Help me decide: New Model 27 vs Old Model 27-2 vs 686 6" S&W

[rpf717]

Hi, Thanks in advance for any help/advice.

I'm a longtime autoloader shooter, but the revolver bug has bitten, and I'd like to pickup my first model. I'm active military and was looking at the S&W models due to their 40% off MSRP through the end of 2009 (which seems to still be a bit lower than street prices).

I had handled a 686 several time at my local Cabelas' and really liked the balance, fit and finish, etc. Looking at the S&W website I came across the Model 27 in nickel and Wow, I really like the looks of that pistol. I started to think I should get that instead. But then I did some searches here at THR about the 27 and it seems like alot of folks recommended trying to find a nice "old" Model 27-2 instead.

I'm looking for the following in a 6" model and have narrowed it down to the three in the title.

With the 40% off MSRP the prices would be:
686 (6 shot) =$545
686 (7 shot) =$559
New Production "Classic" Model 27 in nickel = $711
New Production "Classic" Model 27 blued = $678
A Like new true Classic 27-2 seem to be about $750 ish?

From my searches on here, the theme seemed to be that the Older production guns were higher quality. Is there objective data behind that sentiment or just the collective experience or opinions of folks?

Even if quality of the new models is a bit lower, I'd have the lifetime warranty if anything happens, right? So why not get the new?

Aesthetically I like the looks of the Model 27 in nickel the best. Will this hold up as well as a 686?

Again thanks for helping this newbie who's excited to get into the world of revovlers!

 

[RHINOWSO]

I can't speak about which model to get, but I recently returned to S&W revolver ownership - I previously had a 686 4-inch for about 12 years but sold it last year to fund another project. It was a great gun, but I didn't shoot it much at the time.

Recently I decided that I wanted a 357 S&W again, but something more 'classic', like a Model 19 or 66. In the end I found a pretty good deal on a used Model 66 and could be happier. It was $350 plus tax. So I got a great gun for far less than a 'new' revolver.

So I'd suggest you look around for a used one - depending on where you are, you'll probably be able to find a used 686 or 29 for a good deal less than a new gun.

- Rhino

 

[tbury]

It depends on your intended use for the gun. All of the new guns will have the "dreaded" internal lock which many here do not like to the point of removing it or not buying guns which have it. The 686 has an edge on durability (stainless steel vs blue or nickel). The 27-2 and classic have the handling of the half lug style barrel. I have not handled the new classics but I do have a couple of pre-27s and a 27-2 and they are fine guns. If I was going for a heavy use gun to shoot and carry hunting etc I would probably go for the 686. For enjoyment of fine style and beauty as well as fine shooting the 27s new or old. I have two guns with the IL and it does not bother me. I also have a 686 pre-lock and it is a fine shooting gun as well. The 27-2 has collector value depending on condition and date of manufacture. It remains to be seen whether the new "Classics" will have any collector value in the future. JMHO

 

[roaddog28]

Welcome and great question. If you are going to shoot mainly 357s go with the 686, 27 or for the plain Jane version of the 27 this would be the 28 highway patrol version. Shoots as well as a 27 but has the matt finish and is less pretty. Very good revolver for shooting 357s. But if your not going to shoot 357s that much find a model 19/66. In my opinion still the best handling revolver Smith & Wesson ever made.
I have all of the above revolvers. Again shooting 357s, 686, 27 or 28. For occasional 357s and mostly 38 specials 19/66.

Good luck with your hunt,
roaddog28

 

[rpf717]

Use will primarily be at the range. It definitely won't be used for carry or hunting. I hear lots of complaints about the internal lock, but I honestly don't know why I would care? I imagine due to cost, I would mostly shoot 38 special, but would definitely like the option to shoot .357.

 

[stevieboy]

Interesting question. I own a 686-6 (their latest version, made in 2006) and an older 27-3, made in 1988. They're both outstanding guns and I like them about equally well. The 27 is certainly a lot prettier than the 686 but they shoot equally well in my opinion.

New "Classic" vs. older 27? I came within a whisker of ordering a Classic 27 and would have except that I got a great deal on my 27-3. If you're bothered by the lock or by other manufacturing innovations, then the Classic isn't the gun for you. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less about the lock or the other stuff that so many rant about on this forum. As I've said, I would have purchased the Classic 27 but for the opportunity to buy the 27-3 that presented itself at the last minute. The Classic is indeed a beautiful gun.

Fyi, there was an article in Shooting Times in May, 2009, that did a side-by-side comparison of the older 27 with the Classic model, pointing out all of the (in my opinion, minor) differences in manufacturing, style, etc. Interestingly, the newer version outshot the older one in accuracy tests, although not by very much.

 

[Gunhacker]

tbury has pretty much nailed it... but while I don't go out of my way to avoid the internal lock guns, I don't eagerly seek them out either due to my experience with the one and only internal lock revolver I have, a 432PD.

For an everyday no nonsense, do it all .357 magnum revovler, the 686 L-Frame is hard to beat. I have both the 4 & 6 inch barrel versions and love them both.

Stay away from nickel plated revovlers, they have added maintenance considerations, such as the type of gun clearner used, because they can become discolored. Stainless is far superior.

You asked about the difference in quality between the old versus new revolvers. The measurement of quality can be applied against many things... materials, workmanship, design, fit and finish and each era of s&W's has it's advantages and disadvantges which fuels the debate.

Meturlurgy and machining technology is much different than before, so we now see revovlers utilizing titanium and scandium. CNC machining makes for better tolerances and part fitment... needing minimal or no hand fitting of parts during assembly.

According to Jerry Miculek, you can take a cylinder from one CNC gun and put in another of the same model and it will work fine, unlike the earlier revovlers where re-fitting would usually be needed.

But compare the feel of an action of a vintage S&W revovler with a newer one and, well there's just no comparison. The buttery smooth actions on the older guns were a result of the amount of hand fitting of parts done during the assembly.

So which is better? The ability to readly swap parts due to the CNC machining holding precise tolerances or the kick ass smmooth and crisp actions of the older revolvers?

The bluing on older revolvers has a deeper and richer look , but less durable, than the newer guns... which is better, great looks or durability? It depends on what place more priority on.

For what it's worth, my vote for a first revolver would be the 686.

 

[Marshall 357]

The 27s and 686s are both great guns. I think it would be a matter of which one fits you best. I would buy one without the lock. Good luck!

 

[rpf717]

Stay away from nickel plated revovlers, they have added maintenance considerations, such as the type of gun clearner used, because they can become discolored. Stainless is far superior.

Really? Do they wear much worse than stainless? I definitely don't won't something that I would need to baby. Would this be the case with nickel?

 

[Nightowl]

The 686 is a fine gun in any iteration. The model 27, 627 line is also great. The size and balance is different, so it is just a matter of what feels best. Don't overlook the Performance Center 627's either. They are really fine, even with the lock.

 

[Sportsterguy]

Really? Do they wear much worse than stainless? I definitely don't won't something that I would need to baby. Would this be the case with nickel?

I borrowed this info from Accurate Plating and Weaponry concerning nickel finishes. I have 3 nickel plated Smiths and their finishes have held up very well over the years but I do not shoot them as often as my other Smiths as they are rather rare models. They will show wear over time but not as badly as a blued gun IMO. Extra care is a must in maintaining them.

A gun that shows wear has character IMO. The fun you have shooting and carrying it will bring back a lifetime of good images as you grow older.

"Nickel Plating, has been extensively used in the firearm's industry for close to 100 years. Nickel finishes have a slight yellow cast to them and this coloring gives Nickel a softer appearance when applied to firearms. The only time we recommend Nickel over a Chrome Finish is to do restoration on older firearms, or when a firearm is so heavily pitted from neglect that full flaw removal would create a dangerous firearm.

Matte Nickel Finishes do not show flaws like Chrome does because of softer coloring. Also, Nickel Plating solutions have chemicals in them that enhances the ability of the plating to fill in and fully cover the flaws that cannot be removed. Nickel Plated Finishes, in general, run about a 45 R.C. This is as hard as most of the parts in firearms manufacturing, but way off of the standard Hard Chrome at 65 R.C. Also, Nickel can tarnish, or stain like silver. Even some cleaning solvents can damage Nickel Finishes. Chrome, on the other hand, will not change its appearance unless attached by certain strong acids, or bases. Also, Nickel is more prone to show wear due to the lower hardness of the deposit, similar to Stainless Steel Firearms. Nickel and Chrome Finishes cost the same at AP&W. So unless there is special reason to choose Nickel, Chrome would be the better choice. Salt spray ratings are about the same…100+ hours"

Stainless is the way to go for a handgun thats going to see lots of use IMO. Low maintenance and very rust resistant. You can polish a stainless that will come close to a nickel appearance with a few hours of free time and some "Mothers" polishing compound if you like the shiney look.

Here is my 66-2 that took me about 4 hours to polish up with Mothers.

The 686 is one of the best handguns out there bar none. They are a "do it all" revolver. I like 3 and 4" Smiths myself and a good 4" 686 will last you a lifetime and shoots like a 6" barreled gun. You can purchase a great used one pre-lock cheaper than a new model and that would be my recommendation.

Happy shopping! Let us know what you finally settle on. Whatever model you choose shoot it! Safe Queens get lonely!

 

[Poohgyrr]

I think I've liked every S&W .357 that I've ever seen. A good used one can be sweet. My lock equipped .357 has been problem free, but others have had trouble. For a range only gun, I'd prefer the N frame. The J, K, and L frames all have their strong points.

 

[fyimo]

If it was me and even if you have no collecting interest I would get a 27-2 as they are a classic S&W that was made in an era when quality really mattered and these guns will never be duplicated again. They are the best of the best from the 60's on and the Model 27 with the checkered steel top strap is just beautiful and the best looking S&W revolver.

I'm also not a fan of the newer guns with MIM parts and I'm dead against the internal lock on all levels.

 

[snowman]

As you can see, there are a number of considerations here(isn't that the way it usually is?) which tend to balance each other out. Many folks here would simply tell you to get one of each, but since money is obviously an issue for you, that will be out of the question...right now. But what about the future? Might the right way to approach it be to get one now, and begin saving to buy at least one of the others later on?

Well, that wasn't part of your question, but may be something to consider. Let me toss a couple of other considerations into the pot. First, if you shoot .38s in a .357 but want to shoot .357s occasionally, there will be an open area in each chamber between the shoulder and the mouths of the .38 cases which you MUST clean diligently, probably after every range use. Residues from firing will build up in this area and are a real bear to get out if they are left there for long. If this cleaning is neglected, .357s may not chamber, and if they do, they will be very difficult to extract after firing. I don't want make this sound worse than it is -a lot of folks use magnum guns to shoot .38s, but you can be sure that these people are diligent in their cleaning regimen. I only use .357s and so don't have this issue to deal with. That is good, because I dislike cleaning guns and sometimes don't get it done as often as I should.

Second, if you plan to do a lot of rapid double-action fire, it is a definite possibility that an older 27(don't know about the new ones -the steel in them might be harder) will develop enough wear to the ratchet to put the gun out of time. Some will say that that would happen to any gun; what I'm suggesting is that this would happen to the 27 sooner than others. The reason is that the N-frame cylinder is more massive than those of the smaller frame guns, increasing its inertia and therefore the friction/pressure between the hand and the ratchet during double-action fire. Again, I don't want to make this phenomenon sound more extreme than it is. But some of our older members have experienced it and a few have written about it in the past on this forum. I mention it merely because you are used to using semi-autos, which tells me that you historically are used to rapid-fire shooting.

All that aside, it largely comes down to how important aesthetic considerations are to you. Most folks around here think the 27 is a beautiful gun, and you seem to feel that way too. If that is worth the extra cost to you, go for it. I don't like the looks of the 27 myself, and so have never wanted one. I own three 686s, and they look fine to me.

Well, my opinions are only my opinions. Welcome to the world of revolvers.

One other thing: since you are cost-conscious, I highly recommend loading your own ammunition. I wouldn't be able to afford shooting if I didn't reload.

Andy

 

[4inch357]

This is a matter of personal preference but I don't care for the balance of the full underlug guns - particularily in 6" or beyond. This is an easy one for me; I'd get the 27-2, the lock just ruins the look of the gun to me.

 

[epj]

To add another option, consider the 627 Pro Series. Same ballpark price as the 27-2. The Ahrends grips and FO front sight have been added by me.

Courtsey of Bullseye Smith, it has no internal lock.

 

[Snapping Twig]

The 686 has a lower bore axis and a longer cylinder than the N frame. This means you can reload larger bullets further out of the case. Take the Lyman 358429 170g SWC, it can be crimped in the crimping groove and cycled through the 686, it would be too long for the 27.

That said, the 27-2 is the better gun IMO - hands down.

Compare the top strap on the 27-2 to the new version - case closed!

That's just a single issue of comparison but a highly informational example. Hand checkered top strap vs. poorly etched laser checkering.

Add to this the tapered barrel and you have a clear choice for the 27-2.

I've owned several 586/686 in various barrel lengths and IMO the 6" barrel balances wrong, just too damn muzzle heavy.

I would buy the 27-2 and never look back.

 

[lougotzzz]

I have a 586 with 6 inch BBL and yes it does seem to heavy at the muzzle. It is not a break or make issue with me. The gun is great.

I also have a 27-2 which I just got. i sold one years ago and regretted it ever since. now that it is replaced I am a happy camper. This gun balances better with the 6 inch BBL.

Either of these 2 guns will do you just fine.

I hate the hillary hole!!!!!

 

[buckeyeshooter1]

Really? Do they wear much worse than stainless? I definitely don't won't something that I would need to baby. Would this be the case with nickel?

I take issue with this!! Nickel does not need to be babied and although it can be effected by some cleaners or abuse. It is a much better finish than blue for wear and at least in my eye, much prettier than either blue or stainless. I have a 27 in nickel made in the early 70's that has been carried and shot regularly and it still looks wonderful. I frankly only own a 629 and 629-1 in stainless and they are neither loved, shot or admired because stainless has no soul--- unlike nickel or blue.

 

[campfire]

I have had the Model 27-9 Classic with the 61/2" barrel for about a year now.
The gun has had a red ramp front sight fitted and a very mild trigger job. After about two thousand rounds I can say there isnt anything wrong with this gun.
It is as accurate as I am capable of shooting and I dont have any intentions of ever getting rid of it.
The lock doesn't bother me one bit because I dont use it, matter of fact I dont even think about it.
I would say go ahead and buy one, you wont be sorry.
Campfire