I have a S&W 586 that has been a pretty good performer but have never had a chance to get my hands on a Python. Anybody have both and can give an accurate assessment as to which one would be the better performer? In other words, would I be justified in plunking down the cash for a Python or wouldn't I be gaining anything other than the collector status of the Python.
Colt Python vs. S&W 586
USMCGrunt8892
21 - 33 of 33 Posts
Joined
·
8,178 Posts
I have had both, and the 586 was one revolver that I personally could not hit the broad side of a barn with if i was standing inside it. My friend who is goofy-foot (or southpaw if you prefer) could punch the eyeballs out of a flea with it at any distance up to around 50M. His groups would open up a little the further down range he went.
I could shoot my Python with great accuracy and confidence, right alongside. I once hit 5 out of 6 4" clay birds on a berm at 96 paces with it. I routinely ring the gong at 65 yds with my son's .45. ( but not with mine?....go figure.)
I traded the 586.
I reckoned the revolver was one that would not go on target well, but it did group fairly well.
In November, I had opportunity to re-acquire a 586 that the seller had shot a few times, with excellent results.
What I can do with it still remains to be seen, but I am optimistic.
I am hot to get some good performance out of it.
The Python was and is the easiest handling, best shooting, most accurate .357 in my pile.
![Image]()
![Image]()
These are them.
I could shoot my Python with great accuracy and confidence, right alongside. I once hit 5 out of 6 4" clay birds on a berm at 96 paces with it. I routinely ring the gong at 65 yds with my son's .45. ( but not with mine?....go figure.)
I traded the 586.
I reckoned the revolver was one that would not go on target well, but it did group fairly well.
In November, I had opportunity to re-acquire a 586 that the seller had shot a few times, with excellent results.
What I can do with it still remains to be seen, but I am optimistic.
I am hot to get some good performance out of it.
The Python was and is the easiest handling, best shooting, most accurate .357 in my pile.
These are them.
Joined
·
217 Posts
The Smith & Wesson L-Frames (586 and 686) are really great guns but the Python is hand tuned from the factory and out of the box a smother trigger mechanism than any Smith. Accuracy is the shooter. The cost value of the Smith's are certainly cheaper than the Python, which give them a boost for a shooter but the Python is a collector since they are no longer being made, I've carried a Python for years and only changed over to a Combat Commander 10 years ago and now the Defender. I would pit the Python against any other revolver for both smooth operation and accuracy - in my opinion - but then, I bought they Python when they were still producing them and during the '70's they weren't that expensive!
Al
![]()
My Python and my Smith
![]()
686 and my old issued Smith
![]()
Model 65 SAPD.
Al
Joined
·
17,584 Posts
I've never owned a S&W L-frame but understand the reason behind them...to build a stronger frame that won't have the issues the K-frame did with steady .357 diets. Not only did Smith do that...they also felt the need to copy the Python profile to give it some more class and maybe make potential buyers think they had a pseudo-Python. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
While I've never felt the desire to own a L-frame Smith, I've owned several K-frames along the way. The only one I still own is a Model 19-4 which is the first handgun I ever purchased. I had a police trade-in Model 10HB which I should have never sold...as smooth as a revolver could get. I was issued a Model 64 for most of my time as a law enforcement officer...I specially selected it when a new shipment of revolvers came it...it was the most accurate out of the box of any. It was an outstanding revolver.
Where the rubber meets the road...I could shoot the same scores with that Model 64 on the range as my Python...the Python grouped a bit tighter but the score sheet was the same...I never shot less than 295 out of 300 with either...and with the Python I shot 300/300 five times consecutively.
While I've never felt the desire to own a L-frame Smith, I've owned several K-frames along the way. The only one I still own is a Model 19-4 which is the first handgun I ever purchased. I had a police trade-in Model 10HB which I should have never sold...as smooth as a revolver could get. I was issued a Model 64 for most of my time as a law enforcement officer...I specially selected it when a new shipment of revolvers came it...it was the most accurate out of the box of any. It was an outstanding revolver.
Where the rubber meets the road...I could shoot the same scores with that Model 64 on the range as my Python...the Python grouped a bit tighter but the score sheet was the same...I never shot less than 295 out of 300 with either...and with the Python I shot 300/300 five times consecutively.
Joined
·
3,371 Posts
Frame sizes make them apples to oranges. Whereas the L frame is a straight competitor to the I frame, and why holsters will fit either make.
Welcome to the Colt Forum and, above all, thank you for your service!
We had this discussion, a while back, but it involved a Korth .357 vs Python if memory serves. I was a range safety officer for many years back in Texas and shot a variety of .357 revolvers, including the Korth, the S&W 586 and 686 and Pythons.
The two largest variables were barrel length and loadings. A small group of us settled on specific loadings for each gun; 4, 6 and 8 inch barrel models. The 8 inch barrel guns did not always win the competition. That surprised me. My S&W 627 would routinely out-shoot the Korth. The 586 and 686 with like barrel lengths would shoot nearly identically but not as accurate as the 627. The Python 6 inch model out-shot them all, including its 8 inch brethren. Call it being more familiar and comfortable with that particular firearm but the results were always the same.
S&W 627:
Pythons 4 & 6 in barrel:
Joined
·
3,992 Posts
What about "none of the above?"
It's the front-heavy full-lugged barrel that puts me off of both the Python and the L-Frame Smith & Wessons. Still like to take the Python out to the range for exercise on occasion.
Truth be told, the N-Frame Smith & Wesson Model 27 (and Model 28) are personal favorites with K-Frames running a close second and that the Colt 3 5 7 being very close as well as it offers the best of the Python without the clumsy full-lugged barrel.
Only personal opinion.
The .357 Magnum revolvers currently on hand.
A "late addition" acquired after the first photograph was made.
It's the front-heavy full-lugged barrel that puts me off of both the Python and the L-Frame Smith & Wessons. Still like to take the Python out to the range for exercise on occasion.
Truth be told, the N-Frame Smith & Wesson Model 27 (and Model 28) are personal favorites with K-Frames running a close second and that the Colt 3 5 7 being very close as well as it offers the best of the Python without the clumsy full-lugged barrel.
Only personal opinion.
The .357 Magnum revolvers currently on hand.
A "late addition" acquired after the first photograph was made.
I own 1 python and 4 686’s. While I admit the older Python is a thing of beauty and craftsmanship. I’d rather have the 4 S&W in each of the barrel lengths than 1 python with money left over for ammo. I’m a shooter and not a collector so I’m looking at the most bangs for my buck. Pun intended
Joined
·
292 Posts
I own two Pythons, 1 in .38 special with the 8" barrel and 1 .357 with a 6" barrel. I shoot my 6" 686 and look at the Pythons.
Joined
·
3,371 Posts
That clumsy full lugged barrel is partly responsible for the great accuracy due the treatment they received during production. However, I agree with the barrel heavy nature of them, including the S&W models.
This is why Colt should have never quit hollowing the underlugs in '67. Have you ever felt a Python, 4" or 6" barrel, with the hollow underlug? I had a '64 nickel Python with 4" barrel and that thing balanced great and wasn't muzzle heavy at all because the hollow lug. I'm sure the 6" benefited from that even more. Alas, it was a way to cut cost, along with many other small details they gave up around the same period.
I like to stick with 4" or 2.5" barrel Pythons for duty, but the 6" or longer for hunting. Still wish the 6" and longer had hollow lugs. It doesn't matter on the 2.5" models though, which I really love as an overall duty/combat piece.
Joined
·
7,299 Posts
Thats why I always liked my troopers. Right now I have a Trooper and a Python, both in 4"s. Not only the full length solid ejector housing but the vent rib contribute to the extra barrel weight. Otherwise mechanically they are the same gun. Another thing, yes the BLUE Python has a higher polish but I own a nickle Trooper and a nickle Python. The nickle and polish on the Trooper is just as good as on my nickle Python. Of course the trooper has been used more than my Python but the Trooper looks better than it does on my bad picture. Shoulda cleaned it up.
![Image]()
Joined
·
7,299 Posts
Joined
·
741 Posts
I like my guns like I like my women.... with a bit of variety. I just take some (686) out to play more often.
![]()
![]()
![]()
21 - 33 of 33 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
