SURPRISE: Colt Cobra Revolver Revival

In a move that very few shooters could have predicted, Colt has just announced that a re-release of the classic Cobra revolver is coming in 2017. The NRA’s American Rifleman published the announcement as a post authored by Mark Keefe, in the form of a mini review of Colt’s new wheelgun.

Like its predecessor, the Cobra is chambered in .38 Special, but the new version is also capable of handling +P rounds. In addition, Colt has reworked the trigger geometry to have the movement of the trigger finger occur in a more straight line. Also, unlike similar sized revolvers, the front fiber optic sight is removable with an allen scre

Interestingly, Keefe addresses market’s inevitable requests for different calibers, barrel lengths and additional frame sizes: “be patient”.

Let’s hope they have a few at SHOT 2017 available to go hands on. Stay tuned.

IMG_5382

Credit: Mark Keefe, American Rifleman

Mark Keefe, American Rifleman:

The matte stainless steel, six–shot, double-action Cobra has a fully lugged 2” barrel, and it is rifled with a six-groove, 1:14” left-hand twist. It is 7.2” long, 4.9” high and 1.4” wide. Yes, there is a transfer-bar safety. It comes with Hogue over-molded stocks and weighs 25 ozs.

Colt 2017 Cobra Revolver:

MSRP: $699

Cobra

Credit: Mark Keefe, American Rifleman

But this gun locks up like a Colt. And its cylinder goes counter-clockwise, like, well, a Colt. This is no copy of someone else’s revolver with a Rampant Colt slapped on it. Also the cylinder release is that of the old-school Colt’s in that it is drawn rearward to unlock the cylinder.

IMG_5383

Credit: Mark Keefe, American Rifleman



Pete

LE – Science – OSINT.
On a mission to make all of my guns as quiet as possible.
[email protected]
Twitter: @gunboxready
Instagram: @tfb_pete
https://www.instagram.com/tfb_pete/


Advertisement

  • john huscio

    Might end up with this instead of a 642

    • Pete – TFB Writer

      The 642 is a great gun. My only real issue with it is the finish. Look at it wrong and it corrodes.

      • DataMatters

        Mine has been a pretty great carry gun. I had issues with the barrel coming unscrewed though and it had to go back to S&W. It’s been all good since then. Seems like a common theme with many new guns these days–lots of quality problems.

      • Nick

        Smith’s anodizing is horrible on new J-frames. On a positive note I scooped up a 637 for $200 because the clear coat/anodizing was flaking off. 10 minutes with a wire brush and the rest is gone, still shoots and carries great.

    • David B

      I have been considering a 642 or similar from s&w as a pocket carry gun. This seems like it would be a bit big for that role.

      • Bart

        I love using my 642 for pocket carry. I also have a Rossi 461 (6 shot, steel frame, .357) very similar size and weight to this Colt. The Rossi is a bit fat and heavy for pocket carry (though I’ve done it).

  • Bigg Bunyon

    Somehow that “modern” fiber optic front sight just doesn’t seem aesthetically suited to a milled-in (or cast maybe) rear sight. It may well be a fantastic gun, but I’ll pass on it for now. The last Colt revolver I bought was an Anaconda in the late ’80s I think it was. I just can’t see this Colt as its stable mate. As is the usual case with taste, everybody’s is different and vive la différence.

  • Don Ward

    Hey. It comes with a hammer. Do you hear that Kimber?

    • Tim

      Also $300 ish less than the Kimber.

      No internal lock like the current S&W 6 shot offerings.

      This has my interest too.

  • 48conkli

    Maybe colt wouldnt have so many financial issues recently if the did this 10 years ago. But gotta hand it to them tho, I think its a good move.

  • Colby

    MSRP of 699!

    Well that clenches it. S&W can say bye bye to my money. If Colt wants to listen to the American gun buyer and finally release competitive products, without hideous and useless ILS safety holes in the side of the frame, I’m game.

    • insp71

      Yea! No revolvers with keys. now all they have to do is get rid of the series 80!

      • Bart

        Ruger? SP101,GP100,LCR, are reasonably priced, and don’t have safety holes.
        Still, I’m very happy to see Colt getting back into the DA revolver game. Python? For what it is worth, I own Smith, Ruger, and Colt revolvers.

        • insp71

          All good but the corporate asshats at [email protected] ruined their guns. And I got a real fondness for m29’s. They can keep their guns with keys -I won’t buy a new one. As Mel Tappen said (look him up) if there is a gun you like buy 2 because they will either outlaw it or the company will stop making it or they will ruin it. just look . Dirty Harry forever!

        • Sulaco5

          Memory is failing with age, didn’t Colt have Det Spl style .357 in SS on the market for about 6 months couple decades ago? That was a stop/start head fake of a revolver…

          • richard kluesek

            Yes, DS II in .38 and Magnum Carry in .357, about 1998 -1999, big bucks at shows and on gunbroker if findable at all, good hunting !

      • tiger

        Seriously? Dumb nitpick. it is good safety system.

    • gordon

      Korths don’t have them either;-)

      • John

        Ya, I’m really eyeing a Korth Mongoose now… just wish it was blued and not DLC coated… and that it didn’t have a Nighthawk logo and upcharge compared to what the prices were estimated at 2 years ago.

        Wait.. now I’m reconsidering buying one now lol.

        • gordon

          It’d be a lot more expensive blued, I wish that it was an option. That DLC likely hides a lack of expected attention to the finish of the steel beneath it. I also don’t like how the front sight changed from what demos had. Still, I ordered one (5.25″) three months ago. No, I am not the sort that can comfortably spend that much on a handgun, but I did it anyway. I sure hope I don’t get burned. I have been paying chunks of it every month so that it doesn’t look like one huge purchase to my wife.

      • Korths also have the best cylinder release ever devised.

        • gordon

          To bad they are not using them on the Nighthawk versions:-(

          • I know! Would it be that much more expensive to add that feature?

          • gordon

            I think they did it just to make them more American/familiar looking. I think it was a mistake. It was part of what set them apart. It is also not I suspect one reloads behind cover not while taking fire.

  • Eric

    Colts rotate clockwise though?

    • JT303

      Looking at the way the indexing grooves are cut, I’d say that this does actually go clockwise and that there was a typo.

      • Pete – TFB Writer

        I believe you are correct. I think the author I quoted meant clockwise.

        • David B

          I saw that article on American Rifleman, and someone in the comments pointed out the typo and the author corrected it.

  • MrBrassporkchop

    From my understanding Colt has to re-release some version of their DA/SA line because they went bankrupt and everyone makes cheaper and sometimes better versions of everything they make.

    So my prediction is they’ll release a few more of the snake guns to pay the bills while working on some affordable polymer striker fired pistol to stay relevant.

    If they’re decent I’ll be looking forward to 22 and 45 special revolvers if they come out. The 357 will most likely be next though.

    • Bart

      I assume you meant 44 special (or maybe .45 acp). Either one would be cool. I agree that they will probably go 357 next (and that is probably best anyway).

      • MrBrassporkchop

        Yup. On mobile. Mobile makes writing miserable and typo prone.

  • gunsandrockets

    M206 for msrp $280

    The Armscor homage to the Colt Detective Special

    https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/7/23/rock-island-armory-m206-38-special-revolver-review/

    • BorisTheBulletMagnet

      Yes, but those are terrible in basically every way.
      They break all the time and are terribly inaccurate and poorly made.

      • gunsandrockets

        First I have heard of that. So American Rifleman lied?

        • bucherm

          American Rifleman is not a reliable source, neither is Guns & Ammo. I realize that AR is the NRA’s mag, but it suffers from the same problems as the other publications who shot a gun once and call it good despite multiple problems(remember the Remington R51?)

        • Nick

          More like they were paid not to tell the truth. Ever notice how you never see a negative review in a gun rag?

          • gunsandrockets

            American Rifleman is not a “gun rag”. And you just casually accused the writer of the review of accepting a bribe to hide the truth.

            I am well aware of the reputation of the old gun magazines. I grew up reading them. Today they are dying off under the new economics of publishing.

    • Harry’s Holsters

      Different price range different market.

    • Paul White

      How a company that makes a totally fine 1911 makes such a godawful revolver is beyond me

    • Nick

      Except they’re terrible. Think Taurus if they didn’t even try to make a gun that would last through a whole box of ammo.

    • richard kluesek

      alas but the metalurgy on import copy revolvers, especially on small critical parts like hands and ratchets, is soft and the guns shoot out of time with use. Spanish counterfiet copies of S&W revolvers made during the world wars sort of remedied this problem by chamberings for anemic European service cartridges of the time like 8mm Lebel revolver and .38 S&W “short”, and the Smiths were stout enough, but contemporary .38s, +p, and +P+, is a different consideration.

      • gunsandrockets

        I think it would be very interesting to see an actual durability test of the M206. Put the keyboard commando denigrations to the test.

        • richard kluesek

          Thats a good idea. Have already been doing it for a long time. Been burning gunpowder and propelling lead downrange for 48 years. Have owned over a dozen revolvers from leading manufactureres and known a legion of fellow shootists in firing ranges who had all those others not personally possessed. All the foreign copies and economy products mechanically failed after a lower round count than those of the 3 big domestic manufactureres.

          • gunsandrockets

            Sorry. Anonymous anecdote from generalized experience is not empirical evidence of the specific.

            No sale on condemnation of the M206.

          • richard kluesek

            As you like. Your suggestion for comprehensive testing would be a splendid project and the results most interesting. There are lots of old fossils trolling the clubs and ranges who have been there and done that already and spent their money on ammo and many revolvers they regretted buying.

          • gunsandrockets

            There is wisdom in crowds, but mythology grows there too. And the gun-culture indulges in a generous share of myth making.

            I bought a Rossi Model 720 .44 revolver in 1995, and it has served as my primary house gun until a couple years ago. Despite the reputation of Rossi, my revolver not only looked good it also functioned well. Two years ago I replaced that Rossi with a S&W Model 69 .44 magnum revolver. It was expensive but I wanted it, so I ordered it sight unseen. My S&W arrived with the barrel shroud misaligned, resulting in an off-kilter front sight.

            I’ve been curious about the M206 for some time. I’ve only handled one, never fired one. Up until this thread, all the (first hand) reviews of the M206 that I have seen reported the same thing, a cosmetically rough revolver that functioned well. But all of a sudden some people in this thread are calling it junk (though notably no one seems to claim first hand experience with the M206).

            I’m always on the look out for good information. But I also try to apply skeptical wariness.

          • Nick

            I have firsthand experience with one, hence the “Think Taurus if they didn’t even try to make a gun that would last through a whole box of ammo” comment. I found one for just under $200 unfired on Armslist and bought it without thinking twice or inspecting it other than a “yup it’s in the box”. It was extremely loose to the extent that I was hesitant to fire it but I did anyway. I believe I got through two or three cylinders before I noticed pretty substantial shaving/spitting at the forcing cone and put it away. Sold it for a loss with full disclosure.

          • gunsandrockets

            Thank you for that report. At least it is first hand.

            When did you buy it? How do you know it was unfired before you purchased it?

          • richard kluesek

            I have owned several Detective Specials with shrouds (post 1972) and had experience with those possessed by shooting buddies. The M206 appears to be based on these, though I have not seen any with the grips or side plate removed revealing the inner workings. I have seen and handled these at gun shows and retial stores. However, Team Sootch on youtube and others like him might have presentations. Would love to have disposable income to buy guns and have real estate with a range to test them.

  • Phillip

    Cool. When are they bringing back the Python? :p

    • bucherm

      Probably after a year or two of Cobra sales to see if it’s worth it.

  • William Nelson

    As a revolver fanboy, I say we can’t have enough out there. Bravo, Colt!

    • LutherWu

      All we need now are Pythons, Anacondas and the wonderful little Diamondback!

  • melan

    The revolver, the normal persons 1911.

  • BorisTheBulletMagnet

    Colt is making something that the general public actually wants to buy?
    And it’s reasonably priced!?

    This is highly unusual behavior for Colt, they haven’t made a wise business decision in decades.

    • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

      You elicited audible laughter. Good Job.

    • Gunbroker and distributors laugh in the face of MSRP. Expect these to sell for $1,100 up until (or if) production exceeds collector demand.

    • Riot

      Isn’t this their first new offering since restructuring?

    • Doom

      Now if only they made the SP1 clones in mass quantities instead of as “collectors editions” id buy the crap out of one or [UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT] of them if they sold for around what their 6920’s sell for.

  • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

    Ill wait for the Magnum. I personally have no use for .38Spl chambered firearms. Im actually interested though. I dont know if I have said that about a Colt product before.

    • Bart

      There is a role for a .38sp only revolver. It is the light weight, reasonably inexpensive, snub nosed, 5 shot, pocket revolver. (Air-Weight J-frame, and the LCR).
      1. Relatively inexpensive – under $400 (my 642 cost $369 two years ago)
      2. Light weight 13-15 oz. – great for pocket carry, but too light for .357mag.
      Steel framed six shooters (even with the short barrel) should be chambered in .357 mag.

      • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

        I agree there is a valid market for that. I just dont have personal interst in one. I like my revolvers to be all steel and when thats the case there is no reason to not chamber for .357.

  • DIR911911 .

    this seems like a move back into what they were good at , now how long before the “new” pythons and anacondas?

    • Bill

      Probably after new King Cobras

  • This has little in common with the original aluminum-frame Cobra other than the general outline and stock interchangeability. It is probably closer internally to their ill-fated SF-VI, DS-II, and Magnum Carry.

  • Harry’s Holsters

    My buddy’s dad own an original Cobra with a 4inch barrel and I have been fortunate enough to fire it on multiple occasions. The trigger is incredibly smooth and it’s one of my favorite small frame revolvers. I can’t wait to get my hands on one of these to see if they live up to his.

  • gordon

    I don’t have much experience with Colt DA revolvers. Is the Colt cylinder release as easy to operate as the Smith or Ruger ones? It doesn’t look like it is. Is that really a selling point?

    • Bart

      I own a Colt 1917, a Ruger Security Six, and a S&W 642. I think the Colt cylinder release is a little slower/more difficult to use than the Ruger and Smith releases.

      • Edeco

        Yup, I’d be white-knighting here if I could since a Colt is what I have, like it better than comparable Smiths overall, but I find the Colt latch more awkward.

    • Matthew Groom

      They’re quite easy to use. It’s actually better engineering, because guns recoil backwards, meaning parts want to remain stationary in space, or move forwards in relation to the frame, which will cause a S&W to open up under heavy recoil, despite all their elaborate springs and contraptions to counter that. S&Ws designs hail back to a time when Colt’s held the patent for everything, which is why several things that S&Ws still have don’t make any sense, engineering wise.

      • gordon

        How often do Smith or Ruger cylinder latches actuate under recoil and what is the consequence of it?

        • Matthew Groom

          Almost never, except in very lightweight, or extremely heavy recoiling models. This has been known to happen with .357 Magnum J-Frames and 500 Magnum X-Frames, but for the more common and reasonable models/calibers, it’s not an issue. The ejector rod coming unscrewed due to the elaborate cylinder locking mechanism however is quite common, and it can jam the gun, and cause the cylinder to be unable to open. This has happened to me in competitions with some of my Smiths, and something that one must watch for. Loctite is a simple and effective solution to this problem, though.

      • richard kluesek

        Interesting. And in 1899 or thereabouts when these designs were introduced, there were no magnums and pistol ammunition was generally low pressure compared to contemporary availability.

        • Matthew Groom

          Exactly correct, Richard. That’s also why S&W put the flat on the bottom of the forcing cone of the K-frame in order to accomodate their more elaborate cylinder locking mechanism, which they needed to do in order to sidestep the Colt’s patents. That wasn’t a problem with the .38 Long Colt, .38 Special, or .32-20 models, but it became a BIG problem after magnum K-frames were introduced in the late 1950s, which resulted in cracked forcing cones. Lots of bad engineering is legacy engineering “…because it’s always been done that way.”

          • richard kluesek

            C&R Arsenal, Youtubers, have just presented a fascinating video about Spanish copies of the K frame S&W made for French use during WW1. Though crude and materially marginal but robust these worked well enough due to chambering anemic French 8mm Lebel revolver ammunition. The detail of the presentation into the mechanical internals extrapolitates your summarized observations. I have and like 1 & all, Colts, Rugers, and Smiths.

    • Don Ward

      What the other guys have said. EDC a Ruger SP101 and own Smith and Wesson revolvers. My step-dad’s Colt Python – while cooler than my weapons – is more awkward to release in my opinion.
      But it’s not an insurmountable issue.

  • Mark

    Waiting for the walnut and blue version.

  • Disarmed in CA

    Kind of heavy for a pocket .38, should have chambered it capable of .357 Mag
    Surely most won’t shoot .357 out of a short barrel but it’s nice to have the capability in a pinch.

    • Bill

      And it would compete against the S&W J Frame Magnums

    • David Trainmore

      Me thinks someone at Colt Firearms has seen the vids running on the new ATK, now Vista, short barreled 38 Spec. S.D. ammo. In gelatin tests it only trails a 357 SD load by about an inch or so. Its low flash, low smoke, and drills a 135 gr. JHP, which does expand out of a two inch barrel, into the vitals. You do lose a bit, shooting S.D. 38 spc’s out of 357’s. This is the cleaner solution, IMHO. Transfer bar or not, you still need to keep the chamber under the hammer empty. So the S&W 37’s only have four rounds on tap, doing this. That’s why Colt advertised the importance of the sixth shot. They knew CCW’s were carried with an empty chamber. So it was always four against five. The Old West code was to shoot four times and then always keep the fifth round ready, while you backed out of danger.

      • It is safe to carry all chambers loaded on revolvers designed since WW II.

        “As in all modern revolvers, the firing pin is separate from the hammer.
        The pistol has two mechanisms to prevent accidental discharge. First,
        the firing pin is blocked from protruding out of the frame by a piece
        that retracts out of the way when you pull the trigger. Second, another
        blocking part stops the hammer from falling until you pull the trigger.

        Both Colt and S&W use this blocking system. Ruger’s approach is
        equally effective. In a Ruger, the hammer does not strike the pin
        directly, but instead hits a transfer bar, which then strikes the pin.
        In the normal condition, the transfer bar is out of position, so a
        hammer-fall would strike air. Pulling the trigger slides the transfer
        bar into position to be struck by the hammer and so to strike the pin.”

        “Armed Citizens and the Law” online article titled “Should You Carry With a Round in the Chamber?” by Frank W. Sweet.

        The article also discusses the issue regarding semi-auto pistols.

        • David Trainmore

          Absolutely not! No Co. Lawyer will go that far. I live in Idaho, and in the Mt’s., on horses, or even mountain bikes, you must keep the chamber under the firing pin dry. AMT pulled their 45 DAO Backups because police armorers demanded that the cops carry it with an empty chamber. They, AMT then designed a trigger safety, but more parts equaled more things to go wrong. Just phone a couple of these Co.’s legal dept”s and listen to them, yourself.
          A six shot D.A. 38 revolver with an empty chamber under the firing pin is about as safe as is possible. Where these transfer bars will certainly earn their keep, is when you let down the hammer on a loaded chamber. Crawling around the rocks, meant that my old Colt Peacemaker was then unsafe.

          The old timers were good enough, that they spun their cylinder, to come back to an empty hole under their hammer. I don’t know of anyone who after pulling down a shot at a game animal, can divert his attention to spinning a cylinder around, while still watching the moving game animal.

          Beyond safety, the overlooked thing in your account is whether, or not, this new re-released Colt Agent, holds the cylinder into the frame with its hand, or is it like the Ruger and S&W’s, and now, the Big Anacondas, that only have a free floating cylinder.

          I was so disappointed in an early Anaconda, when I realized that its frame was machined for the Colt Strut, but it only had a free floating S & W, and or, Ruger, style cylinder. So there wasn’t any strut, only the trough for it, up under the molded rubber grips.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Rather than talking to a lawyer, you’d have better spent your time talking to a firearms engineer, who would tell you that it is absolutely fine to have a fully loaded cylinder on a modern revolver. The old SAA has no hammer safety mechanisms in it, which is the only reason it developed the practice of an empty chamber. Worrying about a hammer block or transfer bar failing is a waste of mental bandwidth.

  • Hoplopfheil

    MSRP 700 dollars…

    Yep! Colt’s goin’ out of business again!

    • Bart

      Hopefully that means a street price of around $500. At $500, they will sell.

      • Hoplopfheil

        I’d say 550 to 650. Or possibly even dead-on MSRP “Because Colt.”

        When you can get a proven, honestly slightly prettier Smith 637 for $400 max? Who’s going to buy the Colt?

        Smith has been in the game continuously, Colt is almost coming back as a newcomer. It’ll be a struggle.

        And don’t even get me started on the $300 Taurus 85 UltraLite. 🙂

        • El Duderino

          Well, one more charge hole vs. the 637 for one. No IL.

          Will they bring new fans into the mold? Maybe not, but the Colt fans will eat them up and ask for more.

          Any word on where the gun is being made? By Colt here in the US? I’m skeptical…

          • retfed

            When Colt’s D-frame revolvers were competing with the J-frames, they advertised “the all-important 6th shot.” I don’t know how effective that slogan really was. Some areas and PDs were Colt-centric and some preferred Smiths.
            Back in the 70s/80s I owned and carried D-frames (Detective Special, Agent, and Diamondback). I couldn’t get used to the stacky triggers, and I eventually went back to Smiths.
            But I’m happy to see Colt get into the modern-revolver biz again.

          • DataMatters

            How does this compete with the 637 at all? The 637 is a 5-shot J-frame made of aluminum and very light. This is a 6-shot made of stainless steel. It’s thus a glorified K-Frame. K frames are bulky hip holster guns.

            Also, why is this not a .357?

          • El Duderino

            Most people can IWB a K frame or Colt D/SF at the 4 o’clock position. I consider the J frame as a pocket or appendix carry size. It’s like the difference between a Glock 26 and a 43 (though in different dimensions, obviously).

          • Hoplopfheil

            Six shots is nice but it sort of puts the Cobra in the category of “guns nobody really buys anymore.”

            Might as well step up to a Ruger SP101 or a Taurus 82 (I mention Taurii as half trolling, half serious possibilities).

        • Paul White

          careful, you mentioned Taurus on a gun site…

          • Hoplopfheil

            Come at me bro! 🙂

  • They clearly want to cash in on the “Snake Gun” speculators and collectors.

  • Matthew Groom

    As an owner of a classic, well worn, 1st Generation Colt Cobra, I would be very tempted to buy one of these new ones at that very reasonable price point. I kinda wish they’d go back to the lighter Gen 1 configuration, like mine, but it’s still wonderfully lightweight for a modern revolver, most of which seem to be designed to be as heavy as material science will allow; which is quite odd when you consider how guns made of steel in the 50’s where lighter than some alloy framed models of today. Hopefully Colt will offer a Titanium cylinder as a future option as well.

    • gordon

      I usually look on all steel and extra weight as plus when I am shopping for revolvers. For instance, I find the 4.2″ SP101 is way easier and more pleasant to shoot than the snubies or other wise lighter guns. I also have a low risk tolerance and am attracted to guns that aren’t engineered to the limits of material science. Not always sure which guns those are though.

      • Matthew Groom

        I for one, am mildly peturbed that they have decided to call a stainless steel Detective Special a “Cobra” (which is just a DS with an alloy frame, at least it was from 1951 until 1980) but I understand why they did it; it will be much more pleasant to shoot. This will be a gun you can compete with in several divisions in IDPA and be well-served, which would be a tall order for a much lighter gun. It’s not like a gun that’s less than 30 oz is hard to carry, either, but a lighter weight gun is, as you observed, significantly harder to shoot well. I hold out hope that this gun will be a success, and an alloy model will be forthcoming in a few years.

    • Joel

      I totally agree (I’m an owner of a newer generation Cobra). The one thing I would add is that Colt should consider a 9MM Cobra. 9MM actually compares well with 38 Special and is far cheaper. It would even allow a shorter cylinder and frame. All of that said, a lightweight Cobra would have a place among many enthusiasts’ collections.

      • DataMatters

        Shorter cylinder could lead to injuries, it’s really not do-able.

        • Joel

          A few years ago S&W shortened the cylinder to create the 929.

        • ostiariusalpha

          There are plenty of 9mm cylinders out there. No reports of increased injuries from them either.

      • Matthew Groom

        I would LOVE a 9mm Cobra, even though in my experience moonclips are a PITA. The problem with 9mm is the case taper forces the cases to wedge the cylinder against the frame, increasing trigger pull weight substantially after the first round. 9mm loads are the same pressure as 357 Magnum, and +P is higher still! Out of a short barrel, 9mm is actually more powerful than 357 Magnum, due to its higher efficiency and short powder column, albeit with lighter bullets. 357 Magnum is king from 6″ barrels, however, and can best a snubby .44 Magnum for the same reasons (cartridge efficency).

  • Pete – TFB Writer

    Am I the only one who prefers a smooth cylinder rather than those with relief cuts of weight savings? I’ll take an extra ounce for a clean looking gun.

    • Don Ward

      No. You’re the only one.

      • RocketScientist

        I also prefer non-fluted cylinders. So looks like you’re wrong Don. Suck it.

        • Don Ward

          You and Pete should hook up then! * Evil grin*

          • Pete – TFB Writer

            Yeah! Smooth cylinders unite!

            Wait. What? NVM

          • David Trainmore

            Boy, talk about Boobs. YOU can close a six shot fluted cylinder, holding it between your thumb and index finger, inserted into the opposing flutes. With a little practice, and you stop dragging the locking bolt across the cylinder. This lets it roll cleanly into the cylinder’s locking notch, and you never end up with the drag circle between the notches. This is the mark or lack thereof, of a gentleman pistolero.
            It’s those folks from the other side of the tracks, who slap cylinders closed, and scrape those ugly shiny rings into their six gun’s cylinders.

          • Pete – TFB Writer

            Well, I guess it’s time for my latest opinion post:

            “Wheelguns: Take Your Place In Museums, BBQs And With 30 Year-Veteran Desk Seargeants”

    • richard kluesek

      check out Kimber K6s.

  • Tim

    Guess what these will cost once they *stop* producing them…..

  • retfed

    Yeah.
    This is a stainless-steel-framed pistol. In the original Colt line, the Detective Special was steel, and the Cobra and Agent were alloy-framed. The DS corresponded to the Model 36, and the Cobra and Agent to the Model 37.
    Colt is obviously using the Cobra name on a Detective Special! It’s sacrilege! It’s a fraud!

  • CharlesH

    Come on Python!

  • retfed

    Right.
    Sometime in the 80s the American Rifleman had an article on using +Ps in non-rated revolvers. It concluded that Smith steel-frame revolvers with model numbers (in other words, post-1956 manufacture) and steel-frame new-model D-frames (the ones with the shrouded ejector rod) were safe to fire +Ps in, but not as a steady diet. Older ones were iffy, mainly because the metallurgy changed but nothing else did, so you couldn’t be sure enough to try it.

  • Madcap_Magician

    But it does look vaguely like a Charter Arms. I’d prefer if they’d just strengthened the third-generation Detective Special and released that. I think I see too many dubious ‘improvements.’

    • Bart

      I also thought that it looked vaguely like a Charter Arms revolver. That isn’t a good thing, since I think of revolvers in two broad categories.
      1. Smith, Colt, Ruger – good revolvers
      2. Charter Arms, Rossi, Taurus – ok revolvers
      I know that there are fancy revolvers like Korth and Kimber, and cheaper brands like RAA and EAA, but I don’t generally think much about either of those categories.

  • DataMatters

    The 642 bulges in my pants and I’ve been made a time or two. I’ve had a lot of trouble truly concealing it. I’m just not built to conceal a firearm. Thinking maybe an LC9S Pro in a IWB.

    • Bart

      The 642 does bulge/print a little when wearing tighter clothes like jeans. I generally just don’t care about the printing. Nobody really notices it, or cares. I’ll occasionally pocket carry my Kel-Tec P3AT if I am really concerned about wearing jeans and not printing.
      I just like the 642 a whole lot better than the .380.

  • jamezb

    Questions: First, is the Cobra returning as a entry-priced item like it did from 1984-86 as the “Agent” – or priced in the stratosphere like so many Colt products?
    -If it’s not priced to compete, as was the Agent, it’s a waste of their time, like the reborn pocket pistols.
    You state the front sight is removable. Will a traditional blade be available?
    What’s it going to cost to get that ugly dent taken out of the trigger guard?

    • bucherm

      The article says it has a MSRP of $699

      Most of the midrange Colt products are priced to similar competitors.

      • Doom

        Really, only 699 MSRP? Unless they are unubtanium I could see them selling for 6-650 then, which isnt too bad for a revolver as long as they are nice quality.

    • richard kluesek

      good call on that triggerguard, they should use the profile of the Magnum Carry/ DSII from 1999.

  • PersonCommenting

    I never understood why they couldnt bring back the snake guns. They never had to make them the same as the old ones that would cost a fortune in todays money. They just had to make them look the same. Bring back the Detective and the Python and just make them look to the same with modern manufacturing.

  • Martingard

    I carried one of Colt’s original Cobras in `nam as a pocket pistol. Loved that thing but I had to leave it there when I rotated. Shoulda figured out a way to get it home. My Mother mailed it to me when I was there. Got away with it somehow.

    • Pete – TFB Writer

      That’s an awesome story.

    • Doom

      probably could have just mailed it back lol. Sorry to hear you couldn’t keep it though, that’s a real shame.

  • Joshua

    this actually looks interesting, release one with a service length barrel and I might be tempted

  • Conner

    Disappointing. I have a Taurus that looks exactly like this Colt “Revival”.

  • nova3930

    do want. would love to see another python but I’ve heard all the graybeard smiths at colt who knew how to make that beast work have retired.

  • Martin frank

    looks like a charter arms.

  • tiger

    Why mess with a tired horse, when I can have A Raging Bull? Go Taurus Usa….

    • Doom

      Taurus is a Brazilian company… and the Raging bull is made in Brazil… lol…

      • tiger

        And that means what?? Sorry, but flag waving products is silly. It is a big globe.

        • Doom

          Because you said “go Taurus USA”? While It is neither a USA made gun nor a USA based company?

          • tiger

            Nor is a Volvo or a Airbus. Point?

          • Doom

            Im honestly not sure if you are retarded or a troll, you are the guy who said “go taurus USA” Specifically naming the USA and then naming a company and model of gun that has nothing to do with the USA…

          • tiger

            They are hq in Miami. That is American enough for me.

          • Doom

            The American portion is, Thats like saying Glock is American because they have an HQ in Smyrna GA. lol.

          • tiger

            What is the obsession with nationality of a gun maker?

          • Doom

            Whats the obsession with ignoring nationality? Or not just ignoring it, but actively disguising the true nationality? I say this as a guy with more Russian guns than Amercian, and far more foreign guns than American made. Im not hung up on “buying American” when it comes to guns, but I am 100% for accuracy in reporting.

          • tiger

            Nor is a Volvo or a Airbus. Point?

  • JohnHR

    I suppose it’s easy too either praise or dis a new firearm based on a picture and purported specs but in all reality you just don’t know until you have handled one, worked the action, and finally taking it out for live fire.
    I like the looks of this revolver. The price is reasonable and I love burning through .38 specials at the range. It is an amazingly accurate round in the right gun.
    Revolvers were my first love and despite all the advances of the wonder 9’s and 1911’s, I own them too, I still carry, on a daily basis, a Smith and Wesson Performance Center 627 with a 2 and 5/8 inch barrel and it is quite accurate even at extended ranges.
    I will probably buy this Colt if it doesn’t become a botique gun where the prices are ran through the roof because “it’s special”. The Springfield EMP fit this category and it took two years for prices to normalize.

  • SteveK

    Matte stainless? Not for me!

    • Doom

      Could always polish it to a mirror if thats how you like it. This way it wont show every fingerprint and smudge known to mankind.

      • SteveK

        Yes, I know. I already make the mistake of buying on line, a S&W 460 in matte. UGLIEST gun I ever saw! Had to pay $200 to have it professionally polished. Now it’s a GEM! GORGEOUS! I’m not gonna spend hours polishing a gun myself. And it’s a hassle and expense to have it done. I’m not concerned about fingerprints. They wipe off easily. To each his own. To me, matte stainless is a waste of the potential beauty of stainless steel and I’ll NEVER again buy a gun in a matte SS.

        • Doom

          Oh buddy, Trust me, I have a early 90’s (no Hillary hole uglying up the side) 6 inch Stainless S&W 686. I love it. Just loves my fingerprints too, and it drives me nuts putting it away in any shape but shiny clean. lol. Matte is just for most people who dont want to worry about little scuffs and scratches since it will most likely be a carry gun being a snubby.

  • ckeltz3

    Meh…….bring back the Python & we’ll be talkin’!
    They’d sell everyone they make.

  • richard kluesek

    Kimber’s K6s and S&W ‘s new rework of the K frame featuring the 2 piece barrel assembly are also interesting variations. The new Cobra is reminiscent of the Magnum Carry and DS II series briefly launched and then ditched by Colt during 1998 – 1999, with reworked Mark V type mechanical improvements. Certainly its outward appearance suggests an updated version of that now collectable line. Standing by before my next acquisition.

  • Baggy270

    I’ll have to wait for the Python in 4.2 inches or longer in Canada….course it’ll probably be at least $1700 up here if it comes out….but I’d want one just cause….

  • Guy Bivens

    Bring back the Snake Guns.

  • Pistolero

    OK, so the author says:
    “But this gun locks up like a Colt. And its cylinder goes counter-clockwise, like, well, a Colt.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Colt cylinders traditionally revolve clockwise?

  • ostiariusalpha

    Yes, all the safety mechanisms can fail, but you’re more likely to be struck by lightning twice in the same week than to have that happen. The main point is that leaving a chamber empty on the already limited capacity of a revolver is more likely to get you injured or killed due to running out of ammunition in the rare circumstance that you need it, rather then the extremely unlikely chance that the hammer safety will fail. The truth is that accidentally snagging the trigger and shooting yourself is far more common, and resting on an empty chamber does absolutely zilch to prevent this from occurring.

    • David Trainmore

      Like I mentioned before, the transfer bar earns its keep when you gently let down the hammer onto a second chamber, when crawling over the rocks. But steel is springy, and really strange things can and do happen when something made of it gets highly stressed, momentarily. On a horse, in the brush, a firearm can be pummeled five or more times, before it’s inert in the dirt.

      In a bedroom, of course, you’ll keep all six chambers loaded. You can’t postulate that one size fits all. In the Mt’s, you have to protect your head first. Then carrying a revolver in a full flap holster, comes second. The old U.S. Horse Cavalry knew their stuff. Safety notches, transfer bars, and empty chambers only fill in some gaps.

  • The Capatin

    A good move by Colt. Now make more good decisions.