.
BTW- I have just under a grand invested in all three. Paid $350 for the blue 27-2, $275 for the blue pre-27, and $350 for the nickel pre-27.
Of course, we all stand by our own preferences.Rick A-
Given the fact that I have degrees in art and in art history, and have studied design and composition, I would argue that my opinions on aesthetics are EXPERT opinions. I say that the target stocks on a 3.5" N frame are unbalanced, are too big for the rest of the gun, and that's my EXPERT opinion. Of course you or anyone else can offer your opinion in disagreement. But I will stand by my EXPERT opinion.
Guy's if you really want an M-27 3 1/2" get one now, they keep going up in price. By waiting three (3) years it cost me and extra $600.00 to finally get my 3 1/2".
Fat Tom- It's not ego if it's true...it's not bragging if you can do it.
Is "egotist" even a word?
Looking at what they go for and as big as CCW mania is these days I do not know why they don't bring back the 3.5" model and maybe even offer it in the eight shot version as well. They did the 4" model a few years back in the eight shot version but I guess they didn't sell that well. I bet the 3.5" would sell better.
I had watched that one as well. It was up for some time. The cylinder ratchet on those 8's just look so delicate. It may just be a mental hang up, but I have seen one "tweeked" inexplicably. The top straps on those appear to be laser etched instead of checkered which is a bit tacky. The bluing isn't as nice as older guns, either. The hole I can live with.Lew Horton sold a "Registered Magnum" Model 27 from the Performance Center in a 3 1/2 barrel that was a 8 shot revolver. There was a nickel one on GB while back, that was a reasonable BIN ($1500.??) Didn't sell, probably more like me, just couldn't get past that Hillery hole.![]()
Rick A-
Given the fact that I have degrees in art and in art history, and have studied design and composition, I would argue that my opinions on aesthetics are EXPERT opinions.