Any pics, thoughts, comments, likes or dislikes in comparing a S&W model 27 and a 686-3 SS square butt model? I hear quite a few of you say you really like the model 27 - have me thinking about buying one ... What is it about the model 27 that makes it so popular? I see where wiki noted Gen Patton called the Model 27 his "killing gun."

Probably should have posted this in "S&W Revolvers 1961 to 1980" - pardon my error on my 1st thread

I REALLY like my 686-3 pictured ... it's simply AWESOME

Attached Images

IMG_20150302_070934.jpg (122.4 KB, 101 views)

M27 has more inherent collector value. Mainly because they got a fair amount of extra niceties with the checkering on the top strap. Some contend there is a higher grade of polish to the finish as well, but I cannot speak to that.

One thing for sure, the m27 was the only mass produced N-frame to get that extra checkering. Not sure why the m25, m29, and m57 were deemed un-worthy of such treatment...

You would have to work pretty hard to kill an N-framed 357. Same can accurately be said about the L-frame as well. So mechanically speaking, slight advantage to the N-frame. But I would not call it a landslide.

One downside to the 27 is that being what it is, you may not shoot it as much in the interest of keeping that beauty in nice shape... Higher safe queen factor.

686 and all it's variants is a fine, rugged 357. But being a bit smaller, it will be a little more carry friendly.. I love a good 686...who doesn't?

Kind of a tough choice because IMHO they each hold smallish advantages over the other in some ways.. Really depends on your intended use.

Methinks you have tipped your hand. Get the one you really like. Assuming you plan to shoot it versus "collect," the 4 inch 686-3 will do you well. I had a shot at a no dash but I snapped up the no dash 617 instead since I just could not do both. I like stainless for shooting but I have to admit that blue is such a classic look.

First duty gun was a model 19 so the blue has always appealed but I mostly go after stainless to shoot. And I have no interest in collecting, just shooting.

As to why the 27 is popular. Can't say. Nice N frame .357. Classic look. Probably as good or maybe better for recoil on hot .357's?

For me it's about feel and balance. As much sense as a 686 makes for a versatile revolver, the N frames just speak to me.

20140912_184125 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr

20140912_184038 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr

The N frame that General Patton carried was the Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum. This was the precursor to the Model 27. S&W didn't assign model numbers until ca. 1957.

I own a Model 686-3, with a 6" barrel, and several .357 Magnums and Model 27's. For pure esthetics, the N frame sets a very high bar. A highly polished blue steel, or nickel revolver, with walnut or Goncalo Alves target stocks is an exquisite piece of hardware.

Welcome to the forum!

To put it in perspective from a shooting standpoint, the original 357 was built on a frame designed for larger bore cartridges, the 44 and 45 because they wanted to give this new "Magnum powered" cartridge plenty of strength to hold it. The L-frame on the other hand was built around the size of the cartridge and scaled accordingly.

Of course since the original 357 was for all intents and purposes a factory custom gun (hence "Registered Magnum") the fit and finish was top drawer all the way, so as the production continued, even though the custom nature was discontinued, the cachet of "special-ness" continued. The fact of the matter is, the N-frame is bigger than it needs to be for the job at hand... if you want a purpose built 357 (and don't have the deep pockets to buy a pre-War RM) you could do a lot worse than that 686 you are looking at.

The preceding is JMHO, and YMMV, but "that's my story and I'm sticking to it!"

Froggie

I've had three model 27-2's now and three 686's over the years. My current 27-2 is a 3.5inch, and both 686 and 586 are snubs, as well. That said, I also owned a 4-inch 686, which I truly regret trading off. Maybe I let it go because it was more common, but it certainly went on many a hike. That particular configuration is a very nice shooter. Right now the only 4-inch models that I own are my 29-2's, and a 22-4, everything else is snub-nosed/or shortest barrel configuration. I shoot just about everything I own, and I really thing the old L-frames are a great balance between size and ruggedness.
So, my recommendation would be to with the 4-inch 686. It is an incredibly tough and versitile revolver. Next time I see one of the older examples of this fine revolver looking for a home, I'm going to adopt it! It is a real work-horse!

See if you can hold both and possibly shoot both. There is a big difference in the balance between the two, and the N frame grip is somewhat larger. The 27's came with either target grips or magnas, so grip size on the 27 will vary. The 686 only came with targets, but these can be changed out to suit personal tastes as well.

Yeah, I can understand what you're saying, that 27 is also speaking to me. It's telling me find my wallet and start looking for a 3.5"

If they were the same price I'd opt for the 27. If the price difference is important you can't go wrong with a 686-3.

Welcome to the forum.

The 27 and the 28 (N frames) are heaver guns. Great for absorbing recoil but tiresome to carry, which is why we have the Model 19 (K frame). The 586 and 686 (L frames) improve the Model 19 with a beefier frame sized between the K and the N, while keeping the same stocks as the K. The L frame guns are probably the best for the 357 Mag cartridge. Having said that, both sizes are a pleasure to shoot. But there's just something about the way that N frame feels when that big cylinder is turning and locks up.

I can only point out the differences, since I've never met a S&W that I didn't like.

You started out with a good question. But if you find yourself asking: what does P&R mean; what is a 22/32 Kit gun; what does an S in front of the serial number mean; what is an Outdoorsman----then your next statement might be "I want one of those".

You literally cannot go wrong with either one.

The Model 27 is based off of the first .357 Magnum ever made, and they got it right from the get go.

The 686 is two or three generations later, and when all things are considered, it may be the greatest revolver ever made.

I guess where I would start is, what do you WANT out of your .357 Revolver?

Is it something you are going to shoot a lot and carry a lot, and spend a lot of time in a holster?

Or is it something that you want to Polish, baby, take pics of and fondle?

If you want a shooter, get the 686 - you'll be glad you did.

If you want a collector piece of the nicest .357 S&W ever made, get the 27.

You simply cannot go wrong with a Smith and Wesson .357 Magnum.

Thanks - you all are awesome. I do own 2 of the 686-3 (see pic of 1) and both are my favorite all time guns to shoot. Incredible really. With the comments I was trying to learn what it is about the model 27 that people like about it, so now I know what S&W is next for me. Thanks kindly for all your replies-- very informative comments.

I agree the stainless steel is nice if you like to shoot often and the square butt fits my hand better.

Attached Images

IMG_20150226_144335.jpg (94.6 KB, 42 views)

I have 2 model 19's... had a 686.... would love to have a 27 with a3.5" barrel.....all great guns. In fact have started selling all my bottom feeders to purchase more S&W revolvers.

Here Are some pis of my 27-2:

This is actually a pretty well worn shooter, but it is in nice shape, and following the advice of many on the boards, I polished it with Mothers, and applied a coat of Renaissance wax afterwards.

It is equipped with:
- Pinned (Obviously) 4" Barrel
- Recessed (Obviously) Cylinder
- Red Ramp Front Sight
- White Outline Rear Sight
- Target Hammer
- Target Trigger
- Target Stocks - that are in very nice condition

Right Side:


Another Shot of the Right:


The Left Side:


Another of the Left Side:


Shot of the Backstrap, back grips, White Outline, Red Ramp:


Barrel:


TradeMark:


Emblem:


Parting Shot:

Rick A, Dr Lou, and Tom R.--

Those are REALLY WICKED looking revolvers -- Wow! Have to handle and try and find one to buy now ... See what you guys did!!!!!!!!!

I am with ya. These fellers here have a real bad habit of posting things I did not even know existed. Boy oh boy...I am really short of some sweet .357's. Like you I love these S&W sweethearts. Hey Sharon...guess what the boys posted tonight?

I own 586's but it is hard to beat the N-frame choice if a 27 is involved !









Jerry

__________________
.38/44 Outdoorsman Accumulator

I'd certainly prefer the M-686. In the real world, stainless is an enormous maintenance advantage, and any minor scratches can be polished out.

The frame is also smaller, that of a K-frame for grips, and fits more hands better.

I've owed both and like the M-28 and M-27, but usually wore a stainless gun.

Both are often shockingly accurate and have enough weight to minimize Magnum recoil.

To me, it's a race between a 5" Model 27-2 and a 4" 686-3. I've had the 27 for 34 years, carried it and shot it a good bit. The 686 is somewhat more recent, but I like it also.

In feel, panache, accuracy, the 27 is it, hands down:



Grips are factory targets that I cut down many years ago to fit my hand.

With El Paso Leather.

Attached Images

S&W 004.jpg (73.8 KB, 18 views)

Nice holster and gun...here's the one above with Bianchi leather...

It's like comparing a D9 to a bobcat. It's like Comparing a MB600s to a Dodge pickup.
It's like comparing a fine wine to a screw top jug burgundy, it's like....well, you get the idea.

A classy gun deserves a fancy rig.
20140930_094813 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr

Liar, Liar, pants on fire That's a well worn shooter????

__________________
Vietnam 1969-1971

IMHO, the real difference between the M 27s and the M 686s has been touched upon but not given the emphasis that it deserves.........The difference in time between the design and tooling up to produce both models is significant for both production techniques and advances in METALLURGY. The stainless steel meld developed for the M 686 is stronger in every way over the carbon steel of the M 27. Now, I grant you. The amount of shooting of maxed out magnum loads that most of would ever do won't come close to hurting either one. But, IMHO the M 686 will stay in time, be more accurate and just last longer in the reliability parameters. Again, with normal use this is all academic. I will tote my M 27 to the barbecue, but going to work I will take my M 686. ...........

It is.

It has a little Flame cutting on the top strap as the previous owner fired a lot of Magnums through it. No Problem, with that, but it has been shot a lot.

It's tight though, and everything cycles as it should and its not shot loose. The Side Plate has been off at some point, and they may have replaced the Springs or done a little something on the trigger. Again, no big deal as it was used but not abused.

I spent HOURS cleaning the Cylinder face and then Polishing it with Mothers and then Ren Waxing it.

I wanted to see how it would clean up before I ever shot it. Then I cleaned, and now I don't want to shoot it, because I don;t want to spend hours cleaning it again :-)

These Pics had perfect Lighting and it was RIGHT after I applied that Coat of Ren Wax.

I got a M686 6" when they first came out.
Don't have it anymore but still have my M27 5" and two M28's, 4" & 6".



Then again I was married to a FBI real red heads for 15 years but have been married to a real Danish/English blond going on 32 years next month...

Go figure......

__________________
Only difference Fool/Mule-ears