Smith 27-2 versus new Model 27 Classic

[Oro]

I'll take any Bangor-Punta era S&W over a new one every time.

As long as polish is more important than function, I agree with this. There's a reason that the Bangor-Punta period is known as the "bad old days" of S&W production. There was a very steady decline in quality from the late '60s onward, with an upturn in the early '80s. The upturn started before Lear-Siegler bought them; Bangor-Punta realized how badly they had done and started re-investing.

Frankly, I've owned far too many Bangor-Punta S&Ws to blindly say I'd take one over a new one when it came to fit/function. Finish, yes. You have to inspect them carefully to insure you don't have a lemon. Right down to the sqaureness of the cylinder face; they didn't particularly care about getting that right before shipping in those days. Even on a 27 (ask me how I know this ).

"Those days", to be clear, started in the late 1960s. Don't just take an S&W as well-built because it is pre-lock. I do pine for Old Fuff's days of quality building, but they are older than the conventional talk on gun forums would lead you to believe. Just because it's "pre-lock" does not make it a better functioning gun than a current model. Better finished on average, yes. Better functioning - maybe.

Personally, my latest S&W is 1985 - and that because it was 1st year they made a new configuration (3" N frames). But I put a lot into evaluating post-'68 guns before buying. If you have those skills, do it. If you don't have those skills or want to learn them, don't fear the new guns.

 

[Master Blaster]

3 years ago I bougt a model 22 model of 1950 4 inch .45acp, New classic / TR special, with the hole. I got it for a fantastic price as it was previously owned. Original 4 inch model of 1950's are very rare and well over $2000 in any decent condition. I own many real classics, and the new 22 is a great gun, great bluing, action, accuracy, etc. I am very pleased with mine and I shoot it a bunch. The advantage of it is I am not devaluing or risking a valuable collector item, and it has the lifetime warranty. If you can get the new classic for a great price its well worth it.

If you can find an old 27-2 in great mechanical condition, that is not a collector condition item, it's worth the money also. But be aware if it needs repairs and you cannot do it yourself it could be very hard and expensive to get the old one fixed, and it could become an expensive paper weight.

Despite what many folks say here many Bangor Punta Guns left the factory with serious problems, and though they may be pristine in appearance, it could be because the original owner couldn't get them to work right. So you really need to know how to check one out properly before you buy.

You have to decide what you want to do.

 

[bikemutt]

27-2 1976 mfg

I found a 27-2 made in 1976, unfired, beautiful. It is not possible to inspect before buying but it is offered with a 3-day inspection period upon delivery. I'm assuming that's a non-fire inspection.

This date seems to fall right into the "bad" period but from what I'm hearing here, that does not necessarily mean it's a "bad" gun.

It's an 8-3/8" nickel gun, other than all the usual suspects noted in the forum stickies, are there other things I should look for because this child's mother may have been drinking on the job at the time of conception?

 

[Guillermo]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=632524

I will take the bad old days over the horrid new days.

Bangor's cost cutting was nothing compared to today.

 

[oldfool]

post #26
just might be the best post I have ever seen yet on this very frequent 'vintage' topic
well done, Oro

too much is too often made of brand, era, reputation, conventional wisdom, in cyberspace or anywhere
and too little is made of (now matter how often said) the difference between buying from the glossy sales brochure instead of buying after held-in-your-own hand and well inspected 1st person.

You can still get fooled (I myself have not..... yet), because how matter if you "test drive" it, you just won't know absent at least a few hundred rounds downrange
but it sure beats 'a promise and a picture'

Alas, 'tis getting tougher to find the good old stuff, that you can try before you buy. Sometimes you are obliged to bet on faith in reputation of seller... pick your seller with care, even if it do cost you a tad more. The ammo is going to cost more than the gun did anyway, if it's the gun you really want.

 

[Old Fuff]

'76 wasn't all that bad. The real tribulations occurred around the late 1960's to early-middle 1970's. Demand, and a lack of competition from Colt and Ruger resulted in several major factory expansions. Brick & Mortar and buying new machinery was easily overcome, but training new hires to do thing the "Smith & Wesson way" wasn't. Add to that overloaded production schedules.

However most if not all (most likely the latter) Model 27's were assembled by old hands rather then new hires. This does not mean that some problem children didn't sneak through, but against the overall picture they were in relative terms, very few.

 

[Guillermo]

The fuffster is right.

The 27 was the flagship.

They cared enough to make them right back them.

Can't say that anymore

 

[S&Wfan]

Here's a "notorious" era 27-2 from 1970. Fit and finish are first rate, as are the original stocks.

I've seen the new "Classic" and IMHO, a true classic it is not. The 27 had a fine checkered top strap and rear sight and loads of attention to detail in their flagship revolver. I wouldn't take my new/old '71 27-2 for any new 27 "Classic."

The "Classic" can't touch this . . .

 

[sw282]

P & R 27s are the Original Magnums. l have no desire to own a Classic. l own a 24-4 N frame . Lock n All. Drop the hammer on an empty chamber. You hear a tinny sound. l simply hate the gun. lt will be gone soon. All of you need to buy one of the new Classic. Leave the 27 P&R ones for me

 

[Master Blaster]

You can still get fooled (I myself have not..... yet), because no matter if you "test drive" it, you just won't know absent at least a few hundred rounds downrange
but it sure beats 'a promise and a picture'

Very true and good advice.

A few years ago I bought a 629 Pinned and recesed, only made for a short time. It appeared to be perfect and unfired, no turn line or marks on the recoil sheild, or even a spec of carbon to show it had been fired. I checked it out and noticed it had a very small BC gap. So I take it to the range and shoot some target loads and the trigger is getting stiff. Low and behold the cylinder is hitting the forcing cone on a couple chambers. SO I take it home and realize the darn thing has end shake. A couple bearing washers later and its perfect again. But had I not been able to fix it myself it could have been expensive.

 

[LTR shooter]

The cost of the Smith & Wesson 27-2 model is now squarely in the same stratosphere as a new Model 27 Classic, at least for one in like-new condition.

The new "Classics" are not pinned/recessed like the 27-2s. If this feature is not a necessity you can also also look at the later 27s. I picked up this very nice 27-3.

It does not have the collecter appeal of the 27-2 but I wanted something without the lock and still have some of the traditional features like the checkered top strap/barrel rib. Also was much less than the 27-2s I saw online. Still looks much better , at least to me , than most modern day Smiths.

Best of all - this 27-3 is a fantastic shooter!

 

[CraigC]

There's a reason that the Bangor-Punta period is known as the "bad old days" of S&W production.

Yes, I've been hearing this for decades. Yet all seven of my Bangor-Punta era S&W's have been excellent. I'm still waiting to find a bad one but that is not to say that I don't thoroughly inspect every sixgun I consider before purchasing. So I'll take firsthand experience over secondhand conjecture any day of the week.

 

[Old Fuff]

Without question Bangor-Bunta exploited Smith & Wesson during the time they owned the company, but a lot of the quality control problems were caused by record demand during the late 60's and early middle 70's when this country was hit by both the Viet Nam War and civil unrest at home. At this time Colt was preocupied with M-16 rifle orders, and Ruger had yet to expand their line of handguns to cover defensive weapons. That left Smith & Wesson standing largely alone. They repeatedly expanded the factory. Machinery was no proplem, but finding qualified workers and getting them trained to do things "the S&W way" took time.

Given market demands and pressure from the top corporation it should not come as any surprise that a product that required skilled and experienced workers suffered. But at the same time enough of the company's labor force that met this description were able to insure that everything wasn't junk.

There is no way I would pass up on a good deal on a B-P era revolver. Instead I'd look before I leaped, and in the case of a model 27 the odds would be way in my favor.

 

[PabloJ]

The limited edition one they made few years ago came with eight shot cylinder and that is one I would choose if I wanted heavy and cumbersome .357 revolver. Something of this size should be chambered for .44mag which Model 29 is. From practical standpoint ole' .357 six shot large frame revolver made no sense they must have originally overbuilt them because steel was of "weaker" quality then what is available today.

 

[aryfrosty]

New S&Ws

The fit and finish on the new ones is not within a million miles of the old S&W quality. I believe the strength of the new steel is much better but I despise nicking my fingers on the edges of a "new" S&W,