To me, it's basically a question of "feel." The differences have been well-defined by other posters. Do you like muzzle-heavy or weight over your hand? Have owned both, only have the 27 now (-2 5"). Next S&W will be a 3 1/2 or 4" 27.
Model 27 vs. 686/586
- Thread starter aterry33
- Start date
In spite of the larger and somewhwat heavier N frame I would still probably choose it over the L frame. I had a Model 28 with 4" bbl and currently own a 586 with a 6" bbl and while I like the longer sight radius and red ramp on the 586 the 28 was my favorite carry gun. Guess that's why the ex-wife took it when she left.
Texas Star
US Veteran
One thing that you guys are missing is that the very heavy cylinder in a Model 27/28 goes out- of - time sooner than the lighter L-frame cylinder.
And most recent (post-1975) N-frames have the wide target hammer and trigger, which I dislike on those guns. Those don't bother me as much on the M-629 as on N-frame .357's. I guess the heavier barrel helps to offset the "too much" effect on the .357's. And I seldom fire a .44 Magnum DA...
The four-inch L frames don't seem to me to be as well balanced as is the Ruger GP-100 in four-inch. I don't go for full lug barrels in six-inch, although I have owned two Pythons in that length.
The M-19/66 with six-inch barrel is a fine trail gun that has six-inch ballistics and is lighter to wear than N-frame guns.
(Ditto for the Ruger Security-Six in six-inch form.)
All of that being said, I have a weakness for M-27's with five and six-inch barrels from the 1950's and '60's. I just don't especially like wearing one all day. And those on a tight budget won't enjoy paying to have them re-timed sooner than other models.
While we're at it, some say that the Colt Python is more accurate than is the M-27. Having owned both, I couldn't detect it. Maybe I just can't shoot well enough to see it. If I get all six bullet holes cutting into one another from offhand standing at 25 yards, that's probably as well as I can shoot.
It's certainly accurate enough to hit a snake in the head at any range at which it'd be dangerous to me.
Oh: The Python goes out-of-time even sooner than an N-frame Smith.
I hope that this rambling speech did someone vacillating about choosing a .357 some good.
And most recent (post-1975) N-frames have the wide target hammer and trigger, which I dislike on those guns. Those don't bother me as much on the M-629 as on N-frame .357's. I guess the heavier barrel helps to offset the "too much" effect on the .357's. And I seldom fire a .44 Magnum DA...
The four-inch L frames don't seem to me to be as well balanced as is the Ruger GP-100 in four-inch. I don't go for full lug barrels in six-inch, although I have owned two Pythons in that length.
The M-19/66 with six-inch barrel is a fine trail gun that has six-inch ballistics and is lighter to wear than N-frame guns.
(Ditto for the Ruger Security-Six in six-inch form.)
All of that being said, I have a weakness for M-27's with five and six-inch barrels from the 1950's and '60's. I just don't especially like wearing one all day. And those on a tight budget won't enjoy paying to have them re-timed sooner than other models.
While we're at it, some say that the Colt Python is more accurate than is the M-27. Having owned both, I couldn't detect it. Maybe I just can't shoot well enough to see it. If I get all six bullet holes cutting into one another from offhand standing at 25 yards, that's probably as well as I can shoot.
It's certainly accurate enough to hit a snake in the head at any range at which it'd be dangerous to me.
Oh: The Python goes out-of-time even sooner than an N-frame Smith.
I hope that this rambling speech did someone vacillating about choosing a .357 some good.
David LaPell
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 5,541
- Reaction score
- 6,781
After having had both, I like the Model 27 because I have larger hands, and the N frames just fit me better. Not that I would pass up a 686 though.
Texas Star, I enjoyed your analysis. Couldn't agree with you more about the wide trigger on a 4" or less Model 27.
For me, in the 80's when I began quenching my thirst for firearms, I primarily shot K frames & collected N frames. So when I got my first L-frame in the 90's I loved it! A 4" 686 w/ a butter-smooth double action & light, crisp single action that dated to 1983 or so. No dash & no M. I sold it and would love to have it back. I think my next shooter will be a 586 in four inch barrel (not that I'm hurting for shooters). Right now the only L-frame I have is a snubby 686 from circa 1991.
The N-frames are great, but I don't think they handle as well as the L-frame, but like I said, I already had lots of practice with the K-frame that shares the same grip. I think it's a personal choice and you can't go wrong as long as you go with the one you handle with greatest ease.
For me, in the 80's when I began quenching my thirst for firearms, I primarily shot K frames & collected N frames. So when I got my first L-frame in the 90's I loved it! A 4" 686 w/ a butter-smooth double action & light, crisp single action that dated to 1983 or so. No dash & no M. I sold it and would love to have it back. I think my next shooter will be a 586 in four inch barrel (not that I'm hurting for shooters). Right now the only L-frame I have is a snubby 686 from circa 1991.
The N-frames are great, but I don't think they handle as well as the L-frame, but like I said, I already had lots of practice with the K-frame that shares the same grip. I think it's a personal choice and you can't go wrong as long as you go with the one you handle with greatest ease.
Last edited:
Marshall 357
Member
Wht do N-frames go out of time faster?
I love them both, but shoot the 686 much more than the Pre-27 as the value of the Pre-27 has gotten so high I don't want to hurt it. The 686 doesn't show holster wear.
Whew!!! Talk about a "love fest" for the Mod. 27, especially the 5". It's my favorite frame and barrel length, too... but in all the calibers...
I also have early 686's and found them to be a needed updating to the "K" frame .357's.
Improving the frame size while keeping the grip size interchangeable with "K" frame revolvers made them more durable as well as be able fit more hands comfortably. It was a fine addition to the S&W line-up and deserves the huge following it has earned...
I just wish they hadn't decided to go with the full under-lug and had left the design of the 5/686's to be more consistent with the traditional half under-lug. But that's just me.....
I love them both! But the 27-2 5", like so many others, is my all-time favorite...
I also have early 686's and found them to be a needed updating to the "K" frame .357's.
Improving the frame size while keeping the grip size interchangeable with "K" frame revolvers made them more durable as well as be able fit more hands comfortably. It was a fine addition to the S&W line-up and deserves the huge following it has earned...
I just wish they hadn't decided to go with the full under-lug and had left the design of the 5/686's to be more consistent with the traditional half under-lug. But that's just me.....
I love them both! But the 27-2 5", like so many others, is my all-time favorite...
SLT223
Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 3,513
- Reaction score
- 5,533
IMO, you will never beat the handling characteristics of a 5" Model 27. I have two 686 4" guns, and two 27-2 5" pieces. I much prefer the 5" N frame. The full lug of the 686/586 makes for a goofy balance in my opinion. I never had that opinion until I started playing with N frame .357's. And yes, the 27 is a classier gun.
bwickens
Member
Couldn't get to the range today, so my comparison was limited to a "handling test".
Guns: 6" 27, 4" 28, 4" 686 all wearing Miculeks so that grip size and shape would not be a factor.
I didn't have a scale on hand but the weight of the 27 and the 686 felt about the same with the 28, of course, feeling lighter.
The biggest differences came down to balance. The 6" 27, to me, seemed to have the best balance feeling as if it sat more "in your hand" while the 686, although weighing about the same, was more muzzle heavy. The 4" 28, with more weight in the cylinder than in the barrel, felt "lively" by comparison.
Guns: 6" 27, 4" 28, 4" 686 all wearing Miculeks so that grip size and shape would not be a factor.
I didn't have a scale on hand but the weight of the 27 and the 686 felt about the same with the 28, of course, feeling lighter.
The biggest differences came down to balance. The 6" 27, to me, seemed to have the best balance feeling as if it sat more "in your hand" while the 686, although weighing about the same, was more muzzle heavy. The 4" 28, with more weight in the cylinder than in the barrel, felt "lively" by comparison.
Similar threads
- Locked
