Colt Python vs. Smith & Wesson 686

Two classic beauties–the Colt Python (top) and the Smith 686.

Buy a Python–https://www.gunsamerica.com/Search.aspx?T=python
Buy a S&W 686–https://www.gunsamerica.com/Search.aspx?T=686
I’ve got a short list of guns I’d like to see brought back to the market. Most are classic designs from the revolutionary period between the development of the brass cartridge and the second world war. Most of these would fulfill some misplaced nostalgia for an era I only know through literary interpretations and grainy black and white images. But there is one modern masterpiece that is no longer being made, and I’m ready to see it brought back: The Colt Python.
Why did the guns fade away? The answer isn’t too complex. These guns were among the last of an era. The smiths at Colt had a lot of man hours in the finish work on their double-action revolvers. The machines that produced them were run by humans, and not by computers. And these are material-rich firearms. There is a lot of steel these old guns, which adds to the expense and the weight. In a world that’s gone all-plastic, the Colt revolvers seemed antiquated.
So how is it that Smith & Wesson continues to pull it off with their production revolvers? The S&W wheel guns are considered to be the industry standard now. So the question is this: if the expense of producing the Colt Python was too much, how is Smith pulling it off with the 686? And what, besides the wide gap in prices, is the difference between these two guns?

The visual distinctions

As is obvious to those of us with a functional sense of sight, the two guns we’re comparing are almost identical. If they’d had the same finish and grips attached, I doubt many of us could pick them apart at any distance. As is, they’re visually distinct. The old Python is blued. The 686 is stainless. Otherwise, they both feature 6″ barrels and full-sized frames. There’s nothing compact about these brutes.

The 6″ blued Python.

The 686.

The grips are the other major variation. The Smith has a black rubber grip that keeps the backstrap covered. The finger swells and recurve of the back make it ideal for those who like a custom molded grip. And the rubber is easy to hold onto. The Python’s grip is not the original, but close. It closes some of the gap behind the trigger guard, but leaves the steel of the backstrap against your palm.
But grips on common revolvers are as easy to change as your shoes. So let’s get past that.

Form and Function

This is an Apples-to-Apples comparison. The 6″ barrels deliver the same velocity. Both guns are capable of gnat’s-ass accuracy. The weights are equal. Both have solid triggers. They share the same grip angle. Unless you’re comparing two 1911s (made by two different companies) or two AR-15s, it is hard to get any more common ground. Yet these aren’t the same model, like those are.

Specs–686

Model: 686 Plus
Caliber: .357 Magnum
Capacity: 7 Rounds
Barrel Length: 6″ / 15.2 cm
Front Sight: Red Ramp
Rear Sight: Adjustable White Outline
Grip: Synthetic
Action: Single/Double Action
Frame Size: Medium – Exposed Hammer
Finish: Satin Stainless
Overall Length: 11.94″
Material: Stainless Steel
Weight Empty: 43.9 oz

Specs–Python

Model: Python
Caliber: .357 Magnum
Capacity: 6 Rounds
Barrel Length: 6″
Front Sight: Black Ramp
Rear Sight: Adjustable
Grip: Walnut
Action: Single/Double Action
Frame Size: Medium – Exposed Hammer
Finish: Blued
Overall Length: 11.5″
Material: Carbon Steel
Weight Empty: 43. oz

The sights on the Python are completely adjustable, if not as colorful.

The sight picture on the 686 is very easy to see.

The 686 is my go-to wheel gun. I’ve written about this before in several posts, but it bears repeating. I’ve carried this gun for three years or more. It goes with me when I’m out on the farm, or in the woods, or hunting… I even carry it when I’m at the range. How many times have you blown through a mag at the range and left yourself completely naked, so to speak. I’ve got a cross-draw holster that allows me to wear this while I’m wearing a strong side holster, which means I’ve always got this option as a back-up.
And I can shoot it really well in the single-action mode. I’ve not modified the trigger at all. I haven’t monkeyed with either of the guns. The Python’s double-action pull breaks at 8 pounds. The single-action is closer to 3 pounds. The Smith is a bit heavier than that for the double-action–tripping at 10 pounds, and 2.5 pounds for the single action pull.

I still shoot the 686 better in single action mode.

The 686 is dead on accurate, even in double action. This is my best group from 25 yards.

One thing I’ve noticed is that two shooters can engage the same gun differently. Sam Trisler, who writes a lot of our revolver reviews, can do respectable work with the single-action on the 686, but his groups are better with the double-action pull.

I can get all six inside the trigger guard–shooting double-action.

I’m exactly the opposite with the Colt. While I don’t have anywhere near the same time behind the trigger on the Python, I’ve shot it enough to know that I’m better with it in the double-action mode.
So how would I make a direct comparison when it boiled down to accuracy? Easy. Both of these guns are capable of superb accuracy. I can shoot ragged one-hole groups from 25 yards with the 686, and I can do it with the Colt. Both guns function flawlessly. The balance provided by their long, fully lugged barrels makes them easy to hold on target. The consistency of their factory triggers will make you hate your GLOCK.

The Python has a lot of potential. I can’t imagine a world where the gun isn’t in production, and where a solid working gun becomes a collector’s item. But we’re there.

In the end, what is the difference?

Let’s look at this comparison from a different angle. What if you had these two guns, side-by-side, with the same finish and grips, but with no branding? You didn’t know which gun was made by which company. And let’s also assume that your knowledge of the basic shape of the trigger guard wouldn’t give one away. Then you got to shoot them. Which one would win?
For me, it would all come down to how I shoot a revolver. I like to have the predictability of the double-action accuracy. But a big revolver (at least for me) isn’t a tool for immediate-action. I’d still prefer my GLOCK for that. I can still envision a scenario that requires me to clear leather and put a shot or two on target fast, and I do that better with the with the single-action mode of the S&W than I do with the Python. So there–a winner. The 686 comes out on top–for me. Maybe. They both shoot so well that I’m really hard pressed to choose one over the other.

It is easy to understand the appeal both of these have for Hollywood.

There are other considerations, though. The rules of our economy can’t be ignored. And the 686 is still being produced. Supply and demand are somewhat equal, which keeps the price competitive. The Python is no longer in production, which means the supply line exists only as long as there are used Pythons for sale. This drives up price considerably.
In short, the 686 is a workhorse (if you’ll pardon the equine metaphor we’d typically reserve for Colt’s marketing strategies). And the Python is a safe-queen.
If you are looking for a revolver to take out of the safe, shoot occasionally–and one that will surely increase in value the longer you own it, you need a Python.

Proof that I’m not concerned about preserving the reputation of this not-a-safe-queen? I had the whole thing coated by WMD. Now she’s even easier to keep clean.

If you want a revolver that you can shoot endlessly without worrying about what’s happening to your investment, test drive a 686. You won’t regret it.
If you are made of money, and you don’t give a rat’s ass how much a snake sells for, than you will have a tougher decision. Both of these guns are incredible examples of old-school American craftsmanship.
I know full well, though, that almost everyone reading this is very protective of their hard-earned cash. We can’t afford Pythons. Most of us can’t afford a 686, at least not on a whim.