Tuesday, August 28, 2007

He's leaving something out.

Grant Cunningham has a lengthy, erudite, educational, and thoughtful post on why he feels the Colt Python is such a beautiful piece of industrial design.

What he fails to mention is that, if it had a full underlug, even the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel would be ugly enough to make a freight train take a dirt road.


Anonymous said...

Colt DA revolvers just don't "work" for me. Seems everyone thinks they're the prettiest guns around, but I find J/K/N-Frame Smiths much easier on the eyes. I'm not fond of the L-Frames though (except for the 696, I'd love to get one of those).

For my money, the "prettiest" revolver is a pencil barrel M10. Oh yeah, I have one. :)


phlegmfatale said...

It's funny how much that reads like the analysis of music or poetry. I think he likes 'em. He really rilly likes 'em.

Kevin said...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to like the full underlug. I think the 586/686 S&W is a damned fine looking pistol, too. Just not in the class of a Colt Royal Blue 4" Python.

Kevin said...

And I posted that BEFORE I clicked on the link.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, as far as looks go, the Remington 'New Model Army' is the epitome of beauty.

Oh heck, time to go scrape the calluses off my knuckles again.

NotClauswitz said...

I like half-underlugs, it's like half a bikini.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't the accuracy of the Python the result of the special barrel boring/rifling? Something about slightly tighter at the muzzle and the rifling twist rate increases also. It's been a couple of decades since I researched it.

I never cared for Colt revolvers simply because of the cylinder latch. I've handled/shot/been issued and even owned one them. To me the S&W latch is more sure and easier/natural to use.

I'm also a bit old fashioned in that I don't like underlugs on any brand of revolvers. To me, they just add excess weight and bulk without any benifit. Don't look good either IMO.