Colt Python: First Impressions

    In 2020, Colt reintroduced their most famous revolver ever: the .357 Magnum Colt Python. Initially released in 6-inch and 4.25-inch versions, a 3-inch version will be hitting gun stores sometime this year. All have an MSRP of $1,499. 

    While I would have liked to get my hands on a 3-inch version, the supply has been such that dealers are having a hard time getting any, let alone a selection of different barrel lengths. I recently happened across a 6-inch version at a local gun store. It was the only one they had in stock and they were selling it for MSRP, which was actually good in this case because many outlets have been charging above MSRP. By a happy coincidence, because I had been saving up for something else, I happened to have the funds necessary and was able to purchase it. 

    I know. Impulse purchase. But it had been on my "bucket-list" of firearms to purchase, and I had been thinking of picking up another .357 revolver anyway. Also, I've never shot, let alone owned, a Colt prior to this. And several years ago I decided that I was tired of getting cheap firearms: I wanted better quality firearms even if I had to pay a little more.

    But that is the funny thing about it. At first glance, you might think that a $1,500 MSRP was excessive for a revolver, but the price isn't really that out of line. While Smith & Wesson has a few .357 models under $1,000, the majority are above $1,000; and the ones I had been looking at were in the $1,300 range. As for Colt and Ruger, you are looking north of $1,000 for pretty much everything a well. In many cases, considerably north of $1,000. In the end, I probably only spent $100 to $200 more than I would have otherwise.

History

    First, a brief history of the firearm. The .357 Magnum was introduced in 1935 and soon saw acceptance and growing popularity among both law enforcement and the general public. But while Colt dominated the law enforcement market with the Colt Official Police Revolver in .38 Special, the only .357 Magnum in Colt's lineup prior to World War II was a model of the Colt Single Action Army.

    Finally, in 1953, Colt brought out a rather mundanely named Colt .357 Magnum which saw only limited success and was discontinued in 1961. In 1954, Colt introduced its Colt Trooper, its first .357 Magnum intended for the law enforcement market. But Colt management wanted something new and different that would capture the attention of the shooting public. That something was to become the Colt Python.

    The Python was intended to be both stylish (the ventilated rib on the top of the barrel was only there for aesthetics) but as a premium gun able to compete against custom revolvers in competition. And, whatever one thought about the weapon, it was more accurate than other production revolvers of its day. In a February 1977 article in American Handgunner, Massad Ayoob explained that some of the reason for its accuracy The first reason he listed was a faster 1:14 twist that better stabilized wadcutter loads as well as hot .38 Special and .357 Magnum loads. Second was that the barrel tapered toward the muzzle "so you have a bullet perfectly formed to perfectly-designed rifling." Third was the design of the action that locked the cylinder so there was no play when the weapon was fired. It also helped as a competition revolver, Ayoob added, that so much of the weight was forward of the frame to minimize muzzle jump.

    In any event, the Colt Python became an iconic firearm not just among shooters but among the general public, due to its exposure in film and television. My earliest memory of the Colt Python, for instance, was John Wayne's use of one in the motion picture, Brannigan.

Unfortunately, while the design may have been quite modern in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, the production methods used by Colt were not. The Python required a lot of hand polishing and fitting, most of the work performed by just two craftsmen, which made it increasingly expensive above and beyond mere inflation. Combined with the declining popularity of revolvers generally, Colt decided to switch manufacture of the Python from its main assembly line to the Colt Custom Shop in 1997 (at which time a stainless steel version was finally offered). It remained in limited production until 2004.

    That really is where the story of the Python might have largely ended, but for two occurrences. Foremost among these is its reappearance in popular culture as the weapon of choice for Rick Grimes, the main character in the television series, The Walking Dead. 

As the popularity of The Walking Dead grew, so did the price of Pythons on the used market, often to astronomical sums. It seems reasonable to conclude that Colt would have noticed the popularity and demand for not just the Python, but all of its old "snake" guns, and see it as a business opportunity.

    The other factor, at least in my mind, was Colt's loss in 2013 of its contract to manufacture M-4 carbines for the military. Colt had long been too dependent on its lucrative military contracts. But with Fabrique Nationale (FN) winning the contract for the M-4, Colt was forced to refocus on the civilian market. Part of Colt's strategy was reentering the double-action revolver market with new and updated designs. It's initial offering was the Colt Cobra in 2017, quickly followed by the King Cobra. In 2020, Colt released a new version of the Python, initially in 6-inch and 4.25-inch barrels. This year, 2022, Colt announced that it would be releasing a 3-inch barreled version.

Overview of the 2020 Python

    I did not pull out my tape measure or scales, but from what I've read, the 6-inch model measures 11.5 inches in overall length, 5.5 inches in height and weighs in at 46 ounces. (The 4.25 inch model is 42 ounces, and the three inch model is 40 ounces). So, no lightweight.

    The finish, I have to say, is excellent. While not quite a mirror polish, it is pretty close. Interestingly, it makes the firearm appear to change its color tone because of the reflection of its surroundings. You can see this even better in some of the close up photographs near the bottom of the article where I show this revolver next to stainless steel revolvers from other manufacturers. And that polish extends to the entire revolver other than the top of the frame and sight ramp which appears to be a very fine bead blast finish to remove any glare. 

    I did not see any machine marks or areas where they had missed polishing. I know that some of the very first articles in 2020 mentioned some few minor defects like that, but none on mine. Similarly, there was a very tight fit between the side plate and the frame. 

    The muzzle features a recessed crown. The barrel, underlug and rib are all one piece. I saw a review from a well known YouTuber who looked at the recessed target crown and thought it was the two-piece system heavily used by Smith & Wesson where the barrel is screwed into a shroud, but that is not the case here.

    The stocks on the grip are made of a laminated wood--walnut I believe--and stained a rich brown color. They include the Colt medallion, of course, and fit very tightly and well together and against the metal. In fact, the wood to wood fit on the bottom is so tight that a quick glance would probably not reveal the line where the two edges fit together.

    The checkering on the stock seems well-done and a bit sharper than that on the Colt Trooper exemplar.  Laser cut, I'm sure.

    The front sight is a ramp style sight with a red insert for better visibility. It is replaceable, held in with a screw at the front of the barrel (see above). You can replace it with a fiber optic sight or a tritium sight. 

    The rear sight is a fully adjustable black sight fairly typical of modern revolvers. The Colt sight uses a locking screw which I found interesting. To adjust for wind drift, you have to loosen the lock screw first, and remember to tighten after making your adjustment. This is the first I have seen this in a revolver.

    There was just the slightest bit of play in the rear sight assembly which is somewhat disconcerting. Apparently this is not an issue unique to me as I found plenty of discussion on various forums as well as some simple fixes. Will it effect accuracy? Don’t know as I have not had time to try it out yet. Unfortunately, according to the forum posts, it appears that Colt is indifferent to the problem and does not consider it a warranty issue. 

    The trigger is a target trigger, meaning that it has serrations along its length to keep your finger from sliding or shifting as you pull the trigger. Using a Lyman digital trigger pull scale, five pulls in single action yielded an average of 5 lbs 11 oz. It didn't feel this heavy to me, but I did another set and the numbers were about the same. This is actually fairly heavy for a modern double action revolver, especially compared with Smith & Wesson revolvers, many of which could be accurately described as having hair triggers when shot single action. Other reviewers have gotten lighter trigger pulls, some down in the 3-1/2 pound range, so it may just be my particular specimen. Double action was better than most other factory production revolvers I've tried, however, yielding an average of 9 lbs. 3 oz., with minimal stacking. 

    I've misplaced my set of feeler gauges, so I wasn't able to measure the cylinder gap; but a visual inspection showed it to be pretty tight. In one of the reviews I read of the weapon, the author reported that the gap was between 0.004 and 0.005 inches.  That's good for accuracy, but bad if you have a loaded cartridge that is slightly too long or in which a bullet is working loose under recoil. Just something to keep in mind.

How Does It Compare To The Older Python?

    Of course, one of the most frequent questions about the 2020 Python is how it compares to the original. Unfortunately, I do not have an original to which I could compare it. The best I could do is a mid-1960s production Colt Trooper that a friend graciously let me borrow. This is not the apples to oranges comparison you might think.  At that time, in the mid-1960s, the Trooper was using the same sized I-frame, grips, and internals as the Python. And since his Trooper sported a 6-inch barrel, it was essentially the same dimensions, but appreciably lighter since it did not have the underlug or rib along the top of the barrel.

2020 Python on top; mid-1960s Trooper on bottom

    The triggers are identical between the two as far as I can tell, with both having rather coarse serrations on the front of the trigger shoe to keep your finger from slipping. I would have preferred a smooth combat style trigger, but since the Python was originally intended for target shooting, it is natural that it would come with a trigger intended for target shooting.

    As you can see, the stocks are essentially the same other than the older model sports stocks made of solid Walnut with a high gloss finish, whereas the newer model uses laminated stocks with a darker, matte finish. Just above the medallion, you can see that the stock has been scalloped. This was originally done to provide clearance for shell extraction, but also makes a handy thumb rest. On the 1960s weapon, this cut-out is only on the left side of the gun, while it is on both sides of the 2020 Python. A nod to the left-handed shooter as there is no other reason to have included it.

Older style hammer spur

Newer style hammer spur

    The hammer spurs differ as to the checkering. The older style used a crossed-hatch pattern that, on the curved surface, almost has the appearance of tiny fish scales. The 2020 model uses a single, horizontal checkering that is undoubtedly less expensive to make and just as serviceable. Just not as visually appealing. 

    But, while we are looking at the hammer, I would point out how nicely shaped is the hammer, rather than the somewhat blocky hammers on products from Ruger which are the same thickness throughout and have minimal machining. This is a proper revolver hammer.

    The internal mechanism of the 2020 Python has been redesigned slightly as compared to the original Python, so it would be pointless to do a comparison of the actual parts. The real test is the weight and feel of the trigger pull, anyway, and in that regard, the 2020 Python holds up very well. I've read other reviews where the authors had both the old Pythons as the new model to compare and found that they are pretty much identical. As I noted, the mechanism in the Trooper to which I was comparing is, as I understand, also the same as the Python of the era. What I can say is that the two--my Python and my friend's Trooper--had almost identical trigger pulls. The Python was slightly better in double-action, while the Trooper felt slightly better in single-action, but the difference was so slight that it would have fallen within the variation one would have had between two different weapons coming off the same assembly line. 

    The Python always had a reputation of having an extremely tight lockup of the cylinder at the moment of firing, and from what I could tell, it still holds true. Also, I really appreciate the larger and longer gutter milled into the Python cylinder than you see with other revolvers. Even if it doesn't impact trigger weight, its nice not to have the fine line inscribed by the cylinder stop/latch as you see on other revolvers.

    Like other .357 double-action revolvers of its era, the original Python was designed with the idea that the shooter would be practicing with .38 Special and only do limited shooting with .357 Magnum--law enforcement officers, for instance, typically shot 20 rounds of .38 Special to every one round of .357 Magnum according to some sources. After the Newhall Shooting, police training practices changed so that officers were expected to train with the same ammo (or at least same power) as they used. Thus, the older Pythons gained a reputation of sustaining damage to the frame and/or timing if fed a steady diet of .357 Magnums. 

    But the Python was not the only revolver to suffer from this. Smith & Wesson and Ruger both had to strengthen their standard .357 revolvers marketed to law enforcement to adjust for the change to steady diets of .357 Magnum. Smith & Wesson's upgrades to the Model 19 gave us the Model 19-4 and, eventually, Smith & Wesson went to the slightly larger L-frame for law enforcement revolvers; while Ruger completely revamped the Security- and Speed-Six to come up with the GP-100.

    Colt, however, did not make similar changes to the Python before it went out of production. 

    That changed with the reintroduction of the Python in 2020. Colt has stated that the top-strap is 30% thicker than in the original, which should allow for heavier strings of .357 Magnum without damaging the gun. A couple sources indicated that it should be comparable in strength to the Ruger GP100.

    I compared the Python's top strap to a couple other of my revolvers. 

Ruger Security-Six on top; Colt 2020 Python on bottom

 

Smith & Wesson 629 (.44 Magnum) on top; 2020 Python on bottom.

    As you can see from the photographs, the top strap on the Python is at least the equal of the Ruger revolver and actually appears to be slightly thicker than the top strap on the Smith & Wesson revolver. Since the steel in the Python is better than that used in the Ruger, I don't think it will be an issue.

Additional Thoughts

    Since I had never used, let alone owned, a Colt revolver prior to this, I was curious as to how using the cylinder release would be. As you may already know, the method of releasing the cylinder varies between manufacturers. Smith & Wesson (and almost all other revolver manufacturers) use a release tab (which S&W terms a thumbpiece) on the left side of the revolver that is pushed forward with the right thumb to release the cylinder. Ruger has a button (which Ruger calls a crane latch) on the left side of the revolver that you push in to open the cylinder. Colt, however, has the oddly shaped latch on the side that is pulled to rear to release the cylinder.

    Because the Colt release pulls to the rear, I thought that it would actually be inferior to the S&W and Ruger designs. And, in fact, if you are trying to open the cylinder with one hand, it probably is. But what I discovered while playing with the weapon is that if you turn your hand to get the best purchase with your thumb--and probably as was intended by the designer--your grip on the firearm with both your hands actually comes naturally to a position that is ideal for pumping the cylinder rod with your left hand and dumping the expended casings. I will have to experiment with it more, but I believe it may actually be superior to the other methods when taken in context with all the other actions necessary for a reload.

    While my part of Idaho is certainly not as cold as other parts of the country come wintertime, it nevertheless is cold enough to warrant wearing gloves. One of my concerns with revolvers has been how well does the trigger and trigger guard work with gloves. Obviously, some trigger guards may be too small to accept a gloved finger. But I also wonder about the fabric becoming pinched by a trigger and tying up the operation. For instance, Smith & Wesson triggers are shaped in such a way that it is easy for a glove to get caught between the trigger and the frame and prevent the trigger from resetting after a shot is taken. This seems particularly the case with their less expensive models. The Python's trigger guard seems adequate to accept a gloved finger, and the shape of the trigger does not appear to be one that would trap a piece of material on the glove.

Trigger on S&W 629--notice how a bit of fabric could get caught between the trigger and the frame. This particular revolver has slightly rounded edges so it is less likely, but I've shot other models with sharper edges where it could have been a problem if I had been wearing gloves made from thicker fabrics or that fit more loosely.

The Ruger design would not catch a glove.

The Python design also appear to be "glove-proof".

    I have a Kenai chest holster from Gunfighters Inc. which I had purchased for another revolver. Once you have the chest holster harness, though, you can order just the Kydex holster shells for about 60% of the cost of a harness/shell combination. So I picked up a shell for the Python and intend on using that for its holster when I take it into the field. 

    HKS and Safariland both make speedloaders for the Python. For HKS, the model needed is the PY-A. Safariland lists the J-P3C Comp II as its model for the Python. However, I have some J-R4C Comp II speed loaders for use with my Ruger Security Six and, just on whim, tried them out with the Python and, as far as I can tell, they work fine.  

Final Thoughts

    All in all, the 2020 Python is a nicely made weapon with a fit and finish that is--other than the slight wiggle in the rear sight--worthy of the price of the weapon. Especially when you look at how expensive revolvers have gotten over the past two or three years. I don't know if I will just be using it for plinking and informal target shooting, carrying it for hiking or hunting, or what, but I am excited to try it out. 

Additional Reading:

• "Colt Python: A Complete History" by Rick Hacker, Handguns Magazine.
• "The Colt Python – A Legend in Service Weapons" by Travis Pike, SOFREP.
• "Educational Zone #88 - The Colt Python .357 Magnum Revolver"--The Box-O-Truth.
• "Classic vs. Modern: Comparing Colt’s Original and New .357 Pythons" by Bob Campbell, USCCA.
• "FIELD TEST: The “New” Colt Python" by Bob Campbell, Shoot On. 
• "Colt Python Review: Full Review of the Reintroduced Iconic Revolver" by Keith Wood, Guns & Ammo.
• "Field Report: The 2020 Colt Python"--Revolver Guy.
• "Colt Python Review" by Wiley Clapp, American Rifleman. 
• "Colt Python Revolver Review: The Return" by Patrick Sweeney, Firearm News. Some good photographs of various features of the new Python, including the operating mechanism.
• "Review: Colt Python Revolver in .357 Magnum" by Dick Williams, Shooting Illustrated.
• "Can the Colt Python Pass the 2,000-Round Challenge?" (Part 1) (Part 2) by Caleb Giddings, Shooting Illustrated.