S&W model 27 Old or New?

[Huntolive]

I have a nice model 27-2 w diamond checkering on top, pinned 6" Barrel, recessed cylinder, and 3T's I really like.
I bought lightly used excellent condition, it's nickel finished.
I have fired it very little and it seems great but I'm a little bit worried about hunting with it or putting it to work with strong hunting rounds.
That said it's a good sized revolver I think would handle full power 357 loads.
But Smith & Wesson seems to claim that the newer model 27s are in many ways improved and more durable.
Is that true? How are the newer model 27s better than the original 27 or 27- 2?
I do prefer the diamond cut on the top that looks fantastic and I don't mind the recessed cylinder at all either.
Which revolver is functionally better?
And go ahead and throw the 686 into the mix just for fun!
In what way is a new model Colt Python better?

 

[DR505]

After the -2 S&W dropped the pinned barrel and recessed chambers. I have a -3 that is great. I don’t think there is a more durable revolver than a 27 or 28, of any vintage.

The 686 is good because it has a longer cylinder and you can use longer OAL cartridges.

 

[cfullgraf]

Folks have different opinions on the engineering changes done by S&W over the years. Some, like dropping pinned barrels and recessed cylinders have not been accepted well, other changes happened without fanfare.

I have two Model 27-2, one from the early 1970's (6" barrel), the other from the late 1970's (8-3/8" barrel) so I'd guess the -2's were in production for a fair amount of time. I do not consider there is any problem with them as they are well made and shoot well.

There are opinions that S&W quality deteriorated through the 1980's into the 1990's as the company shuffled between several holding companies.

As a collector, one might want to get an example of each engineering change.

Any Model 27 will serve the owner well in my opinion.

 

[GRIZ22]

Any N frame 357 is near the top of the list as far as durability goes. The only revolver that may be more so is a 357 Redhawk which they quit making some time ago IIRC.

 

[Pat Riot]

I saw a new model 27 Classic in a Sportsman’s Warehouse this past weekend. I didn’t get to handle it but it was a great looking revolver.

Soon after I got home I found this article/ blog online.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/09/30/wheelgun-wednesday-sws-model-27-classic/

Now I want one...

 

[Drail]

There is no practical difference regarding the durability of the old 27s and the new ones. The main difference is that the older ones were built with oversized parts handfitted to each frame by actual smiths that took S&W years to train and the new ones are "assembled" with CAD/CAM cast/MIM parts by people who are not gunsmiths. All of my S&Ws are older pinned and recessed models except for one - a 696 no dash(circa 1996). I would choose an older used one any day over the current production stuff. If you want maximum durability and strength buy a Ruger. The trigger pull will never be as nice as a S&W but they're awfully hard to break.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Where in the world is Smith and Wesson claiming the current Model 27s are somehow better than the originals?

In 1930 Smith and Wesson built a 38 Special revolver on the large N frame for the first time. The larger cylinder of the N frames allowed more metal between chambers for a 38 Special cartridge than was possible with the standard K frame revolvers of the time. These revolvers were used for the 38 Super Police round that was more powerful than standard 38 Special ammunition of the time.

The new model was called the 38/44 Heavy Duty. 38 because it was chambered for 38 Special, 44 because up to that time the N frame had mostly been used for 44 caliber revolvers.

This 38/44 Heavy Duty left the factory in 1931.






In 1931 S&W offered the same revolver with adjustable sights and called it the 38/44 Outdoorsman. This one left the factory in 1933.






The drawback to the design was the high powered 38 Special ammunition could be loaded into a smaller K frame 38, perhaps with disastrous results.

So in 1935 S&W created a new cartridge, about 1/10" longer than a 38 Special, so it could not be loaded into a K frame 38, and called the new cartridge the 357 Magnum. A new revolver, built on the N frame, with chambers long enough for the new cartridge was produced and it was simply called The 357 Magnum. S&W had a marketing campaign for the early 357 Magnum revolvers wherein each one was customized to the owner's specifications, and factory registered to the owner. These were know as the Registered Magnums. The Registered Magnum program only lasted a few years, but the name The 357 Magnum continued to be applied to the revolvers until 1957 when S&W changed over to a model number system. At that time, The 357 Magnum became the Model 27.

This Model 27 left the factory in 1959.






This photo shows how much more metal there is between the chambers of a K frame 357 Magnun Model 19 on the left and an N frame Model 27 on the right.






The checkered top strap, barrel rib and even the tang of the rear sight are carry overs the Model 27 has from the original 357 Magnum revolver. The Model 27 is the only revolver S&W makes with those features, as compared to the uncheckered top strap and barrel rib of the Model 28 in the background of this photo.






As far as being able to handle full power 357 Magnum loads, good grief, that is the Model 27's bread and butter.

 

[UncleEd]

Huntolive,

Old or new, if your loads are within handloading
specs, you'll be OK.

Same goes for a 586 or 686, old or new.

Just remember, any breakage with the older guns
means it's harder to find parts replacements. With
a new gun you have full support of S&W's customer
service. (See Derail's posting regarding parts.)

Regarding Colt Python, the new ones have a more
simplified lockwork and one hopes they'll stay in
time better than the old ones did.

 

[Tallball]

Full-power 357 loads in my Model 28 feel about the same as 38 special in a K-frame.

 

[mcb]

Setting the historical significance of the Model 27 & 357 Mag aside. A 6-shot 357 Magnum N-frame is rather silly. If you're going to buy a 357 Magnum N-frame at least buy a 627 and get 8-shots. Why would you want all that bulk and weight with no advantage over a L-frame or even an K-frame. When buying a 357 mag revolver it should be J-frame 5-shot, K-frame 6-shot, L-frame 7-shot and N-frame 8-shot. A revolver is already capacity limited why would you not maximize that capacity for a give frame size?

 

[fireman 9731]

If it was me, I wouldn't be toting a nickled, collectible piece through the woods. Some people do, and thats fine, but I would try to preserve the cosmetic condition of a nice old piece like that and get a less collectible stainless or blued model to hunt with.

 

[bangswitch]

There is no practical difference regarding the durability of the old 27s and the new ones. The main difference is that the older ones were built with oversized parts handfitted to each frame by actual smiths that took S&W years to train and the new ones are "assembled" with CAD/CAM cast/MIM parts by people who are not gunsmiths. All of my S&Ws are older pinned and recessed models except for one - a 696 no dash(circa 1996). I would choose an older used one any day over the current production stuff. If you want maximum durability and strength buy a Ruger. The trigger pull will never be as nice as a S&W but they're awfully hard to break.

My feelings exactly. You won't hurt a M27 with full power loads, and the smoothness of the action of the older guns (up to 1985 or so) just isn't there on the newest ones. Ruger is a tough gun, I look at them more as a pickup truck; not as fancy, made to abuse. The S&W is more like a decked-out El Camino. Not to say it won't carry a load, it's just more of an art work that kicks butt.

If it was me, I wouldn't be toting a nickled, collectible piece through the woods. Some people do, and thats fine, but I would try to preserve the cosmetic condition of a nice old piece like that and get a less collectible stainless or blued model to hunt with.

That would be my only hesitation carrying the OP's gun. Nickel is tough, but it can chip, and a nice nickel gun isn't what I'd want to carry in the woods.

To reply to OP's last question, there's nothing about the new Python that makes it better than an old one, or an older S&W. They're less expensive than old Python's, though, which aren't worth what they're going for, IMO.

 

[Pat Riot]

Setting the historical significance of the Model 27 & 357 Mag aside. A 6-shot 357 Magnum N-frame is rather silly. If you're going to buy a 357 Magnum N-frame at least buy a 627 and get 8-shots. Why would you want all that bulk and weight with no advantage over a L-frame or even an K-frame. When buying a 357 mag revolver it should be J-frame 5-shot, K-frame 6-shot, L-frame 7-shot and N-frame 8-shot. A revolver is already capacity limited why would you not maximize that capacity for a give frame size?

Nostalgia

 

[mcb]

Nostalgia

I am not as young as I use to be but apparently not old enough yet to appreciate the Nostalgia. The Model 627 exists and this seems to render the 6-shot 27 rather silly. To this end I am sort of surprise that S&W does not also make an 8-shot 27. This seems rather an obvious product.

 

[Pat Riot]

I am not as young as I use to be but apparently not old enough yet to appreciate the Nostalgia. The Model 627 exists and this seems to render the 6-shot 27 rather silly. To this end I am sort of surprise that S&W does not also make an 8-shot 27. This seems rather an obvious product.

I can see your point. I own a model 327 Night Guard and I would like to have a 327 TRR8, but I have always wanted a model 27, just because. I like the looks of them, the lines, the blue steel and the wood.
I rarely see used model 27s here on the left coast and when I do the seller is way too proud of their possession to sell at a reasonable price. But, I will own one someday. Be it a new “classic” or and old classic.

 

[rkittine]

I prefer the older ones. The Model Classic 17 that my friend bought last year, was nowhere near as smooth in double action, nor crisp in single action as my 1970s model 17. I like the older grips better than the ones that are now supplied also.

Bob

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

After the -2 S&W dropped the pinned barrel and recessed chambers. I have a -3 that is great. I don’t think there is a more durable revolver than a 27 or 28, of any vintage.

The 686 is good because it has a longer cylinder and you can use longer OAL cartridges.

My .357 Redhawk: "Hold my beer-"

Practical? No.

Awesome? Yesssssssssssss!

Any N frame 357 is near the top of the list as far as durability goes. The only revolver that may be more so is a 357 Redhawk which they quit making some time ago IIRC.

They just started making them again last year, but as an 8-shot. Notice how much thinner the barrel extension is too...

 

[Dave T]

I am not as young as I use to be but apparently not old enough yet to appreciate the Nostalgia. The Model 627 exists and this seems to render the 6-shot 27 rather silly. To this end I am sort of surprise that S&W does not also make an 8-shot 27. This seems rather an obvious product.

mcb,

That because the marketing ninnies at S&W refuse to put out revolvers that people actually want and consistently discontinue models that people still want to purchase. There is no 3", round butt, fix sighted K-frame being offered, as an example of the first argument. Folks regularly pay premium prices for 3" 10s, 13s, 64s, & 65s. The Night Guard series is an example of my second point. People are paying the original prices and more for used ones, when they can find them.

Dave

 

[mcb]

mcb,

That because the marketing ninnies at S&W refuse to put out revolvers that people actually want and consistently discontinue models that people still want to purchase. There is no 3", round butt, fix sighted K-frame being offered, as an example of the first argument. Folks regularly pay premium prices for 3" 10s, 13s, 64s, & 65s. The Night Guard series is an example of my second point. People are paying the original prices and more for used ones, when they can find them.

Dave

I agree and am always impressed with how disconnected the marketing and product planning divisions are from their customers within a larger portion of the firearms industry, especially the larger older companies like S&W.

 

[nofendertom]

That Mod 27 is certainly strong enough for full power .357 loads but I would relegate a nickel Mod 27 to range use and pick up a Ruger BH in .357 if
I wanted a hunting revolver.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

A revolver is already capacity limited why would you not maximize that capacity for a give frame size?

We have discussed this before. I am not interested in maximizing anything. I collect the classics, and yes I shoot them too. Frankly, I was very disappointed in the lack of quality in the 7 shot Model 686-6 I bought brand new a few years ago.






Yes, I fully understand the logic of the L frame over a K frame for 357 Magnum. I just do not like what S&W is producing today. Hate the full length underlugs they are putting on everything they make now. I much prefer my Model 19-3 that I bought brand-spanky new in 1975.






The same with the ten shot Model 617-6 that I bought used a few years ago. Ugly as sin with that full underelug. I have no need for a 10 shot 22. 10 shots in a 22 just means I will burn up ammo that much faster. I actually like only loading 6. In fact, most of the time I only load 5 in a revolver, because all my ammo boxes have 10 rows of 5. Shooting only five per cylinder makes it easier to keep track of what I am doing. The only reason I bought it was I was competing in a steel event that required 8 aimed shots in 15 seconds. Could not do that with a six-shooter.






Most, but not all, of the 22 rimfire S&W revolvers I own. Notice the Model 617 is conspicuously absent.






Of all of them, this well worn K-22 Outdoorsman from 1932 is the most accurate.






I am not opposed to MIM parts per se, I am opposed to the lack of quality in what S&W has been shipping in the last few years. Suffice it to say I will continue to collect the classics and will not be buying anything new made by S&W anymore.

 

[bannockburn]

For me the all-time classic .357 revolver will be the Model 27 with a 5" barrel. Perfect weight and balance and more than capable of shooting full house loads all day and long after the cows have come home!

 

[kell]

Howdy

Where in the world is Smith and Wesson claiming the current Model 27s are somehow better than the originals?

In 1930 Smith and Wesson built a 38 Special revolver on the large N frame for the first time. The larger cylinder of the N frames allowed more metal between chambers for a 38 Special cartridge than was possible with the standard K frame revolvers of the time. These revolvers were used for the 38 Super Police round that was more powerful than standard 38 Special ammunition of the time.

The new model was called the 38/44 Heavy Duty. 38 because it was chambered for 38 Special, 44 because up to that time the N frame had mostly been used for 44 caliber revolvers.

This 38/44 Heavy Duty left the factory in 1931.

View attachment 976923




In 1931 S&W offered the same revolver with adjustable sights and called it the 38/44 Outdoorsman. This one left the factory in 1933.

View attachment 976924




The drawback to the design was the high powered 38 Special ammunition could be loaded into a smaller K frame 38, perhaps with disastrous results.

So in 1935 S&W created a new cartridge, about 1/10" longer than a 38 Special, so it could not be loaded into a K frame 38, and called the new cartridge the 357 Magnum. A new revolver, built on the N frame, with chambers long enough for the new cartridge was produced and it was simply called The 357 Magnum. S&W had a marketing campaign for the early 357 Magnum revolvers wherein each one was customized to the owner's specifications, and factory registered to the owner. These were know as the Registered Magnums. The Registered Magnum program only lasted a few years, but the name The 357 Magnum continued to be applied to the revolvers until 1957 when S&W changed over to a model number system. At that time, The 357 Magnum became the Model 27.

This Model 27 left the factory in 1959.

View attachment 976925




This photo shows how much more metal there is between the chambers of a K frame 357 Magnun Model 19 on the left and an N frame Model 27 on the right.

View attachment 976926




The checkered top strap, barrel rib and even the tang of the rear sight are carry overs the Model 27 has from the original 357 Magnum revolver. The Model 27 is the only revolver S&W makes with those features, as compared to the uncheckered top strap and barrel rib of the Model 28 in the background of this photo.

View attachment 976927




As far as being able to handle full power 357 Magnum loads, good grief, that is the Model 27's bread and butter.

View attachment 976928

I was scrollin' down thru this post when I came across these pictures. I didn't have to scroll back up to see who did 'em.

 

[Huntolive]

Thanks for all your interesting informtive replies. modified my original post to clear up which model I have it is 27-2 not a pre-27. definitely has one of the best triggers of any handgun I own and I love the good old-fashioned Hammer spur.
How much of a danger is it to carry one without a transfer bar with all chambers loaded?

I agree 627 is a great option and I own a 627-5 PC w 5-in barrel 8 shot. Nice trigger on that about equal to the 27-2 double action.
My 686 Talo edition 7 shot 7" is more accurate but I don't like balance w the odd full lug Barrel in that length unless I'm shooting off sandbag. But off a rest that gun outshoots most of my other handguns. The 27-2 has better trigger in double action and identical in single action.

Nice 2 have 8 rounds in 627 but no issues with the N frame only having six but don't see my 27-2 as something I'm gonna carry in 6-in anywhere so will be special occasion & collector peace. However I'm seriously considering getting a four or five inch model 27 of some type as carry revolver and just because they're so nice.

What should I be looking for?

I have been lusting for a colt python for a couple years now but prices are insane, I'm not sure I'm getting anything more for my money than I would with a 27-2 or even a new classic model 27. also considering getting a shorter barreled 627 eight shot.
After handling a bunch of my S&Ws today I'm no longer as hung up on a cult python although I sure wouldn't mind one.
What should I be looking out for for potential issues with another 27-2 or older?

 

[Rodfac]

For me the all-time classic .357 revolver will be the Model 27 with a 5" barrel. Perfect weight and balance and more than capable of shooting full house loads all day and long after the cows have come home!

Bravo Bannock...well said sir. It is heavier on the belt than a M19 or M66, but that same weight reduces the significant recoil of full house loads. Skeeter was right on target when he claimed it as his one and only, if only one were allowed!

For a full size gun, and in a bbl. length that allows concealed carry without sticking up into your ribs when driving the family car, I'd go for either the 4" or 5" bbl'd M27 Smith. As to durability, the M27 has no issues that I'm aware of.

Colts: Others may flame, but the Python, old or new, was expensive then and now and just doesn't measure up against a Smith. But if you're planning on carrying it extensively, then a Smith M19 or M66 might make more sense, six oz's lighter donchaknow. Like several others here, I'm not a fan of the full underlug barrel...too much weight and a different balance feel than the shorter lugged models. So, for me, it's the M27, in a 5" bbl. length as a recommendation.

Rod.... Here's mine...an Anniversary 5" M27 that gets shot a lot!