I used to collect vintage COLT Pythons and still have a couple of them, in the meantime I've owned several S&W revolvers, and still use a Mod 627 8 Times of the Performance Center at the range.
In my opinion you can't compare the Mod 586 with a Python, since are too different I think, and (here at least) they belong to two different price ranges.

Anyway congratulations on your revolvers and on your beautiful pictures.

 

I do like the comparison. Definitely illustrates some S&W value over the new Python, not unlike their predecessors. I final important point would be accuracy.
Vic

 

I do like the comparison. Definitely illustrates some S&W value over the new Python, not unlike their predecessors. I final important point would be accuracy.
Vic

Vic, I wish I could give a more comprehensive opinion on accuracy. Unfortunately, I went into 2020 with a limited supply of 357/38 ammo and have shot very little this year. I have taken the Python to the range only one time to get acquainted and it was incredibly easy to shoot tight groups, particularly in double action. Hopefully soon I can find some 357 or 38 ammo and add a side by side accuracy comparison to my review.

Matt

 

As a new Python owner, I sure hope some one does a write up on a trigger job. Springs, sear work, etc I am comfortable tinkering with my guns. The SA pull is my only complaint.

 

Same here. I am more than willing to tinker with a mainspring. I don't know if Colt monitors this forum. Let's hope the new Python springs become available soon.

 

Unfortunately for me the Keylock would preclude me from owning one regardless of performance. Need to buy a non key lock 7 shot 686 for a project coming up. Must say I used to be a big S&W fan back in the day!

 

I have a S&W 66-3 ( late '80s to early 90's made ) that I "kind of" use in comparison for build quality and trigger feel up against the Python.
There's just NOTHING like that buttery smooth DA pull of the Python ( mine is 1963 made. ). Seriously. With the 66 you can feel the spots where the mechanics are changing. I can only surmise the pull on the '63 in DA is what made the Python a coveted pistol.
Both require little very effort in SA but what the lbs is for pulling I've no tool to measure-don't need one- but it'd be interesting to know.
Handling and shooting the 66 gives me the idea that it is a truck-meant to be used and abused. Tough.
The Python I consider more of a luxury auto that's pampered and well maintained.
Perceptions of mine. Or an opinion. And we all know about "opinions".

 

Three weeks ago I shot six shots from my 1980 E-nickel Python then tried the 4” nickel S&W Model 19-4 I hadn’t fired yet. I didn’t touch the Python after that and don’t even remember how it grouped. I just know that the 19 to me is now my favorite double action of any make. I was considering selling the Python locally before that and feel it more so now.

 

I think the 586 Vs. Python is a great comparison. They are basically the same size revolver and they even use the same speedloaders. I've owned a 686 and considered it the closest thing S&W had to the Python and yes, I've owned a LOT of S&W revolvers, K, L and N frames!

Mbrincolt, thanks for taking the time to do the well written comparison and back it up with some great pictures. Comparisons like this are always enlightening.

My take on trigger pulls between my 686 and my 1972 Python was the same as yours for double action but the 1972 Python's single action still outclassed the Smith. The single action pull on my 2020 Python is definitely nothing to write home about though.

 

Is the barrel straight on the 586 or cocked to one side?

 

Mine seems to be fairly straight. I have seen some that were pretty far off but fortunately I got a good one.

 

Thanks so much for taking the time to do this great review. Very interesting. Great pics.

 

Great post and pictures.

The stubby hammer on the Smith looks bizarre to me, but the gun's rear sight is a classic.

 

(The Hillary Hole )This is totally unnecessary.
Semoer Fi
paul

 

Tomato, Tomoto. Hillary Hole, Keylock. Call it whatever you like.

 

(Colt did a nice job on the recessed crown. S&W made no attempt on the 586.)

Feedback to Colt indicated that Colt owners tend to drop their handguns more often than S&W owners do, hence the recessed crown😂.

Just kidding.

 

Since I have not shot or been able to handle the newer S&W or the new Python, all I can discuss is the cosmetics.

My nephew's have bought a number of S&W's in the last few years, and in general they're the smoothest finished S&W's I've ever seen. I don't mean the finish, I mean the machine work in areas like inside the frame window.
The older S&W's had a lot of machine marks left, the new are very smoothly finished.

On finish, S&W always spent their production dollar on exterior blued finish with a rougher internal finish of the frame and action parts. In the older S&W you saw a lot of burrs and heavy machine marks inside.
Colt always split their dollar better between the exterior finish and the internal machine work. The internal frame and action parts were always smoother.

The newer S&W look "off" to us old timers with the bulged frame to accommodate the lock, and the tiny hammer peeking out looking bizarre.
The lock itself is not an issue for me, and likely not for new gun owners just entering the game.

The new Python looks as good as the old models, with the only down check the grooved hammer. I think Colt should have gone the extra distance and gave us a checkered hammer at least, with the old Colt Target hammer checkering preferred.
No doubt the grooving was a dollar saving reason.
The laminated Python grips give a much nicer, richer appearance then the older Colt Target grips, especially the last versions made of very plain Walnut.

So, based on just the appearance, I'd prefer the new Python, never mind that I'm a Colt man.
The new Python looks exactly like the old Python.
The new S&W looks like the frame has bulged and the hammer has shrunk. I just can't get past that.

 

Since I have not shot or been able to handle the newer S&W or the new Python, all I can discuss is the cosmetics.

My nephew's have bought a number of S&W's in the last few years, and in general they're the smoothest finished S&W's I've ever seen. I don't mean the finish, I mean the machine work in areas like inside the frame window.
The older S&W's had a lot of machine marks left, the new are very smoothly finished.

On finish, S&W always spent their production dollar on exterior blued finish with a rougher internal finish of the frame and action parts. In the older S&W you saw a lot of burrs and heavy machine marks inside.
Colt always split their dollar better between the exterior finish and the internal machine work. The internal frame and action parts were always smoother.

The newer S&W look "off" to us old timers with the bulged frame to accommodate the lock, and the tiny hammer peeking out looking bizarre.
The lock itself is not an issue for me, and likely not for new gun owners just entering the game.

The new Python looks as good as the old models, with the only down check the grooved hammer. I think Colt should have gone the extra distance and gave us a checkered hammer at least, with the old Colt Target hammer checkering preferred.
No doubt the grooving was a dollar saving reason.
The laminated Python grips give a much nicer, richer appearance then the older Colt Target grips, especially the last versions made of very plain Walnut.

So, based on just the appearance, I'd prefer the new Python, never mind that I'm a Colt man.
The new Python looks exactly like the old Python.
The new S&W looks like the frame has bulged and the hammer has shrunk. I just can't get past that.

dfariswheel, your observations are spot on and you give great insight as always. I, like you, was disappointed in the grooved hammer on the new Python. In practice though, it has very sharp serrations that give what I would argue is an even better purchase than the checkered hammer on the older Python. I was surprised at this when I handled it for the first time. This is a far cry from the hammer on my new King Cobra with smooth shallow serrations that make it very easy to have your thumb slip off when de cocking (don’t ask me how I found out).

You can see the difference between the Python on the left and the king cobra on the right.

Matt

 

After my dad saw my new 2020 Python he wanted one for himself, but there was none to be had. To scratch the itch, I helped him tracking down a new S&W 686 that was available in town. I've shot his new 686 and can say it is a wonderful shooting revolver. I agree with the OP observations, the DA pull may not match the Python, but SA is lighter. The finish may not be as nice, but it is still a nice gun in the hands. I helped him buy some Hogue laminated rosewood grips that I hope arrive soon and it should look very nice with those on. The 686 is half the MSRP of a new Python, but definitely a worthy competitor. I'd be curious to see what a Performance center 686 would be like.

 

I don't believe the S&W L-frame was brought out to compete against the Python...two different markets. The L-frame was designed to address durability shortcomings of the K-frame with the use of .357 Magnum. Market-wise it was closer to the the Ruger Security-Six and the Colt Trooper/King Cobra revolvers...size-wise as well as price class. Due to the full barrel lug and solid rib the gun writers proclaimed it was being marketed against the Python. Maybe there's some kernel of truth to that but the Python has always had its specific market segment the others did not play in.

 

The L frame is a legend just like the Python. I have to say the walnut grips on that new 586 are as good as any custom grip I’ve seen in walnut. The polishing and bluing is first rate.

 

Pavia, I have to agree with you there. Although I prefer the Python overall, the S&W still has its own areas where it shines. I think your point about bluing is spot on. S&W managed to produce a revolver at almost half the cost as the Python and do a great job on the polishing and bluing (my finger prints and poor photography skills probably did a poor job at illustrating that). Colt says that due to cost they can no longer provide the same polishing and bluing that they used to. It’s interesting that S&W could figure it out, even Uberti does a good job polishing and bluing a low cost gun. I guess each manufacturer has their own areas where they excel and one could argue that Colt places their attention where it matters most, and that is their precision machining on fitment both externally and in their smooth actions.

 

Hey Matt,nice write up and follow ups!
Coincidentally,on the S&W blue forum I recently contributed my comparison of my legacy Python and 586!
My only remark is that I almost bought the 586 classic around 5 years ago but decided against it due to the yoke to frame gap. In my neck of the woods the thing cost retail so like $840 out the door. Just last year I landed a LNIB 586-0, primo all the way and same price.
Like you, I appreciate both revolvers!
Thanks

 

Hey denpython, you should post a link to your comparison. It would be interesting to see your take as well. Thanks for the kind words.

Matt

 

S&W introduced the "L" frame models because beginning in the 1960's American police stopped practicing with light reloaded .38 Special target grade ammo and began shooting all full power .357 duty ammo.

Famously the "K" frame models began to turn up with cracked forcing cones from the hot 125 grain Magnum loads favored by police and just couldn't stand up to the more powerful ammo.
The new "L" frame was intended to allow unlimited shooting with duty loads, but in a gun not significantly larger, like a S&W "N" frame.

So, the S&W "L" frame was not intended to compete with the Colt Python but with the Colt Trooper Mark III and later Colt models.
But, S&W virtually copied the frame and cylinder size and the cosmetics of the famed Colt Python barrel as close as they dared.

 

S&W introduced the "L" frame models because beginning in the 1960's American police stopped practicing with light reloaded .38 Special target grade ammo and began shooting all full power .357 duty ammo.
So, the S&W "L" frame was not intended to compete with the Colt Python but with the Colt Trooper Mark III and later Colt models.
But, S&W virtually copied the frame and cylinder size and the cosmetics of the famed Colt Python barrel as close as they dared.

Right in front of me on the shelf is the book “‘the Newhall Incident”. I think that horrible shoot out might be what you’re referring to that caused them to rethink practicing with .38 Specials. And also to just let empty shells fall on the ground when reloading. At Least one killed LEO there had his empty shells in his hand afterward like they did on the range.
I’ve made holsters without safety straps for Pythons, 686s, and Ruger GP100s and made them identical. Safety strap length are different I’m sure.

 

Nice insights Dfariswheel !

"But, S&W virtually copied the frame and cylinder size and the cosmetics of the famed Colt Python barrel as close as they dared."

That latter point is what I basically underscored in my Smith forum remarks to justify a comparison.

I had no idea about the true principle behind the development of the Smith L frame.

 

The 586/686 may not have been intended to compete head to head with the Python. However, these days people who are unable to purchase a Python tend to purchase a smith and wesson because it is the closest substitute available right now. I have a 1978 Python as a safe queen and purchased a 586 last year because it was the closest substitute available at the time. That’s why I thought this might be a useful comparison for people weighing the pros and cons and whether or not the added cost of the Python is justifiable.

 

Polishing on the new S&W revolvers is excellent. However there's something different, or lacking, in the bluing itself. S&W bluing used to have some depth and durability. In & out of a holster over time gave a bit of wear on the muzzle and cylinder front. The new bluing while dark seems to be surface only and very fragile. A scratch that would have produced a slight rub or shine line on an older S&W will cut down to white metal. New Smiths I've looked at get drag line pretty quickly between cylinder cuts.

I do have a new Smith 442 (no lock) and like it very much. Bought specifically for CCW, it's dependable and as referenced the action is very well done. Better than my old Centennial.

 

I think the bluing on new Smiths looks cheap, for whatever reason.

 

I have been somewhat disappointed with all the New Classic revolvers. I am much more happy with my 70s Pythons and Model 27 Smiths.

Bob

 

Well since I'm sure you're all fellow revolver fanatics, here's a great L-frame read for your Sunday afternoon:

The Smith & Wesson L-Frame Story - RevolverGuy.Com

With a company history that dates back to 1852, Smith & Wesson has seen a lot of milestones and has delivered a host of classic designs to the shooting public. Some of those favorites have come and gone from the Smith & Wesson catalog over the years, but the ever-popular L-Frame family of...

revolverguy.com

 

Fascinating article, thanks for posting. It would be interesting to hear a deeper dive explanation of the issues plaguing the Python as well. All you hear are “timing issues after extensive firing of heavy magnum loads”.

 

If you know how to remove the side plates, it would be interesting to see both revolvers with them off to compare. I understand the Python action has been totally redesigned.

 

I do and have. S&W makes great use of what I would call "geometric fit" - meaning they've been redesigned so little or no finishing is required, parts drop in and are retained by placement rather than pins. The 1st leg of the DA sear is a good example, as is the hand spring and trigger return strut. Like it or not, MIM allows for reduced finishing and leaves a pretty good surface. Much better than the 1970's "Bangor Punta" years but, just my opinion, don't slick up quite as well as plain old carbon steel.

By comparison, new Python internals look to require some fit & finish - the hand, the rebound lever. And are better finished than the S&W internals. Use of a transfer bar rather than the old hammer block safety looks like the biggest internal change. I think Colt needs to do better on the SA sear and trigger pull. Pretty lousy IMHO.

 

I just read that RevolverGuy article that Uplander posted on the S&W L frame. As I own a 1979 Python and a 2018 S&W 686, I found the article fascinating and I learned a lot. Thanks for posting!

 

WaBrit, I too loved the article. I thought it was amazing that S&W borrowed the tool from Colt used to thread the barrel.

I've never been an L-frame person- I like Ks and Ns, but the article made me want a 586.