Colt Forum banner

21 - 40 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
You seem to be missing the fact that regardless of securing process, you'll have to tighten screws on any revolver that has them.
Do you know for a fact that a medium grade thread locker is somehow inferior to a friction fit in an older revolver? Is it within the realm of possibilities the new revolver will actually go longer without having to tighten screws?
My 2018 SAA has thread locker, and I have had zero problems thus far.
Please re-read my previous posts. Once again, I have stated above that this is a part of general revolver maintenance. The hard steel makes it much harder for the screws to get enough torque from a flathead screwdriver. This is why friction fit is superior, as the harder steel makes the screws more likely to loosen on a regular basis. The MR 73 has a very hard tool steel frame. This could have been an issue, but the designers were smart enough to include a hand slot/window like on a S&W revolver. I only bring this up to provide an example of something that can be done to alleviate this issue.

The issue here is that this combination (pressure fit hand and very hard steel) makes a newly designed, expensive revolver entirely dependent on an adhesive to function.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
What is the functional advantage of using harder steel for the screws themselves? It seems that Colt didn't plan for anything special with the screw material since they were caught flatfooted with the loose side plate issue initially in the pre-loctite production days.
It is the combination of the screws themselves and the softer metal sideplate (of other revolvers) that creates the required friction fit on a sideplate. Screws come loose on any gun, but the hard steel and pressure fit hand creates this unique phenomenon. Colt was obviously trying the use a harder steel to improve durability. However, this one issue is something they overlooked or simply did not care about (as evidenced by the initial launch). They should have implemented another design improvement to keep the hand more secure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
That's interesting, but it offers no evidence that the old way of securing screws is superior to the new way, other than your speculation on metallurgy.
I can speculate that screws secured with threalock is the superior method. So that makes two speculations. It's all just an intellectual exercise until you start pumping rounds down range, and I don't sense you have done that...just speculating.

As for the need for a window for the pawl. I think between that and the screws, you have talked yourself out of a Colt and into a S&W.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
That's interesting, but it offers no evidence that the old way of securing screws is superior to the new way, other than your speculation on metallurgy.
I can speculate that screws secured with threalock is the superior method. So that makes two speculations. It's all just an intellectual exercise until you start pumping rounds down range, and I don't sense you have done that...just speculating.

As for the need for a window for the pawl. I think between that and the screws, you have talked yourself out of a Colt and into a S&W.
I have my opinion on the matter and you have yours. I should have stated that in a previous post. In my opinion it is superior because it does not potentially loosen as easily, can be secured with a flathead screwdriver, and does not require threadlocker to ensure proper function. However, it is a fact that the gun uses a much harder steel than many other revolvers and the hand is held in with pressure alone. I used an example of a gun that requires constant mainenance (or thread locker) to keep screws in. I have nothing against thread locker. However, that still does not get to the heart of the issue.

What we have here is an expensive revolver, that requires the use of a medium strength adhesive to function. The engineers should have added another method to secure the hand in place. You do not need to be an engineer, a metallurgy expert, or "put rounds down range" to see that completly relying on a glue for a modern revolver design to work is completely insane.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
"You have talked yourself out of a Colt and into a S&W"

When it comes to the current offerings S&W is not perfect either. Quality control and customer service has a ...shoddy reputation to say the least. I also discussed a design flaw on three current production S&W revolvers in a previous post. The revolver market needs more competition. Making the new Colt Python a better gun for defensive use is a good thing for the market. There is nothing wrong with suggesting a change that can make a product better and improve the revolver market overall. Also, the reason I mentioned the S&W frame window/slot is due to the unique problem this gun has.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,065 Posts
"You have talked yourself out of a Colt and into a S&W"

When it comes to the current offerings S&W is not perfect either. Quality control and customer service has a ...shoddy reputation to say the least. I also discussed a design flaw on three current production S&W revolvers in a previous post. The revolver market needs more competition. Making the new Colt Python a better gun for defensive use is a good thing for the market. There is nothing wrong with suggesting a change that can make a product better and improve the revolver market overall. Also, the reason I mentioned the S&W frame window/slot is due to the unique problem this gun has.
Well the bottom line is Colt has already been down the path you suggest back during the 1st quarter of 2020. You are not plowing new ground as they say, 2nd S&W I used to be a fan of some of their stuff but the crazy hole they have in the frame kills them 100% for me. Very sad for S&W however, there are many just like me who have put them in the no go category and there are others who the look does not bother..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Well the bottom line is Colt has already been down the path you suggest back during the 1st quarter of 2020. You are not plowing new ground as they say, 2nd S&W I used to be a fan of some of their stuff but the crazy hole they have in the frame kills them 100% for me. Very sad for S&W however, there are many just like me who have put them in the no go category and there are others who the look does not bother..
I completely agree on modern S&W revolvers. The internal lock is a slap in the face to anyone that has ever supported that company. The "lawsuit" excuse is BS as well. Ruger removed internal locks on some revolver models and did not get sued into oblivion. S&W simply does not want to spend the coin to go back to the old frame shapes. Also, the lack of a gas ring on the 66-8, model 69, and new model 19 revolvers is crazy as well. The funny thing is that the 66-7 had a full forcing cone AND a gas ring. The myriad of QC issues and bad customer service reports are the icing on the cake. This is why I want Colt to make the best products possible. Revolver fans need more options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,468 Posts
I have my opinion on the matter and you have yours. I should have stated that in a previous post. In my opinion it is superior because it does not potentially loosen as easily, can be secured with a flathead screwdriver, and does not require threadlocker to ensure proper function. However, it is a fact that the gun uses a much harder steel than many other revolvers and the hand is held in with pressure alone. I used an example of a gun that requires constant mainenance (or thread locker) to keep screws in. I have nothing against thread locker. However, that still does not get to the heart of the issue.

What we have here is an expensive revolver, that requires the use of a medium strength adhesive to function. The engineers should have added another method to secure the hand in place. You do not need to be an engineer, a metallurgy expert, or "put rounds down range" to see that completly relying on a glue for a modern revolver design to work is completely insane.
"Completely insane"... Seriously? Just go outside and look your car. No matter how expensive it is, many assemblies would still fall apart if wasn't for thread locker. I would actually see it as completely insane if they didn't use thread locker where needed. Not only does it prevent a screw from coming loose, it will also keep it from backing out if it does come loose. I don't see a gun as anything different than any mechanical device, you use thread locker where needed and there's definitely nothing insane about it.

I'm definitely old school (and a masters degree engineer at that), but I still don't think that a different retaining system would improve the gun. You could possibly add some kind of retainer, E-clip, snap spring, cross pin or whatever you have in mind, but I can't see how that can be done without adding another source of possible failure and making the gun more difficult to work on. There's no need to over-engineer it when a dab of thread locker on the screws will take of it. If Colt had done it on the old side plate screws they would have saved the users a lot of grief. You can call those screws "superior" if you want, but the fact remains: They do come loose on a very regular basis.

The bottom line is that side plate screws that rely on friction only are not superior and far from fool proof. I have seen way too many of them come loose, and if it happens sooner or later doesn't matter. With thread locker they will not back out, period. Revolver repairs are rarely emergencies, so if you don't have any you can usually wait until you have bought some.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
"Completely insane"... Seriously? Just go outside and look your car. No matter how expensive it is, many assemblies would still fall apart if wasn't for thread locker. I would actually see it as completely insane if they didn't use thread locker where needed. Not only does it prevent a screw from coming loose, it will also keep it from backing out if it does come loose. I don't see a gun as anything different than any mechanical device, you use thread locker where needed and there's definitely nothing insane about it.

I'm definitely old school (and a masters degree engineer at that), but I still don't think that a different retaining system would improve the gun. You could possibly add some kind of retainer, E-clip, snap spring, cross pin or whatever you have in mind, but I can't see how that can be done without adding another source of possible failure and making the gun more difficult to work on. There's no need to over-engineer it when a dab of thread locker on the screws will take of it. If Colt had done it on the old side plate screws they would have saved the users a lot of grief. You can call those screws "superior" if you want, but the fact remains: They do come loose on a very regular basis.

The bottom line is that side plate screws that rely on friction only are not superior and far from fool proof. I have seen way too many of them come loose, and if it happens sooner or later doesn't matter. With thread locker they will not back out, period. Revolver repairs are rarely emergencies, so if you don't have any you can usually wait until you have bought some.
We are bringing automobiles into this now? One can make argument by anologies all day long. At the end of the day revolvers and cars are two different things. Also, I have no problem with threadlocker and have no issue with its various uses.

Yes, the old Colt revolvers used pressure to keep the hand/pawl into place. However, the combination of factors on the new gun makes it a more unique phenomenon. Also, to be perfectly frank, that was indeed one of the weak points of the design of the older Colt revolvers. Colt had years to bring this revolver to the marketplace. This should have been one of the issues addressed, especially with the harder grade of steel. With the benefit of hindsight and new production techniques, this should not be a potential fail point on the new gun.

I love Colt and I love revolvers. I want the brand to succeed and it would be nice if there were more small, medium, and full size defensive revolvers on the market. In my mind, I could never defend a "modern" design that soley relies on a medium strength adhesive to function. If that angers some people, so be it. This forum should not be an echo chamber. I stand by my initial point. Blue and purple loctite are fine and dandy. However, a $1,499 21st Century designed revolver should soley not rely on a glue to work. If this does not bother you, enjoy the new Python. However, more people should know about this. Changing a firearm to be more reliable is not what I consider to be "over-engineering."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
Gun people are not very tolerant of change and they always think they know better than the engineers that actually do the job. Just one more in a LONG, unending list of complaints from people who can't handle change. Name a change in technology in the gun world, and there are legions who said it was the end of guns as we know them. Now we can't survive a gun that has glue in it.

Threadlocker with modern steels is the way to do the job; Colt got it right, you're wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
Gun people are not very tolerant of change and they always think they know better than the engineers that actually do the job. Just one more in a LONG, unending list of complaints from people who can't handle change. Name a change in technology in the gun world, and there are legions who said it was the end of guns as we know them. Now we can't survive a gun that has glue in it.

Threadlocker with modern steels is the way to do the job; Colt got it right, you're wrong.
I have nothing against change. My point was to discuss a potential change to make a gun even better. I have nothing against harder steels. I even discussed the MR 73 and how the designers of that gun avoided this problem. I have nothing against thread locker. I also agree with the other posts that state something to the nature of "using thread locker on the older guns would have been an extra layer of security." My point is that a glue ALONE should not be the ONE thing that keeps an expensive, modern revolver design working. That will never be "right" to me. Sorry to have upset you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,468 Posts
We are bringing automobiles into this now? One can make argument by anologies all day long. At the end of the day revolvers and cars are two different things. Also, I have no problem with threadlocker and have no issue with its various uses.

Yes, the old Colt revolvers used pressure to keep the hand/pawl into place. However, the combination of factors on the new gun makes it a more unique phenomenon. Also, to be perfectly frank, that was indeed one of the weak points of the design of the older Colt revolvers. Colt had years to bring this revolver to the marketplace. This should have been one of the issues addressed, especially with the harder grade of steel. With the benefit of hindsight and new production techniques, this should not be a potential fail point on the new gun.

I love Colt and I love revolvers. I want the brand to succeed and it would be nice if there were more small, medium, and full size defensive revolvers on the market. In my mind, I could never defend a "modern" design that soley relies on a medium strength adhesive to function. If that angers some people, so be it. This forum should not be an echo chamber. I stand by my initial point. Blue and purple loctite are fine and dandy. However, a $1,499 21st Century designed revolver should soley not rely on a glue to work. If this does not bother you, enjoy the new Python. However, more people should know about this. Changing a firearm to be more reliable is not what I consider to be "over-engineering."
Revolvers are mechanical devices, just as cars, air compressors, washing machines or what have you. You engineer fasteners for load and environment, and it doesn't matter if it's a firearm, a pneumatic jackhammer or a diesel engine. As a matter of fact, it's very common that engineers borrow ideas from other applications and that's what Colt did when they started using thread locker on the screws. And really: It was about time, thread locker has been around forever and has always been the go-to solution when gunsmiths want screws to stay put. It's simple, it's cheap, you don't have to worry about the steel quality, you don't have to worry about torqueing too much/too little and you don't have to worry about them coming loose. It's a 100% win compared with the old way of doing it, and there are no drawbacks.

I would really like to know why you think thread locker is more prone to failure than the old screws that were installed dry (or more than likely with a light coat of oil on them). I have old Colt revolvers coming through my shop on a very regular basis, and I would say that 10-20% of them have one or two screws that have started to come loose. I have seen hundreds upon hundreds of them, so there's no way around it: The screws are prone to come loose and back out regardless of steel alloy, torque, surface quality etc. I have seen it on blued guns, stainless guns, nickel plated guns, chrome plated guns, Parkerized guns and pretty much every flavor there is. It's simply a fact, and there's plenty of members here that can attest to that.

So if you keep that in mind: How would you keep the screws from coming loose if you don't want to use thread locker? There's plenty of ways to do it (capture screws, through pins, lock washers, drill and wire, spring and detent etc), but looking at the miniscule scale, the added cost and how frustrating it would be to disassemble and reassemble: Do you really think there's a better way than a dab of thread locker? In that case: What is it? :unsure:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
Revolvers are mechanical devices, just as cars, air compressors, washing machines or what have you. You engineer fasteners for load and environment, and it doesn't matter if it's a firearm, a pneumatic jackhammer or a diesel engine. As a matter of fact, it's very common that engineers borrow ideas from other applications and that's what Colt did when they started using thread locker on the screws. And really: It was about time, thread locker has been around forever and has always been the go-to solution when gunsmiths want screws to stay put. It's simple, it's cheap, you don't have to worry about the steel quality, you don't have to worry about torqueing too much/too little and you don't have to worry about them coming loose. It's a 100% win compared with the old way of doing it, and there are no drawbacks.

I would really like to know why you think thread locker is more prone to failure than the old screws that were installed dry (or more than likely with a light coat of oil on them). I have old Colt revolvers coming through my shop on a very regular basis, and I would say that 10-20% of them have one or two screws that have started to come loose. I have seen hundreds upon hundreds of them, so there's no way around it: The screws are prone to come loose and back out regardless of steel alloy, torque, surface quality etc. I have seen it on blued guns, stainless guns, nickel plated guns, chrome plated guns, Parkerized guns and pretty much every flavor there is. It's simply a fact, and there's plenty of members here that can attest to that.

So if you keep that in mind: How would you keep the screws from coming loose if you don't want to use thread locker? There's plenty of ways to do it (capture screws, through pins, lock washers, drill and wire, spring and detent etc), but looking at the miniscule scale, the added cost and how frustrating it would be to disassemble and reassemble: Do you really think there's a better way than a dab of thread locker? In that case: What is it? :unsure:
We are going in circles here. I will address this red herring once again. You are correct about the uses of thread locker. It is very common and is used on too many things to count. Loctite makes a great product and there is nothing wrong with using thread locker as an extra step to keep something secure. Heck, I'll throw out an example that surprisingly has not been brought up. One of the failure points on a Smith and Wesson revolver is the ejector rod. It can back out and cause the gun to fail. This does not happen very often, but most revolver guys/gals have experienced it, or will experience it. A dab of threadlocker is very helpful to prevent this from happening. Thread locker is also a great extra security step on the sideplate screws of older Colt revolvers. I have also stated that the older guns are not perfect, and the pressure fit hand/pawl on older Colts is indeed a weak point of the design when compared to the hand window/slot on a Smith and Wesson. I will concede that.

This is not just about loose screws or old designs. Loose screws can happen on any gun and checking them is a part of general revolver maintenance. The newer guns use a harder steel frame. There is nothing wrong with this. There is even one revolver, in particular, that is famous for this. However, when combined with the hand/pawl being held into place with pressure this creates a scenario where a medium strength adhesive is the ONE thing that keeps the gun fuctioning. This is one of the things that led to the lackluster launch. Threadlocker, in my mind, is nothing more than a band aid fix. Loctite blue or purple threadlocker is great, but it should not be the lone link that keeps a new revolver design working.

As for a solution, there could be different ways to help secure the hand/pawl. Heck, I am open to ideas. You touched on a great point. Right now, not many people really know about this. There is not a huge economic incentive to increase the reliability of the new Python. Adding a hand window/slot would be costly. In my mind, addressing this issue is well worth the money. However, it might not be worth the money in the mind of bean counters. That is why I posted this thread. Looking at solutions and considering their cost is a good thing. This is why I used the word "Inquiry" in the thread title. Also, you have been critical of the rear sight assembly and sight channel on the new Python. There is probably not a huge economic incentive to change that either. However, it is something that can be improved and Colt fans have the right to point that out.

At the end of the day this is subjective. Some people are not going to have a problem with a modern revolver that is entirely dependent on a glue to go bang. On the other hand, I think it was ridiculous for Colt to bring out a brand new design, with a $1,499 price tag that has this issue. Adding another method to secure the hand/pawl might be costly, but at the end of the day an added feature that improves the reliability of a firearm, that can be used to defend your life, is worth it in my opinion.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,350 Posts
Why not buy one and give a report? I think that Colt might have considered what you are possibly over-thinking. Rather, next flight, imagine how many heat and cool cycles and flex cycles the wings on your average commercial jetliner have endured.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
Why would someone pay $1,499 dollars for a gun that has a design quirk that they do not like. My point in this is to propose a change that would improve the reliability of the gun, and make those that want to use it as a defensive handgun more at ease about plunking down that kind of bread. You do not have to go out and buy something to want see an improvement on a product. You should do your research before buying something to see if it is your cup of tea. As for my other points, I have repeated them many times in previous posts. I live in a very rural area and do not fly much. I will let you and others discuss those new fangled flying machines. I think its just a fad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,468 Posts
We are going in circles here. I will address this red herring once again. You are correct about the uses of thread locker. It is very common and is used on too many things to count. Loctite makes a great product and there is nothing wrong with using thread locker as an extra step to keep something secure. Heck, I'll throw out an example that surprisingly has not been brought up. One of the failure points on a Smith and Wesson revolver is the ejector rod. It can back out and cause the gun to fail. This does not happen very often, but most revolver guys/gals have experienced it, or will experience it. A dab of threadlocker is very helpful to prevent this from happening. Thread locker is also a great extra security step on the sideplate screws of older Colt revolvers. I have also stated that the older guns are not perfect, and the pressure fit hand/pawl on older Colts is indeed a weak point of the design when compared to the hand window/slot on a Smith and Wesson. I will concede that.

This is not just about loose screws or old designs. Loose screws can happen on any gun and checking them is a part of general revolver maintenance. The newer guns use a harder steel frame. There is nothing wrong with this. There is even one revolver, in particular, that is famous for this. However, when combined with the hand/pawl being held into place with pressure this creates a scenario where a medium strength adhesive is the ONE thing that keeps the gun fuctioning. This is one of the things that led to the lackluster launch. Threadlocker, in my mind, is nothing more than a band aid fix. Loctite blue or purple threadlocker is great, but it should not be the lone link that keeps a new revolver design working.

As for a solution, there could be different ways to help secure the hand/pawl. Heck, I am open to ideas. You touched on a great point. Right now, not many people really know about this. There is not a huge economic incentive to increase the reliability of the new Python. Adding a hand window/slot would be costly. In my mind, addressing this issue is well worth the money. However, it might not be worth the money in the mind of bean counters. That is why I posted this thread. Looking at solutions and considering their cost is a good thing. This is why I used the word "Inquiry" in the thread title. Also, you have been critical of the rear sight assembly and sight channel on the new Python. There is probably not a huge economic incentive to change that either. However, it is something that can be improved and Colt fans have the right to point that out.

At the end of the day this is subjective. Some people are not going to have a problem with a modern revolver that is entirely dependent on a glue to go bang. On the other hand, I think it was ridiculous for Colt to bring out a brand new design, with a $1,499 price tag that has this issue. Adding another method to secure the hand/pawl might be costly, but at the end of the day an added feature that improves the reliability of a firearm, that can be used to defend your life, is worth it in my opinion.
With that said, I'm sure we can agree that the screw retention in the new Python is not inferior to the old Python?

Hand failure is a symptom, rather than a problem. Yes, the hand can move out a bit, but only if the screws come loose and the tightly fitted side plate moves out far enough. Also keep in mind that the grips hold the side plate in place, so the possible movement is very limited. On all the revolvers I have worked on, I have seen plenty of loose screws BUT I can not recall one single side plate that had moved enough to impede the function. A handful may have been a little out of time, but not to the point that they didn't function.

Like you said, S&W has solved it in an elegant way, but I still don't see Colt's design as a huge issue. If the gun starts going out of time you can see it as an early warning system, telling you that it's time to tighten the screws before they drop out. Regardless, you will not see any kind of dramatic failure. Nothing will break and nothing (except for possibly a screw) will fall out of the gun, and all you have to do fix it is to tighten the screws. It would indeed be a bummer in a self defense situation, but if you don't maintain your self defense gun you only have yourself to blame. If the hammer spring screw on a S&W backs out you will also have a problem, so it all boils down to maintenance rather than design.

The proper use of thread locker is definitely not a makeshift solution, even though Bubba often likes to use it as such (which may be why it has a bad ring to some). It's an established and time proven way to retain screws that are prone to come loose and in many cases it's a godsend, especially when you're talking about small screws that are exposed to vibrations. With the tread locker, Colt solved a problem that has been around since their first revolver rolled off the line and in my opinion they should have done it years ago. Strangely, they started using it on the ejector rods on stainless guns a long time ago, but not on the screws.

So when you call it a Band-Aid, what kind of drawbacks or shortcomings do you really see? You're saying that it's "the one thing that keeps the gun functioning" (which I think is a stretch), but how can it fail? Personally, I have never seen a screw come loose after the proper application of thread locker. I agree that it's cheap, but is sure works very well and that's a winner in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
With that said, I'm sure we can agree that the screw retention in the new Python is not inferior to the old Python?

Hand failure is a symptom, rather than a problem. Yes, the hand can move out a bit, but only if the screws come loose and the tightly fitted side plate moves out far enough. Also keep in mind that the grips hold the side plate in place, so the possible movement is very limited. On all the revolvers I have worked on, I have seen plenty of loose screws BUT I can not recall one single side plate that had moved enough to impede the function. A handful may have been a little out of time, but not to the point that they didn't function.

Like you said, S&W has solved it in an elegant way, but I still don't see Colt's design as a huge issue. If the gun starts going out of time you can see it as an early warning system, telling you that it's time to tighten the screws before they drop out. Regardless, you will not see any kind of dramatic failure. Nothing will break and nothing (except for possibly a screw) will fall out of the gun, and all you have to do fix it is to tighten the screws. It would indeed be a bummer in a self defense situation, but if you don't maintain your self defense gun you only have yourself to blame. If the hammer spring screw on a S&W backs out you will also have a problem, so it all boils down to maintenance rather than design.

The proper use of thread locker is definitely not a makeshift solution, even though Bubba often likes to use it as such (which may be why it has a bad ring to some). It's an established and time proven way to retain screws that are prone to come loose and in many cases it's a godsend, especially when you're talking about small screws that are exposed to vibrations. With the tread locker, Colt solved a problem that has been around since their first revolver rolled off the line and in my opinion they should have done it years ago. Strangely, they started using it on the ejector rods on stainless guns a long time ago, but not on the screws.

So when you call it a Band-Aid, what kind of drawbacks or shortcomings do you really see? You're saying that it's "the one thing that keeps the gun functioning" (which I think is a stretch), but how can it fail? Personally, I have never seen a screw come loose after the proper application of thread locker. I agree that it's cheap, but is sure works very well and that's a winner in my opinion.
As far as the comparison between the old and new goes, it is inferior in the sense that the hard steel makes it very difficult to properly torque the screws with a flathead screwdriver. Even with a softer steel, the method of retainment on the older guns was far from perfect. However, this discussion does not get the heart of the issue. It is a combination of things (discussed above) that all conspire to create this quirk. With the benefit of hindsight and modern production techniques, the new Python should not have had this as an issue. One would have expected an improvement in this area even without the combination of factors discussed above. The tolerances on the new Python are very tight (Colt admitted this in their FAQ video about Python malfunctions). There were people that experienced this issue after launch that could not tell that the screws had come loose, even after closely examining the gun. It certainly does not seem to take much loss of pressure for the hand to come out of place. The malfunctions were even sort of a mystery for a while.

I agree that S&Ws method of retainment is brilliant. The design is not perfect, as discussed above, however that was crazy foresight for a gun that has been on the market since 1899. Threadlocker is a great way to provide an extra layer of security. I do not consider it to be a stretch to say that threadlocker is the one thing that keeps the gun working. "If the new Python is working, then it has threadlocker on the sideplate screws." This is a general conditional statement. The latter part of the statement is the necessary condition. A necessary condition can stand alone, meaning that other things can impact the gun's reliability. However, that sufficient condition still "activates" that necessary condition.

As I stated before there are going to be some folks that are fine with threadlocker alone being a "fix" Low/medium strength adhesive is fine as a security blanket, however it should not be the one thing that keeps an expensive, newly designed revolver working. That is the drawback of the design, in my mind. Another retainment method would cost a heck of a lot more than using thread locker at the factory (they should have been doing that from the start and should continue even if a revision is added). However, adding a true design revision would add to the reliability of the gun and make it even better for defensive purposes. That is worth the investment cost in my opinion.
 
21 - 40 of 71 Posts
Top