Yes, that work was done by hand. Absolutely.
On the outside, there is the final fitting and polishing of the old Colts to achieve their vaunted (and well deserved) glorious finish. This was done by hand. There’s nothing that can replace the care and attention to detail at the corners and boundaries when polishing a firearm. You needed skilled people to perform the polishing prior to putting the gun into the blue tank. This was true of rifles, shotguns and semi-auto handguns as well, it isn’t an issue particular to the Colt revolver. The Pythons, however, were exceptionally well finished, and that’s part of their value and mystique.
This is why the large gun companies have duped gun buyers into thinking that parkerized or magnesium phosphate finishes on guns are “cool” or “better” than old fashioned blueing: Because the parking is cheaper, it hides a gun with horrible metal finishing and parking can be done by anyone with a knuckle-dragging IQ.
Now, internally: The final fit of the parts in a Python is not something that lends itself to mass manufacturing by machines. It can be done in a S&W revolver, but not a Colt. If you take apart a Colt revolver and a S&W revolver, you will immediately see the differences that lend the S&W design to mass manufacture and what stands in the way for the Colt.
In the Colt, everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) with regard to the timing of the lockwork, cylinder rotation and lock-up, is controlled by the rebound lever:
http://www.urban-armory.com/cart/blueprints/colt_python.gif
Look at park #44. What you don’t see is the multi-faceted boss on the other side of that part. There are facets on a raised boss on the right side of the rebound lever that control the timing of the gun. This is what made the Colts acquire a reputation for needing a Swiss watchmaker to work on them. For someone with careful attention to detail and a holistic understanding of the Python (and prior) Colt revolver function, it isn’t all that difficult, but it does take time. Colts also could be knocked out of time - eg, if you used the butt of a Python to hit something (like, oh, say, if you tried to use the butt as a bludgeon to pistol-whip someone), you could deform the shape/dimension of the grip, which would move the mounting point of the rebound lever, which could knock the gun out of time and out of action.
OK, that was one part of the final fitting by hand for a Colt. Another was getting the cylinder stop (aka “bolt”) to fit with absolutely minimum slop into the cuts in the cylinder. Colts, and especially Pythons, had a reputation as “locking like a bank vault” - whereas a S&W revolver will have a little wiggle here and there on the bolt, the goal of a Colt was to have none.
There’s a reason why Pythons commanded a premium when they were new, and why they command such a premium in the used gun market if they’re in 95%+ condition.
I know what CNC machines are capable of. I’ve run and programmed CNC machines. I’ve also been in and out of Colt revolvers like the Python, S&W and Rugers. They’re all good revolvers, but the Pythons, in new or like-new condition... were executed at a level of workmanship above the rest of the field.
Interesting stuff.
Like comparing Deusenbergs to Toyotas.
I’m just interested in functionality as opposed to cosmetics so I’m not too worried.
I remember reading many years ago that John Browning was really impressed with the workers at Colt, Winchester, FN etc.
The workers all liked him because he was a gun smith and like them worked with his hands.
While no one could equal Browning as an inventor of guns, Browning was impressed with the workers ability to produce finely finished pieces.
