Smith & Wesson Model 586 150909 357 Magnum

People keep suggesting that the revolver market is dead, that the segment is obsolete and that the most suitable solutions to any problems self-defense protectors might address would be some sort of polymer pistol. We would argue that there are any number of situations — how about coat or purse carry, handgun hunting, or self-defense in non-permissive states — for which a proper revolver is eminently suitable. We love it when major makers agree with us on this point.

A great illustration is the Colt Python. This beautiful example of the craftsman’s art was produced from 1955 to 2005, but it required extensive hand fitting, making it too expensive to manufacture. Produced for some 50 years, production stopped, hearts broke, and prices skyrocketed. That is until 2020, when Colt took the great qualities of the revolver, redesigned it around modern manufacturing capabilities, and reintroduced it in 2020. We’ve tested the early versions of Gen 2 Pythons for you with great results (see June 2022 issue), along with the 44 Magnum-chambered Anacondas. 

Our test guns here were a Colt Python PYTHON-BP4-WTS 357 Magnum, $1600, with a 4.25-inch barrel, walnut grips and balance much like the Gen 1 version. Pitted against it was a Smith & Wesson Model 586 150909, $900, which has seen updates of its own. The 586 sports a 4-inch blued barrel with the full underlug, just like the Python. It also brings target sights and walnut grips. There is a real price difference between the two. We wanted to know if the Python was worth it.

Smith & Wesson Model 586 150909 357 Magnum

$900

Gun Tests grade: A-

A very close second to the new Colt Python, we think the S&W Model 586 is an outstanding revolver in its own right. If the extra cost of the Colt is a consideration for you, buy the Model 586 and never look back.

Between the Depression and Prohibition, the 1930s in America were turbulent indeed. Breadlines and 25% unemployment shared headlines with bootleggers, rum-runners, and bank robbers. The government and the police tried to keep the peace and did so at a serious disadvantage in firepower versus the gangs. The FBI might have had Tommy guns, but the average police officer was armed with a 38 Special revolver (Colt or S&W) and, maybe, a 12-gauge pump shotgun. Officers working the border might have added a good 1911 or a 30-30 Winchester rifle. In contrast, internet sources show that, at their death, Bonnie and Clyde had an arsenal consisting of three fully-auto Browning Automatic Rifles (and about 100 loaded 20-round magazines), a 20-gauge semi-auto shotgun, a 10-gauge shotgun, and 11 handguns of various chamberings, including seven Colt 1911s in 45 ACP. Total ammo count onboard their car was about 5000 rounds. Stated simply, until Frank Hamer and his crew came along, Bonnie and Clyde seriously outgunned any single or small group of officers who tried to stop them.

The average beat or bank-detail officer did not have the ability to carry their own arsenal around with them, so the firearms community started working on solutions. Colt introduced an upgraded version of the 1911 using a 0.356-inch-diameter bullet at a much higher velocity than the 45 ACP of the time. Originally called the Super 38, the new cartridge carried nine rounds in the magazine, versus seven for the more common 45 ACP. Plus, the new round had sufficient penetration to keep the bad guys from just hiding behind car doors.

Smith & Wesson, the other true handgun powerhouse at the time, was the acknowledged leader of the law-enforcement revolver world and stayed with what they knew best. The year of 1935 witnessed the result of a collaboration between Daniel Wesson, Phil Sharpe from the technical division of the NRA, and handgunner extraordinaire Elmer Keith. Developed from their 38 Special round, the new cartridge was named the 357 Magnum. Sporting the same 0.357-inch diameter of the 38 Special, the new round used a slightly longer case and operated at much higher pressures. The final product, like the Super 38, was higher velocity and better penetration. 

Chambered for 357 Magnum, Smith & Wesson’s Registered Magnums started out life fairly heavy, a weight thought to be needed to offset the additional recoil of the new magnum round. Built on what is now known as the “N” frame, the new revolvers were very accurate, well appreciated, and too heavy for many officers. By 1955, Bill Jordan of Border Patrol fame (we recommend his book, No Second Place Winner) collaborated with S&W to create a medium-sized frame. Sporting a 4-inch barrel and adjustable sights, the new revolver was introduced in November 1955 and eventually became known as the Model 19. That blued wheelgun and its stainless-steel version (Model 66) kept many a cop alive for decades. 

Users found that shooting a steady diet of full-power 357s could create the potential for a problem. Those medium-framed guns, while great with 38 Special, were not really intended for a steady diet of hot 357 Magnum rounds. Things could eventually shake themselves loose, and the top straps could become flame cut. So, S&W, in their infinite wisdom, designed a revolver for hard-use owners, whether law enforcement, military, or competition shooters and presented the Model 586 in 1981. We remember shooting them in endless USPSA and bowling-pin matches (with hot loads) and never managed to wear one out.

Our current sample is the Model 586-8, meaning it is the eighth major revision of the revolver. Current blued versions are available in 3- (Performance Center), 4-, and 6-inch barrels. We can quickly see that things have changed, and many good things have stayed the same.

Perhaps foremost is the balance of this revolver. We came to like the quickness of the 4-inch barrel, which retains enough weight to hold down recoil. Our 586 still carries the full-length underlug on the barrel, thereby creating a slightly muzzle-heavy feel to the pistol. One of our favorite S&Ws of all time was the Model 27 with a 5-inch barrel. Though the frame sizes are slightly different (N-frame for the M27 and the slightly smaller L-frame for the 586), when compared against the lighter barrel of the M27, the balance and handling feel much the same to us. 

In fact, a lot of this revolver feels very familiar to us — and not just as we reminisce about S&W wheelguns. Our scales weighed both the S&W and Colt at 2.59 pounds. The Python, of course, has the vented rib so, logic tells us the underlug on the S&W must weigh a bit more than its counterpart. The height on the front strap is 2.5 inches for both pistols. The height on the backstrap is 4.5 inches — again, on both revolvers. Both have good triggers within a pound of their competitor. Both have great sights. Both have similar grip sizes. We would pose that Smith & Wesson recognized the Python for the great handgun that it is and tried to create its own very similar mouse trap, as it were. 

With the similarities noted, there absolutely must be differences, and there were. We mentioned the lack of the vented rib on the S&W, which is probably the most visible distinction between the two. There are mechanical differences as well. The hammer and the trigger on the S&W are color case hardened, making for an interesting contrast with the dark-blue steel. The finish is not a matte look, though it is not as glossy as the Python. That said, all of the surfaces were evenly finished and looked great. The muzzle on the S&W sports a conventional crown versus the Python, which has more of a target crown. The top strap on the Smith is already tapped and drilled for a scope mount. Maybe the 586 isn’t the epitome of a long-range hunting pistol, but a red-dot optic would still be superb for defensive purposes. The rear sight on the Smith has a white outline and is adjustable. The red-ramp front sight is secured by a roll pin, and replacement sights are available from a variety of sources. The Python had the better double-action trigger at 9.5 pounds, beating the S&W by a full pound on required compression. Springs on these two handguns are different, and the double-action pull on the Python is the smoother of the two, our shooters said. But the Smith won by about the same amount on the single-action pull, coming in at 4.7 pounds to the Colt’s 5.6 pounds. And the S&W has that internal lock. We can’t say that we are big fans of things that can lock up internal mechanisms on firearms. Frankly, we think there are better ways to secure them safely. That key requires fine-motor skills, which tend to go right down the toilet when an adrenaline rush hits, like in a hunting or defensive situation. We don’t want to bet our lives on being able to manipulate a small key under the latter circumstances. That said, we have never seen nor heard of the lock becoming an issue. Our simple solution is to leave things unlocked and store our Smiths in our safe. Remember Col. Cooper’s four rules of firearms safety, and all should go well.

Other changes were not quite as pronounced. Sometime back, S&W reworked the grips in size and shape to help them fit a larger variety of hands, and none of our shooters objected to the feel of these. The stocks on this 586 were dark with some nice figure that contrasted nicely with the S&W logo. Different geometries on the extractor stars of both handguns surprised us. No longer round, the star on the 586 was somewhat rectangular, and the Python’s was triangular. The new designs (both of them) looked like they allowed at least one longer leg to impinge on each cartridge rim, thereby enhancing ejection of spent rounds. 

Our S&W 586 loaded, fired, and ejected everything we fed it, but we would expect nothing else from a good revolver. We liked the ejection feature on the 586 a bit better than on the Python. The Model 586 has a longer ejector rod that allows the extractor star to push the cases further out of the chamber, thereby clearing the empties quickly and completely. The 586’s single-action trigger did well on the accuracy tests, but the double-action trigger was a little too heavy for us. We had to use more muscle on the S&W than we did on the Python, and that caused us to shift our shots slightly up and right from point of aim. That said, we still kept every round in the A-Zone of a USPSA target, no problem.

This Model 586 preferred the lighter-weight rounds in our test, compiling a cumulative average of under 1.5-inch groups for the 110-grain and 125-grain rounds. The 158-grain Winchester JSP load averaged about 2 inches at 15 yards for the five-shot groups. The S&W won the three-shot speed drills by an average of just under 0.06 seconds when using 38 Special ammo and tied the Python when using 357 Magnum ammo at 1.45 seconds for the three rounds. 

Our Team Said: We were surprised that the splits weren’t a little longer when using the hotter ammo, but there was very little difference. Maybe we were just getting in the groove. Maybe the recoil impulse was better, but the weight on the muzzle of both revolvers made them easy and fast to shoot. Dare we say comfortable?

Both are very good revolvers, but we love the Python’s overall execution a bit more than the M586. But the Python comes at a substantial price premium of $700 more than the S&W, which is enough to favor the 586 on a value basis. 

We conducted our tests at American Shooting Centers in Houston. We used a LabRadar chronograph (MyLabRadar.com, $559) to determine muzzle velocities. For accuracy, we fired multiple five-shot groups at 15 yards from a well-sandbagged Caldwell Pistol Rest from MidwayUSA.com and a mini-DRC Fortune Cookie bag from Wiebad.com. JHP = jacketed hollow point. JSP = jacketed soft point. CHP = copper hollow point

Process: Fire one shot from low ready at 5-by11-inch A Zone target placed at 5 yards. Times in seconds are averages for eight repetitions using 357 Magnum ammunition. 

Process: Fire three shots from low ready at 5-by11-inch A Zone target placed at 8 yards. Times in seconds are averages for three repetitions using 38 Special ammunition.

Process: Fire three shots from low ready at 5-by11-inch A Zone target placed at 8 yards. Times in seconds are averages for three repetitions using 357 Magnum ammunition. Elapsed times for all drills were determined using a CED7000 shot timer.

Written and photographed by Joe Woolley, using evaluations from Gun Tests Team members. GT