Colt Forum banner
  • Have you found any great Black Friday deal!? Share them in this post HERE for a chance to win a $50 Amazon Gift Card!
21 - 40 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
So just a little bit more on my range day. So I started out shooting the Python first. I started by sighting in the gun in single action at 15 yards off the bench. After 6 rounds I noticed it shooting a little high so I turned it 3 clicks down. 6 more rounds showed it was right on target, well that was easy. Next I just tried to get a feel for the double action trigger on paper at 15m and steel plates at 25m. The double action was heavier than I thought it would be based off of the reviews I have read and it showed as my first shot was the taped flyer to the right on the upper left bullseye on the target pictured above. I suspect my gun is one of the later Python’s produced after the fix for light primer strikes. For reference it is serial number ending in 413x and produced Feb 29th (go figure it’s leap year and a Saturday). The double action is a smooth pull though and I’m hoping that it will lighten up a bit with some use.

After getting a feel I decided to see what kind of groups I could get with some different loads I had brought. These groups (pictured above) were fired at 15m in single action. The single action was on the heavier side but had a very clean break.

Unlike other reports I have no problem with the rear sight and after installing a fibre optic front sight it is my preferred sight picture with a plain black rear and fibre optic front. The notch on the rear sight is narrow for my preference at .129” but that seems to be common on most factory guns. I also like the rounded edges on the rear sight.

Next up was the MR73. I started by shooting groups in single action on paper at 15m to confirm it was still shooting to point of aim (pictured above). The trigger break on the MR73 is hands down the best I have ever had. It’s clean but light and seems to break when your brain sends it’s first signal to your trigger finger. The rear sight has two white dots and the front sight is black. The only sight picture I like less is if the front sight had a white dot as well. I am tempted to black the dots out with a felt pen but haven’t brought myself to do it yet. The rear notch is a little wider at .141”, not quite as wide as I would like but wider than the Python. I need to mention the hammer on the MR73 is narrower and shorter than the Python making it harder to grasp with your thumb. That being said I hardly ever shoot it in single action so it’s a non-issue for me.

Next was steel plates at 25m, 35m and 50m all in double action. Shooting slowly, my hit rate averaged 5/6 at 25m and 35m but at 50m was closer to 50%. I didn’t measure the plates but I’m guessing they’re about 9 or 10”. The double action on the MR73 is also the best double action I have ever experienced making it a joy to shoot. The MR73 like the Python does have a longer reset and if you’re used to auto’s I could see how someone may start pulling the trigger again before the trigger has reset.

The grip feel of the MR73 is narrower than the Python and although longer barreled at 5.25” vs the 4.25” Python the MR73 feels lighter and maybe a little more agile. The grips have a distinct finger groove feel which some people like and others don’t. I am currently looking for a different set of grips for mine as I don’t really like the high-back of the Trausch grips however so far I like the overall feel of the MR73 better. That could just be because I shoot it a lot and it’s what I’m used to, however I suspect it is the narrower grip and the lighter feel of the gun that appeals to me (I do have small hands and for reference my S&W M19 fits my hands beautifully).

At this point I went back to the Python and started shooting plates again in double action. My first 6 shots at 25m resulted in only one hit. It probably didn’t help that the sight picture on the Python is shorter but I attribute the misses to the fact that the MR73 makes shooting in double action easy and when I got back to the Python I was being lazy with my technique. I loaded up again and refocused my efforts and managed to hit 4 out of 6, again at 25m. I continued to shoot plates at 25m, 35m and 50m. As I tightened up my technique my hit % went up but not as high as with the MR73. I think I can get there with more trigger time with this gun and I’m sure a lighter double action would help.

As you can see the accuracy of these guns while shooting single action is quite comparable. The ability to realize the full accuracy potential of the gun at speed and under stress is what really matters though when evaluating a firearm. Shooting steel plates in double action is obviously just one small step in understanding my ability to realize that potential. In this case the MR73 came out ahead but I am hoping with more trigger time with the Python I might be able to tighten that gap and hopefully at some point I will get to see how they stack up in a training or competitive course.
We measure accuracy differently, you and I.
My Dan Wesson once shot an 8", ten shot group at 200yds, off-hand, unsupported.
Ya, somebody's probably done it, and better. But it's still the only pistol qualified for unsupported shooting at Western Wayne County Conservation Association's 200yd range, ever, still, since 1986.

How do you go from -0 score to a +1. I'm guessing operator error, poor sight in? Then poo-pooing the Python's sights? Anyone thinking the 2020 sights are bad simply has not shot long range pistol, period. My 4.25" has nice sights.

Somebody once told me my 340PD with full 158g loads was a waste past 10 feet and I should go with a "longer barrel" like a Shield. Most guys even decided it's impossible with the tiny stock grips, which I have on mine. Picking-knits on grip size and shape is like telling Shaq his shoes are no good because they're a size too small. Make no sense in an apples to apples discussion in a public forum of like minded Colt fans. We all have different size feet.

When it comes right down to it, if you're really going to go win a double action, speed contest match, go get yourself a Model 10, a barrel vise, some stones and springs, and those infamous soft Federal primers. Smithed and slicked they run circles around everything. GB has them pop up from the dead PPC era, ready-to-go, for pennies on the dollar.

Pythons are Pythons. No other pistol will ever be a Colt Python.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
110 Posts
In .357 Magnum I have three prewar S&W revolvers, two registered and one non-registered; a 1937 Colt Shooting Master and a 1957 Python; and three MR73 Manurhins. Here are my observations.
Colts are much better made and more precisely fitted, of finer and stronger materials, than Smith & Wessons.
The Smith & Wesson single stage lockup is not nearly as precise as, but much more durable than, the Colt double stage lockup.
The Manurhin MR73 combines the quality and precision of the Colts with the ruggedness of the Smith & Wessons.
In a nutshell, an early Python is a better revolver than a Registered Magnum, in the same sense whereby a Ferrari 330 P3/4 is a better car than a Ford GT40. But the MR73 is the only revolver I would take in harm's way. Think of it as the equivalent of the Citroën ZX at the Paris-Dakar rally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Material property Religious item Symbol Electric blue Font
Religious item Cross Wood Key Electric blue

Font Material property Electric blue Hat Everyday carry


Mr73 is like a French lady with petite shape, class A model, classy and lighter than the Colt.
The Colt is still refined, heavier and still has its charm.
For trigger pull, mr73 is 10/10, Colt is 8/10 ( still smooth but no match to Korth and Mr73). In addition , I rate SW 686 7/10 and Korth Nighthawk 9.5/10 for trigger pull. Korth is very light and smooth as well compared to Mr73, however it is a bit industrial and has less soul than the Mr73.

I try to speak common language without any technical context. Hope it makes sense. Bottom line is good to have both.
The Mr73 will be better but you need to have a Colt if you are a revolver guy
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,816 Posts
Nothing against any European guns, but I note here that if you spent the price difference between the Mr73 and the Python ($1800) on the Colt, it would be the equal of the MR73. Or you could buy two Pythons and shoot whichever was more accurate.
 

·
Registered
Colt Python 4" Royal Blue, vintage 1961
Joined
·
28 Posts
So here’s a post I made on another gun forum in Nov of 2019, the topic was something about shooting revolvers in double action.

“ There’s not a lot of things I find more fun than shooting steel plates as fast as I can (not very fast) in double action. My favourite guns to shoot in double action are my 108mm Murray Charlton custom M19, my 610 and 625 (also tuned by Murray) and my MR73 which just begs to be fired in double action.

Revolvers I don’t shoot in double action are Pythons and Anacondas. For that matter I don’t even shoot them in single action.”

So fast forward to January 1st, 2020 and my wife wakes up to me rambling on about the excitement of the Python 2020. It took about a day of fighting the urge before putting a deposit down on a 4.25” version that is supposed to be coming in March.

I believe I am one of those people that Colt was marketing towards when they eliminated the stacking on the Python 2020 and I look forward to putting the new gun through its paces as soon as I can.

My question is with an MR73 setting the bar very high as a baseline how do you think the Python 2020 will compare of course assuming that I don’t have any of the early issues identified with a very small fraction of the guns already released?

For anyone who has fired the Python 2020 and an MR73 what was your impression around how the Python compared? I was out at the range with my MR73 today and the thought crossed my mind that I should cancel my deposit cause there’s no way the Python will compare. Of course I haven’t and I won’t but am I setting myself up for disappointment or should I hold out hope?

A bit late in joining this discussion. However, I'll chip in. I don't have a 2020 Python, nor a MR73. I do have a 1962 4" blue Python and SW 586. All guns have their pros and cons and it is rather up to the individual whether they like or dislike them. With that said, I would definitely buy a Manurhin 4" Mulhouse if I can find one. However, one thing I dislike about the MR73 is the exposed firing pin on the hammer. That is just me because I find it an eyesore for what is otherwise a perfect revolver. Getting back to the Python vs SW, I find they each have their own pros and cons. To me the Python have its prestigious hallmark of the Royal Blue, which only the MR73 can come close. The Python is unquestionably beautiful. However, I gave higher marks to the SW568's functionality. In both DA and SA, I prefer the SW. The trigger is highly adjustable, and there is no stacking in DA. Even in SA, the trigger release is better than the Python in my opinion. In SA, there is no free play after the hammer drops. The backstop on the trigger is perfect right after the hammer releases. The Python, however, due to its design in locking up the cylinder at the last moment inevitably requires a bit of trigger travel after the hammer release to allow the cylinder lockup. Also the DA stacking while could be eliminated by a competent gunsmith, but the Pythons are finicky when it comes to trigger tuning. This I heard is improved by the new 2020 Pythons.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
96 Posts
The new Pythons have apparently been unimpressive.
I don't particularly like the cylinder release on colt revolvers, I'm just an old smith guy.
The MR73 has a really good reputation as being a finely made revolver.
I have been very pleased with the several 686 smiths that I own, not sure why some folks are down on them.
If it came down to the MR73 or a new manufacture python, I'd go MR73.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
The new Pythons have apparently been unimpressive.
I don't particularly like the cylinder release on colt revolvers, I'm just an old smith guy.
The MR73 has a really good reputation as being a finely made revolver.
I have been very pleased with the several 686 smiths that I own, not sure why some folks are down on them.
If it came down to the MR73 or a new manufacture python, I'd go MR73.
I disagree on the new Pythons being unimpressive. My 2021 Python has by far the best DA trigger of all my revolvers I have ever owned. I currently own 8 S&W's. At one time I owned 25 S&W's and 5 "old" Pythons. The "new" Python beats them all and that includes a 24-3 S&W that I had sent the Performance Shop for a master action job. And the quality of the new Python is spectacular. Every time I dry fire my Python, I am amazed and impressed.
 

·
Registered
Colt Python 4" Royal Blue, vintage 1961
Joined
·
28 Posts
So here’s a post I made on another gun forum in Nov of 2019, the topic was something about shooting revolvers in double action.

“ There’s not a lot of things I find more fun than shooting steel plates as fast as I can (not very fast) in double action. My favourite guns to shoot in double action are my 108mm Murray Charlton custom M19, my 610 and 625 (also tuned by Murray) and my MR73 which just begs to be fired in double action.

Revolvers I don’t shoot in double action are Pythons and Anacondas. For that matter I don’t even shoot them in single action.”

So fast forward to January 1st, 2020 and my wife wakes up to me rambling on about the excitement of the Python 2020. It took about a day of fighting the urge before putting a deposit down on a 4.25” version that is supposed to be coming in March.

I believe I am one of those people that Colt was marketing towards when they eliminated the stacking on the Python 2020 and I look forward to putting the new gun through its paces as soon as I can.

My question is with an MR73 setting the bar very high as a baseline how do you think the Python 2020 will compare of course assuming that I don’t have any of the early issues identified with a very small fraction of the guns already released?

For anyone who has fired the Python 2020 and an MR73 what was your impression around how the Python compared? I was out at the range with my MR73 today and the thought crossed my mind that I should cancel my deposit cause there’s no way the Python will compare. Of course I haven’t and I won’t but am I setting myself up for disappointment or should I hold out hope?
Refer to this thread :

Whats wrong with this picture on the MR73 ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I disagree on the new Pythons being unimpressive. My 2021 Python has by far the best DA trigger of all my revolvers I have ever owned. I currently own 8 S&W's. At one time I owned 25 S&W's and 5 "old" Pythons. The "new" Python beats them all and that includes a 24-3 S&W that I had sent the Performance Shop for a master action job. And the quality of the new Python is spectacular. Every time I dry fire my Python, I am amazed and impressed.
I’m with you mate, never discount the new Python, they redo the entire trigger. Saying the old Python vs the new Python is like 1975 Muscle Car vs 2020 Hellcat.
If you have the old Python, yes it still hold value
If you have new Python, enjoy the new trigger mechanism, in the future your gun will still hold value
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
I will trade what the human eve perceives as precision and a file to what modern materials and the equipment that machines are capable of holding measuring with lasers. Modern firearms production is no different that aerospace production from the 50's---it is on a different planet. A file and someone's eyeball not anymore. Not to say that touch labor is not required however, much much less is needed. Touch labor means looser tolerances and processes that cannot be repeated 100% every time. Love SPC better products and saves money.
Agreed! NOBODY wants to build a hand-fitted gun, it was required "back in the day" due to far less precise manufacturing processes. It all comes down to precision. In the days of paper drafting (I used to draft cable runs for AT&T) "precision" could be no finer than the thinnest line, coupled with the eye and skill of the draftsman. In the days of milling with manual hand wheels, accuracy to the thousandths of an inch was the Gold standard, and even the best machinists could never turn out two parts identical in all dimensions - thus the DEMAND for hand-fitting, and THAT process actually serves to compound tolerance stacking as each individual works parts that all started out slightly out of spec, only to end up with parts further from spec - not closer. This is the reality of manufacturing.
When the Python was introduced in 1955, hand-fitting was being done by EVERYBODY including S&W because they had to do it, not because they wanted too, and of course it was "advertised" as a signature of superior manufacturing. In 1955, the Python was simply a modification of an already half-century old design complete with design defects, complimented by imprecise (by today's standards) casting, forging, milling, and HAND WORK. This is why "back in the day" you could start with a bin full of parts and start mixing and matching to eventually produce a "perfect" specimen - because each and every part was just a bit off the desired standard - a standard no method of design could deliberately produce! Think about that for a minute. Do you think the manufacture of modern microchips would be enhanced by a bunch of ham-fisted technicians hand-working parts manufactured to the 35 nanometer scale? I'm sure some will claim so just to support their oppositional agenda.
"Blueprinting" as applied to engines in the '60s and beyond was the ATTEMPT to build a single engine as close to design specification as possible. The technology to build engines with true precision in those days was just as lame as it was for building firearms. Today's engines are built like the proverbial "Swiss watch" by comparison, from the most expensive all the way down to the least expensive! In fact, even SWISS WATCHES have been surpassed by automated processes that allow precision mechanical watch movements to be churned out by the cart load that are every bit as good as anything built in Switzerland!
What Colt is doing with the Python was long overdue. S&W started doing it 20 years ago with their revolver line - using modern CAD-CAM and materials to produce BETTER revolvers than were even possible "back in the day." Sure, there were "1 of 1,000" (Winchester '73 with Jimmy Stewart) that were really well built, but today it's more like "9999 of 10,000" that are really well built! The new Python is on a standard the old could not match. I compared my new model to my old version and the sheer refinement of details is beyond obvious! Colt improved the lock work with better geometry, and far closer manufacturing tolerances to the point where you can take a part from one Python and put it right into another and never be able to tell the difference! The heavier DA trigger pull isn't because they didn't have a bank of technicians available to "hand work" them, but thanks to LAWSUITS that abound around 2 and 3 pound trigger pulls! Do you really think all those idiots out there who shoot themselves in the leg with ANY brand of handgun just say, "Well, gee I was sure stoopid!" NOPE, about 30 seconds after they realize they aren't going to die, their mind turns to SUING the gun maker for the big score! And they'll say ANYTHING to make a strike, including that COLT should have built a gun they couldn't have shot themselves in the leg with "so readily." THAT is why all factory SA trigger pulls are much heavier than they need to be, or used to be. It has nothing at all to do with a limitation on machine manufacturing precision!
Modern car makers would CRINGE to watch a bunch of human welders screw-up the manufacture of a modern car body! Robot welders produce welds that no human can reproduce, and they do it over and over and over - exactly the same. Just go outside and lift the hood of your car to see how good the welds are!
It's tiring to hear the same old song about how good everything made back in the day was compared to now...it's not even close to factual. The same people who claim original Pythons are superior seem to not even hear themselves tossing around how easily they went out of time! The DA pull was inferior to the new. The ONLY reason the SA let-off is less is due to our litigious society and that's an easy correction for anyone who must have it. Look closely as details...such as the misalignment of the old model front sight rib with the end of the barrel compared to the new. Or those glaring pins jutting out on either side. Even the clear machine marks inside the frame at the crane area, and internal parts not nearly as well finished as those in the new model. The old model's mechanism to unlock the bolt was flawed from the beginning which is what led to the bolt not being actuated into position correctly - the problem wasn't at the bolt end, but at the "actuation end." The new Python corrects that.
Every time I pick up my new Python I'm impressed at how much better it is than my original 4" blue model! Collectors will continue to drive the original Python market of course, but for those who buy guns to shoot, the new Python is the only choice - especially considering it's a lot less expensive!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Agreed! NOBODY wants to build a hand-fitted gun, it was required "back in the day" due to far less precise manufacturing processes. It all comes down to precision. In the days of paper drafting (I used to draft cable runs for AT&T) "precision" could be no finer than the thinnest line, coupled with the eye and skill of the draftsman. In the days of milling with manual hand wheels, accuracy to the thousandths of an inch was the Gold standard, and even the best machinists could never turn out two parts identical in all dimensions - thus the DEMAND for hand-fitting, and THAT process actually serves to compound tolerance stacking as each individual works parts that all started out slightly out of spec, only to end up with parts further from spec - not closer. This is the reality of manufacturing.
When the Python was introduced in 1955, hand-fitting was being done by EVERYBODY including S&W because they had to do it, not because they wanted too, and of course it was "advertised" as a signature of superior manufacturing. In 1955, the Python was simply a modification of an already half-century old design complete with design defects, complimented by imprecise (by today's standards) casting, forging, milling, and HAND WORK. This is why "back in the day" you could start with a bin full of parts and start mixing and matching to eventually produce a "perfect" specimen - because each and every part was just a bit off the desired standard - a standard no method of design could deliberately produce! Think about that for a minute. Do you think the manufacture of modern microchips would be enhanced by a bunch of ham-fisted technicians hand-working parts manufactured to the 35 nanometer scale? I'm sure some will claim so just to support their oppositional agenda.
"Blueprinting" as applied to engines in the '60s and beyond was the ATTEMPT to build a single engine as close to design specification as possible. The technology to build engines with true precision in those days was just as lame as it was for building firearms. Today's engines are built like the proverbial "Swiss watch" by comparison, from the most expensive all the way down to the least expensive! In fact, even SWISS WATCHES have been surpassed by automated processes that allow precision mechanical watch movements to be churned out by the cart load that are every bit as good as anything built in Switzerland!
What Colt is doing with the Python was long overdue. S&W started doing it 20 years ago with their revolver line - using modern CAD-CAM and materials to produce BETTER revolvers than were even possible "back in the day." Sure, there were "1 of 1,000" (Winchester '73 with Jimmy Stewart) that were really well built, but today it's more like "9999 of 10,000" that are really well built! The new Python is on a standard the old could not match. I compared my new model to my old version and the sheer refinement of details is beyond obvious! Colt improved the lock work with better geometry, and far closer manufacturing tolerances to the point where you can take a part from one Python and put it right into another and never be able to tell the difference! The heavier DA trigger pull isn't because they didn't have a bank of technicians available to "hand work" them, but thanks to LAWSUITS that abound around 2 and 3 pound trigger pulls! Do you really think all those idiots out there who shoot themselves in the leg with ANY brand of handgun just say, "Well, gee I was sure stoopid!" NOPE, about 30 seconds after they realize they aren't going to die, their mind turns to SUING the gun maker for the big score! And they'll say ANYTHING to make a strike, including that COLT should have built a gun they couldn't have shot themselves in the leg with "so readily." THAT is why all factory SA trigger pulls are much heavier than they need to be, or used to be. It has nothing at all to do with a limitation on machine manufacturing precision!
Modern car makers would CRINGE to watch a bunch of human welders screw-up the manufacture of a modern car body! Robot welders produce welds that no human can reproduce, and they do it over and over and over - exactly the same. Just go outside and lift the hood of your car to see how good the welds are!
It's tiring to hear the same old song about how good everything made back in the day was compared to now...it's not even close to factual. The same people who claim original Pythons are superior seem to not even hear themselves tossing around how easily they went out of time! The DA pull was inferior to the new. The ONLY reason the SA let-off is less is due to our litigious society and that's an easy correction for anyone who must have it. Look closely as details...such as the misalignment of the old model front sight rib with the end of the barrel compared to the new. Or those glaring pins jutting out on either side. Even the clear machine marks inside the frame at the crane area, and internal parts not nearly as well finished as those in the new model. The old model's mechanism to unlock the bolt was flawed from the beginning which is what led to the bolt not being actuated into position correctly - the problem wasn't at the bolt end, but at the "actuation end." The new Python corrects that.
Every time I pick up my new Python I'm impressed at how much better it is than my original 4" blue model! Collectors will continue to drive the original Python market of course, but for those who buy guns to shoot, the new Python is the only choice - especially considering it's a lot less expensive!
Agreed! NOBODY wants to build a hand-fitted gun, it was required "back in the day" due to far less precise manufacturing processes. It all comes down to precision. In the days of paper drafting (I used to draft cable runs for AT&T) "precision" could be no finer than the thinnest line, coupled with the eye and skill of the draftsman. In the days of milling with manual hand wheels, accuracy to the thousandths of an inch was the Gold standard, and even the best machinists could never turn out two parts identical in all dimensions - thus the DEMAND for hand-fitting, and THAT process actually serves to compound tolerance stacking as each individual works parts that all started out slightly out of spec, only to end up with parts further from spec - not closer. This is the reality of manufacturing.
When the Python was introduced in 1955, hand-fitting was being done by EVERYBODY including S&W because they had to do it, not because they wanted too, and of course it was "advertised" as a signature of superior manufacturing. In 1955, the Python was simply a modification of an already half-century old design complete with design defects, complimented by imprecise (by today's standards) casting, forging, milling, and HAND WORK. This is why "back in the day" you could start with a bin full of parts and start mixing and matching to eventually produce a "perfect" specimen - because each and every part was just a bit off the desired standard - a standard no method of design could deliberately produce! Think about that for a minute. Do you think the manufacture of modern microchips would be enhanced by a bunch of ham-fisted technicians hand-working parts manufactured to the 35 nanometer scale? I'm sure some will claim so just to support their oppositional agenda.
"Blueprinting" as applied to engines in the '60s and beyond was the ATTEMPT to build a single engine as close to design specification as possible. The technology to build engines with true precision in those days was just as lame as it was for building firearms. Today's engines are built like the proverbial "Swiss watch" by comparison, from the most expensive all the way down to the least expensive! In fact, even SWISS WATCHES have been surpassed by automated processes that allow precision mechanical watch movements to be churned out by the cart load that are every bit as good as anything built in Switzerland!
What Colt is doing with the Python was long overdue. S&W started doing it 20 years ago with their revolver line - using modern CAD-CAM and materials to produce BETTER revolvers than were even possible "back in the day." Sure, there were "1 of 1,000" (Winchester '73 with Jimmy Stewart) that were really well built, but today it's more like "9999 of 10,000" that are really well built! The new Python is on a standard the old could not match. I compared my new model to my old version and the sheer refinement of details is beyond obvious! Colt improved the lock work with better geometry, and far closer manufacturing tolerances to the point where you can take a part from one Python and put it right into another and never be able to tell the difference! The heavier DA trigger pull isn't because they didn't have a bank of technicians available to "hand work" them, but thanks to LAWSUITS that abound around 2 and 3 pound trigger pulls! Do you really think all those idiots out there who shoot themselves in the leg with ANY brand of handgun just say, "Well, gee I was sure stoopid!" NOPE, about 30 seconds after they realize they aren't going to die, their mind turns to SUING the gun maker for the big score! And they'll say ANYTHING to make a strike, including that COLT should have built a gun they couldn't have shot themselves in the leg with "so readily." THAT is why all factory SA trigger pulls are much heavier than they need to be, or used to be. It has nothing at all to do with a limitation on machine manufacturing precision!
Modern car makers would CRINGE to watch a bunch of human welders screw-up the manufacture of a modern car body! Robot welders produce welds that no human can reproduce, and they do it over and over and over - exactly the same. Just go outside and lift the hood of your car to see how good the welds are!
It's tiring to hear the same old song about how good everything made back in the day was compared to now...it's not even close to factual. The same people who claim original Pythons are superior seem to not even hear themselves tossing around how easily they went out of time! The DA pull was inferior to the new. The ONLY reason the SA let-off is less is due to our litigious society and that's an easy correction for anyone who must have it. Look closely as details...such as the misalignment of the old model front sight rib with the end of the barrel compared to the new. Or those glaring pins jutting out on either side. Even the clear machine marks inside the frame at the crane area, and internal parts not nearly as well finished as those in the new model. The old model's mechanism to unlock the bolt was flawed from the beginning which is what led to the bolt not being actuated into position correctly - the problem wasn't at the bolt end, but at the "actuation end." The new Python corrects that.
Every time I pick up my new Python I'm impressed at how much better it is than my original 4" blue model! Collectors will continue to drive the original Python market of course, but for those who buy guns to shoot, the new Python is the only choice - especially considering it's a lot less expensive!
Well said.
 

·
Registered
Colt Python 4" Royal Blue, vintage 1961
Joined
·
28 Posts
View attachment 756041 View attachment 756043
View attachment 756042

Mr73 is like a French lady with petite shape, class A model, classy and lighter than the Colt.
The Colt is still refined, heavier and still has its charm.
For trigger pull, mr73 is 10/10, Colt is 8/10 ( still smooth but no match to Korth and Mr73). In addition , I rate SW 686 7/10 and Korth Nighthawk 9.5/10 for trigger pull. Korth is very light and smooth as well compared to Mr73, however it is a bit industrial and has less soul than the Mr73.

I try to speak common language without any technical context. Hope it makes sense. Bottom line is good to have both.
The Mr73 will be better but you need to have a Colt if you are a revolver guy

The MR73 is a bit of a myth. But one thing is for sure :

Fire arms, especially side-arm is an American institution. America might be a very young country compared to all the European countries with their heritage and history, but name one country that has as much richness and culture in firearms as America. The SW along has the history and volume that speaks of itself. No other countries (combined) has produced as much sidearms as SW. Colt has the heritage in both single action and double action that other countries pale in comparison. We as Americans seem to admire all the glamour and culture coming out of the old nations. Some of that has some truth, but America is still the premium country when it comes to firearm. This is illustrated both in sidearms and military hardware. Look at the revolver and the semi-automatics, then show me which country can step forward both in terms of innovation and function. You have the Colt Python holding its top tier position in refinement and collectivability. The 1911 with all the custom and high-end pistols that no other country can even come close. The rifles that was symbolic to every need from snipers to big-game hunting. The reloading industry that provides every bit of custom ammo to fit the firearm. Come on guys, let's be realistic. America is unique in the firearm industry both in hardware as well as in politics and constitutional rights to bear arms. I would say, let's call a "Spade, a spade", and give credit due to those that deserves it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,594 Posts
Fire arms, especially side-arm is an American institution. America might be a very young country compared to all the European countries with their heritage and history, but name one country that has as much richness and culture in firearms as America.
Gotta agree. In Europe owning firearms was pretty much reserved for the wealthy and royalty. The subjects (as opposed to citizens) were forbidden or simply couldn't afford them. Since Europe was composed of many monarchies the ruling classes knew to subjugate the population you had to first make sure they didn't have the means to resist or attempt a revolution...not that it didn't occur every now and then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Agreed! NOBODY wants to build a hand-fitted gun, it was required "back in the day" due to far less precise manufacturing processes. It all comes down to precision. In the days of paper drafting (I used to draft cable runs for AT&T) "precision" could be no finer than the thinnest line, coupled with the eye and skill of the draftsman. In the days of milling with manual hand wheels, accuracy to the thousandths of an inch was the Gold standard, and even the best machinists could never turn out two parts identical in all dimensions - thus the DEMAND for hand-fitting, and THAT process actually serves to compound tolerance stacking as each individual works parts that all started out slightly out of spec, only to end up with parts further from spec - not closer. This is the reality of manufacturing.
When the Python was introduced in 1955, hand-fitting was being done by EVERYBODY including S&W because they had to do it, not because they wanted too, and of course it was "advertised" as a signature of superior manufacturing. In 1955, the Python was simply a modification of an already half-century old design complete with design defects, complimented by imprecise (by today's standards) casting, forging, milling, and HAND WORK. This is why "back in the day" you could start with a bin full of parts and start mixing and matching to eventually produce a "perfect" specimen - because each and every part was just a bit off the desired standard - a standard no method of design could deliberately produce! Think about that for a minute. Do you think the manufacture of modern microchips would be enhanced by a bunch of ham-fisted technicians hand-working parts manufactured to the 35 nanometer scale? I'm sure some will claim so just to support their oppositional agenda.
"Blueprinting" as applied to engines in the '60s and beyond was the ATTEMPT to build a single engine as close to design specification as possible. The technology to build engines with true precision in those days was just as lame as it was for building firearms. Today's engines are built like the proverbial "Swiss watch" by comparison, from the most expensive all the way down to the least expensive! In fact, even SWISS WATCHES have been surpassed by automated processes that allow precision mechanical watch movements to be churned out by the cart load that are every bit as good as anything built in Switzerland!
What Colt is doing with the Python was long overdue. S&W started doing it 20 years ago with their revolver line - using modern CAD-CAM and materials to produce BETTER revolvers than were even possible "back in the day." Sure, there were "1 of 1,000" (Winchester '73 with Jimmy Stewart) that were really well built, but today it's more like "9999 of 10,000" that are really well built! The new Python is on a standard the old could not match. I compared my new model to my old version and the sheer refinement of details is beyond obvious! Colt improved the lock work with better geometry, and far closer manufacturing tolerances to the point where you can take a part from one Python and put it right into another and never be able to tell the difference! The heavier DA trigger pull isn't because they didn't have a bank of technicians available to "hand work" them, but thanks to LAWSUITS that abound around 2 and 3 pound trigger pulls! Do you really think all those idiots out there who shoot themselves in the leg with ANY brand of handgun just say, "Well, gee I was sure stoopid!" NOPE, about 30 seconds after they realize they aren't going to die, their mind turns to SUING the gun maker for the big score! And they'll say ANYTHING to make a strike, including that COLT should have built a gun they couldn't have shot themselves in the leg with "so readily." THAT is why all factory SA trigger pulls are much heavier than they need to be, or used to be. It has nothing at all to do with a limitation on machine manufacturing precision!
Modern car makers would CRINGE to watch a bunch of human welders screw-up the manufacture of a modern car body! Robot welders produce welds that no human can reproduce, and they do it over and over and over - exactly the same. Just go outside and lift the hood of your car to see how good the welds are!
It's tiring to hear the same old song about how good everything made back in the day was compared to now...it's not even close to factual. The same people who claim original Pythons are superior seem to not even hear themselves tossing around how easily they went out of time! The DA pull was inferior to the new. The ONLY reason the SA let-off is less is due to our litigious society and that's an easy correction for anyone who must have it. Look closely as details...such as the misalignment of the old model front sight rib with the end of the barrel compared to the new. Or those glaring pins jutting out on either side. Even the clear machine marks inside the frame at the crane area, and internal parts not nearly as well finished as those in the new model. The old model's mechanism to unlock the bolt was flawed from the beginning which is what led to the bolt not being actuated into position correctly - the problem wasn't at the bolt end, but at the "actuation end." The new Python corrects that.
Every time I pick up my new Python I'm impressed at how much better it is than my original 4" blue model! Collectors will continue to drive the original Python market of course, but for those who buy guns to shoot, the new Python is the only choice - especially considering it's a lot less expensive!
Every word you typed is true. And I LOVE my new Python and am NOT afraid to shoot it. No holster wear, no turn ring, the polish is so good the gun cleans up like a dream and it's perfectly timed and it will stay that way for many thousands of rounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
We measure accuracy differently, you and I.
My Dan Wesson once shot an 8", ten shot group at 200yds, off-hand, unsupported.
Ya, somebody's probably done it, and better. But it's still the only pistol qualified for unsupported shooting at Western Wayne County Conservation Association's 200yd range, ever, still, since 1986.

How do you go from -0 score to a +1. I'm guessing operator error, poor sight in? Then poo-pooing the Python's sights? Anyone thinking the 2020 sights are bad simply has not shot long range pistol, period. My 4.25" has nice sights.

Somebody once told me my 340PD with full 158g loads was a waste past 10 feet and I should go with a "longer barrel" like a Shield. Most guys even decided it's impossible with the tiny stock grips, which I have on mine. Picking-knits on grip size and shape is like telling Shaq his shoes are no good because they're a size too small. Make no sense in an apples to apples discussion in a public forum of like minded Colt fans. We all have different size feet.

When it comes right down to it, if you're really going to go win a double action, speed contest match, go get yourself a Model 10, a barrel vise, some stones and springs, and those infamous soft Federal primers. Smithed and slicked they run circles around everything. GB has them pop up from the dead PPC era, ready-to-go, for pennies on the dollar.

Pythons are Pythons. No other pistol will ever be a Colt Python.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
[/
I’m with you mate, never discount the new Python, they redo the entire trigger. Saying the old Python vs the new Python is like 1975 Muscle Car vs 2020 Hellcat.
If you have the old Python, yes it still hold value
If you have new Python, enjoy the new trigger mechanism, in the future your gun will still hold value
I shoot the hell out of my new Python and don't dread turn lines, holster wear, timing problems or end shake...I love that gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Me too! I'm sending mine out to be slicked up by Heffron Precision. He can get the DA down to less than 7lbs, and SA down to less than 2lbs without reducing the hammer strength. And even more if you are one of the Federal Primer ONLY types (which I'm not).
My Python just keeps getting more accurate the more I shoot it. I opened up the chambers a tad with 400 grit chamber polisher (3 mins each chamber) then 30 seconds with an 800 grit to polish it out. Speedloaders are working better now. I'm going to put a light chamfer on them to help my reloads a bit too.
I killed a deer with it @ 35yds day after opening day. Put a 180 grain bullet right through the heart. My gun loves 180grain bullets over full power 300-MP (MP-300?) and 148g HBWCs over 1.8g titegroup.
Cheers Bro.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
I once shot Hunter class silhouette with a Dan Wesson .44 magnum. I handloaded specifically to the gun, and set my barrel gap by screwing it down to touch, then backing off by a half-turn to gain all the speed possible from a tiny BC gap, a known hand load, and SLOW fire that prevented heat expansion from closing the BC gap. When I got into combat style shooting I immediately discovered George Nonte was spot on when he stated that it's possible to lock up a revolver due to heat expansion between cylinder and forcing cone, but NONE of this has anything to do with tolerances or "measurement."

Tolerance isn't subjective. It's OBJECTIVE! Tolerance isn't a "belief" it's a measurable, statistical fact. Tolerance is data driven. If the thinnest line that can be drawn by ink is 0.1mm wide then NO DIMENSION can be finer than that! If the human placing the line cannot do so to a precision greater than 0.005mm off centerline, then that ADDS to the inability to hold tolerance! Measurement and tolerance isn't about opinions, or belief, it's about math, pure and simple. If the best clocks we have could hold time to increments no finer than 28,800 increments per minute (8 beats per second or 0.125 second intervals) then GPS would be IMPOSSIBLE! That 28,800 beats per minute is the very zenith of MECHANICAL watch/clock mechanism tolerance, yet compared to a quartz crystal that vibrates at 32,768 "beats" per SECOND, ALL mechanical time pieces are junk - including the vaunted Rolex Perpetual with mechanical movement! It you can only break time into 8ths of a second you can never achieve the same precision as breaking time into 32,768ths (0.00003 second intervals) of a second! This is what allows GPS to work...that and a thorough understanding of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity! The same holds true for how "fine" you can divide a line. Before computers manual line drawing was amazingly BAD compared to what we have today! NOBODY ever wanted to produce parts to a vague standard. Going all the way back to Eli Whitney and the founding of Springfield Armory to build "mass produced" firearms, the GOAL was not to end up with parts that demanded hand fitting, but to end up with parts that could be exchanged between rifles WITHOUT fitting.
Everyday people are assembling AR15s from parts, or assembling Glock handguns from parts without ever reaching for a file or even a piece of emery paper! The reason is modern manufacturing! I've probably put together 50 AR15 rifles over the years, a dozen Glocks, and not once, not EVER was a bolt out of spec to the factory supplied barrel extension! That people believe revolvers are somehow different is why Colts command such a high price, but what "people believe" has zero to do with modern manufacturing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Me too! I'm sending mine out to be slicked up by Heffron Precision. He can get the DA down to less than 7lbs, and SA down to less than 2lbs without reducing the hammer strength. And even more if you are one of the Federal Primer ONLY types (which I'm not).
My Python just keeps getting more accurate the more I shoot it. I opened up the chambers a tad with 400 grit chamber polisher (3 mins each chamber) then 30 seconds with an 800 grit to polish it out. Speedloaders are working better now. I'm going to put a light chamfer on them to help my reloads a bit too.
I killed a deer with it @ 35yds day after opening day. Put a 180 grain bullet right through the heart. My gun loves 180grain bullets over full power 300-MP (MP-300?) and 148g HBWCs over 1.8g titegroup.
Cheers Bro.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
Kind of like comparing a Ferrari to a Kia in my opinion after handling both with the nod going to the MR73.
 
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
Top