Ruger with Python barrel

Saw an unusual conversion,it was a Ruger Security Six with a 4" Colt Python barrel,looked interesting but I can't understand why? Would a Diamondback barrel fit?

delta

Lots of reasons why. 1)Old barrel damaged. 2)Had a frame but no Ruger barrel to go with it. 3)Looks better. 4)Just because.

I'd say probably number 4 if the guy is like me.

With a lathe and a little know-how it would be a simple job.

Ray

In the late 70s through the middle 80s there was a surge of interest in putting Python barrels onto other revolver frames. The most common were Smith & Wesson conversions (referred to as a "Smolt"), but there were a few people doing Ruger conversions ("Couger.")

The Python was, at that time, the most accurate factory revolver that you could buy, so it was somewhat natural to try and bring that accuracy to other guns. The Python barrels had a faster twist rate, along with a slightly conical bore and proprietary forcing cone angle. It was thought that putting a Colt barrel on a lesser gun might yield a satisfactory result.

Another factor was the impression that the Python was somehow less durable than the S&W and Ruger, and that the Colt trigger pull was different than the other two. (Colts increase pull weight toward the end of their travel, while S&W and the Ruger "Six" series were somewhat more linear.) That the Python was the only readily available gun at the time with a full underlug, and that barrel just looked better than the stock offerings from the other makers, was icing on the cake.

The first objection was not well-founded*, and the second was easily dealt with by any number of good gunsmiths of the day. However, most of the revolversmiths operating in that era weren't really qualified to work on the Colt lockwork, so it was easier for them to simply fit a barrel.

The resulting guns were, by all accounts, more accurate than their parents, but still wouldn't out-shoot a Python in native trim. Aside from the fact that most of the barrels weren't properly fitted (Colt fits theirs differently, and not a lot of people knew what those differences were), there was something that the S&W and Ruger frames could never achieve: the Colt's justly famed "bank vault" cylinder lockup. That was responsible for the last little bit of accuracy that often put put the Python over the top.

The conversion craze ended with the ascendency of the Dan Wesson revolvers, which gave better-than-Python accuracy but could be had off the dealer's shelf, and with the introduction of the full-lugged "L" frames from S&W and the GP-100 which eliminated any aesthetic advantage (at least in some people's minds.) The Smolts and Cougers fell by the wayside.

Today, I know of no one who does the conversions. The labor cost and knowledge drought of properly fitting a Python barrel is a factor, but more important is the fact that Colt isn't making Python barrels any longer. Those out in the secondary market increase in value on a seemingly daily basis.

I occasionally get a call from someone eager to have a Smolt or a Couger made up from "scratch", but the quoted cost - including the acquisition of a hard-to-get barrel - always drives them away.

-=[ Grant ]=-

(* see this link for more on the "delicacy" of Pythons.)

Grant

Thanks for that great history lesson. In the 1970s I was really into Smith & Wessons, hunting, shooting and smithing. I had more than 20 working revolvers plus many more collectables. I also made several competition guns using Douglas barrel blanks and some of the BIG magnums back when the 44 Mag was about biggest revolver you could buy. I have never heard of the Cougars or Smolts, or never even seen one. It must have been a "regional" thing. Of course, I will have to admit that everyone I hung around with were also into S&W and we seldom, if ever, talked about Colts or Rugers.

What was the basic frame for the Cougars?

Ray

The conversions were found all over the country, as there were numerous articles in various gun magazines about them. At least one Couger was on the cover of a magazine in the early 80s ("Handguns", if memory serves.)

The base gun for a Couger was one of the "Six" series; all of the examples I've seen or heard of were on Service-Six frames, which had adjustable sights.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Lot's of people did Python barrel on Smith revolver conversions back in the day.
Most were done not only because of appearance, but because the slower twist Colt barrels had a better reputation for accuracy with lead bullet target loads.
Personally, I've never liked the idea of needing a bushing or sleeve to mount the smaller shanked Colt barrels onto a Smith frame, but lot's of people made them work.
Never done one on a Ruger, so I dont know if they also needed a bushing.
Cheers, YOOO VINNY

I guess I was in that one part of the country where the conversions were unknown (Alaska). Just out of curiosity, where did the guys get the loose Python barrels? And wouldn't the accuracy thing be better handled by what we did, i.e., use Douglas blanks? Interesting posts, though.

Ray

Barrels were available from several gun parts houses, and Colt would sell barrels to gunsmiths for "replacement" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge.)

The most common market for rebarreled revolvers in that period was for PPC competition; from there developed the practice of using 1-1/2" Douglas barrels fitted to the frame, a ball detent lock, and an Aristocrat rib sight. One important factor in the choice was the ability to order Douglas barrels in different twist rates to better match the bullet weight being used.

The purpose, though, wasn't exclusively increased accuracy. One of the primary goals was to get more weight in the front of the gun for recoil control, which the large-diameter barrels certainly did!

There is some residual doubt as to the accuracy of the resulting guns. I have a client who was heavily into PPC during the 70s, and at that time had a Colt Officers Model Special Match rebarreled with a heavy-profile Douglas blank. The OMSM came with a 6" bull barrel from the factory, and was certainly an accurate piece. He reported that the resulting gun was slightly less accurate than stock, but that the reduced recoil made up for the difference. (Luckily, he saved the original barrel and had me restore the gun to its former glory.)

The practice of fitting Douglas barrels certainly trickled down to other markets (hunting, etc.) where the barrel profiles became more like a stock gun.

What Douglas definitely didn't have was Colt's tapered and burnished bore, both of which were felt to contribute to their accuracy. Additionally, the Python barrel maintained a relatively "normal" profile and would fit into most existing holsters, as well as having a shroud to protect the ejector rod.

Long story short: it was a different package for a different market.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Grant

I know about the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge." S&W was a little more strict about selling major components but we managed to talked them out of several 44 magnum cylinders before they got nervous and politely asked us not to ask for any more.

Interesting post. Brings back a lot of good memories about when my eyes were still good enough to shoot handguns.

Ray

I would imagin some of the barrels/parts on the market also originate from a source like I had years ago.
That being the officer in charge of a State Police Property Dept.
Anything slated for disposal by the state was shipped to them and anything decent was stripped down to the frame beforehand.
I aquired literaly hundreds of "part kit's" that way over the years, traded to me for practice ammo and other goodies.
Some things that crossed my hands were amazing and truly rare collector pieces.
Unfortunately my contact retired years ago and current management is too PC to allow the same practices today.
Cheers, YOOO VINNY

Colt-Barrel-FASTER-Twist, (1-14) As-Opposed; "Smith" (1-18.75) "Wadcutter-Loads" MUCH-Better-At; 1-14.

Old-Python-Tuners ("Reeves Jungkind" By-Example) Would-WONDERFUL-Actions-Pythons-Do!

No-Revolver-Though, Much; "Ed McGivern Speed-Shooting" Will-Tolerate, (Exception-Perhaps; "High-Standard Crusader", Recall-Those-Anyone?)Unless-Deficiancies-Corrected.

Had-Pythons, Firing-Pins-Would-Break, Replacement; "Beryllium-Copper", No-Breakage-Thereafter.

Most of the Rugers were done by Maryland Gun works in the 80's. I have one and it is much more accurate than the factory ruger barrel, but also the "just because" that was quoted earlier.