Durability of M27 vs M586/686 with full .357 loads.

[SgtSam]

How does the M27 compare to the M586/686 when used with full .357 loads?

I've been told by some various firearms "experts" that I know, that the M686, being a much newer design than M27, was designed to be stronger than the M27 in spite of the M27's larger size and the fact that the M27 is the direct decendent of the original .357 Magnum.

I'm just curious which of the two is actually the stronger. Can you destroy an M27 using a lot of full .357 loads? Is the M586/686 a better choice for firing .357 loads?

Thanks.

 

[Maximumbob54]

More steel everywhere = longer lasting in my book. Just look at the forcing cone on the N frame compared to the L frame. The L is made to take a beating but not like the N will long term. So far the only thing I know of on the .357 N frame is the very mass of steel that makes it so strong will smack the stop until it goes out of time. Easy fix from what I'm told. My M28 is still tip top.

 

[diamonback68]

Contrary to the "experts" opinion, my opinion is the the 27 will win hands down. Remember the 27 was design particularly for that caliber in 1935.

 

[stevieboy]

I'm a huge fan of N-frame .357s. However, both of my Ns, a 27-3 and a 28-2, developed end shake and cylinder binding after being fired with many Magnum rounds, which is to say they're not immortal. I bought both of these guns used so I have no idea how many rounds were put through them before I purchased them but I know that I fired each of them often. So, obviously, there's a vulnerability there that is not "cured" by the extra metal, more massive cylinder and forcing cone, etc. Whether that makes these guns more susceptible to problems than the Ls, I dunno.

 

[Snapping Twig]

Figure that both of these revolvers were designed around the .357, so all bets are off IMO as to which is more durable.

Chicken or the egg.

 

[gr7070]

Bigger is not always better strength-wise, especially when fatigue might be at issue.

In addition, the metals are not necessarily the same.

Even the same metal specification doesn't necessarily end up with the same metal. Things like manufacturing processes, recycling methods, etc can result in a stronger material through decades of production even if it's the same designated material.

Lastly, the variance in production is great enough that the above can easily be overcome by a mistake or an inconsistency, etc. So any one model that would normally be "stronger" could be weaker.

It's going to be very difficult for anyone on here to say with much authority which will last longer, even ignoring individual gun variances. Even those of us with engineering or metallurgical expertise.

In the end they're all great. Neither is so expensive to many that a replacement can't be reasonably acquired - especially when considering the cost to destroy one. There's always the warranty, as well for newer models.

I'd probably lean towards the M27, but I can't say with any remote certainty and I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if I was wrong.

Buy whichever you prefer. Shoot whichever you prefer. If you're so inclined get both and double the amount of shooting you can do before a failure.

 

[Texas Star]

First, it is the L-framed guns that were designed around the .357. The original .357/M-27 was simply big enough and strong enough to take the new load, when it wasn't known what it would take to endure under the pounding of the original loading. The alternative was the smaller K-frame, not then made with strong enough steel and advanced heat treatment to be a candidate. Also, the .357 was thought to recoil so severely that few could have handled it in the M&P-sized gun. (The present very light .357's are, I think, a serious mistake. They represent a triumph of marketing over common sense.)

The heavy M-27/28 cylinder does place more strain on the timing mechanism, as the holes in it are smaller than when the cylinder is bored for the .44 cartridges for which this frame size was designed...in about 1907. Also, the cylinder is too short to accept some magnum handloads with longer bullets.

Nor is the M-27 made normally in stainless steel in the usual configuration. The M-686 is.

The .41 (L) frame is all that's needed for a .357. Some will wish for a normal S&W configuration for the barrel. The M-686 barrel was copied from that on the Colt Python, and has a noticeable forward balance. Some prefer that; some don't. The relatively scarce Mountain Gun M-686 is a wise option, if available.
-
I've owned M-27's, M-28's, and one M-686, with a four- inch barrel. The last was the most practical .357 that I've owned, other than Ruger's magnificent GP-100. (I greatly admire the smaller M-66, but not for a great deal of .357 use.)

The big .N (.44) frame of the older guns is too much for many shooters, especially women. It requires a large hand.

The role of the M-27 at this time is mainly one of nostalgia. It is a very effective .357, especially with the six-inch barrel, with which it is best balanced, I believe. But it will probably go out-of-time sooner than the smaller-framed guns, with their lighter cylinders. Nor is it available in stainless, except as the M-627, which does not have the original profile. For serious daily use, stainless construction is a major boon. This is especially so in humid or salty climates.

The M-27 and M-28 are good guns but not the best practical .357 choices in modern times. Some will dispute this but those are the facts.

T-Star
P.S. I do think the M-27 with the 8.3-inch barrel balances better than the long L-frame guns, but I see no real use for such guns, and dislike them. Too much barrel for real world use, except in hunting or target games, where a .44 Magnum really makes more sense. Even then, Ruger's 7.5-inch barrels are my personal limit.

 

[weyerbacher]

Despite this being the S&W forum, if you want an immortal 357 revolver, just get a Ruger GP100. If you shoot it enough the trigger smooths out very nicely, and you'll never blow it up.

 

[alwslate]

I am a great fan of the N-frames, just don't care for the looks of the
L-frames. I own three 28s, two 4" and one 6". Also two 27s, one 4"
and one 8 3/8". Seems like I remember reading some years back that
during the H.P. White lab tests of hand guns that N-frame S&Ws stood
up to loads that destroyed Ruger Blackhawks. If memory serves I
recall that the N-frames took 80,000 psi loads without damage. Any
revolver is subject to wear however but I'll take an N-frame over an
L-frame any day. Also I have never heard of any tests indicating that stainless construction made a revolver less subject to wear or loosening from heavy loads.

 

[fyimo]

I have Model 28's, 27's, and a 686 and I think with reasonable care they will all last a long time and shoot well. As to which is stronger that could be probably argued until the cows come home depending on your personal preference. The L frame was actually designed to eliminate problems that were occuring from shooting a lot of full power 357 magnum rounds that were using lighter bullets and causing cracks in the forcing cones in the K frame 357 revolvers.

I like the balance of a N frame with a 5 inch barrel best of all and although I own and shoot a Model 686 with a 6 inch barrel I find it a bit muzzle heavy with the full barrel under lug.

 

[scooter123]

Take a look at each from an Engineering perspective.

The Key Effect of using high powered ammo is the development of End Shake. This is caused by "peening" of the cylinder tube on the Yoke and the best way to slow down or prevent this happening would be by constructing that tube with a heavier wall thickness or by increasing the diameter to increase the area of the bearing surface. On both the N and L frames the Yoke tubes are identical in terms or diameter and wall thickness, thus both will have a similar service life. Bottomline, just because it's heavier, that doesn't mean it will last longer.

 

[SgtSam]

Thanks Guys for a very interesting discussion. I already had my own opinions and thoughts. But, that's no guarantee that one would be correct. So, I thought I'd just throw it out for hashing around and see what others thought. Pretty much the same as I did actually. But, it was interesting and enjoyable.

I'm not overly fond of the "L" frames. I have several "K" frames that I really like, my favorite being my No-Dash M66. But, I do enjoy my "pencil" barreled M64 for just burning up .38 ammo. I recently aquired this 8-3/8" M27 in very pristine condition and I'm taking it out to the range tomorrow for a little .357, and a lot of .38, blastin'! Unlike some, I do like the looks of the 8-3/8" N-Frames, and I do enjoy shooting them as well. I doubt seriously if I'll ever be able to put enough .357 loads, nor do I suspect I'd want to, through this gun to cause any noticeable wear and tear on it.

I'm also very fond of the GP-100, as brought up by some. But I just recently swapped my only current one for a 3" SP-101. It was 6" and I just couldn't warm to the gun. It seemed ungainly and out of proportion in the way it looked and felt. I used to have a 4" blue model that I really liked, but got stupid and sold it. So, I'll most likely get myself another GP in either 4" or 3" in the not to distant future.

I also believe that the most rugged .357 available is the Blackhawk. I used to have a 1st generation Vaquero in .357 (same frame as the Blackhawk) with a 4-5/8" barrel. Sold it due to financial issues some years ago. Haven't replaced it, don't know if I will.

The .357 that I love the most, my M66. And, I don't shoot .357 ammo in it any more. I just don't want to screw it up. Not worth it.

So, back to my M27. My son and I will give it a 250 to 300 round workout tomorrow. Only taking one box of .357, though. Stout .38 special 158gr lead SWCs will do the trick for the bulk of our shooting with it.

Besides, we're taking a nice selection of hardware with us, longies and shorties. Small bore to big bore.

Oh well, I'm starting to ramble. Sorry guys. I'm outa' here.

 

[Maximumbob54]

The biggest thing I got out of this is I really want to find the older profile barrel 627 but with an eight shot cylinder and I want it with a four or five inch barrel. I don't care for the new barrels, the added holes will lighten the impact on the timing parts, and it will be stainless so easier on corrosion. But as long as I'm dreaming it won't have the ILS either.

 

[jdickson397]

I guess the question posed in this thread always brings up another question for me: Instead of beating a gun to death by using magnum or +P loads day in and day out, why not shoot 38 specials for practice? You can always load up with heavier loads for self-defense purposes when and if you really need to. Seems senseless to push a gun to its limits this way. We need to be good stewards of our fine handguns.

 

[roaddog28]

I see these type of threads every week in most gun forums. 686 versus 27/28, GP100 versus S&W 686 etc.. The 686, 27/28, GP100, Blackhawk,Redhawk and Freedom arms will take a steady diet of 357 magnums. All of these will take more 357 rounds that most shooters will ever see. So, which one is the strongest? Its ready hard to prove which one is the strongest. Most all the time there is never a clear cut winner only opinions.

Any of the above revolvers will wear out soon if a person puts a lot of full power magnums through the revolver. I am talking about the 125 gr frame throwers which reach over 1600 fps. This round beats the revolver to death and erodes the forcing cone. This round is like putting a cutting torch to the top strap of a revolver. This is a term call flame cutting. It is self limiting but when I see a revolver with a lot of flame cutting I know it has been abused and I won't buy it.
So which one is the strongest. There is not a clear cut advantage between the two. They are both good 357 magnum revolvers.

Regard,
Howard

 

[David LaPell]

Personally, I would think the 27 is the tougher gun, but both are tough enough for the job. Remember that the original .357 Magnum 158 grain loads in 1935 were pushing 1,500 fps out of a 6 1/2 inch barrel. The new loads only 1,250 fps for the same bullet from the factory. My .38-44 loads in an Outdoorsman are under what the max load is and still put out more than the new factory stuff. So to compare "hot" factory loads is pointless since they aren't even the same thing anymore. I doubt you will see anyone take a 686 and a 27 and run the old 1,500 fps through each to see which will dynamite first. Me, I think the 27 will do the job a little better, but it would be a newer gun, like a 27-2 vs the old school guns.

 

[Maximumbob54]

I see these type of threads every week in most gun forums. 686 versus 27/28, GP100 versus S&W 686 etc.. The 686, 27/28, GP100, Blackhawk,Redhawk and Freedom arms will take a steady diet of 357 magnums. All of these will take more 357 rounds that most shooters will ever see. So, which one is the strongest? Its ready hard to prove which one is the strongest. Most all the time there is never a clear cut winner only opinions.

Any of the above revolvers will wear out soon if a person puts a lot of full power magnums through the revolver. I am talking about the 125 gr frame throwers which reach over 1600 fps. This round beats the revolver to death and erodes the forcing cone. This round is like putting a cutting torch to the top strap of a revolver. This is a term call flame cutting. It is self limiting but when I see a revolver with a lot of flame cutting I know it has been abused and I won't buy it.
So which one is the strongest. There is not a clear cut advantage between the two. They are both good 357 magnum revolvers.

Regard,
Howard

If I only see a very light mark from it, I will keep looking. If I can catch a finger nail in it, it gets handed back for someone else to love it. That damage is a sale killer for me. Just about anything else and I might still buy it.

 

[stantheman86]

I am not afraid of flame cutting......

A $25 bag of Power Custom endshake and a bag of yoke bearings can go a LONG way to fixing a beat up revolver.

I got a battered to death M28 for $300 or so, it took 3 endshake bearings and a yoke bearing to get it tight, but now it shoots great and the timing is still on.

If I can get a good deal on an "abused" revolver, as long as it still carries up within spec I'll go for it.

 

[S.B.]

All I can say is I own two 27s and they have given me excellent service for the whole time. One, a 5" Skeeter Skeltol the other a 27-2 3&1/2" gun. Never regretted buying either. I've own some L frames but, never saw the need for them?

Steve

 

[alwslate]

My three 28s. The two 4" guns, N566xxx and N586xxx were bought
used at gun shows and look to have been fired very little. The 6" gun,
S285xxx was purchased new in Oct. 1966. It has been fired a fair amount over the years but remains as tight as a new gun because
at least 90% of the shooting was with light lead bullet hand loads. Why shoot full power loads unless needed?