OK, so I have a couple of S&W Revolvers (a K-Comp and a well seasoned 640-1 from 1995...). Both have outstanding triggers. It's smooth, and reasonable weight.

Last year, I bought a Colt King Cobra in 2 inch for carry. The gun is gorgeous, but the trigger is not nearly as good as my Smiths. It stacks and gets really tough towards the end of the trigger pull. Plus, to be fair the face of the trigger is narrow compared to older Colts, or even compared to my S&W's. It has made for the King Cobra to be not all that fun to shoot, and I'm not nearly as accurate,

I'm left with a few options...
- Keep the Colt as is, and just hope it smoothes out / reduces the trigger pull weight over time.

- Send it out for a trigger job...unknown where that would be...

- Sell it , and get another S&W (A 340, 686+ 3", or even the Kimber K6XS) I love the size/weight of this little .357, but im struggling with it now...

Thanks all, any info on the Colt, past experiences on them, etc. Looking to make the best, informed decision.

Colt revolvers always stack, because of their V main spring. For action work here's two with good reputations.
I have never used either personally.

https://www.heffronprecision.com/


http://www.glenncustom.com/

.

I've been watching a lot of C&Arsenal videos on the small arms used in WWI. It actually quite fascinating and it does include handguns. One thing distinctly noticeable is that Colt Revolvers had a well earned reputation of shooting "out of time" pretty quickly. Not enough to shave lead or spit crap out of the B/C gap but enough to have a distinct loss in accuracy. The Colt 1909 was so bad that the US military filed several complaints that all it took to lose it's accuracy was 100 rounds fired. Note, group sizes would go from 2 or 3 inches at 25 yards to well over 8. Meanwhile the S&W revolvers like the Triple Lock or the 1917 didn't lose any accuracy until the barrels were shot out.

Point here is that Colts shoot out of time quickly and Smith's don't. I will also note that Colt and S&W both use Leaf Springs for the action on their medium and large frame revolvers.

Another option- sell it and get a GP100. Both it and my SP101 have fantastic DA trigger pulls after copious dry firing.

quote:

Originally posted by Scooter123:
I've been watching a lot of C&Arsenal videos on the small arms used in WWI. It actually quite fascinating and it does include handguns. One thing distinctly noticeable is that Colt Revolvers had a well earned reputation of shooting "out of time" pretty quickly. Not enough to shave lead or spit crap out of the B/C gap but enough to have a distinct loss in accuracy. The Colt 1909 was so bad that the US military filed several complaints that all it took to lose it's accuracy was 100 rounds fired. Note, group sizes would go from 2 or 3 inches at 25 yards to well over 8. Meanwhile the S&W revolvers like the Triple Lock or the 1917 didn't lose any accuracy until the barrels were shot out.

Point here is that Colts shoot out of time quickly and Smith's don't. I will also note that Colt and S&W both use Leaf Springs for the action on their medium and large frame revolvers.

I don't know if that's still true. Thew Colt revolvers have supposedly been redesigned and are more durable now. I guess we will know for sure in time.

Colt revolvers have a different feel though. No trigger job is going to change that. Some people like it and some people don't.

As I mostly shoot revolvers DA, I prefer Smiths.

The Colts sure look nice though and were the choice of bullseye shooters back when revolvers ruled that game. They have their strengths.

The old Colts had a V spring. The new ones have a coil spring design. The DA pull on the new Python is as good as any Smith. However for some reason the SA pull is not good. No where as good as the old Colt in SA or the Smith for that matter. I have some nice Smiths DA/SA (686 and 586) but honestly the Python DA is very nice.

IMO Colts had better SA triggers, but S&W had much superior DA. Fifty years ago I was issued a Colt Python, but when it came time to qualify I used my personal S&W Model 19. All qualifying positions were DA, except at 50 yards, so the Python was a disadvantage.

This thread reminds me of a comment I read before on SF regarding revolvers.

"Colts are for collecting. Smiths are for shooting."

quote:

Originally posted by got2hav1:
The old Colts had a V spring. The new ones have a coil spring design.

Nope.
New Python and New King Cobra retain the V mainspring.
The Python has what looks like a rebound lever but it only drives trigger return and hand, a transfer bar replaces hammer rebound.
The King Cobra does not do even that, it has separate springs for trigger return and hand.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Watson:

quote:

Originally posted by got2hav1:
The old Colts had a V spring. The new ones have a coil spring design.

Nope.
New Python and New King Cobra retain the V mainspring.
The Python has what looks like a rebound lever but it only drives trigger return and hand, a transfer bar replaces hammer rebound.
The King Cobra does not do even that, it has separate springs for trigger return and hand.

Jim, you are correct. Don't know where I got the coil spring idea. My mistake. Still the DA on the new gun is superb.

The trigger pulls on both my Python and King Cobra are superb. I had an older Python in the 80's, but sold it because, after about a thousand rounds, it had issues. Colt told me it should have a factory service at every 1000 rounds. I got the service, but later sold the gun for 10 times what I paid for it. (As an aside, as I was preparing to move from El Paso, I stopped by a gun store. He had a stainless Python marked $150, and a Hi Standard 22 magnum Derringer for $50. This was in '81. I snagged them both up with some of my move money.)