if they care. Look at Gunbroker ads in how retail sellers describe not just Pythons but other Colts and many other guns in general...they're no more knowledgeable or using hyperbole to convince potential buyers or outright lying in their ads. The amount of disinformation is staggering. Far too many sellers think that because the gun says "Colt" on it that have a bar of gold in their hands.

Speaking for myself there's a lot of information I always assumed was correct about the Python and other Colts was wrong and I discovered my error here on the Forum from those who are genuine experts and have knowledge from having "been there and done that" when I generally only read about it.

Essentially...when you're bent out of shape due to such a review...write a letter to the editor of the magazine. Maybe it will be printed...maybe not...but you're trying to get your point across. If the editors and publishers don't know the article was missing correct information things will never change.
 
#13 ·
Great Point
Snidely!
Hey Y’all,

Colt Collector 67, EXCELLENT review of the Guns and Ammo review. I was equally underwhelmed with the review. Love the way you listed the deficiencies in Mr. Wood’s prose. I purchased a new Python (6” barrel - as it was the only pistol available when my wife suggested it as a belated Christmas present from her) and am seriously impressed with this new Colt. I have fired Pythons since the early 1980’s and think the 2020 version is superior In many ways to the Pythons of days gone. The double action is amazing in my opinion. I also own a 6” S&W 686 that has had a lot of custom trigger work done on it . . . the new Python is better out of the box.

Take Care!
Tom
Thanks Tom!
 
#6 ·
I feel your pain and that's why I stopped subscribing to G&A and a couple of others. If it's not black plastic or the latest and greatest AR knock-off, it is relegated to the "Oh yeah, this" columns.
I still glance through some of them from time to time when a friends gives me his old copies but I just don't read them like I used to.
 
#8 ·
I fear the OP does not appreciate that ALL magazines are simply folders to hold adverts. Does not matter the subject, they are beholden to their advertisers and no doubt all "stories" are written by and in close coordination with the sponsors. The articles are simply expanded ads written by the manufacturers. There are a few non-advertising sponsored exceptions, gun-tests.com, practical-sailor.com, etc....
 
#9 ·
Hey Y’all,

Colt Collector 67, EXCELLENT review of the Guns and Ammo review. I was equally underwhelmed with the review. Love the way you listed the deficiencies in Mr. Wood’s prose. I purchased a new Python (6” barrel - as it was the only pistol available when my wife suggested it as a belated Christmas present from her) and am seriously impressed with this new Colt. I have fired Pythons since the early 1980’s and think the 2020 version is superior In many ways to the Pythons of days gone. The double action is amazing in my opinion. I also own a 6” S&W 686 that has had a lot of custom trigger work done on it . . . the new Python is better out of the box.

Take Care!
Tom
 
#25 ·
A Colt Python as a Christmas present. There need to be more wives like yours in this world. Thank you for the kind words. This "reviewing thing" is only going to get worse. The old-schoolers are gone. Those taught by the old-schoolers are going. We will mostly be left with reviewers possessing "I like plastic guns and hey, revolvers are kind of pretty good!" mentalities. I would like to see a reviewer/magazine that is highly analytical. Every gun tested is compared to the best available and the final assessment is calculated accordingly in every key area. THAT is what I'd like to see. If I thought at all that I could get it off of the ground I might consider relegating my arthritic hands and failing eyesight to such a rag.
 
#10 ·
It's all subjective....
I have six Pythons and two of the new ones.... the other day I took out my 59 python and thought eh this gun isn't amazing it is cool looking but hardly amazing. Then I took out my pre-model 27 and a registered magnum...two hand built brick-sh*% house feeling guns fit and finish amazing. But its my opinion subjective....
 
#16 ·
I respectfully disagree.
The educational system is in need of some tweeking but not torn down and rebuilt. What we have now is a system that is the result of years of people who have never done the job making decisions about how it can be done better.
I am also unsure how the flawed education system relates to gun magazines in general and the original Python review.
 
#18 ·
Blame the Internet. Writing and photography used to be paying jobs. Now that the Internet is filled with free content, blogs, videos, etc, print publications are struggling to stay afloat and cut their staff and the pay. I have been writing for magazines since the late 1980s and it's to the point I have told a few magazines to take a hike. The pay is low and the demands are high. For $200 I had to do dozens of hours of research, interview biologists, contact successful hunters, and then write a 2,000-word article on a deadline. That kind of stress for that kind of money isn't worth it. In some cases, I was making $5 an hour. The crazy thing is that $200 was high pay compared to other markets. Some magazines pay $20-$35 for a piece.

In reality, some editor probably approached someone like me and asked if he could write a piece on a Python if they sent him one to play with for a few weeks. In my case, I would do some research, talk to folks like you, if I could find someone like you, shoot a few hundred rounds, take some photos, and write the piece based on my limited knowledge. And no, gun writers don't get to keep the guns. I have to buy any I want to keep at prices slightly below what you can buy them for on Bud's.

It is true that gun manufactures will pull advertising from magazines over a bad review. If the review gets pulled before publication, the writer gets zero pay. I have seen it. In today's market, gun magazines aren't swimming in ad revenue so it's either shut down the presses and lock the doors or do what the gun manufacturers want.

In all seriousness, who really reads an article to decide if they should buy a gun? The biggest reason folks buy a gun magazine is to read articles to justify their recent purchase or their next purchase.
 
#20 ·
A question re "sleeved barrels" - certainly true that tensioning is the intent with respect to Dab\n Wesson use of the set up - my 8" Model 15 DW does more than hold its own against my 8" nickel Python 38 Target model. I'm not so sure of Smith & Wesson use of the two piece sleeved barrel. It certainly came out with Smith's economizing on things such as finish, MIM and extensive use of cold rolled pins and no groove top straps. If not for economy it may have created that impression.
 
#21 ·
I have a soft spot for the old time gun writers. There is as much useful non-current information in the work of those guys as there is worthless current information from the ' new breed'.
This does not imply that there are no outstanding modern gun writers, just that the field is pretty deep, and the best ones are harder to find.
I will still peruse the used paperback Digests for particular writers, whose exceptional attention to the facts & details is rivaled only by their authentic, original style.
I should say that it can be more than a little discouraging when the writer knows significantly less about his subject than I, the reader, does. The newest word ain't necessarily gospel.
With any luck, there will always be some capable dedicated guys to pick up the slack.
 
#22 ·
The difference between writers then and now is expertise. Elmer Keith to Mike Venturino were experts at guns. Other gun writers had long history with law enforcement, hunting, cartridge development, or manufacturing. Or all of these! They wrote from their experience. Today, expertise is something you gain from reading the internet for an afternoon, or joining a topical forum and asking questions for a couple weeks. Then - presto! You're now a gun journalist telling everyone in the world what they should know! Except, you don't really know it.

I've done some writing in hobby magazines the past few years. I've also been a technical writer for my career for over 25.... Most magazines I've approached with ideas for an article in the past 13 years reply right away, "SURE! We'd love for you to write that for us....we can't pay you of course....but will send you 4 copies of the issue it's published in!"

That's the way it was done in the past, you offered article ideas to mags....they accepted it and commissioned you. I actually did that for Backpacker Magazine about 10 years ago, about a VERY unknown hiking area and hot springs. They turned me down. About 1 year later I picked up a Backpacker mag, there was an article about the hike I had proposed! They probably got some teenager hack to walk up there and write it, after hearing the idea from me.

Content today is supposed to be free. You see it here all the time with posts such as "Can someone that has the SAA book look up if mine is in the blah?" Could someone scan that and post it? Anyone know the best way to blah?" All of this used to cost you. Either a book or a magazine. Today "It's All FREE on the Internet!"
 
#23 ·
The gun writers of the past were an unusual bunch to say the least...they often had hardscrabble lives in their formative years and had unique ways of writing...getting to the point quickly and in "flowery" words. They were to writing about guns as Tom McCahill was to writing about cars.
 
#26 ·
I miss magazines that were written by known, internal journalists. But those days are gone, no one wants to go buy a hardcopy mag anymore. People "might" buy a web magazine, but I doubt it. Whenever a newspaper or journal asks you to subscribe after 10 free viewings, for a cost, most people decline and just go looking for more free content. Read my post above if you haven't. I've been a content provider, writer, for about 25 years as the main part of my roles. It's changed quickly. "Everything is free" means you don't make money by being an expert anymore.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top