No offense taken! I would point out that the comparison should be taken with a grain of salt: for years, Rolls Royce (like Ferarri) used Turbo Hydramatic 400 transmissions built by Cadillac's parent, General Motors, and licensed the hydraulic brake/suspension system from Citroen.
First of all, I have not handled or even seen in person the new production Colt Pythons. As the lockwork of all Colt double action revolvers up to 1969 (the "Schmidt Galand" action) required a great deal of expert hand fitting, and considering that it had been years since Colt manufactured this old style lock, I would not be surprised if the new production did not maintain the quality level of the old.
Secondly, I do understand that Manurhin revolvers are tops in quality and accuracy, although I've never handled or seen one.
Thirdly, I also understand that the Korth revolver is considered by many to be the best revolver. I have never handled one of them, either. But considering that comparing a Korth to a Colt would be like comparing a modern high quality car to a Model T of years ago, can this be surprising? This is only what one would expect of something made by the modern advances in manufacturing and metallurgy.
I would add that this may also be observed in Mateba and Chiappa revolvers, which take the revolver principle even further than the revolvers we've discussed.
When it comes to the Smith & Wesson comparison, my own opinion is a bit different. Your Smith & Wesson is not quite the same thing as the Python, as it was built on the largest N frame platform. In those days, making a revolver for the then-new 357 Magnum cartridge involved taking a design made for 45 caliber cartridges and adapting it to the much smaller, but much higher pressure 357 Magnum. Colt had done the same thing at the same time, chambering 357 Magnum their large New Service Shooting Master model.
Any sort of fit, finish, or engraving could be obtained in those days, as both Colt and Smith & Wesson operated full custom shops offering almost anything the customer wanted.
The Python, on the other hand, was not a large frame revolver. It was based on the Colt "I" frame, which was a modified "E" frame, mostly in that it used a floating firing pin, rather than one attached to the hammer. Otherwise, it is the same size as the Army Special and Official Police and has the same basic lockwork all Colt double action revolvers of the time. The Python, in other words, is based on a smaller frame.
Another matter of interest is the Python's use of the typical Colt 38/357 barrel, with a 1:14 twist. Smith & Wesson used a 1:18 3/4 twist. The Faster Colt twist had an advantage for 38 bullets ranging from 148 gr target wadcutters to 158 gr police service loads. The slower Smith & Wesson twist was more advantageous for lighter bullets. Famous firearms developer and expert C E Harris said:
I was told by the late Joe Wallace, a Colt armourer who built the Official Police, Officer's Model and Python, that Colt had engineering students at the University of Connecticutt conduct yaw card and spark shadowgraph studies of the .38 Special revolver firing 158-gr. lead RN bullet using the most advanced technology then available, about 1900, to determine the best possible rate of twist for the “new” smokeless powder ammunition. UConn recommended the 14 inch twist of rifling and Colt had their tooling made that way.
Both Colt and Smith & Wesson adapted their medium frame revolvers to use the 357 Magnum cartridge around 1955. The Colt medium frame, used in the Python, was originally intended to handle the .41 Long Colt cartridge, and thus its frame was larger than the Smith & Wesson M&P Model 10 (K frame), that was adapted for the 357 Magnum. Under a lot of use of heavy 357 shooting, the K frame was not durable, unlike the Python with its somewhat larger frame, which was durable. To get reliability, one had to step up to the larger N frame Smith & Wesson in 357 Magnum, like yours. One of Smith & Wesson's problems had to do with the thickness of the barrel where it was threaded into the frame and exited next to the cylinder. The area around the forcing cone was too thin and could eventually fail with the use of heavy loads. The Colt, being larger, did not have this problem.
Smith & Wesson more or less admitted that the Python was the proper size for the 357 when they brought out their larger "L" frame in 1980.
Here's a much longer explanation of that story, if you're interested: https://revolverguy.com/the-smith-wesson-l-frame-story/
Now, as I've said, I don't own a Python. However, I do own a Second Issue Colt Officer's Model made in 1920, which was more or less the Python of its day. (There was no 357 at this time.) As such, it received a premium treatment which I can personally attest to, as I also own a near-mint Colt Army Special made in 1916. While also finely made (a gun like the Manurhin aside, nothing in the gun shop counter has anything like the quality of finish of my Army Special), it's plain to see the care taken with the polish of the Officer's Model, compared to the Army Special.
My comparison between these Colts -- the personal observation basis I have to go on, is with my Third Model M17 "K22 Masterpiece" Smith & Wesson (obviously in 22 LR) from the 1960s. This gun is also not a run-of-the-mill version, but a premium gun that exhibited care in its making. It was my Uncle's, and the first handgun that I shot very much. I shot it as a teenager and into my 20s, often at a place along a river, where i learned a little bit about long range handgun shooting. Like my Colts, it is accurate and has a fine trigger. When my Uncle passed away, it became mine.
None of these guns are 357 Magnums, but I've never much cared for that high intensity revolver cartridge, or its big brother, the 44 magnum. I like old, slow-moving cartridges for revolvers, like 38 Special and 45, both Auto and Colt. So, it's from this personal frame of reference that I judge Colt double action revolvers.
For one thing, I like the pedigreed Schmidt - Galand design, and the enhancement of the positive safety allowing a full 6 round carry dating back to 1905, which others didn't have until much later.
I like the fact that the cylinder turns in the "right" direction into the frame, and doesn't need a collection of mousetraps to ensure it locks up with the cylinder aligned to the barrel. Further along this line, I like the "Colt advancing hand," which forces the cylinder against the locking bolt when the trigger is pulled, rather than leaving the alignment to the fit and clearance of the bolt into the cylinder notch. Furthermore, I also like the way Colt offset the bolt and cylinder notches, so that they weren't cut into the thinnest and weakest part of the chambers. Not that I'd load any revolver hot enough to blow out the cylinder, but that design feature is the better, more elegant way, so I like it.
I never cared for the idea of pinning the barrel into the frame, as Smith & Wesson did. (It seemed to me to be like a man who wore a belt and suspenders because he was insecure about losing his pants.) If the barrel is turned into the frame and torqued properly, there's no need for a pin to hold it.
The Colt frame was a little "longer," spacing my hand away from the trigger more than the Smith & Wesson, something that I like, having large hands. (This is somewhat of a pet peeve of mine: for instance, with the 1911, many shooters and gun writers have complained that they can't hold and control it as well as they would like. I think, when i see this complaint, that most guns are made for smaller-handed people, and if they don't like it, why don't they select from the great variety of handguns that better fit them, rather than whining about the few that fit me!)
One appearance difference I like is the Colt bluing, "Colt Royal Blue." Rather than using the caustic bluing that produces an almost black appearance, like Smith & Wesson, Colt used the older traditional blue that was really blue, and looks a bit like a delicate water color. Nowadays, even the caustic blue is too expensive and modern paint-like coatings are used. Admittedly, they are superior in durability, but few guns look as nice as an old Colt or Winchester with their old time real blue color to me.
Part of my preference for Colt is based on snobbery: When I was a young man in my early 20s, I spent a lot of time afield in the mountains, shooting varmints. During a day's shooting, where I'd go through almost all of a "brick" of 500 22 LRs, I would get bored, and for those parts of the day, I would bring my 1911 also. As a person of very limited finances, I reloaded and cast my own bullets, so that I could afford to shoot my handguns cheaply. A vital part of this poor man's shooting formula was collecting empties, and I will tell you that 45 Auto shells have their own brains. They have the ability to hide under sagebrush (or in it!) and get into the most odd places that cannot be imagined.
The obvious solution to this was a revolver, where I could keep my cases under control, rather than having them flung out across the countryside. That's when i bought the Army Special. My gun shop friend told me that no target shooter of old would consider anything other than a Colt. By this time, everyone was shooting Smith & Wesson, except for unaffordable Pythons, and i wasn't interested in 357s, anyway. 2.7 grains of Bullseye under my own cast bullets got the job done with no muss or fuss. A 7000 gr can of powder went a long way. The prices of powder and primers in those days allowed me to shoot handguns for the same price as my 22! I bought several pounds of fired 38 Special cartridges (that's right, my gun shop buddy had a box of them and we agreed to a price by-the-pound) and a collection of coworker's lead sewer pipes from house remodeling (for bullet casting) set me up in business.
This combination enabled me to wipe the smiles off of a number of folks's faces over the years, even as an old man with lousy eyesight.
i liked it so much that I got the Officer's Model, with its exquisite trigger that doesn't need to be pulled, only thought about, and quaint but effective adjustable sights.
I liked both of them so much that I got a Detective Special as a carry gun.
This whole business is a long winded explanation for why I like what I like. There's no doubt that others feel the same way about different guns, and that's just fine. There's actually little rational or logical reason to have so many different kinds of guns and cartridges, but the wide variations of both allow people to exercise choice and taste in what they get.
So, for me, a Python is the "Cadillac" of double action revolvers. It's not a Königsegg, or a Deusenberg, or a Citroën DS 21 or SM. Of course, even the new Cadillacs ain't what they used to be, either. Not everyone's cup of tea, for sure, but then again, their are folks who don't care to sit down and watch a Bimal Roy or Guru Dutt film, either, so I'm used to holding different views.