Model 27 old versus new question

[jazzman452]

Wow Ken, I think that is a great price, but I will defer to the experts. I did find a 27 no dash 4 screw in the box but is would be too pretty to shoot and was priced a little more than 1k.

Jim

 

[sw282]

si----------

 

[Aircrewman]

Ken,
RUN and DO NOT WALK and get that 3 1/2" M 27. Great price, especially if it is in "new" condition.

and for my $.02 in this discussion of the model 27.... Ia 1727 has made an important point. Really, the models are different animals. While the frames may be the same and the other trappings are similar, since the many number of changes over the years there has been a noticeable shift in the type of models that are now being produced as opposed to the ones from the past.

Engineering changes not-with-standing, the new models are only mere shells of the past models. Think about the models for a moment... the model 27 from the inception of the model, in 1935, changed very little from the mid thirties to the war. After the war, while it did change some, it was still readily identifiable in its parentage. The short throw of the hammer and the other improved manufacturing methods did not appreciably change the gun. The barrels and cylinders still looked like a model 27 and the frames did too. There was still a large amount of handwork in the guns. Other parts were very similar and the evolution was small. The dashes just show the improvements, good or bad, but the guns were very close. Now the "new" models are very dis-simliar, especially after the internal lock. Manufacturing methods do change and most times for the better. BUT, the guns are really different. I bought a 627-5 because I wanted a classy looking revolver and I do think that the five inch models with the triangular lug is neat, but I do not equate it with my model 27-2 with its six inch bbl. I just can't because I do not believe they are the same gun really.

They are similar in name only. The 627 does not have checkering atop the frame and barrel as the Classic new models do and that is what I am meaning and Ia 1727 means also, at least I think that is what he is getting at. Different animals because of the manufacturing methods and, also, due in some great part, because of the American manufacturing methods which have decided that cost will drive almost everything done in the U.S. today. Craftsmanship is not an important part of American manufacturing methods as it once was. So, we must expect that things will change, somewhat drastically and we will never find that craftsmanship will trump price or modern production ways again.

 

[FirebirdV8]

In addition to what everybody else has said, look how much more you have to pay to get a "classic" Mod 27 vs and older 27-2. $1000 will get you a very nice older 27, instead of $1000 getting a perfectly serviceable, but not collectable gun that will not increase in value. While I am not a fan of the lock, the main reason I don't buy newer S&W revolvers is the price of the newer models vs the price of a nice real model 27-2 that will last longer than I will, all the while looking 10 times better than any of the "classic" line revolvers.

 

[i8mtm]

I bought a used 327 performance gun (8-shot snub). The trigger is excellent, but the barrel cylinder gap was excessive and it spit lead. I returned it to S&W and they fit a NEW titanium cylinder, and the gap was set really low. This was all done free of charge and I am happy with the gun now (after I de-locked it of course!).

Did the former owner mess with the gun and screw up the cylinder gap, or did it leave the factory that way? I don't know.

I have an original (no-lock) "bloodwork" performance center gun in .44 magnum, I bought "new in the box" from someone who never shot it. Trigger is very nice. However, the front dovetailed sight was OBVIOUSLY not true. This bugged the heck out of me. When I went to the range, I verified this by having to crank the rear sight over to shoot to point of aim.

Sure, I could have adjusted this myself, but no way did I want to chance dinging the barrel. I sent it back to Smith and again they repaired it to my satisfaction no charge. Another performance center gun mind you!

Currently my 500ES "Survival Snubby" is back at Smith because the barrel shroud is massively over-torgued and the front sight is canted noticeably to the right when you view the gun from the business end. At $3-$4 a shot, I wondered why in the hell I couldn't zero the gun without cranking the rear sight ALL the way over.

Did S&W turn out some problem guns in years gone by? I am sure they did, but I think the "old-school" methods of manufacture caught more of them.

As someone posted earlier, if you have a CNC machine and you believe all you have to do is "set-it-and-forget-it" you probably don't take the time to measure and inspect pieces coming off the CNC machine the way they did with old fashioned lathes and milling machines.

90% of my Smith & Wesson collection are the older, pre-lock guns. I only buy new if it is a model that demands it, like the 500 Magnum. I then de-lockify them.

So, this is a long-winded answer to the original poster's question:

Hunt down a good-condition 27-2 and be glad you did~ You will have a usable piece of the gun-maker's art.

Regards,

~i8mtm

 

[DWFAN]

Pre 27 $400 OTD. Shoots like a rifle. Find one, you'll love it.
DW

 

[tom turner]

Those pinned barrel wonders have been calling my name the last few years and the Model 27s and their pinned variants are the best of the best.

To the fella who can get a 3 1/2" like new M27-2 for $550 . . . you better move fast, that's a screaming deal today if the gun checks out in all ways (including stocks and a non-bulged barrel, box and materials, etc.)

I paid a lot more for this one last December, from a good forum member here, and could not be happier with the gun I got for the money!

 

[Dave T]

Tom,

I've never been much for nickel plated revolvers but that is sure a nice looking 3.5". Nice looking photography too! All in all, very impressive.

Dave

 

[Poohgyrr]

The 3 1/2" N frame is a favorite.

The old ones are special, and the 8 shot PC Lew Horton's are the only way to get that combination of features from the factory. The 4" M27/28's are also sweet.

I wish I had about a dozen or so.

 

[CajunBass]

I'd want the older one, just because it's "older."

 

[stevieboy]

I've got some post-lock Smiths and several pre-lock Smiths. I'm a shooter, not a collector, and each one of my guns serves a specific purpose. I've yet to see any fall off in quality between the older models and the newer ones. One of my favorite handguns is my 625JM, a gun that commits all of the sins that some on this forum continually rail about. It's stainless, it isn't pinned, the chambers aren't recessed, it has MIM internals, it was built on CNC machines and it has a lock. The gun shoots like a laser and has the tightest lockup of any revolver I own. There's absolutely no fore-aft play in the cylinder.

I do have one bias when I buy guns, however, and that is that I prefer to buy used over new. I love hunting out older specimens that are well broken in, perform well, and are priced reasonably. For that reason, and that reason alone, I'd probably go for the 27-2 over the newer and much more expensive model. The substantial difference in price between what one would pay for a good used model and the new gun does not justify any qualitative edge that the newer gun might arguably have (if there's any edge at all).

My 27 is a 27-3 4" that I bought from an auction site a couple of years ago. I paid about $550 for the gun. It's admittedly not a classic example of the gun, having been made in 1988 years after Smith stopped pinning the barrels and recessing the chambers. Still, it's a wonder to behold, beautifully finished, and with the capacity to put shot after shot in the same hole.

Btw, not to rain on anyone's parade but there's an urban legend floating around out there that the checkered topstraps on the pre-27s and 27s were laboriously cut by hand by some craftsman at Smith. Last year I read an article somewhere about the registered magnum and the 27, and, based on an interview with someone at Smith, the article reported that the checkering was always etched by a machine and never by hand.

 

[Dave T]

Btw, not to rain on anyone's parade but there's an urban legend floating around out there that the checkered topstraps on the pre-27s and 27s were laboriously cut by hand by some craftsman at Smith. Last year I read an article somewhere about the registered magnum and the 27, and, based on an interview with someone at Smith, the article reported that the checkering was always etched by a machine and never by hand.

OK everybody, the troll who lived under the stairs and hand cut the top strap checkering for S&W never was. Sell all your 27s and buy 28s. And, those of you with Registered Magnums...well, I guess you can keep them for the history and nostalgia's sake.

Steve, I never heard or thought the top straps were hand cut. Just looking at them makes it pretty obvious they are machine cut. What exactly was the point of even posting that anyway?

Dave (wasn't in a parade so I didn't get rained on)