Reading about the 27-2 that Jon picked up this labor day got me thinking.
My local gun dealer has a performance center 27-8 that is in the used case but has never been fired, no turn ring, all papers, etc. Originally it was over 1,000 dollars but they now have it marked down to 950.00. It is the 8 shot version with the IL. Now my question is, for that kind of money shouldn't I hold out and begin my quest for something like the 27-2 that Jon just picked up. Do you think the performance center gun is up to the same quality that was put into the older model 27's. I guess I could get past the lock but just looking for the best craftsmanship.

Jim

You should be able to pick up a 27-2 for a much lower price, $500-$750 depending on your neck of the woods.

as far as quality goes, the newer models are made on modern CNC machinery, so they should be of higher quality but some manufacturing shortcuts have been made in the last 15 years or so that have majorly hurt the collectibilty of the newer models.

I'm really not wanting to start any kind of arguement up here and my thoughts are just my thoughts but I'd opt for a 27-2 over a later version model 27 everyday of the week. I'm sure the performance center gun is a very well made revolver however the earlier S&W revolvers were hand fitted and made with greater care then some of the newer model S&W revolvers. I paid $700 or less for my all of my 27-2's except for the mint 8 3/8 inch barreled model I paid $750 for.

I'm sure others feel different and will express their views and the new one you mentioned holds two extra rounds.

I agree w/fyimo^..I don't want to start a prairie fire re: any models; to each his own. IMHO, 1)it's the key that kills any interest in newer models, 2) the 8-shot: tsk,tsk: I can't get used to that. Old fashioned? yes, I guess but this my take. gr

Well I do own a few of the new Classic's but when it come's to the 27 I prefer the original's such as the dash two, they just have that touch of class the new one's do not.

__________________
Stay safe people!

I know an engineering/physicist who's been a friend and source of good information for over 30 years. He tells me CNC machines are not up to the standards of the precise machining to critical standards used in the 1950s & '60s. They are not as rigid and wear eventually and must be re-calibrated. In by-gone years the machinists at S&W check each revolver against precise measures and standards all through the manufacturing process.

I question the idea that the new guns are as well made, let along better. Any number of times I've seen posts and reports of examples of these modern made revolvers not measuring up and being returned. I would take the 27-2 over any current made example. YMMV!

Dave

__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)

Hi,

I agree with fyimo. I have two later S&Ws made after 1980 and four S&Ws made before 1980 with pinned barrels and recessed cylinders. The quality of the older revolvers is superior over the new "mass produced revolvers". I was in my local range a few days ago and they had a brand new 686 with internal lock for $699.00. I handled the revolver and gave it back to the clerk. The overall finish attention to detail was not as nice as my older revolvers. I would rather pay $699 for a older 27-2 than 27-2 for the new performance model.
Howard

Another vote for the 27-2. Regards 18DAI.

I am not sure at which dash variant it changed, but the checkering on the topstrap and rib on the current guns looks like knurling or grooving or pressed engraving, not checkering. Between that and the lock and key, much has been lost. You can buy a NIB or still pretty nice Model 27 in just about every barrel length (except maybe 3-1/2") for a long ways under $1,000 the new one is priced at.

If you are going to shoot whichever gun you buy, then there really is no question. A shot, worn, IL 8 shooter won't have any collector value for decades, if ever in our lifetimes.

I have an 8 shot Model 27-7 that is pretty nice. Not P&R but no lock nonsense; it's a Performance Center gun. You might look for one of them if you want more than 6 shots.

Just my opinion.

The -2 expresses the art of the craftsman, CNC is a machine making a machine.

The blueing process is different, the hand checkering on the top strap is hand done on the -2, P&R is a fantastic touch, no IL, no MIM, firing pin on the hammer.

Add these things to the lower price of a -2 and IMO it's not a question.

Like others here, I can't wrap my mind around a six-shooter that has 7 or 8 shot cylinders.

If none of this matters to you, then either is a good revolver and should serve you well.

I have seen the new 27's and to tell you the honest truth, I wouldn't have one for the reasons stated above. The checkering is pressed, it has the lock (which totally destroys the lines of this revolver - forget about the function) and it isn't stainless. I got rid of a 520 becaues function wise my 681 makes a LOT more sense and I don't have to worry about keeping the 681 unfired because they only made 3000 of them.
If you want a nice 27-2 then by all means get one-I love them. But if you're looking to recapture the feel of a 27-2 with a 27-8 you're gonna be disapointed-you would be better off getting a 627 from the performance center for just about the same amount of money if you want an 8 shot N frame .357.

__________________
Forum consigliere

jazzman--

Why do you think the 27-8 has been sitting in the case so long--that alone should answer your question. There is no comparison between the 27-2 and the 27-8----they're different animals. JMHO

Steve

I have to side with the majority. I own some newer Smiths, and even a couple with the IL. But if I have a choice between a newer gun and the same model manufactured 35 years ago or more, I'll go with the earlier gun every time. As do many Smith fans, I think the -2 models are probably the best mix of traditional features and sensible engineering changes. (But I tend to prefer the five-screw and non-model-marked four screw guns to the early dash-something releases.)

I would entertain getting a new production Smith if it happened to be a model that either had no classic predecessors or whose predecessors are too expensive to consider because of the demand. An example would be the new PC "Bloodwork" .357 Magnum. I'm thinking pretty seriously about one of those.

__________________
David Wilson

OK, somebody has to say it, so I will. The Smith and Wesson N frames of the late 19th. and early 20th century are the finest production revolvers ever produced. These are the height of the metal workers art, made by craftsman the likes of which will never be seen again.

__________________
Always Stay Strong!

Thank you, old bear...well said. Craftsmen they were. gr

Not to give old bear a hard time but the first N-frame was the New Century, the 1st Model 44 Hand Ejector or more commonly the Triple Lock. It was introduced in 1907 or 1908 so there were no "N-frames" in the 19th Century.

Dave

__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)

Dave, I stand corrected and I thank you for the information.

__________________
Always Stay Strong!

"Dave T: ....I question the idea that the new guns are as well made, let along better. Any number of times I've seen posts and reports of examples of these modern made revolvers not measuring up and being returned. I would take the 27-2 over any current made example. YMMV!"

Dave T, you are mistaken. Anything new is better than all that old ****.

For all you young folks out there, there's no need to read further - a new season of American Idol / Dancing with the Stars / Jersey Shore, etc., is coming on. So stop reading this, and get to your TV/computer.


(DAVE! I wish you and all the other guys would stop telling the kids the new S&W's are merely cheaply-made replicas of the quality revolvers we had "back then!"

You guys are going to drive up the prices of the good, old, stock, and make it hard for "those in the know" to get good deals.
I would not take three "Classic" Model 27s for this M27-2:

Or my wife's Model 19-3:

And it's not just Smiths. Even old Colts are superior to the later ones; my wife's 1968 Python has much closer (and very noticeable) tolerances and QC than later models:

Folks, we know the old stuff is better, but, can't we just keep it among ourselves?

__________________
NRA Lifetime Member

fishguy,

My experience has been that young people rarely listen to old farts like us so I doubt much damage has been done. (smiley face goes here)

Dave

__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)

speaking of Model 27's. Local shop has a 27-2 with the 3 1/2 inch bbl. No box or papers, but looks like new. Is $575 too much for this gun? Thanks, Ken

Wow Ken, I think that is a great price, but I will defer to the experts. I did find a 27 no dash 4 screw in the box but is would be too pretty to shoot and was priced a little more than 1k.

Jim

si----------

Ken,
RUN and DO NOT WALK and get that 3 1/2" M 27. Great price, especially if it is in "new" condition.

and for my $.02 in this discussion of the model 27.... Ia 1727 has made an important point. Really, the models are different animals. While the frames may be the same and the other trappings are similar, since the many number of changes over the years there has been a noticeable shift in the type of models that are now being produced as opposed to the ones from the past.

Engineering changes not-with-standing, the new models are only mere shells of the past models. Think about the models for a moment... the model 27 from the inception of the model, in 1935, changed very little from the mid thirties to the war. After the war, while it did change some, it was still readily identifiable in its parentage. The short throw of the hammer and the other improved manufacturing methods did not appreciably change the gun. The barrels and cylinders still looked like a model 27 and the frames did too. There was still a large amount of handwork in the guns. Other parts were very similar and the evolution was small. The dashes just show the improvements, good or bad, but the guns were very close. Now the "new" models are very dis-simliar, especially after the internal lock. Manufacturing methods do change and most times for the better. BUT, the guns are really different. I bought a 627-5 because I wanted a classy looking revolver and I do think that the five inch models with the triangular lug is neat, but I do not equate it with my model 27-2 with its six inch bbl. I just can't because I do not believe they are the same gun really.

They are similar in name only. The 627 does not have checkering atop the frame and barrel as the Classic new models do and that is what I am meaning and Ia 1727 means also, at least I think that is what he is getting at. Different animals because of the manufacturing methods and, also, due in some great part, because of the American manufacturing methods which have decided that cost will drive almost everything done in the U.S. today. Craftsmanship is not an important part of American manufacturing methods as it once was. So, we must expect that things will change, somewhat drastically and we will never find that craftsmanship will trump price or modern production ways again.

In addition to what everybody else has said, look how much more you have to pay to get a "classic" Mod 27 vs and older 27-2. $1000 will get you a very nice older 27, instead of $1000 getting a perfectly serviceable, but not collectable gun that will not increase in value. While I am not a fan of the lock, the main reason I don't buy newer S&W revolvers is the price of the newer models vs the price of a nice real model 27-2 that will last longer than I will, all the while looking 10 times better than any of the "classic" line revolvers.

__________________
J.D. Roy

I bought a used 327 performance gun (8-shot snub). The trigger is excellent, but the barrel cylinder gap was excessive and it spit lead. I returned it to S&W and they fit a NEW titanium cylinder, and the gap was set really low. This was all done free of charge and I am happy with the gun now (after I de-locked it of course!).

Did the former owner mess with the gun and screw up the cylinder gap, or did it leave the factory that way? I don't know.

I have an original (no-lock) "bloodwork" performance center gun in .44 magnum, I bought "new in the box" from someone who never shot it. Trigger is very nice. However, the front dovetailed sight was OBVIOUSLY not true. This bugged the heck out of me. When I went to the range, I verified this by having to crank the rear sight over to shoot to point of aim.

Sure, I could have adjusted this myself, but no way did I want to chance dinging the barrel. I sent it back to Smith and again they repaired it to my satisfaction no charge. Another performance center gun mind you!

Currently my 500ES "Survival Snubby" is back at Smith because the barrel shroud is massively over-torgued and the front sight is canted noticeably to the right when you view the gun from the business end. At $3-$4 a shot, I wondered why in the hell I couldn't zero the gun without cranking the rear sight ALL the way over.

Did S&W turn out some problem guns in years gone by? I am sure they did, but I think the "old-school" methods of manufacture caught more of them.

As someone posted earlier, if you have a CNC machine and you believe all you have to do is "set-it-and-forget-it" you probably don't take the time to measure and inspect pieces coming off the CNC machine the way they did with old fashioned lathes and milling machines.

90% of my Smith & Wesson collection are the older, pre-lock guns. I only buy new if it is a model that demands it, like the 500 Magnum. I then de-lockify them.

So, this is a long-winded answer to the original poster's question:

Hunt down a good-condition 27-2 and be glad you did~ You will have a usable piece of the gun-maker's art.

Regards,

~i8mtm

Pre 27 $400 OTD. Shoots like a rifle. Find one, you'll love it.
DW

__________________
"NUTS"

Those pinned barrel wonders have been calling my name the last few years and the Model 27s and their pinned variants are the best of the best.

To the fella who can get a 3 1/2" like new M27-2 for $550 . . . you better move fast, that's a screaming deal today if the gun checks out in all ways (including stocks and a non-bulged barrel, box and materials, etc.)

I paid a lot more for this one last December, from a good forum member here, and could not be happier with the gun I got for the money!

Tom,

I've never been much for nickel plated revolvers but that is sure a nice looking 3.5". Nice looking photography too! All in all, very impressive.

Dave

__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)

The 3 1/2" N frame is a favorite.

The old ones are special, and the 8 shot PC Lew Horton's are the only way to get that combination of features from the factory. The 4" M27/28's are also sweet.

I wish I had about a dozen or so.

__________________
July 4, 1776 not Jan 30, 1909

I'd want the older one, just because it's "older."

__________________
John 3:16 .

I've got some post-lock Smiths and several pre-lock Smiths. I'm a shooter, not a collector, and each one of my guns serves a specific purpose. I've yet to see any fall off in quality between the older models and the newer ones. One of my favorite handguns is my 625JM, a gun that commits all of the sins that some on this forum continually rail about. It's stainless, it isn't pinned, the chambers aren't recessed, it has MIM internals, it was built on CNC machines and it has a lock. The gun shoots like a laser and has the tightest lockup of any revolver I own. There's absolutely no fore-aft play in the cylinder.

I do have one bias when I buy guns, however, and that is that I prefer to buy used over new. I love hunting out older specimens that are well broken in, perform well, and are priced reasonably. For that reason, and that reason alone, I'd probably go for the 27-2 over the newer and much more expensive model. The substantial difference in price between what one would pay for a good used model and the new gun does not justify any qualitative edge that the newer gun might arguably have (if there's any edge at all).

My 27 is a 27-3 4" that I bought from an auction site a couple of years ago. I paid about $550 for the gun. It's admittedly not a classic example of the gun, having been made in 1988 years after Smith stopped pinning the barrels and recessing the chambers. Still, it's a wonder to behold, beautifully finished, and with the capacity to put shot after shot in the same hole.

Btw, not to rain on anyone's parade but there's an urban legend floating around out there that the checkered topstraps on the pre-27s and 27s were laboriously cut by hand by some craftsman at Smith. Last year I read an article somewhere about the registered magnum and the 27, and, based on an interview with someone at Smith, the article reported that the checkering was always etched by a machine and never by hand.

OK everybody, the troll who lived under the stairs and hand cut the top strap checkering for S&W never was. Sell all your 27s and buy 28s. And, those of you with Registered Magnums...well, I guess you can keep them for the history and nostalgia's sake.

Steve, I never heard or thought the top straps were hand cut. Just looking at them makes it pretty obvious they are machine cut. What exactly was the point of even posting that anyway?

Dave (wasn't in a parade so I didn't get rained on)

__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)