357 barrel lengths?

[BC38]

What was the more common barrel length for the N-frame 357's that ended up becoming the Model 27?
Was the 3-1/2" the more common one or were there more of the 4" variant?

[bruner1981]

From what I understand, the 4" is pretty uncommon, with the 3-1/2" one step above that. I'd say the 6" to 6-1/2" barrels are the most common. Someone should be along who can either verify what I said or prove me wrong

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Vom Brunhaus K9]

I Like my 4 inch model 28 in blue

[Art Doc]

In terms of production as I recall the 6" was most common followed by the 3.5, then the 5, then 4 (only 3 years of production) and the 6.5 and 8 jockey for last place.

But I could be wrong.

I usually am wrong.

I'm sure I'm wrong.

Forget what I said.

[Ga Johnny]

I agree with SP

[M29since14]

I've seen an awful lot of 8 inch 27s over the years. It doesn't have much to do with the OP's question but I would think the 8 inchers are at least as common as the 5 inchers... maybe?

Like SP, I'm usually wrong too.

As to the 3.5 and 4 inch question I'd guess the 3.5s were considerably more numerous.

[Muley Gil]

The long ones I've seen and owned were 8 3/8", not 8".

[JSR III]

I would have to agree with the senior senator from the south, SP. The 6" was the most popular barrel length followed by the rest.

[Art Doc]

I know it's 8 and not 8, but 8 is much faster and easier to type than 8 so I say 8 rather than 8. I never bother to type out 8 all the way. I just type 8 and let it go at that. I figure people will know that when I say 8 I actually mean 8.

S&W could have saved us all a lot of trouble if they had just made the damn thing 8" instead of 8".

[Muley Gil]

Originally Posted by SaxonPig

I know it's 8 and not 8, but 8 is much faster and easier to type than 8 so I say 8 rather than 8. I never bother to type out 8 all the way. I just type 8 and let it go at that. I figure people will know that when I say 8 I actually mean 8.

S&W could have saved us all a lot of trouble if they had just made the damn thing 8" instead of 8".

You know that S&W built 8 3/8" revolvers and I know that S&W built 8 3/8" revolvers, but not everybody is as smart as us. We have lots of new folks on this forum every day and I wouldn't want to confuse them.

I'm guessing that a lot of folks don't know how the 8 3/8" barrels came to be. The original .357, aka the Registered Magnum, came out in 1935 with an option of a 8 3/4" barrel. However, the rules of the USRA (United States Revolver Association) called for a maximum sight radius of 10". The maximum sight radius with an 8 3/4" N frame exceeded that 10" length by 3/8", so S&W settled on a max barrel length of 8 3/8". The company stayed with that max barrel length on all of its revolver models until late in the 20th Century, with the introduction of the 10 1/2" barrel Model 29.

[murphydog]

8 3/8" got you the full 10" sight radius for competitive shooting. Everyone knew that 3.9% extra distance was the difference between victory and defeat .

The 6" is/was the most common model 27 length. Based on absolutely no data whatsoever I would actually guess the 8 3/8 is second, the 3 1/2 and the 5" approximately tied for third, the 6.5" fifth and the 4" last. This information is worth less than the time it took to type.

[Tired Gunsmith]

The Original .357 Revolvers were available in almost ANY barrel length the person ordering it wanted up to the original 8-3/4.
These guns were not 'stock', but built and regulated for each order.
That applied to the "Registered" and 'plain' production

[BC38]

Originally Posted by Tired Gunsmith

The Original .357 Revolvers were available in almost ANY barrel length the person ordering it wanted up to the original 8-3/4.
These guns were not 'stock', but built and regulated for each order.
That applied to the "Registered" and 'plain' production

Would that also be true for mid 50's production - just before the model 27 designation came to be?

[Engine49guy]

My impression was since the 3.5" and 5" were the best sellers they were produced in greater numbers than the 6" version but I have no proof ,

While the 6" Mod 27 seems to bring less at auction than its shorter bros they also compete against the 6" Mod 28.
8" Mod 27s bring even less than the 6"and probably no coincidence the 8"ers didnt sell as well back in the day either .

Also kinda depends on what era your looking at since the 4" replaced the 3.5" and 5" lengths in the later dash 2 revision so in the 50's a 4" Mod 27 is rare but in the late 70's the 4" and 6" Mod 27's probably topped sales but they had to compete against Mod 28 and Mod 19's offered in the same lengths.

On a side note there was also a 6.5" version,

[RKmesa]

Most common Barrel length? As was stated above, the pre-war 357s could be purchased in any barrel length between 3.5" and 8.75" (with .25" increments - except for the 8.375" barreled guns). The most common length for the pre-war registered guns was 6.5", with the second and third being 5" and 6" respectively. Those numbers do not include certain guns with registration numbers that shipped to law enforcement agencies (most of which were probably 6" or 6.5" guns).

My guess (worth very little) is that most popular post-war pre model number N-Frame 357's with the checkered top strap (pre-27s) were in this order:

6", 8.375", 3.5", 5", 6.5" and least common is the 4"

NOW if you asked for my favorite it would be this order (with photos):

8.375"/3.5" - Tied for First





6.5" - Third



5" and 4" - Tied for Forth



Still looking for the right 5" er

and the 6" - Last

[Art Doc]

I see far more 3.5s than I do 8s. The 8s also don't sell as fast or for as much due to less popularity. I would be surprised if this was the second biggest seller when new.

I have seen in several sources the 6" is most common. After that I am guessing.

[k22fan]

Have we had a 7.5" Registered Magnum posted?

[Muley Gil]

Originally Posted by k22fan

Have we had a 7.5" Registered Magnum posted?

IIRC, there are several 7 1/2" RMs known.

[BC38]

The reason for the question is that a local guy offered me a 5-screw he says is from around 1955. It has a 3-1/2" barrel and Pachmayrs on it. It looks like the finish is in nice condition, but I haven't actually seen at it in person yet. From some pictures it looks like some of the rollmarks may be a little washed out - like maybe its been buffed and reblued. He wants $600 for it, which seems a little steep for a possibly refinished gun without the original grips

[quinn]

Originally Posted by BC38

The reason for the question is that a local guy offered me a 5-screw he says is from around 1955. It has a 3-1/2" barrel and Pachmayrs on it. It looks like the finish is in nice condition, but I haven't actually seen at it in person yet. From some pictures it looks like some of the rollmarks may be a little washed out - like maybe its been buffed and reblued. He wants $600 for it, which seems a little steep for a possibly refinished gun without the original grips

You need to go see that puppy in person. If it isn't refinished that price is a bargain. JMHO and I'm usually wront, too.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by quinn

You need to go see that puppy in person. If it isn't refinished that price is a bargain. JMHO and I'm usually wront, too.

Yeah, if it isn't refinished I'll buy it for that price. If it is refinished, I'm thinking its worth more like $400...

[Muley Gil]

Originally Posted by BC38

The reason for the question is that a local guy offered me a 5-screw he says is from around 1955. It has a 3-1/2" barrel and Pachmayrs on it. It looks like the finish is in nice condition, but I haven't actually seen at it in person yet. From some pictures it looks like some of the rollmarks may be a little washed out - like maybe its been buffed and reblued. He wants $600 for it, which seems a little steep for a possibly refinished gun without the original grips

That may not be a bad price. Let us know if it is a re-blue or not.

[alwslate]

A 3.5" 5 screw reblued pre 27 in tight condition for $400? Where?
Not anywhere around here that I know of unless the owner doesn't
own a computer, is too old and feeble to visit gun shops and shows
and isn't really sure what day of the week it is. I think the 3.5" and
6" 27s were the most commonly seen around these parts back in the
late 60s to early 70s but that really doesn't effect value. Seems to me
that the 3.5" was very common back then at gun shops and gun shows
but they are the highest priced these days anyway.

[BC38]

Got to actually look it over today. SN is S136XXX so I'm thinking its about a 54-55 production.

The color, polish, and finish are really nice, and the hammer and trigger are still the worn original finish, but the markings are washed out in some areas. So there's no question about it, it has definitely been reblued. Here are some photos. I don't think I'm going to be able to get the seller to come down on the price much...

[mojave30cal]

It doesn't look re-blued to me. The lettering on both sides of
the barrel as well as the address on the forward right side
of the frame look crisp. Can't make out the S&W logo on the
side plate. The color on the trigger look right for the age of
the gun.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by mojave30cal

It doesn't look re-blued to me. The lettering on both sides of
the barrel as well as the address on the forward right side
of the frame look crisp. Can't make out the S&W logo on the
side plate. The color on the trigger look right for the age of
the gun.

The pictures might not show it so well, but the ampersand and the word WESSON on the left side of the barrel are about 1/3 washed out.
On the right side of the barrel the top of all the letters for the entire roll mark have been polished until they are very shallow.
The 4-line address is much sharper closest to the trigger guard and more washed out the closer it gets to the yoke pivot.
The entire S&W emblem on side plate is fairly shallow.

You'll also note the red ramp in the front sight. I'm still learning, but I don't think that feature was even available when this gun was produced.

The color, polish, and finish all look very good, and it was obviously professionally done. The trigger and hammer do indeed look right for the vintage of the gun, so whoever did the reblue obviously knew enough to fully disassemble it and knew which parts not to refinish. I even pulled the grips in hopes of finding factory rework markings and date. No such luck, so it isn't even a factory refinish. Just a very nicely done refinish.

I'm still debating whether I should buy it as a very nice looking shooter for $600

[k22fan]

Assuming that it has been refinished $600 is still not a bad price. Very few shootable N frames retail for under $400. This week a member ran a thread on buying two 27s for $2,200 and most of the members who responded wrote he was doing all right. The better of those two 27s was an almost NIB 3 1/2" that was priced at 1,250. You are down at half of that for a 27 that should shoot just as well. After you change stocks most other shooters at a range would not notice the difference between the two.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by k22fan

Assuming that it has been refinished $600 is still not a bad price. Very few shootable N frames retail for under $400. This week a member ran a thread on buying two 27s for $2,200 and most of the members who responded wrote he was doing all right. The better of those two 27s was an almost NIB 3 1/2" that was priced at 1,250. You are down at half of that for a 27 that should shoot just as well. After you change stocks most other shooters at a range would not notice the difference between the two.

All true. But a set of period correct stocks in good enough condition to match the overall appearance of the gun would be, what, another $100?
To me, $700 for a correct looking, but obviously refinished shooter seems a little steep. I'm thinking I'm going to have to keep looking for a less expensive shooter...

[M29since14]

It may not matter to you but the gun might have been refinished at S&W. Did you have a chance to look? If it has the R-S mark and a date, I would give that some weight concerning the value of a shooter grade piece. JMHO, of course.

[Jack Flash]

Originally Posted by BC38

All true. But a set of period correct stocks in good enough condition to match the overall appearance of the gun would be, what, another $100?
To me, $700 for a correct looking, but obviously refinished shooter seems a little steep. I'm thinking I'm going to have to keep looking for a less expensive shooter...

It sounds like you have thought about it carefully and want to keep looking. It's a good idea to be sure you are satisfied with the deal before you buy. If you know what you want, don't buy something else.

Someone out there will pay him the $600, since that is not a bad deal for this gun.

[old bear]

I'm still debating whether I should buy it as a very nice looking shooter for $600

In a Word, BUY it. I'd love to have a M-27, that I did not have to worry about shooting.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by M29since14

It may not matter to you but the gun might have been refinished at S&W. Did you have a chance to look? If it has the R-S mark and a date, I would give that some weight concerning the value of a shooter grade piece. JMHO, of course.

You think just like me. Being a factory refinish would make at least a little difference to me - hence my comment from post 27 above...

The color, polish, and finish all look very good, and it was obviously professionally done. The trigger and hammer do indeed look right for the vintage of the gun, so whoever did the reblue obviously knew enough to fully disassemble it and knew which parts not to refinish. I even pulled the grips in hopes of finding factory rework markings and date. No such luck, so it isn't even a factory refinish. Just a very nicely done refinish.

[M29since14]

Oh, sorry I missed that!

Remember that not all factory refinishes got marked.
I have seen a few that didn't.

[k22fan]

Although I'd give those Pachmyrs away, In my house "shooters" are not required to wear the type of stocks S&W installed on them. Many wear less expensive but more ergonomic after market stocks.

[Lee's Landing Billy]

If you ABSOLUTELY decide you don't want it..Please put him in touch with me!!! I'll take it!!

[Buford57]

Originally Posted by SaxonPig

I know it's 8 and not 8, but 8 is much faster and easier to type than 8 so I say 8 rather than 8. I never bother to type out 8 all the way. I just type 8 and let it go at that. I figure people will know that when I say 8 I actually mean 8.

S&W could have saved us all a lot of trouble if they had just made the damn thing 8" instead of 8".

Must be something you 8.