The larger parts such as the hammer and trigger certainly could be made by CNC, but it still wouldn't be cheap. No matter what you do, you will still have to have a person switch the position and securing of the parts to do all sides, so it will take a good amount of time still. When you think of 1 CNC machine, vs. the old way of a line of mills with fixtures, the old way probably turns out a part faster just because the swapping in the fixtures is probably faster. Actual machining and cutting time would probably be a wash against a good man on a mill. The smaller parts would just complicate the process much more, further driving up the costs.
The advantage you get with the CNC part is the near perfect dimensions every time, that saves on fitting time and warranty returns. But CNC machined small parts are rare, it's not a very cost effective way to make small parts.
MIM is THE way to make revolver internals despite what the "experts" on the internet say.
As for the Colt lockwork, I find nothing wrong with it at all. No it doesn't lend itself to modern manufacturing very well, but the design was very solid in its day. Contrary to popular opinion of more "experts" the lockwork is not "fragile" at all. In fact, the Python is one brute strong, very tough revolver.
The Mk III / Mk V actions are much more simple and it's a solid design. The Mk III's have VERY smooth actions in general, just the hammer springs were a bit over-done. Some of the best action jobs I've ever done were on Mk III's, they are an absolute delight to work on. Colt abandoned the Mk III's sintered internals after some failures and went to investment casting, which only degraded the design. Still, the investment cast internals of the Mk V actions can be cleaned up quite well for excellent triggers also, just takes a bit more work.
Then you have the barrels. Those Python barrels were forged, drilled and the rifling was broach cut. NO one makes barrels that way anymore. And that's because the way S&W makes barrels these days is cheaper and results in a more accurate revolver with a barrel with rifling that's half as smooth. Still, of everything they would have to make, the barrels would be at least doable. They could either do a very good casting, or even a forging, then EDM cut the rifling, and then do a good deal of hand lapping just to match what a S&W barrel is capable of. S&W does a tension at both ends fit over the barrel shroud, similar to a Dan Wesson barrel, only the S&W is permanent.
CNC would be a Godsend for milling the frame and sideplate, once the frame has been forged or cast, so that could be a decent savings, but not nearly enough to keep costs down to something manageable. Those 100% milled internals are what's going to kill you.
So unless the market was willing to pay 4 grand per revolver (and they won't), and buy a lot of them at that price (they wont), or are willing to accept parts made from MIM (and they won't), the Python is dead. Even if the market would accept MIM internals (and they wouldn't), I don't think the Python hammer & trigger could be properly done with MIM, too big. it would have to have hollow cavities that were visible from the outside and that would just kill the look and feel.
At the end of the day, you'd end up with a very good looking revolver (and the Python is a looker) for at least 3x the cost of a S&W or Ruger, with performance on par with the S&W or Ruger. If you did things exceptionally well, you might have a slight accuracy edge over the S&W or Ruger, but it won't be a big difference. And with S&W's MIM internals, you're one spring job away from better than Python triggers (out of the box that is, nothing will beat a properly tuned Python trigger).
Just my .02 on the matter.
