Battle of the Snubbies: Colt vs. S&W

[barbarossa]

So I stumbled upon an old Colt Python snub nose revolver. I've always been curious about them, seeing that my revolver collection is all S&W.

Here's the truth:

the Colt is smoother than the S&W. Silkier, more satisfying if you love and have a sense for mechanical things. Hard to put in words.

This is not to say that the S&Ws are clunkers. Just that they do not feel as Swiss watch like.


Now on to the important part:

There is no difference in the way they are able to hit their target. At least not with a shooter of my amateur skills.


Examples:

Targets I didn't mark right away. I can not tell (or remember) which gun did what:

Conclusion:

the Colt is an absolute pleasure to shoot. Not something I'd carry in the woods or kayak like I do my S&Ws. But, damn, what a great gun. Glad I got one. It is not going anywhere. Need to find nicer grips.

Still love my Smiths. They're more tool like.


barbarossa

 

[2011Corvette]

I liked your comparison but I still like my Smith & Wesson's too.

 

[madwabbit]

smith is great, but the colt python is a legend. the full size python may be the best revolver ever made in my own opinion, of course.

this coming from an auto guy, not a wheel fan.

 

[AK shooter]

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=400482677

I like that python, I didn't know they were going for these prices!

 

[Richard in LA]

The python is hands down smoother, and has that superb lockup that equates to (usually) better accuracy. Thing is that superb lockup puts added stresson the hand and it will eventually loosen up with useage (albeit not nearly as quick with .38 spl) and will eventually need a "tune up", and prices are crazy for parts as well. I personally think that the Python is one of the most eye appealing handguns ever to be built, and I have quite a few Smith's and am very partial to them. I'd probably have a safe full of colts if they were the same price point, but a ferrari isn't the same price as a camaro or mustang either, and both get your from point A to point B.

 

[beauxdog]

The Python wont stand up to the beating the S&W's will take. The springs are a very old style and they will give out. I prefer the S&W revolvers but a good looking Python is hard to beat.

Beauxdog

 

[Nomad.2nd]

Had a 6" python.

Got mutable smiths with better actions.

Got rid of it and don't regret it.

 

[Devilneck]

I would like to have a 6" Python as a safe queen.

I am, and have long been a S&W fan though.

 

[nwmousegunner]

This topic brings back memories. In the late 70's and early 80's it was a common debate in the gun magazines. At that time Colt advertised the Python as the finest double action pistol made. You can imagine what kind of debate that would create. Most of the gun writers in those days agreed that if you used the money that you saved by buying a Smith on an action job the Smith & Wesson would be as smooth as the Colt. I have and old 19-1 that had an action job by Clark's custom guns in 1977, it has the smoothest double pull that I have ever tried. Dave

 

[CUJOHUNTER]

I've had many j frames and a couple of d frame Colts....love them all. I'm a big snub fan. As a matter of fact, I can't bring myself to shoot full size revolvers anymore because of my reoccurring bursitis in my forearm not allowing me to support a 30+oz revolver anymore without experiencing pain. I have a fondness for S&W snubbies because I know more about them than I do with the Colt revolvers. I like the feel of the Colt but feel more comfortable with the Smiths. I also have a profound fondness for the k frame snubbies but the weight still bothers me. Overall, I will always side with a Smith......It's what I know.

 

[Gus McCrae]

I thought this was a good read when I was looking into buying a Python.

http://grantcunningham.com/blog_files/colt_python_delicate.html

 

[Devilneck]

I thought this was a good read when I was looking into buying a Python.

http://grantcunningham.com/blog_files/colt_python_delicate.html

IRT to your link:
I understand tolerances and specs and so forth, but I don't buy into "engineered to wear out." Maybe Colt did do that, but it seems to be a silly call in my know nothing opinion.

I would still love a Python, I've loved them for a long time. Wonderful guns, no doubt about it. I don't feel that they are that much better than a nice Smith though, for a frequent shooter.
No question that it would make a great safe queen, or occasional shooter.

My bottom line, if I ran across a good deal on a Python, I'd snatch it up in a heartbeat and feel not a lick of regret. Of course, I will say the same about a nice Smith.
Either way, it's a win! They're both damned nice pea shooters.

 

[Gus McCrae]

IRT to your link:
I understand tolerances and specs and so forth, but I don't buy into "engineered to wear out." Maybe Colt did do that, but it seems to be a silly call in my know nothing opinion.

When you have mating surfaces that constantly move with and/or against each other, you will have wear. Often, it makes perfect sense to have the cheaper part to wear faster so the expensive part doesn't need replacing. Kinda like how some distributor gears are brass or a softer alloy in an auto engine. Parts are going to wear, but it's easier to replace a distributor gear vs a cam gear.

Don't know the exact design specs of the Colt, but the hand would be easier to replace than the cylinder star. Colt decided that the Cylinder Lock Up would be very precise and solid. As a result, the gun was designed around performance. The whole idea that the pawl wears faster is perfectly plausible.

I don't see it as a fault of Colt. Colt just decided that performance was more important.

 

[Devilneck]

When you have mating surfaces that constantly move with and/or against each other, you will have wear. Often, it makes perfect sense to have the cheaper part to wear faster so the expensive part doesn't need replacing. Kinda like how some distributor gears are brass or a softer alloy in an auto engine. Parts are going to wear, but it's easier to replace a distributor gear vs a cam gear.

Don't know the exact design specs of the Colt, but the hand would be easier to replace than the cylinder star. Colt decided that the Cylinder Lock Up would be very precise and solid. As a result, the gun was designed around performance. The whole idea that the pawl wears faster is perfectly plausible.

I don't see it as a fault of Colt. Colt just decided that performance was more important.

Yeah, I get that. I just wonder why it's not a problem for any of my Smiths.

 

[Gus McCrae]

Smiths are built different. A Smith by design won't lock up as tight as a Colt Python either.

Nothing wrong with either. They are just different and have different stengths.

 

[dwr461]

The hand (S&W term) wears our faster in the Colt design because the recoil goes directly into it. To minimize wear the cylinder movement end to end in a Colt is kept much tighter than the smith design.

Dave



Sent from my Nokia 920 using Tapatalk

 

[marmy7451]

I have two custom colt snubbies with 3" bbl. The actions are a thing or pure pleasure to shoot, but keeping them running requires a good parts supply.

 

[kk5fe]

Well, I like my little model 60

 

[Cleburne]

Well, I like my little model 60

Had one just like it. Traded it for a M1 carbine, but have kept my blued S&W Model 36 Chief's Special. The little J-frames are great little wheelguns.

 

[CUJOHUNTER]

Nice M60. I have a 36 and traded a 60 for something a while back. Love the Smiths.....yes, I am partial to S&W. I carry one, sometimes two, 642s on any given day along with a few Bianchi speedstrips. You can take all my handguns away as long as you leave me with my J frames!