Colt Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I’ll be reviewing the new Python in an upcoming issue of COMBAT HANDGUNS magazine. Part of the evaluation will be a shootout between my 1975-era Python 4” and the 4.25” new model. I’ll announce when the magazine is out on the newsstands .
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,101 Posts
Very cool, congrats on the writing contract. I know it's hard to scientifically compare accuracy, but if you could, use a ransom rest or such, and shoot them both at relatively long range, vs the 7 yards everyone at my range thinks pistols are made for! Also, if you could use a trigger pull gauge on them both in DA/SA it would be great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,154 Posts
Several weeks ago I put both my 2020 6" Python and 1960 6" Python up against one another...15 yards off-hand, unsupported using ammunition from the same box of ammunition and identical Pachmayr stocks. Not the best, most scientific test...a solid rest would have been better plus I had just had a cataract removed from my dominant eye and had some trouble focusing on the front sight.

The new Python was more accurate but not by a lot.


The 1960 Python balanced better in my hand due to the hollow barrel lug so it wasn't as barrel heavy...but still didn't shoot quite as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
With the new tricks and more Colt has done at the Blue Dome, the old fragile Python is vastly inferior. The new Python is better than the old one could ever hope to be, and that’s a fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
I see some questions regarding NEW Python accuracy. Let me share my factual experience regarding NEW Python accuracy.

I have a NEW 6" Python as do a couple of friends. This has been several weeks ago, but an accuracy comparison was performed. I have a couple of 357 Old Pythons and a 38 Special Target that they made in the early 80's. One of my old Pythons, blued with a 6" barrel is the one I have worked with the most. I have owned it since the mid '80s. I have hunted with it, I have done target shooting with it and I have done a fair deal of long-distance plinking. It has Eliason sights on it. I have had scopes on it and scopes off of it. I've used it in the sun and in the rain and snow. I have put around 17,000 rounds through it. I've had to re-time it a few times. The bluing is down to I would estimate 65-70%. However, it's as accurate as ever. That has not changed. Something I know about Pythons is that they love heavy bullets. 180 grain Sierras with 2400 are my Python's favorite. In a Ransom Rest, using my old 6" Python, clean with a cylinder-full of fowling shots, at 100 yards it will keep 6 shots in a group under 2". That makes it the most accurate 357 I own. A revolver that groups along-side of high powered bolt actions. Wow. This is common of the Python when you find what it likes.

Using my old Python as an accuracy reference, we grouped all 3 NEW Pythons at 100 yards using a Ransom Rest using my pet-Python handload. All three will do the same as my old 6" Python. 6 shots under 2" at 100 yards. Like my old 6" there are some groups that will hit the 1 1/2".

Fantastic! The new Pythons are slick, tougher, and clearly combine the best of the old with the best of the new. I love mine and my buddies aren't complaining either. A fantastic revolver!

I too am getting tired of accuracy tests being performed at 7 yards, 15 yards or accuracy being accessed by steel-plate hits. I want to see 25 yards, 50 if applicable, even 100 if applicable. I want to see groups shot on paper; not huge piece of paper with a human silhouette on it, but paper with an X-ring, or just shoot at a dot if nothing else! Also, I really want results with a rested gun. If they can't get a Ransom Rest, use sandbags. Don't perform accuracy tests unsupported or un-rested please. I have no interest in the author's shooting skills. I only want to know the accuracy capability of the gun itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,101 Posts
I totally concur Colt Collector. Accuracy testing is done at long range. With target guns (and the original Python was a target gun) that means 25 yards minimum. You need expert shooter skills to really compare two guns. That's why a Ransom Rest was invented. Most shooters today think fast combat style shooting is what you need to test a gun with. Usually they shoot at about 1/3 the range the gun is made for. I literally see Scoped AR-15s being shot off a bench at 15 yards all the time at my range. I usually have my 7" High Standard Trophy with me, and I love to pull it out and shoot better groups than they are, at 25 and sometimes even 50 yards. When I see someone shooting at 7-10 yards, I think "Hell, I can THROW my magazine that far and get the same groups."

It sounds like you had good results with the new one, as good as the old Python. Out of the NRA rules for precision pistol:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Outstanding! I see the same things at the shooting range here. It just wipes me out! The principles of marksmanship are in danger. When I go to the range with one of my High Standards, my Smith & Wesson 41, a Colt Officers Model revolver or a S&W Masterpiece revolver or one of my target-grade 1911s some young guys will look at me like I'm carrying a tomahawk and wearing a coonskin hat! I seriously don't understand it. I am 52 years old and my dad brought me up Ye Olde' School. We shot with guys older than my dad. Scatter-gunning was prohibited as I'd likely receive a slap on the head! I'm grateful that my shooting-upbringing was the way it was. Also, there are many guys who blew the load on a huge revolver they can't afford to shoot (or they're afraid to) yet they hesitate to spend money on even a medium-quality 22 which would likely get shot constantly. The way I acquired my National Match 38 WC was a hoot! I was in a gun shop about 40 miles from here. A guy brought it in to trade. They told him they had no interest in that old pistol. I followed him out the door and the rest is history. He was an old man who bought it new. His vision was terrible and he wanted something he could put a red dot on. He was very flattered that I knew WHAT he had! I actually paid him more than he was asking because his price was clearly not based on actual current values. I informed him of that and he said "Well kiddo, let's split the difference." THEN he wanted to know if I was interested in his Woodsman Match-Target (early 3rd Generation) because a week prior, he's been in that gun shop and they didn't want that either! Needless to say, I went home with 2 Colts and empty pockets!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,154 Posts
I believe it was Jeff Cooper who stated that inaccurate guns didn't interest him...hard to argue with that. I understand testing at 100 yards to determine how accurate a particular gun/barrel/ammunition combination is. While putting a handgun in a solid rest will certainly tell you the intrinsic or mechanical accuracy of a Python or any other firearm, it's not the be all and end all. There's also practical accuracy...the handling and balance of the gun...the sights and how visible they are for a flash picture...the smoothness of the action...the durability and reliability of the entire package...gun and ammunition. That also doesn't even begin to address the shooter and his or her ability to use that power and place rounds on targets...under stress.

I've never been a bullseye shooter...when I was a law enforcement officer I was concerned with my ability to put rounds on target center mass...quickly. It was great knowing my sidearm was accurate...the S&W I was issued I picked myself out of a new shipment when I and another instructor testified them...I kept the best one as my mine. But if I didn't use the techniques and tactics to put the rounds where they counted the intrinsic accuracy was a moot point. My personal handguns I used for off-duty carry were also proven to me they were accurate and just as smooth in operation as the issue sidearm...or I didn't use them for carry.

Jeff Cooper also said that "A fine marksman is with a second-rate rifle is far more effective than the reverse." That can be said for handguns as well. Getting back to the new Python...I think it can and does excel at practical accuracy due not only to its intrinsic accuracy but just as important its smooth action, good sights, good balance and overall quality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
503 Posts
Any test that is to be meaningful needs to use a Ransom Rest period end of discussion. Otherwise, there are too may variables and for me the results are for entertainment only.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Very cool, congrats on the writing contract. I know it's hard to scientifically compare accuracy, but if you could, use a ransom rest or such, and shoot them both at relatively long range, vs the 7 yards everyone at my range thinks pistols are made for! Also, if you could use a trigger pull gauge on them both in DA/SA it would be great.
azshot...I plan to do the comparison shoot at 25 yards, from the bench, using a sandbag rest, in single-action mode. I will check the SA pull on my Lyman Gauge, but it just won't do DA at all. I did this same thing with a new S&W Model 19 Classic and a 1966-era Model 19. The new Model 19 won.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top