How Tough Are The Old S&W 28s

For some reason I've been wanting either a Ruger GP100 4" or S&W 28 4", I realize the the 28 will have more value over time this gun is meant to be a shooter. I never got the M22 I wanted and since I reload .357 magnum for my snub noses and Model 19-4 6"(I load them light for the 19, 158 grain at 1000fps), I figured it was a more natural direction to keep going in the .357 magnum direction.

I want a shooter that can be carried in both a good IWB or shoulder holster. I was hoping to hear from folks who have both 28s and GP100s, from folks who have put thousands of rounds of .357 magnum through their 28s over the years. I'll admit I'd like to shoot some Double Tap and Black Hills loads which are supposed to closely mimic the true magnum loads of old, and the 27s and 28s were the real 'magnums' as I understand it with being able to fire a 158 grain at 1400fps on a regular basis. Admittedly those would only be hunting loads and I'd try to find ammunition loaded at 158 grains at 1250 fps.

The 28 is bigger as I understand it, but a good older model is supposed to be a heck of a shooter as I understand it. The GP100 is a good workhorse but its trigger won't be as nice, but it is supposed to be able stand up to a hardier diet over time of stout loadings. I could get either used in good condition for around $400 or less. I'm honestly leaning towards the 28 4". I'm not buying anytime soon but my next purchase will be a present to myself for graduating from lawschool and the successful launch of one of my small businesses(got an LLC, insurance, and everything) along with a purchase of a 1000rds of ammo.

Thanks ahead of time.

I have one I bought in 1978. It has had a lot of 357's through it and no 38's.
It rode with me in a patrol car for a while, but due to the 6" bbl. I set it aside.

When I went back to ranching, the 28 rode in saddle bags on my horse, and in a holster in my pickup,dirt bike, and ATV for nearly twenty years. I used it to put down injured critters, and many predators and pests over the years.

Other than some minor holster wear, it is as good as new.
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p246/Iggy25/Mdl28.jpg?t=1271770291

If I were forced to choose only one handgun for a using gun and survival type scenario, it would be a Model 28.

I have no doubts that my son and grandson will be shooting it long after I am gone.

I appreciate it Iggy, if it wouldn't be too much trouble could you do a ball park estimate, 5,000 rounds down the years or something like that.

I honestly doubt you will ever kill a M-28 in your lifetime unless you just get stupid with the reloads. I have a 27 (same gun basically) that I got over 30 years ago. I have no idea how many rounds I have fired through it. Rough guess would be 8-10,000 + .38 Specials and a couple thousand full house .357 Magnums.

The 28 was THE workhorse of Smith and Wesson. It is an outstanding example of the art of handguns. The weight detracts from its portability, but, adds greatly to its shootablility.

As a carry gun, I would prefer stainless, but, for what it is, the 28 is king.

The problems I've heard about w/N frame revolvers has to do with frequent double action rapid fire. The cylinder is so massive and the cylinder stop relatively small that it messes up the timing.

Other than that, I don't think you can kill the things.

I've owned a number of N-frame revolvers and currently have a M-27 4". They are excelent shooters especially as a SA. Unless you are a huge person I do not see how a N-frame will be comfortable as a IWB carry arm, the cylinder is massive and heavy as is the frame. During the 1950's-60's Bill Jordan and Jeff Cooper were pushing big bore wheelguns for use by State Troopers. There was alot of ink and egos invoulved. S&W came out with the N-frame in 357, 41, and 44 mag. The 41mag was pushed as a LE handgun but the recoil and penitration were beyond what was deemed appropiate. The 27-28 was designed to be marketed to Troopers who were authorized to carry a 357mag and wanted extra weight to tame the recoil. An N-frame will last for 1000's of rounds. I have concidered selling my M-27 as I have sold my 25, 28 and 29, it is not my go-to gun by any means. I would prefer a GP-100 myself.

I have a 4" M28 and for years have carried it as part of my daily attire. Even today I still carry it. A shoulder holster, maybe, An IWB, I doubt it. I much prefer a belt holster on my right side just behind my hip. I have used a Bianchi 5BH and currnetly am using the Safariland Model 29.

The 28 can handle a steady diet of full power loads. That is what it was designed to do. If you want something a little smaller, consider the Model 686. Also designed for the 357 round.

A model 28 was my second or third big bore handgun.
I KNOW I put an easy five thousand .357 reloads through the gun plus thousands of .38 special loads.

Bangor Punta made guns suffer some ills that are all correctable and the Model 28 is a fine .357 revolver.

They can take any amount of .357 you throw at them.

What gets them is using light .38 Special loads, and rapid firing them. It is hell on ice for the cylinder stop to be halting that amount of mass as quickly as you can operate it.

I stopped dry firin my revolvers because you`ll do more wear in a few sessions than a life time of shootin.

Not to say I do any dry firin ,I do enuff to test function but to sit & dry fire to "break in" no .

The choice I made when chooseing was fit & the Ruger GP100 grip (the wood panel ones) fit I`ve tried many styles but always go back to the factory !

as far as triggers go it`s a toss up as to smoothness , the smith does have a shorter stroke though .
I like a smooth trigger with a little stack length of pull has never been a factor for me.

As far as longevity , if shot the same amount & power ammo I feel the ruger will come out on top , just bigger & heavier parts .

I`ve shot both & I`ll stay with the GP !

I`m not biased because if ya look hard enuff you`ll find a couple of Model 10s in the trucks !

As far as longevity , if shot the same amount & power ammo I feel the ruger will come out on top , just bigger & heavier parts .


Maybe. I think the internals in the Ruger are a bit sturdier...Will it make a difference in an average lifetime of shooting? I dunno. Likely not. But, I will grant you the Ruger has a more modern and possibly a tad more robust lockwork.

Take a look a 357 RedHawk

The bottom line here might well be that you can't miss with either choice, as both are fine firearms; consequently, get the one that best fits your hand and eye -- and that might mean a trip or two to the range to test-fire both pistols.

Then again, there's nothing wrong with the idea of getting one of each -- a wonderful solution to your delimma, perhaps.

Hi,

I own both a GP100 and a model 28-2 4 inch. Both will shoot 357s all the time. Bought are excellent revolvers. The difference is the way revolver feels in your hand. People are different. The model 28 has a longer trigger reach. This could be a problem for people with small hands like me. The GP100 is better in that regard. Recoil is about the same with both.
Bottom line. The 28 will hold its value better and have a little better trigger. The GP100 to me is still the "tank" of 357 SA/DA revolvers. The 28 has the bigger frame but the Ruger is ever bit as tough as any N frame in 357. You might consider buying both if you have the money. I did.

Good luck,
roaddog28

The 28's will go out of time with a lot of shooting. Back when I didn't know any better I bought a 28 that turned out to have been used a lot for fast double action shooting. And likely quite a lot of magnums to boot. The timing was off a bit due to a worn hand that was too short to push the cylinder fully into alignment with the barrel as checked by a brass slug. A new hand and some minor stoning to fit it and the gun is now back to prime shooting condition. In tuning the hand so it wouldn't bind I had to compromise a hair and two or three of the chambers are almost too tight while one or two of the others still have a hair of rotational play. So perhaps that says there was some wear to the pawls on the back of the cylinder.

Either way it's a superb gun to shoot. Mine is going to see duty in the club speed steel matches this summer where the added weight and shooting .38Spls will make it super easy to put back on target and get succesive shots off at a good rate. But perhaps a little over the top for concealed carry due to the weight and size.

As for IWB carry, a 4" 28 can be done. Most won't like doing it, but I dont' mind. I am 6'7" and about 210 lbs, so that may help. It's not an everyday carry gun, more like every other day. I carry mine on a beltman gunbelt in a lobo gunleather IWB rig. Extra room in the waist of your pants is a must, as is a baggy, stiff/starchy shirt in a dark color, or a print of some kind. With this setup, IWB carry is doable for me. I shoot my 28 better than any other gun I own, so I do carry it whenever I can.


http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q139/jad0110/Gear/DSC07503.jpg


http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q139/jad0110/Gear/DSC07512.jpg


http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q139/jad0110/Gear/DSC07515.jpg

Thanks everyone, it has been insightful but I'm going with the Ruger GP100 it sounds like. At the next gun show I'll know for sure. I'm 5'9 260lbs, a squat tank, 20" arms, 55" chest, and while I have a ponch and wear size 38 jeans my abb wall is quite immense(something that happens when you shrug 685lbs), my back is almost twice the width of my waist, and my two pack quite large. Basically I look like a powerlifting fiend because I am.

The Ruger seems to win, the gun is meant to be a shooter which means double taps for which the Ruger seems a better fit. I may one day get a 27 or 28, or go ahead and get the latest 627. I've had a few good 27s and 28s pass my way that I turned down. The next $300 28 4" or 6" that comes my way in 90% plus condition I'm buying. But the Ruger takes priority. I'm in no rush. Maybe I should just go modern with the 627 or the 27 classic if they are still available.

Thanks everyone you've all been helpful.

The weight of the N frame 357 cylinder hurts the N frame .357 design more then anything else.
If you want a N frame consider the various 44's or 45's. The bigger holes mean less steel/weight rotating which bangs against the locking notch. And under recoil the cylinder tends to develop end play. Inertia at work, The frame recoils against the cylinder.
If you want a .357 buy a L frame and be really happy. Its chambers are slightly longer to fit longer/heavier bullets. Altogether better designed for the .357

The Model 27/28 N-Frame revolvers are the descendants of the gun that was the .357 Magnum's original platform...when the cartridge was a real magnum. Massive guns for the cartridge, they were built to stand it. Today's .357 Magnum cartridge has been downloaded quite a bit from those days, and when used in the N-Frame...it's rather like firing +P .38 Special in a 586/686 L-Frame. In other words....you ain't gonna hurt it much with factory ammunition, and you'd have to get pretty stupid even with handloads to damage it.

The double-action caveats are true. If you want to do a lot of double-action shooting...moderate the speed of the trigger pull.

I stopped dry firin my revolvers because you`ll do more wear in a few sessions than a life time of shootin.

I'm tryin' to wrap my head around how you came to that conclusion...but I won't try to argue the point. I do prefer to use snap caps for extended dry-fire sessions for the sake of the firing pin...but I think that mainly comes from the guns that I grew up with, and the admonition not to "snap" them. Most modern centerfire revolvers and autopistols will tolerate dry-firing quite well

Tuner

I`m speakin of the dry firing where the trigger is pulled as fast as possible thousands of times!

The GP100 has a much thicker walled cylinder crane tube, than does the S&W Model 28. This gives the GP100 several times the bearing surface area for the cylinder to slam against during firing. Thus, the Model 28 will develop cylinder end shake sooner than the GP100 will.

I like the GP 100 series, but another option for the Smith is the 627 Pro. N frame, 4" barrel and EIGHT shots. The way the .357 N frames should have been done in the first place. More money than a Ruger, but something to consider.

I`m speakin of the dry firing where the trigger is pulled as fast as possible thousands of times!

And how will that cause more wear on the gun than firing it the same way? Dry firing only places stress and wear on the lockwork. Firing it subjects it to pressure and recoil forces that are eroding the forcing cone, stretching the topstrap, and stressing the chambers.

"And how will that cause more wear on the gun than firing it the same way? Dry firing only places stress and wear on the lock work. Firing it subjects it to pressure and recoil forces that are eroding the forcing cone, stretching the top strap, and stressing the chambers."

My M-27-2 was had none of the above problems. But! the heavy cylinder sure tore up the locking notches when I tried to dry fire or shoot DA fast.
It developed end play faster then my M-29 and several other big bore N frames.
__________________

The problems I've heard about w/N frame revolvers has to do with frequent double action rapid fire. The cylinder is so massive and the cylinder stop relatively small that it messes up the timing.

Other than that, I don't think you can kill the things.
Interestingly enough, it is that big cylinder that enhances rapid DA fire in those n-frames. The wheel gets goin' and develops a certain amount of momentum and the gun almost fires itself.

I remember reading about it when I was a kid; I think it was something written by Bill Jordan.

The 28 is a GREAT gun!

But! the heavy cylinder sure tore up the locking notches when I tried to dry fire or shoot DA fast.

Understood...but the effect is the same whether dry firing or live firing. No?

It developed end play faster then my M-29 and several other big bore N frames.


Endplay...endshake...comes from the stretching of the topstrap, and that comes from live fire. They'll all stretch, given enough use. The bigger the frame, the longer it takes with a given caliber and load level, assuming equal metallurgy...but they'll all stretch.

I'd also like to point out the false information here about relative "strength" between S&W's and Rugers. They are NOT made of the same material. Comparing them based on how thick one is to the other is a serious, and amateur, mistake.

S&W's are made of forged steel, then machined down to the shape you see. Rugers are made of cast steel poured into a mold. This results in very different properties. This does not mean Rugers are bad guns, but it does mean their steel is, ounce for ounce, weaker than that in an S&W, Colt, or other gun machined from forged steel.

I've owned both S&Ws and Rugers. I like them both. But there's no way on earth I'd take a GP-100 over an S&W 28. Does that mean the GP-100 is a bad gun? Certainly not. But it is not in the same class as a S&W 28. Not by a country mile.

A long time ago Ruger once intimated their guns were worth buying because they were bigger. S&W took them to task about it in a brief ad campaign. Ruger has wisely kept mum about the issue for more than 25 years:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd275/kamerer/S-W/ad_686vsgp100.jpg

Oro...Exactly. An investment casting has to be more massive to equal the tensile strength of a piece of steel in a similar application.

Hi,

I believe this post is going no were. The model 28 and the GP100 are made different. I am not a expert but both revolvers will handle just about any sane 357 rounds. Nick picking one revolver against the other does not make sense. The model 27/28 were the first 357s when S&W started making them. S&W started the 357 SA/DA revolver. with the 27/28. They stand on their own for shooting and strength. Most of the double action issues I have heard of are from firing 38 specials rapidly . I believe the N frames will withstand a steady diet of 357s. Like all S&W revolvers I have known at some point during their life they will need a "tune up" at a certain round count. This is the nature of the there trigger and lock mechanism. I have never heard of a Ruger DA/SA revolver whether the GP100 series, Security Six series and SP101 in need of a tuneup such as timing etc. This is after thousands of rounds in any of the Ruger revolvers. This is do to the over built lock and trigger group design of the Ruger. They just don't wear out very much.

Bottom line. We are comparing two revolvers that evolved at different times. One was design in the early 1920s and the other one was designed in the mid 1980.

And of course the N frame is a large frame revolver. The Ruger is a large medium frame revolver. I believe a better thread would a N frame versus a Ruger Redhawk or a L frame Smith versus a GP100.

Thats my take,
roaddog28

PPC, the old revolver shooting game was not a good place for N frames.
The K frames ruled the game due to the lighter cylinder. Easier to get it moving and it stops without upsetting the sights.
Bill Jordan was partial to K frames.
A heavy fly wheel is hard to get moving and hard to stop.
Some current wheel gun shooters try and reduce the weight of there cylinders buy using TI. This may also help in reducing the peening of the locking notches.

I believe this post is going no were. The model 28 and the GP100 are made different.

Actually, I feel the thread is starting to generate some useful observations of the differences, which can help the OP make a decision. That's the goal of the thread, or any thread, which starts out "tell me about..." And I think your post helped to as you refined the points made above that they are, despite gross outward appearances, very different guns.

One was design in the early 1920s and the other one was designed in the mid 1980.

Actually the S&W is older than that. The design of the modern S&W revolvers was finalized into its current form during 1905. They introduced the N frame in 1909 - it was basically an upscaled version of the 1905 gun. The .357 was chambered in 1935, but again, no changes to the 1905 design.

I've owned 3 M28s and 2 M27s over the years so I have a small bit of experience with them. The M28, Highway Patrolman, was made from 1954 to 1986. None have been made since then.

They are strong guns. After a good bit of shooting you will have to have them retuned and adjusted. This is a simple and routine thing and common to S&Ws. Take care of the gun and it will outlast you.

I've worn out two M28s firing commercial ammo. By "worn out" I mean that a cylinder had to be replaced in one (2 of the cylinder walls had expanded and cases routinely split) along with the yoke and the cylinder stop pin and in the other the yoke and a number of internals. These parts were replaced and the guns went on to shoot for a few more years. Properly maintained an M28 will out last the shooter.

The 4" M28 weighs about 42 ozs. while the 4.2" GP100 weighs about 40 ozs. The M28 though, to me feels lighter and is faster to the target than the Ruger. The trigger on the S&W can be made smoother. The M28 is a handier revolver IMHO as well as a handsomer one. It is, to me anyway, the more shootable of the two and I prefer the S&W over the Ruger. The M28 is an elegant gun most Rugers blocks of steel by compareson.

The Ruger though is the more durable of the two. This is due to it's construction. It's method of lockup is stronger than the S&W, it's construction simpler.

Keep in mind that the steel of the old M28s was not as strong as that in use today. While more attention was paid to the details of manufacture back in the day (sometimes anyway) often today the heat treat and grade of steel is better and the guns stronger. The guns of the 1950s-1970s were not built or designed for the volumn of shooting that is common today. An L frame of today may surpass the durability of a 28-2.

I've not tried to carry an N frame in an IWB holster. I have carried N frame on my hip and in a shoulder rig but they are a bit large for an IWB IMHO. Other guns may be more useful for CCW.

N frames in general are slightly slower in rapid da shooting than guns with smaller cylinders. This is true across the board and is due to their mass. This is not a point against them though it is just part of what they are.

Best for you to go by a gun store or gun show and handle both. Shoot both if you can.

tipoc

Hi,
I guess I am beating my head against a wall.:banghead:Again, will are talking about two 357 revolvers made in different eras. One is the working mans version of the original 357. The other is the current generation large medium frame revolver being made now. I own a M28-2 4 inch. I also own a Ruger GP100 4 inch. Although they both can shoot a steady diet of 357s they are both different in the way they feel, handle and shoot. For me the M28 is not as muzzle heavy. Also, I can acquire my target faster with the M28. But the M28 does not feel as comfortable in my hands because of the longer trigger reach. I am very small and have small hands. The GP100 feels much like my S&W 686. That is because they are almost identical as far as grip. :) The comparison between the M28 and GP100 is like comparing apples vs bananas. Again two entirely different revolvers. Like just about all older Smiths at some round count they will need a tune-up or some parts replacement. Again, I have never heard or seen a Ruger revolver needing a tune-up at a certain round count. What little parts replacement I have seen in a Ruger revolver is mostly do to abuse of the user. :eek:That is because the lock system and trigger group are stronger than the S&W revolvers.

The Ruger though is the more durable of the two. This is due to it's construction. It's method of lockup is stronger than the S&W, it's construction simpler.

I agree with the above quote.

Again, bottom line. I like the classic M27/28. The revolver is refine and finished well. But I will never compare my M28 to my Ruger GP100.

The Ruger GP100 is one of the strongest medium frame revolvers I have ever own.
Regards,
roaddog28

The frames on both the Smith and the Ruger are sufficiently strong for any intended use. In this discussion it makes no difference whatsoever whether a frame is cast or forged. Completely irrelevant. Either (frame) will last several lifetimes of ordinary shooting.

To the OP, check out closely the locking mechanisms of each. The Ruger locks at the rear of the cylinder and on the front of the crane. The Smith's locking mechanism is frail by comparison. This distinction is why the Ruger is a stronger revolver.