S&W Model 19 (or 66) vs. 27

[chilly_bill]

What is the difference between these two models. I know the 27 is the "N" frame and the 19 is the "K" frame, but beyond that what do we see?
I've got a 1970 Python, and am looking for a S&W that's comparable. I understand that the 27 is the "Cadillac" of S&W's line, so is the 19 of equal quality but in the smaller frame size? I'd be looking for something pinned and recessed.
I'm in search of the absolute finest S&W revolver I can find. I'm in love with my Python and would love to have a S&W as a companion to it. It would not be a safe queen, it would be a regular shooter down at the range, and maybe even some deer hunting. As a machinist I appreciate finely crafted hand made weapons, so what's the deal?
Thanks for your input and opinions.

 

[ArmedBear]

The K Frame .357s have their ups and downs if you want a Magnum gun for extensive use. There's a reason for the N frame version.

To hunt deer, I'd just get a 686 and have the PC work it.

WRT quality, S&W revolvers of a given era seem pretty similar to each other, regardless of the model, for better or worse.

 

[Brian Williams]

The Model 27 is "The Magnum", it has some of the nicest features of the S&W line.
I prefer a 19 as a shooter, just stay away from the 125gr whizbang loads.

 

[SaxonPig]

The 19 was designed as a service revolver. They are well made but not deluxe as is the Model 27. This question about which is the S&W top of the line is addressed in #39.

-------------------------------

Python & 27 as top of the line.

39. The Python is the top of the Colt line and the Model 27 (post 1957) or “Registered Magnum” (1935-1939) or simply “357 Magnum” (1939-1956)... depending on date of manufacture... is the comparable top of the S&W line. Some people make the huge mistake of asserting that the Models 586 and/or 686 are comparable to the Python but they most definitely are not. These models were intended to be service grade revolvers and in absolutely no way, shape or form do they compare to the quality of either the Python or the Model 27. The 586/686 bears a passing, superficial resemblance to the Python due to its barrel contour but that’s where the similarity ends.

-----------------------------------

Here's a 5" 27-2 c. 1968.





A 3.5" 27-2 c. 1973.





A 5" M27 in nickel shipped 1960.

 

[Oro]

This question about which is the S&W top of the line is addressed in #39.

Gosh, I love his stash of rules and pearls of wisdom. Do you really have these written down somewhere?

PS - those grips on the 5" nickel are some of the prettiest N frame magna grips I've ever seen. They look older than 1960, actually. Lovely.

I'm in search of the absolute finest S&W revolver I can find.

Yep, as he said, you want a 27, or the "pre-27" model called the ".357 magnum" or in pre-war days the "Registered Magnum" (but those get REALLY pricey). As a regular production gun to go alongside your Python, a S&W 27-2 is probably what you are looking for. I only have one, a twin to the '73 3.5" SaxonPig pictured so there's no need in adding more photos. As an added piece of .357 magnum trivia, General Patton carried a 3.5" Registered Magnum on his strong-side hip in WWII (he did have a Colt SAA on his weak side). He called his S&W 357 his "killing gun."

The S&W 29 and 25's were lavishly well-built guns for most of the 50s/60s/70s and got the same level of refinement and finish as the 27 and retailed for the same price. But the point was they were built to be as good as the 27 was; nothing in regular production ever exceeded the 27 - it was the benchmark. Now those two are .44 and .45, and you likely want a .357 to be a "sister" gun to your Python, I presume.

 

[SaxonPig]

Yes, I have them all written down. I think I am up to 79 in compiling my list of the 100 most frequently asked firearm discussion forum questions.

 

[Oro]

Yes, I have them all written down.

Are you going to sticky them or put them on a web site somewhere? You really should at some point. It will save us all so much time!

BTW, which number is "It is almost always cheaper to sell the gun you have and purchase the gun you want rather than..."?

I quote that one the most, but with credit to you of course.

 

[SaxonPig]

#33

-----------------------------

Modifying a gun into a different configuration.

33. Trying to turn the gun you have into the gun you want is never a good idea. It will be cheaper, faster and easier to sell the gun you don’t want and buy the one you do want rather than try to alter or convert your gun into a different configuration. In most cases the alterations suggested are not possible due to physical limitations and if they were doable the cost of such work would be beyond all but wealthy fools who like to throw their money away.

 

[chilly_bill]

I'd love more pictures of these beauties, repeats or not. I'm totally enamored by what I've seen in the way of 27s. I'd be interested to see different lengths in different lights at different angles. Also, I've only seen one picture of a recessed cylinder, so I'd like to see different there.
Thanks!

 

[madcratebuilder]

Top to bottom, 27, 29, 19, 15, pre 10, and a 640. Old photo, I've added a 686, 586, 66, 4th change hand ejector target model and a lemon squeezer. At least you can see the difference in frame size between the 27&19. The 586/686 is the same quality as the 19/66 but a full lug barrel and larger frame/cylinder.

 

[SaxonPig]

The 27's granddaddy.

 

[chilly_bill]

Beautiful pics. Thanks and keep 'em coming.

 

[C-grunt]

Saxonpig, thats quite a nice collection you have there.

 

[SaxonPig]

Thanks. I am not a serious collector but I love all things 27 and have managed to acquire a couple over the years.

 

[chilly_bill]

OK, so these are all lovely 27 photo's, and I definitely want a 27 as my next purchase (or trade), but can anyone confirm whether or not the internal workings of a 19 (or 66) are as highly polished or "lavishly well-built" as the 27?
Any thoughts on the durability or ability to handle lots of .357 rounds with the 19? I very much appreciate the fact that the 19 is smaller being that I'd love to be able to carry it while hiking all day, that said has anyone here actually witnessed failure of a 19, either their own gun or someone they know?

 

[ArmedBear]

Hell, my old Model 10 cop carry gun has very smooth internals. Highly polished? Never checked. My trigger finger is what I care about.

That's what I meant. For a given era, Smiths are similar in quality, which is different from features.

 

[Oro]

can anyone confirm whether or not the internal workings of a 19 (or 66) are as highly polished or "lavishly well-built" as the 27?
Any thoughts on the durability or ability to handle lots of .357 rounds with the 19?

They can be, certainly, but "on average" - No. The top gunsmiths were assigned to the 27/28 line. They were paid more for that work because of their skill and time. This was the prestige job on the S&W line in the day. Now, if sales were slow or orders needed, these guys worked on other guns as needed. And it's not to say the guys working on the other products were poor - it's just the top talent was dedicated to these most of the time. So on average, they are better. But that is no substitute for checking one out before buying. I have seen sloppy work on 27s from the factory - it is not impossible. Humans are involved, so of course there is variation and there are errors.

Here's my only 27 right now, and it's looking for 3.5" pre-27 company when the right one comes along.

 

[girvin02]

3 1/2" M27 with it's original grips


View of the top-strap checkering


Closer view


With Hogue grips (very comfortable)



With custom magna-style grips

 

[jmr40]

The 27 is was the 1st 357 mag. and is built on the same frame size as the 44 and 45 cal guns to handle the increased power of the 357 mag. The 19 and 66 guns are actually built on a much smaller frame designed for 38 special loads.

The idea was to give LE officers the power of the 357 in a lighter to carry gun. Some K frame guns tend to wear out early if a lot of heavy loads are used in them.

The 586, and 686 is an in between size made specifically for the 357 mag and is about the same size as the Python and GP-100. They all seem about equal in quality to guns built in the same era. Some years were better than others.

I've owned some of all except the 27. I currently own a 28, which is basically the same as the 27, but with a less polished look. They were made to give cops on a budget a model 27 at a lower cost. Mine is not as highly polished on the outside as the excellent guns pictured above, but is just as smooth and accurate.

I have come to like the N frames better than the L frame 686. The cylinder is only slightly thicker, but without the full length lug and with a tapered barrel they are actually lighter.

 

[jad0110]

From my understanding, the only durability drawback of the 27/28 is the heavy cylinder with it's higher rotational inertia in comparison to the K and L frame 357s. One should avoid a lot rapid firing with the 27/28 as it tends to wear the internal lockwork more quickly than on a K or L Frame, again because of the increased inertia of the bigger cylinder.

 

[pmeisel]

Any thoughts on the durability or ability to handle lots of .357 rounds with the 19?

Lots of gunwriters "in the day" recommended not using full house magnum 125 grain loads in the 19 for practice, for fear of cracking the forcing cone. Apparently this happened often enough for someone to be aware of it.

I've had a 19 for 20 years or so, and typically shoot 158 grain loads -- about 75% mid-range practice (think +p or +p+ levels) and about 25% full house magnum. No sign of trouble. I like the 19 just as much as its partner Python. Great guns both.

 

[rishooter]

The 27

I also have a Python made about 1970-4"nickel.I have a 27(no dash) made in 1959-it has a 6.5" barrel.Missing a little bluing from normal wear,but I wouldn't mess with it,because the bluing is so well done-still a deep mirrorlike finish.My 27 has the trigger guard screw and it has a great,smooth action.
I shoot it more than the Python.I also have two 19's-they are fine revolvers,but never designed to take the constant pounding of magnum loads.
Even on the 27,and a 28 I also own,I use 158 grain mag loads.The 125 grain screamers are fun to shoot,so I haul out the GP100 by Ruger for those-you can bang away all day with that revolver and cause about zero wear.But let's face it-it's like comparing a Camry to a loaded Mustang.The GP100 is strictly utilitarian,while the 27 has some real character.Don't get me wrong-I own two Camrys,but I am NOT a car guy. The 28-2 I have is also a nice revolver.
Pythons are better fired with 38 +P's,because there is virtually no one around to repair them,and Colt no longer stocks parts according to the gunsmith I use.

 

[SaxonPig]

My 19 was shipped in 1970 to a federal agency. I bought it 19 years later from the retired agent who had carried it. He told me it had digested nothing but full power 125 grain 357s and that I shoot in it. I'll let you know if it ever fails.

I also shoot nothing but full power Magnum ammo in my Pythons. After 20 years or so, nothing to report.

Some K frame Magnums have cracked the forcing cones. But some guns did it shooting 38s so maybe it's not so much the ammo as it is the quality of the barrels? I have heard numerous tales of barrel failures on S&Ws and I wonder if they have had some QC issues with them? One experienced police armorer suggested to me that the K frame can split the cone if it's not kept absolutely clean. He reported that the 19s he saw damaged were all filthy. He speculated that the cone can crack when fired with built up carbon deposits. Interesting possibility.

We have debated the notion that the 27 had a better action than other S&W models. IMO (non-expert) the 27s always felt smoother to me than the 28 even though many shooters claim they are no different when built. Maybe, but the 27 still feels better to me. Perhaps it's just my perception. The late author Skeeter Skelton wrote that the 19 could not be made as smooth as the 27 because the N frame's heavier cylinder aided DA shooting with the inertia of its greater mass. I dunno...

 

[chilly_bill]

I've never had the opportunity to actually shoot a 27, just drool and desire. I did dry-fire a 28 last night and was not particularly impressed. It was fine, but not as glassy as my Python. If I understand correctly the action on a 27 is quite different from a Python, but equally smooth. Yes / No?

 

[dogtown tom]

jad0110 From my understanding, the only durability drawback of the 27/28 is the heavy cylinder with it's higher rotational inertia in comparison to the K and L frame 357s. One should avoid a lot rapid firing with the 27/28 as it tends to wear the internal lockwork more quickly than on a K or L Frame, again because of the increased inertia of the bigger cylinder.

Huh?

Can you explain this?

It seems to me the forces of inertia come to a stop when the cylinder locks prior to firing. Whether it is shot one round or six in quick succession, the force of inertia is the same.







.