Other than about $3,000 and the front sight, what are the differences between my 1955 Pre-27 and a Registered Magnum.




Thanks
Lou

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

I'm sure I'll miss a number of things but, right off the top of my head, the RM used the old "long action," and the grips, rear sight, trigger, rear sight attachment screws and hammer were all different too.

Looks like somebody's gittin' the RM bug... and it AIN'T Gonna be my fault this time

__________________
SWCA #2306
DAV in honor of POP

No way.

I do not buy guns that I would not shoot the snot out of and I do not buy guns that cost more than 10 times their less collectable cousins.

But I can't say that I'm not tempted

In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that I do have two "fancy" guns, but these are working guns and even the more expensive of the two only cost about three times the sales tax on a nice R.M. (hope I don't get in trouble for posting not one, but two non-S&W shotguns in a revolver forum.)

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

Functionally they are the same, but the way the RMs were produced (custom-ordered, degree of hand-fitting, finish work) is very different, not to mention the limited production number and distinctive stampings all drive normally sane collectors crazy. Not a knock on post-war N frame .357s, just not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

...so here is 4,000 words:









I own a bunch of 27's and their post-war 357 predecessors (and I love them), BUT they do not compare to the pre-war guns in finish and attention to detail.

__________________
Richard
Engraved S&W fan

I just saw Mrs Cheely's collection of RM's over the weekend
in Pittsburgh, trust me there's a BIG difference!!!!!!!!

__________________
George Jamison

"I own a bunch of 27's and their post-war 357 predecessors (and I love them), BUT they do not compare to the pre-war guns in finish and attention to detail."

"...trust me there's a BIG difference!!!!!!!!"

Those two statements by Richard and George tell the story. It would be difficult to describe the differences to someone who hasn't held fine examples of both guns and compared them so that they would be able to understand. Seeing really IS believing!

Bob

Was hoping for a bit more of a technical analysis.

What is the "long action" spoken of above?

What made the finish more "polished"

Polish before blueing
Different blueing
Repeat blueings? (just a wild guess)
Stamping of frame and barrel markings slower and by hand? (another wild guess)
Polish after blueing

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

The RMs are pre-war "long action" designs and the 357s from the 1950s are "short action" models.

The RM was intended to be a totally custom revolver, with every feature custom ordered. Any barrel length, 8 different sight combinations, etc. The Post War guns, while top of the line, are mass produced with limited options.

As noted the RMs received phenomenal polish and finish. Unfortunately after 70 years few RMs retain that original lustrous finish. Those that do reflect that fact in the prices you see.

They were all originally registered with the Federal Government.... at least that's what some people have said that have come into the shop / range (roll eyes)

But then again in the past 30 days I've had people put bullets into magazines backwards, magazines into guns backwards, fire 9mm bullets in a 40S&W, and fire 16 gauge shells in a 12 gauge shotgun. No, I'm not kidding, I wish I was.

Hey NZ. Sounds like theres never a dull day at the range. Any injuries?

The gun's where registered with S&W not the federal government.

__________________
George Jamison

The stampings were not done differently, they were distinctive and unique to the 5500 or so RMs; specifically, the REG and number following it on the frame under the barrel.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

The hammer (with concentric grooves milled into the sided in the case of pre-war 357's) cocked farther back, resulting in a longer action that to me, seems smoother than its post war counterparts.

The pre-war polishers were master craftsmen that had years of apprenticeship prior to taking over the responsibilities of finishing the RM's. One of the places where this is most noticeable is the seamless integration of the rear sight and the top-strap of the frame. The pre-war bluing is a deep blue, that has more of a blue tint to it, vs the post-war blue that to me has more of a black tint to it.

Here are another "2,000 photo words", to show the differences in front sights and barrel lengths in .25" increments ranging from the 3.5" barrel length noted in my photos above to the 8.75" barrel presented below.

__________________
Richard
Engraved S&W fan

I have noticed, and I do not remember anyone ever commenting on, so maybe I'm all wet, is that the later the model the more taper the barrel, thereby lighter in weight. I noticed this in the my limited specimens in comparison to a few pre 27's and 27's. I miked the barrels as gently as possible and the barel width on the RM's are a few thousands wider than later guns. If you notice all the pictures above, the barrel seems to have no visible taper. Later model 27's do. Anyone else notice this?

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

Nope, never a dull day... today's ray of sunshine was the guy that wanted a job application and said how he had lots of "great ideas" to improve the place. Wasn't very impressed with his potential when he returned a rental gun with a round in the chamber. No injuries yet, thank God.

I tried to tell them that but sometimes you gotta wonder, why bother?

I have never measured the them with a micrometer, but I believe that the above photographed RM's do have a taper. The longer the barrel the more the taper, so it is much less noticeable on the shorter barrels. One of these days I'll have to get my micrometer out and measure them.

__________________
Richard
Engraved S&W fan

I measured mine and all my pre model 27 barrels are slimmer than the two RM's I have. Personally, I don't think that necessarily proves that it is true for all of them working from such a small sample size.

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102