|
|
Post by contender on Feb 9, 2020 11:00:17 GMT -5
Again,, excellent posting David.
The comments about John Browning,, as well as the designs of revolvers, etc it very insightful. Modern engineers should & could take a lesson in that simple paragraph. Sadly,, in the modern world,, I doubt we'll see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bradshaw on Feb 9, 2020 12:27:25 GMT -5
Again,, excellent posting David. The comments about John Browning,, as well as the designs of revolvers, etc it very insightful. Modern engineers should & could take a lesson in that simple paragraph. Sadly,, in the modern world,, I doubt we'll see it. ***** Tyrone.... yet another subject I should have brought up with Bill Ruger, whom, like Browning, I see as more of a designer than inventor. Unlike Browning, Ruger not only designed guns, he manufactured them, something Browning projected little interest in. Browning was designing guns at a high clip, perhaps three a year. My number may be off; the point is, Browning designed intensely. Enough so that Winchester was buying patents it didn’t have the capacity to build, just to keep them out of Remington’s hands. Or anyone else. Ruger and I were discussing the line between design and invention one day. We all know Hiram Maxim, the Maine farm boy, invented the machine gun. Who knows how many were at work trying to make full auto? I believe Browning’s first attempt started with an 1873 Winchester, or a prototype lever of his own, or his 1892 Winchester, bleeding gas off a tappet at the muzzle, with a long operating rod to the lever. If so, Browning’s first machine gun may well have been a .44-40. Emphatically, the Machine gun was an invention, and patentable as such----the concept. “Just think,” Bill Ruger says, contemplating the actuality of concept and pausing for effect, “Hiram Maxim held the patent for a self-firing mechanism. John Browning designed a machine gun around Maxim’s patent!” David Bradshaw |
|
|
|
Post by contender on Feb 10, 2020 11:49:45 GMT -5
David,, that's truly insightful. I too wish you'd been able to discuss this more with Bill. I love the last comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyingzebra on Feb 24, 2020 1:09:53 GMT -5
Does anyone here know what the barrel thread is for the new model Python?
|
|
|
|
Post by bradshaw on Feb 24, 2020 10:40:12 GMT -5
Does anyone here know what the barrel thread is for the new model Python? ***** flyingzebra.... if Jerry Moran tears down a Python 2020, he’ll know. If Colt uses the same thread as on most Pythons, reckon the barrel tenon and frame amy be threaded 32 x9/16”. While this may have nothing to do with the way current manufacturers think, it was Bill Ruger, Jr., who explained his preference for fine threads: for a given tenon diameter, fine threads have a wider ROOT DIAMETER. Meaning, for a given BARREL TENON DIAMETER, fine threads allow a thicker wall. Fine threads of course bite more with less torque. My own view has to do with THREAD TIMING (which both Ruger and Smith & Wesson managed to screw up big time, for years on end). A minor error in thread timing is more easily adjusted with fine threads----without compressing the bore at the junction of barrel shoulder and frame. Jerry Moran tells me Colt, also. Who knows how many other manufacturers may have guzzled that Kool-Aid. To support the propaganda of for “correct” barrel tightening----and to further confuse the issue----the term “torque was thrown in. You don’t torque a revolver barrel, you TIME it!. It’s called THREAD TIMING. I don’t know when thread timing was developed, but you can bet Colt and Smith & Wesson understood thread timing the moment they screwed barrels into frames. Anyone, from a handloader to a manufacturer, gets into trouble when they don’t think things through. I’ll put your question to Jerry Moran when he returns from winter stillness in the deep woods. David Bradshaw |
|
JM
.375 Atomic
Posts: 2,454
|
Post by JM on Feb 24, 2020 13:58:20 GMT -5
The cylinder lock leads look much longer than the older models. Does the locking bolt rise sooner?
|
|
|
|
Post by bradshaw on Feb 24, 2020 17:15:38 GMT -5
The cylinder lock leads look much longer than the older models. Does the locking bolt rise sooner? ***** Have not handled the Python 2020. Bolt leads on the old Python cylinder are long. Bolt retraction & rise are mechanically variable. In my experience the Python bolt typically rises late. I’ll task Jerry Moran about this soon. As noted, the Python 2020 bolt copies Smith & Wesson. Not just a step back but a double-step back. The long tail Colt adds to the S&W stop* Reduces leverage of the bolt in the in the cylinder notch. * Increases bolt inertia under recoil. * May increase wear in bolt window (bottom strap of frame). * Increases stress on bolt. I suspect the reason for adopting S&W-style cylinder stop is to reduce or eliminate hand fitting. As noted previously, the old Colt bolt exerts strong up-pressure to hold the cylinder during combustion. David Bradshaw |
|
JM
.375 Atomic
Posts: 2,454
|
Post by JM on Feb 24, 2020 21:36:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bradshaw on Feb 25, 2020 10:14:47 GMT -5
***** jm.... thank you for posting link to a so-called evaluation. Humor is a good thing: “I shot my ’79 next to my ’20 at paper targets to compare groups. In short, they both shoot great but I was able to achieve tighter groups with my new Python over the ’79.” Within that writer’s report, a total of three lines devoted to “accuracy.” Is this an audition for the Olympic Team or the IHMSA All-America Team, or the Army Advanced Marksmanship Unit? The guy must be a spectator shot to throw up some paper at a casually unstated distance, to pronounce the Python 2020 more accurate than a Legacy Python. Reckon the men & woman of Silhouette who turned top performances with their old Pythons had better throw em over the bank. Having neither held nor shot a Python 2020, I have no take on its accuracy. Yet, the re-introduction of a classic of great beauty----which proved deep indeed----warrants full examination. Whether the gun is a stunt to prop up a name, or real reincarnation must be discerned. And it cannot be done without the Firing Line. According to an engineer----retired from Colt quite a while ago----to manufacture a revolver without a file or stone is the holy grail of revolver manufacture, and was nearly met with the last of the MK series .357 revolvers. This engineer pronounced that variant a really good gun. My own experience with Colt MK series .357’s was not cheery, as I found nothing to steal me away from the double action & single action & accuracy of a Smith & Wesson. The idea of total interchangeability is to snatch someone off the street to assemble a revolver and each one comes out the same----perfect. First question: Is the Python 2020 meant to function and perform perfectly with unskilled assembly? If the answer is Yes, all evaluations will be perfect. If not, what is the perfect remedy? Or, if hand fitting is involved, what is the outcome? It, also, should be perfect. To evaluate a revolver, it helps to start with a list of Country Simple criteria. David Bradshaw |
|
|
|
Post by flyingzebra on Feb 25, 2020 12:07:05 GMT -5
flyingzebra.... if Jerry Moran tears down a Python 2020, he’ll know. I’ll put your question to Jerry Moran when he returns from winter stillness in the deep woods. Mr Bradshaw thanks I've only handled one of these, and only for a moment as it sold to the fellow standing next to me while I was measuring the cylinder length. I've seen the new Cobra apart in Jack Huntington's shop, but it's barrel didn't need to come off so no barrel threads were measured. When we saw the press release for this new Python model, the first guess was that it would have the same lockwork as the other new Colts. |
|
JM
.375 Atomic
Posts: 2,454
|
Post by JM on Feb 25, 2020 12:40:39 GMT -5
***** jm.... thank you for posting link to a so-called evaluation. Humor is a good thing: “I shot my ’79 next to my ’20 at paper targets to compare groups. In short, they both shoot great but I was able to achieve tighter groups with my new Python over the ’79.” --<snip>-- To evaluate a revolver, it helps to start with a list of Country Simple criteria. David Bradshaw Just a link that I found on another site. I understand the testing is lacking. The picture comparison between the two caught my eye. Look at the cylinder lock leads as compared to the flutes. The new model appears to either have longer leads (maybe deeper also), or the lock notches are placed in a different location. |
|
