How tight should an S&W 627 be?

[HoosierQ]

My 627 8-shot .357 is a sweet gun. Trigger is just crazy good. Fit and finish just excellent. However, the cylinder is not tight...it wiggles a bit at all stages. Is this normal? Acceptable from a functional point of view? In other words, there is no "bank vault" thing going on here. I would expect a $900 revolver to fit tighter. I am not dissatisfied but what have I got on my hands here? The cylinder to forcing cone gap is about the best I have seen.

 

[Dain Bramage]

Locked up (trigger back, hammer down), front-to-back (endshake) should be minimal. I've found all my Smiths have a little rotational wiggle. Doesn't seem to bother them.

I've heard that Colt tried for a perfect lock up, and S&W lets the forcing cone do its work. I don't know it that's true.

 

[Old Fuff]

"Bank vault tight," is a condition you usually find in certain Colt revolvers, and it's only advantageous if the chamber is absolutely concentrict with the bore when latched. To do this requires expert and skilled hand fitting with each chamber, and is a big reason Colt is no longer making these kind of revolvers.

Smith & Wesson, Ruger and Taurus revolvers are made using a different design, and the cylinder is supposed to wiggle (rotationally) a little bit so that the chamber can align with the bore. Problem is, different folks define "little bit," in different ways.

I do have one (and only one) S&W revolver that is bank vault tight on all chambers, but it was made in 1884, long before we had modern CNC machines.

Added: "trigger fully back, hammer down" shouldn't make any difference in a S&W, Ruger or Taurus.

 

[HoosierQ]

OK well that's what I've get then...exactly what you all describe. I did the whole trigger pulled hammer forward thing. There is no endshake whatsoever. Just a very little bit of rotational movement...I am talking fractional millimeters here...literally minutes or maybe even seconds of movement. Thanks guys.