From looks alone which one of these 1960s era revolvers do you prefer? (Colt vs S&W)

[bripro]

I’m not trying to open a debate about which is the better revolver or manufacturer. From these two examples alone I just want to see how my opinion stacks up to the rest of the forums. I’m simply asking which do you consider the better looking revolver? They are a 1964/65 Smith and Wesson model 29–2 44 magnum with 6.5” barrel and a 1969 Colt Python 357 with 6” barrel. For me it’s the Smith and Wesson. Thanks for looking.

[jakebrake]

You said the Smith & Wesson? I second that.

[raxar]

The barrel on the colt looks better, but everything else is more visually pleasing on the smith.

[stainless]

In that era the Smith had a more "updated" look to it IMHO.

Subjective, of course.

[Pilot321]

Both.

[bripro]

I just think it’s funny how our own opinions, well at least my own opinion, changes. About 10 years ago if a wheel gun didn’t have a full under lug I thought it looked like it was missing something. That was even regardless of the barrel length. Somewhere between now and then I started preferring the half lug look. I still haven’t warmed up to the non shrouded ejector rod but who knows, 10 years ago I wanted to hang everything I could on my AR as well. I’ve gone completely full circle there as well.

[MARINE DIVISION TWO]

I would bet the Action on the Colt is supreme even thought the S&W 29 was not bad at all. This is when handguns were really done by experienced gunsmiths working for the Gun mfgs .

[littlefitz]

I like the looks of the Smith better. It looks sleeker.

[bripro]

The Colt particularly shines when cocking the hammer for a single action shot. And almost feels what the hammer is it connected to anything at all. It also has a much smoother double action pull than the Smith and Wesson but for single action shots they’re right on par with each other.

[alpacaheat]

Left.