[moosedog]

Is it my imagination, or does the older Python grips have a more "curved" angle toward the trigger guard some what like the Bisley? I just picked up that 1967 Python that I inquired about a few weeks back and it seems more severe of a curve with the original grips that the last Python I had that was from the 70s.

 

[rcwambold]

I think so, too.

 

[moosedog]

Thanks, I thought it might just have been my imagination. I really prefer my other Python's grips. I'm going to have to put those ugly rubber grips on until I can come up with something.
Anyone familiar with the reason for the design change in the grip angles?

 

[dfariswheel]

I'm not clear on what's meant by a change to the "grip angle".

Colt made no real changes to the mid-frame revolvers grip area from the 1908 Army Special through the 2004 Python.

Same grip frame, to the extent that grips from the 1900's guns will interchange with a current production Python.

Pictures???

 

[JCM298A]

When I went through the academy in `65, another cadet also had a Python. When we compared guns, both bought NIB just prior to the academy, we both noticed that the grips felt "different" although they looked the same. His grips felt better to me and mine felt better to him because we had different size hands. We swapped grips and both of us shot better after the swap. Both sets of grips fitted both guns perfectly, both pair looked identical, but they felt "different". Other officers/cadets also felt the difference, as did the chief instructer. We never did figure out the difference but we both scored in the top of the class.

Our final scores "annoyed" the chief instructer because he, and most of the department, favored Smiths.

John

[This message has been edited by JCM298A (edited 06-16-2005).]

 

[moosedog]

I wish I had a newer Python at home to check it against. The "feeling" to me is that there is more of a curve on the inside of the older grips, that being the area between the trigger guard and frame, than on the newer grips. Yes both will fit on the frames but the angle of the wood itself seems more extreme on the older grips. Almost like a "Bisley" angle. An actual comparison of one side of an older grip against the opposite side of a newer grip would be needed but I don't have access to a newer set of grips right now.

 

[dfariswheel]

Ah, sorry misunderstanding.
We're not talking about the steel frame, we're talking wood grips.

If so, you're quite right, the profile did change over the years.

The earlier Target grips did fit the back of the trigger guard much closer, with no gap at all between the grips and the guard.

As time passed, the grip fit got progressively worse.
The final Third type versions of the original Target grips in the 1990's wasn't even close to the trigger guard.
These grips actually had a flat cut in the front of the grip leaving a deliberate gap between the grip and the guard.

These changes also caused the curved area of the grip to change over time.

The grips that probably felt the best overall are the Second type grips with the checkering curving around the medallions, and with no "thumb rest" on the right side.

The reason for the deteriorating fit to the trigger guard was simply to make it easier to make the grips.
Getting a tight fit to the guard just took too much effort.

As the grip profile retreated from the trigger guard, the curve of the grip changed.....for the worse.




[This message has been edited by dfariswheel (edited 06-16-2005).]