Post by Lee Martin on Jul 1, 2021 19:08:12 GMT -5
Curiosity killed the cat. I bought a new 2020 Python. My assessment is underneath the photos.
• Mechanics - original Pythons retained the same internal design as the 1898 New Service and 1908 Army Special. Purists won’t like the 2020 Python guts because they deviate a bit from that pattern. And there appear to be some MIM parts. Properly made MIM pieces aren’t necessary weak. They can be tough as hell. However, improperly cast and/or poorly heat-treated and they fail miserably. The new action is simpler. There are 9 fewer pieces. One rub on the old design was they’d shoot out of time. Notably, the hand was held in place against the ratchet cog when cocked (as opposed to a S&W’s which floats). Colt cylinders rotate clockwise, so the hand further supports the gun in battery. Under hard recoil and thousands of firings, the hand could wear. That wear lead to timing problems. At least that’s how it was reported – I have no first-hand experience here. Other differences:
1. The mainspring is heavier and more U-shaped. 1955 – 2005 Pythons used a thinner V-spring.
2. Legacy Python’s had forged hands affixed to the trigger via a pin. The new hands are cast and have a very sharp inner tip, coupled with a deep curvature. If not suitably heat treated, this could become a wear point.
3. The hammer stirrup on the new Python is bigger, but likely cast. It is nestled into the hammer under a hock. The originals were forged and pinned in place.
4. The hammer block was ditched for a transfer bar
5. The bolt is front loaded with a spring, similar to a Smith. It works independently from the rebound lever. The new Python’s rebound lever is longer and only resets the trigger and pushes the hand forward.
• Accuracy – really hard for me to compare the two. I haven’t shot enough old Pythons to set a bar. Moreover, I haven’t fired this 2020 enough to give it an accuracy grade. I have shot it offhand at 30 yards on swinging steel. It printed very tight. Around 2”-3” with a 158 gr cast and Green Dot powder. 50 & 100 yards off the bench are upcoming. I’ll post those results.
• Grips - nicely figured walnut with tight fit to the frame. They’re identical in outline, but a little thinner. Both versions are interchangeable. I prefer the slimmer profile, whereas others may not.
• Barrel – it is still 1:14 twist. The 4.0” model now sports a 4.25” barrel to comply with Canadian regulations. Rumor has it the muzzle is choked a thousandth like the originals. I’m unwilling to pull my barrel to confirm this. This could just be internet rumor. Perhaps Bradshaw can get Jerry Moran to clarify this.
• Hammer spur – the 2020 is a smidge shorter, but rides lower. I like the new shape better. To me, the old spur seemed disproportionately large for the gun.
• Front sight - is held by a front mounted set screw. They’re easier to change compared to the older two pin. The red insert is also a welcomed addition.
• Rear sight – the new version is probably more durable, but has two short-comings. First, the entire sight assembly can move between the sight ears. Granted, we’re talking a hundredth or two, but it wiggles. The only way to prevent this is either bottom the elevation screw against the frame or shim it. It seems like all of the new Pythons have this problem. Secondly, the windage screw is continuous as opposed to click adjusted. And it is locked with a set screw. It takes longer to manipulate and isn’t repeatable. The old Accro or an Elliason would be an upgrade, but they won’t fit the 2020.
• Muzzle - recess crowned. The original bores were cut flush.
• Action - very smooth when cocking. I can’t tell much, if any difference from the legacy Pythons.
• Trigger pull – mine is 4 lbs 3 ounces single-action and 9 lbs on the nose double. This is about a pound heavier than the reported averages of the old Python. There is absolutely no creep on the 2020 model. The sear notch in the hammer is deep and steep. A skilled gunsmith could re-work this and get SA pull weights between 2 and 3 lbs. An unskilled gunsmith could ruin the sear just as quick (hint – you need to change the sear angle slightly)
• Double action - doesn’t “stack” like the older ones often did.
• Extraction - just like the originals, the 2020’s extractor is too short to fully eject the empties.
• Finish – the stainless is beautifully polished. Mine is near mirror finish with no visible brush marks. Purists long for the royal blue, as do I. It’s unlikely we’ll see it return.
• Early 2020 problems – too light a mainspring on initial production has been fixed. There have been no ignition problems with mine. Also, Colt now thread locks the side-plate screw. On the first batch they tended to back out. The plate presses the hand into place. Not doing creates enough play to prevent the cylinder from rotating into battery.
I like the new Python and would, and probably will, only change two things. In time, I’ll re-work the SA pull to 2 – 3 lbs. And the minute an upgraded rear sight is available, I’m buying one. Fingers crossed that Kensight offers it.
So is the 2020 worth $1,500 - $1,700? If you really want the look and feel of a Python, then yes. Otherwise, I recommend a S&W 686 at half the price. More to come on my 2020 as the round count climbs.
-Lee
www.singleactions.com
"Chasing perfection five shots at a time"
• Mechanics - original Pythons retained the same internal design as the 1898 New Service and 1908 Army Special. Purists won’t like the 2020 Python guts because they deviate a bit from that pattern. And there appear to be some MIM parts. Properly made MIM pieces aren’t necessary weak. They can be tough as hell. However, improperly cast and/or poorly heat-treated and they fail miserably. The new action is simpler. There are 9 fewer pieces. One rub on the old design was they’d shoot out of time. Notably, the hand was held in place against the ratchet cog when cocked (as opposed to a S&W’s which floats). Colt cylinders rotate clockwise, so the hand further supports the gun in battery. Under hard recoil and thousands of firings, the hand could wear. That wear lead to timing problems. At least that’s how it was reported – I have no first-hand experience here. Other differences:
1. The mainspring is heavier and more U-shaped. 1955 – 2005 Pythons used a thinner V-spring.
2. Legacy Python’s had forged hands affixed to the trigger via a pin. The new hands are cast and have a very sharp inner tip, coupled with a deep curvature. If not suitably heat treated, this could become a wear point.
3. The hammer stirrup on the new Python is bigger, but likely cast. It is nestled into the hammer under a hock. The originals were forged and pinned in place.
4. The hammer block was ditched for a transfer bar
5. The bolt is front loaded with a spring, similar to a Smith. It works independently from the rebound lever. The new Python’s rebound lever is longer and only resets the trigger and pushes the hand forward.
• Accuracy – really hard for me to compare the two. I haven’t shot enough old Pythons to set a bar. Moreover, I haven’t fired this 2020 enough to give it an accuracy grade. I have shot it offhand at 30 yards on swinging steel. It printed very tight. Around 2”-3” with a 158 gr cast and Green Dot powder. 50 & 100 yards off the bench are upcoming. I’ll post those results.
• Grips - nicely figured walnut with tight fit to the frame. They’re identical in outline, but a little thinner. Both versions are interchangeable. I prefer the slimmer profile, whereas others may not.
• Barrel – it is still 1:14 twist. The 4.0” model now sports a 4.25” barrel to comply with Canadian regulations. Rumor has it the muzzle is choked a thousandth like the originals. I’m unwilling to pull my barrel to confirm this. This could just be internet rumor. Perhaps Bradshaw can get Jerry Moran to clarify this.
• Hammer spur – the 2020 is a smidge shorter, but rides lower. I like the new shape better. To me, the old spur seemed disproportionately large for the gun.
• Front sight - is held by a front mounted set screw. They’re easier to change compared to the older two pin. The red insert is also a welcomed addition.
• Rear sight – the new version is probably more durable, but has two short-comings. First, the entire sight assembly can move between the sight ears. Granted, we’re talking a hundredth or two, but it wiggles. The only way to prevent this is either bottom the elevation screw against the frame or shim it. It seems like all of the new Pythons have this problem. Secondly, the windage screw is continuous as opposed to click adjusted. And it is locked with a set screw. It takes longer to manipulate and isn’t repeatable. The old Accro or an Elliason would be an upgrade, but they won’t fit the 2020.
• Muzzle - recess crowned. The original bores were cut flush.
• Action - very smooth when cocking. I can’t tell much, if any difference from the legacy Pythons.
• Trigger pull – mine is 4 lbs 3 ounces single-action and 9 lbs on the nose double. This is about a pound heavier than the reported averages of the old Python. There is absolutely no creep on the 2020 model. The sear notch in the hammer is deep and steep. A skilled gunsmith could re-work this and get SA pull weights between 2 and 3 lbs. An unskilled gunsmith could ruin the sear just as quick (hint – you need to change the sear angle slightly)
• Double action - doesn’t “stack” like the older ones often did.
• Extraction - just like the originals, the 2020’s extractor is too short to fully eject the empties.
• Finish – the stainless is beautifully polished. Mine is near mirror finish with no visible brush marks. Purists long for the royal blue, as do I. It’s unlikely we’ll see it return.
• Early 2020 problems – too light a mainspring on initial production has been fixed. There have been no ignition problems with mine. Also, Colt now thread locks the side-plate screw. On the first batch they tended to back out. The plate presses the hand into place. Not doing creates enough play to prevent the cylinder from rotating into battery.
I like the new Python and would, and probably will, only change two things. In time, I’ll re-work the SA pull to 2 – 3 lbs. And the minute an upgraded rear sight is available, I’m buying one. Fingers crossed that Kensight offers it.
So is the 2020 worth $1,500 - $1,700? If you really want the look and feel of a Python, then yes. Otherwise, I recommend a S&W 686 at half the price. More to come on my 2020 as the round count climbs.
-Lee
www.singleactions.com
"Chasing perfection five shots at a time"
