New Model 27 vs Old Model 27-2 vs 686 6" S&W

[rpf717]

Hi, Thanks in advance for any help/advice.

I'm a longtime autoloader shooter, but the revolver bug has bitten, and I'd like to pickup my first model. I'm active military and was looking at the S&W models due to their 40% off MSRP through the end of 2009 (which seems to still be a bit lower than street prices).

I had handled a 686 several time at my local Cabelas' and really liked the balance, fit and finish, etc. Looking at the S&W website I came across the Model 27 in nickel and Wow, I really like the looks of that pistol. I started to think I should get that instead. But then I did some searches here at THR about the 27 and it seems like alot of folks recommended trying to find a nice "old" Model 27-2 instead.

I'm looking for the following in a 6" model and have narrowed it down to the three in the title.

With the 40% off MSRP the prices would be:
686 (6 shot) =$545
686 (7 shot) =$559
New Production "Classic" Model 27 in nickel = $711
New Production "Classic" Model 27 blued = $678
A Like new true Classic 27-2 seem to be about $750 ish?

From my searches on here, the theme seemed to be that the Older production guns were higher quality. Is there objective data behind that sentiment or just the collective experience or opinions of folks?

Even if quality of the new models is a bit lower, I'd have the lifetime warranty if anything happens, right? So why not get the new?

Aesthetically I like the looks of the Model 27 in nickel the best. Will this hold up as well as a 686?

Again thanks for helping this newbie who's excited to get into the world of revovlers!

 

[Ala Dan]

I paid $600 hard earned cash $$$$, 'bout a year ago for a Smith & Wesson
model 27-2, with 3.5" barrel, triple T's, mahogany wooden presentation case,
and all documents (including blank warranty card). This firearm has not even
had the cylinder turned on it; so it sits well too the rear of my safe~!

Supposedly, this firearm (along with lots of other's) were once owned by a
deceased Chicago Mafia boss; but who really knows for sure~? as it could
have been owned by Drew Peterson himself.

 

[tprice]

The major difference is the balance, like you noted. The 686 has a full underbarrel lug, the 27 doesn't. The 686 is a slightly smaller L frame, the 27 is an N frame. The 27 will absorb more recoil, but the 686 will rise less due to the weight of the longer lug.

Both are beautiful guns, though I agree the 27 has the edge in the looks department. The nickel 27 should be fine if you're not wearing the gun in a holster all day.

Getting the older model will nab you non-MIM hammer and trigger (forged), the old style cylinder release, and no internal lock. I think the -2 will also have the hammer with the nose on it (the "firing pin").

I own an early 686 in that style and one in the newer MIM-part and noseless hammer. I prefer the older style.

I would recommend a used 686 or used 27. But there is nothing wrong with a newer Smith either.

 

[Guillermo]

Even if quality of the new models is a bit lower, I'd have the lifetime warranty if anything happens, right? So why not get the new?

With that attitude I think that you should buy a new one. I am not attempting to be a jerk, just practical. There are only so many older model 27's and if you are fine with a new "model 27" I think that you should leave those great old guns for those that really want them.

 

[rpf717]

With that attitude I think that you should buy a new one. I am not attempting to be a jerk, just practical. There are only so many older model 27's and if you are fine with a new "model 27" I think that you should leave those great old guns for those that really want them.

Attitude? Attitude assumes that I have an opinion. I don't. It was a question. If the older guns are "great" or greater, then clearly that is what I want. I'm only "fine with a new "model 27"" if its a better buy for my money than the alternative. I have little to no experience in these issues, which is why I have asked for help. My statement is asking why some would rather buy an older true classic model without a warranty than a new model with a warranty.

Again thanks for your help.

 

[Guillermo]

I'm only "fine with a new "model 27"" if its a better buy for my money than the alternative.

As to whether it is a better buy depends on what your priorities are. Some folks like buying something new, perfect condition, perhaps stronger frame metallurgy and an ironclad warranty. Others are fine with some wear and like the pre MIM parts and the craftmanship of the days of yore.

Again, I am only saying that the original model 27 is available in finite numbers. Put another way, if you only want transportation, please don't buy a Ferrari Daytona, the Camry is a fine vehicle. (BTW, this is a poor analogy because the Daytona was considered a great car but the Smith 27 is considered by many as the finest .357 ever built)

 

[rpf717]

the finest .357 ever built

This is what I want

Would you say this holds true for the new production or just the older models?

 

[bob.a]

I have a nice pre-model 27 with the 3.5" barrel. Got it well-used, had it worked over by a good gunsmith, and couldn't be happier. I don't much care for Smiths that have been made in the last three or four decades, but that's just because I appreciate the hand work that went into older firearms. No doubt the metallurgy is more informed today, and computer-operated equipment is hot stuff, but it's only a substitute for experienced hand-fitting.

A lifetime warranty is a good thing, but only if the folks that will be working on the piece are skilled, and if the company is still in business. Not to say S&W is folding, but they've been bought and sold often enough that their makeup is getting smeared and carpet burns on their tender areas, and who knows what the next buyer will choose to honor?

The fact that they are resurrecting the high spots of fifty years ago and calling them "Classics" is good; it means that they recognise that they've slid downhill quite a ways. It doesn't mean that their classical revivals are equal to the originals that they're trying to copy. I've seen the same phenomenon in the guitar market; I'm invariably disappointed when some firm tells me it's replicated an instrument from the past; somehow they are far from the originals. both in construction and sound.

Still, I hope someone's buying the new stuff. Someone else, that is. I'll stick to the tried and true. Makes me an old fart, but I can live with that, for a while longer.

 

[Oro]

rpf717,

You're first post has a lot of good points and analysis in it. Your costs are about in line. Ala Dan's experience of finding a boxed 3.5" 27 in mint condition for $600 is very rare. This is a more typical example here ($900 delivered after shipping/transfer, and no box. Also, the 3.5" variant is the pricey one):

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=145314374

Another point is that 4" nickel 27s are hard to find - the 4" was MOSTLY 27-3 years (a few of -2), and nickel was much less common. 6" was more common (I am unclear what bbl length you wanted in the 27 - 4" or 6"). The common post-war length in that range was 6.5" up until about '68, then it was 6". The shorter barrel was 3.5" until about '78/'79 (roughly), then it was changed to 4".

As to new vs. old, it's a toss up.

Are you a bargain hunter who's willing to comb the internet for a month or two (or more) to find the gun you want, then know enough about the revolver to evaluate it and then arrange shipping and transfer? If so, you may find the 27-2 or 27-3 a fine option (don't get hung up on the "p&r" thing - the -3s were excellent guns, too) and more satisfying.

Want it now, with a lifetime warranty and no hassles? Use that discount and get a new one for the same or less money and no hassle. I've handled and shot new "Classics" and they are well made, quality guns. I don't like the lock for aesthetic and functional reasons, but if that tiny little feature doesn't bug you, they are a fine choice. The recent nickel products I've seen of S&W were excellent and absolutely gorgeous in person. Buying new is not a bad choice!

PS - if a 6" 27 in nickel is of interest to you, pm me, I might have a good used buy I can steer you towards. No interest personally, just a good gun I saw I was contemplating buying and I think I will be passing on it (I really want to add a 4" nickel 27 to my N frames, so I am going to pass on the 6").

Also, just so you are aware, the 686 was available in nickel until sometime in the '90s. The carbon steel model was called the 586 and was available in both blue and nickel. Harder to find, but out there. If you LOVE the 6" 686 and want nickel, I also saw a decent looking one of those for sale recently. They do exist but would necessitate buying used.

 

[philobeddoe]

I got me a stainless steel seven shot 686 Plus with the forged hammer and trigger and Hogue grips ... and never looked back.

What a quality firearm!

 

[madcratebuilder]

A Like new true Classic 27-2 seem to be about $750 ish?

You haven't bought it yet? What's the holdup?

You can buy a 586/686 anytime. A 27-2 only comes around on rare occasions. Among my S&W revolvers I have a 686-4, 586-0 and a 27-2, the 27-2 is far superior. It's really not a fair comparison, L frame vs N frame. I think the M27 is the finest revolver S&W ever built, the 586 is a close second.

 

[Guillermo]

Would you say this holds true for the new production or just the older models?

nonononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononono

 

[Backpacker33]

27 vs 686 vs 586:

I have a "pre-27" a gorgeous early 586 and a 686 7-round, sorta.

The 27 and 586 are like beautiful classic cars. I do NOT own a museum, so they get out on occasions when I want to "show." My 686 was nabbed by our LEO son and I'll probably never see it again. HOWEVER, when I DID have it, it was great. No issues. The earlier, blue guns have that "fit and finish" people like in anything they buy. By comparison, the 686 is a no-nonsense gun, but it is not rough by any means. "MIM?" So what? I didn't buy it for a "barbeque gun." The stainless steel is more fitting to the kind of uses I put guns to. Like backpacking.
- Backpacker