New Model 27 Classic

J

jumbeaux

US Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
150
Reaction score
64
Location
East Texas
Looking around today on the Smith & Wesson Website and took notice of the Classic version of the Model 27. Glanced at Gun Broker at availability & pricing. Pricing seems to be lower than for a S & W Model 28. How does the Classic stack up against the 27s from the '80s ?

Thank you !

rick
 
Register to hide this ad
Not having ever had one in my hand, I cannot really make the comparison. However, to me, they are not as appealing. The finish is not as nice, they have a hole in the side, and Altamont grips. As for the M28, it is a 27, with a different finish, appointments and options, which I would take over a new M27.

Just my .02
 
Well made “Classics”

Throughout the years since the “Classics”
introduction, every one that I have looked
at and inspected, fit and finish have been
very well done.

Currently a Local Gun Shop has the S&W
Mdl 57 (41 Remington Magnum) “Classic”
for $1000. I have been thinking about
buying it.

I think it hasn’t sold, because the 41Mag
is a unique cartridge, ammo is expensive,
and it’s something you’ll have to reload
for.

Also DO NOT use an Ammonia based gun
cleaning solvent. The blued finish is different
than the Old Bluing process.

The Best to you and your Endeavors.
 
Model 27's made up to about 1980 were Carbonia blued, which is a deep blue. Model 27's made from about 1980 to around 2000 were black oxide blued, which is a deep black blue. Model 27's made from 2000 to present have a finish that is black and thinner than than the previous black oxide blue and also does not fair well with solvents that contain ammonia.
 
I have had my 4" 27 Classic for 12 years now.

It one of the best nickel jobs I have seen come out of the Factory. I need to pull it out and get some images of it

The CNC machining keeps tolerances much better than the old method of fabricating and the revolvers accuracy shows this

Yes, I hate the fact that there is a lock on it, I think they are ugly. But I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. There are lots of post Saf-T-Hammer revolvers that have been introduced over the past two decades that simply did not exist prior to Smith & Wesson being rescued from being owned by the British company Tompkins

I also have the 75th anniversary 357 Magnum that I bought in 2011, It to is a very well manufactured firearm though I have not fired this one

27-75s.jpg


The checkering on the top-strap is nowhere near as nice looking as on the older guns, but it does still accomplish the same goal of breaking up reflections.
 
I bought this 27-9 last October. Poor pictures but it also could use a good cleaning. I threw in one with it wearing white stocks, but I like the dark brown better. I have a Barranti holster & belt ordered. Heck, Barranti has a Pittsburgh address so I gotta represent!
Edit to add: This gun is very accurate with 357 magnums in it, at 25 yards, but shoots lower with 38 specials. Those 7-10 yard ranges are only good for CCW practice.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0010.jpg
    IMG_0010.jpg
    106.1 KB · Views: 59
  • IMG_0007.jpg
    IMG_0007.jpg
    112.9 KB · Views: 63
  • IMG_0225.jpg
    IMG_0225.jpg
    149.1 KB · Views: 58
Last edited:
My 27-9 isn’t finished as nicely as older model 27s but it is a nice revolver, even with the lock. I did swap out the stocks for an older pair of targets.

Pictured with and below my model 28-2s.
 

Attachments

  • DFD5C516-B727-43B3-93D4-D0DDB3BDF179.jpg
    DFD5C516-B727-43B3-93D4-D0DDB3BDF179.jpg
    93.8 KB · Views: 69
Last edited:
My ~2012ish Model 27 has poorer fit than my old 29-2, but the blueing is tougher than nails, and looks quite good in my opinion. I carry that revolver every day, and even with holster wear, it holds up very well.

My complaints was the stiffer and rougher feel of the trigger, and the terrible Altamont grips that I nearly threw into the wood burner I hate them so much.
 
The Classic is a pretty gun that’s well made, but the post 2000 changes and lackluster attempt at checkering the top strap doesn’t work for me. Make my 27 a dash 2 or earlier. The only exception is the 627-0. It has the traditionally checkered top strap and old school rear sight tang.
 
Last edited:
S-W4EVER said:
My old 27-2 is much nicer than my 27-10 Classic. For one thing, the checkering on the top strap and barrel looks better on the older revolver.
Click to expand...
The checkering on older Model 27's really did look more like checkering. On the 27 Classic, it looks more like shallow knurling.
 
CH4 said:
The Classic is a pretty gun that’s well made, but the post 2000 changes and lackluster attempt at checkering the top strap doesn’t work for me. Make my 27 a dash 2 or earlier. The only exception is the 627-0. It has the traditionally checkered top strap and old school rear sight tang.
Click to expand...

The differences between the two remind me of the difference between cut checkering and that “pressed” checkering on the older Remington 870 wood stock & fore-end. There is no substitute for the real thing.
 
colt_saa said:
The CNC machining keeps tolerances much better than the old method of fabricating and the revolvers accuracy shows this
Click to expand...

CNC machining still has tolerance ranges, there is no substitute for hand fitting of moving parts. You can get a nice and tight CNC gun, as long as the different parts' tolerances match each other. But, if one part is at the "wide" side of the range and the part it fits to is in the "narrow" part of its range, it can either fit too tightly or too loosely. S&W has supplanted much of its hand fitting with the theory that CNC parts will all be identical and fit together appropriately. Sometimes they don't. A hand-fitted part is incrementally changed until the part it mates with fits perfectly in the experienced hand of a master smith. There may have been some mis-fitting guns from the "old days", but I think they were fewer and further between.

Almost every change that has been made to a S&W revolver since 1980 has been done to make it less expensive to produce, and not to make it better.
 
Last edited:
My concerns were purely aesthetics. I have no complaints about the functioning on the few newer S&W revolvers I own. I bought my 442-2 Centennial Airweight about a dozen years ago and I still carry it every time I leave the house. One of the few revolvers I’ve not had any desire to change anything on, it’s perfection for me.
 
I’ve had very good luck with my 27-9, purchased new in 2012. I keep a log of my shooting and at the time of these photos, I had 13k rounds downrange through this revolver. I’m now north of 14k rounds (25% magnums) and all is well.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0006.jpg
    IMG_0006.jpg
    86.5 KB · Views: 48
  • IMG_1732.jpg
    IMG_1732.jpg
    91.4 KB · Views: 51
MSD2343 said:
I’ve had very good luck with my 27-9, purchased new in 2012. I keep a log of my shooting and at the time of these photos, I had 13k rounds downrange through this revolver. I’m now north of 14k rounds (25% magnums) and all is well.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to why S&W has restored the top side plate screw to these guns like the M27-9 you show. Is it only for looks, to make it appear like the 5-screw revolvers that mostly went away in the mid to late 1950's? Do these revolvers also have a screw in front of the trigger guard? I've not seen one that I could handle and examine. Side plates were modified with a tiny tab so that screw could be eliminated, a cost-saving feature, then the frames were changed so the screw in front of the trigger guard were not necessary to contain the cylinder stop spring, another cost saving change (5 screw-to 4 screw-to 3 screw changes). I always liked the appearance of those screws, glad to see them back, or at least one of them, but I have to question why it's back, since it seems a more expensive feature to reproduce. That M27-9 looks really nice.
 
No screw in the front of the trigger guard of my 27-9. Interesting question about the additional sideplate screw.
 
Well my take on early 27s is that:

1. The blueing is a richer color. The new blueing reminds me of the black finish…not into the metal but adhered to the surface.
2. The checkering on my 27-2 is impeccable. It reminds me of the front strap of my Les Baer Premier.
3. The stocks on my 27-2 are unlike any of the modern stocks I have seen. Crisp checkering, highly figured wood and a heavy durable finish.
4. The trigger is just plain better. I can get my 629-6 trigger to the same single action pull of 3 pounds but at the sacrifice of having a mushy trigger return. The current model’s single action pull of the newer guns I have tested range from 4 lbs (on Performance center guns) to the mid 5 lb range. You can get new springs but lowering the return spring gives me a mushy return and a soft springy over travel.

All that said the new 27 classics are still wonderful guns and really set the bar for modern revolvers.

My 27-2 6”
173698040.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
27-9 Classic
Replies
0
Views
229
Walkin Horse
W
R
27-9 Classic flame cutting, etc.
Replies
9
Views
686
Shoebox1.1
S
H
Full Underlug Model 29 Classic
Replies
8
Views
250
Pizza Bob
Pizza Bob
T
Model 29-5 classic
Replies
8
Views
551
stansdds
S
S
New 27-9 range trip
Replies
4
Views
419
MSD2343
M

Latest posts

Back
Top