The Ultimate Model 27 Thread!

[younggun22]

Thank you...I've wanted a set of Ivory targets for a while. Right place, right time for these to join my collection.

Holy Moly! Thats a fantastic collection!

 

[Bullseye 2620]

 

[Bullseye 2620]

3.5" nickel pre 27, shipped to Evaluator's May 19, 1953 (still looking for a gold box)

6.5" nickel pre 27

IMO the two most beautiful box stock 27s ever made.

 

[CajunBass]

I should have added this one a while back.

27-2, 4" from about 1980.





It came with a presentation case that needed reflocking, with the cleaning rod, brush, etc.

 

[Blind Boy]

27-2

This is a 5", RR, W/O, with Keith Brown stocks. It's an S s/n, came new in box to me several years ago, plus exhibition display box and diamond target stocks. It isn't NIB any more.

 

[Bacon]

 

[BigBill]

I’m hooked on model 27-2 but mainly 6” in nickel.

 

[runscott]

My searches are total fails. What kind of front sights are these?

 

[muddocktor]

My searches are total fails. What kind of front sights are these?

That is a patridge sight, runscott.

 

[runscott]

That is a patridge sight, runscott.

Thanks so much. For some reason that's what I thought, but it's late and I'm trying to get the paperwork submitted to get a letter for this gun...so my brain has stopped working.

 

[Jraym12]

has this been re-blued?

I'm new to smith revolvers. Just bought this from gunbroker and the prices seem pretty high. I'm not sure if this 27-2 looks reblued or not.

 

[runscott]

I'm new to smith revolvers. Just bought this from gunbroker and the prices seem pretty high. I'm not sure if this 27-2 looks reblued or not.

Find some of Richard's very clear photos of the S&W logos on the right side of the frame. Compare those to yours. If it's been re-blued there's a good chance the details will be smoother and more washed out in yours. Also look for wear on the inside of the screw holes - original blueing will have very sharp edges to the holes.

I am very paranoid about re-bluing and re-nickling. I recently passed up on a legitimate nickle Model 19 because I thought it had been refinished. I lost a great deal and could have just asked for a clearer photo of the s&w logo. But another one is just around the corner. As cool as these guns are, there are still lots of them around in nice condition.

 

[rubiranch]

What's up with photobucket???



Here's my 27 no-dash.















And my unfired 27-7. The only pre-lock 8-shot .357. This is probably my favorite of all my guns.

I have not yet taken possession of my 3 1/2" Pre-27.

 

[daddio202]

Had to post a pic of my Pre-27. The S serial indicates a late 1954 or early 1955. I have some new old stock target grips being shipped to me now. I will need to get them on and post additional pictures when they come.

 

[runscott]

What a beauty! Mine is a 1955 and came with 1950s non-diamond targets. I picked up some 1956-ish service grips that look great but are too small. Now I'm waiting on a pair of age-appropriate targets - my girl insisted on diamonds.

How does it shoot?

 

[CH4]

My 27/627 family is still very small, but have plans to grow it; a 3.5” -2 or earlier is next on my list, but won’t turn away longer examples. To my mind the 27 is the flagship of Smith revolvers, particularly those with the waffle top.

 

[runscott]

My 27/627 family is still very small, but have plans to grow it; a 3.5” -2 or earlier is next on my list, but won’t turn away longer examples. To my mind the 27 is the flagship of Smith revolvers, particularly those with the waffle top.

I'm not seeing that they changed much from the 1930's registered magnum days.

Yesterday, after shooting the 686 and .357 magnum alternatingly, I had a hard time deciding if I liked one more than the other - the power of the .357 round itself kind of rattled my thinking ability while firing - but when I shot a cylinder of .38 special through each, I felt like the .357 was easier to handle and I expected to hit the bullseye with single-action. Perhaps the 686 trigger could be worked to be as good - it only has had about 300 rounds put through it.

When I got home, after cleaning them I compared the various features. The first thing that stood out was how much thicker the forcing cone is on the .357, yet the barrel is much thinner. Since the frame is bigger, the cylinder was of course bigger, making the chamber walls much thicker as well, given that the .357 hold 6 rounds and the smaller-cylinder 686+ holds 7. Another interesting point (to me) was the flat hammer on the 686 vs the pinned hammer on the .357. I'm sure there is terminology for these things, but I haven't learned it yet. Other than those things, most of the features from 1955 look surprisingly the same. I'm not feeling any less weight in the 686, but I guess it must be lighter.

All this is making me think that the 686 was brought out entirely in response to the Python, and wasn't really necessary in terms of functionality. I suppose I'm a .357 magnum/model 27 bigot. But I guess that's okay, since this is the 'Ultimate 27' thread.

The other advantage the .357 magnum/model 27 has over the 686 is Richard's photographic documentation. Stainless steel just isn't going to win any beauty pageants when one of his 27's is involved.

 

[ncpapaul]

My 27-2 nickel with 3.5" barrel

ex police service, been shot, handled rough, shoots good.

 

[ls6sbc]

my small smith collection 27-2 6in,27-2 5in, 19-4 6in , 19-4 4in, 19-3 21/2in 34-1 4in second photo includes a 422, mp 9, 4506 and a 1911

 

[muddocktor]

Nice collection you got started there, ls6sbc. Watch out though, as model 27's are extremely addictive.