Help me date this 28-2 PLEASE!!!!

Cania said - "Picked up in trade today. Would like to know when it was made - it is BEAUTIFUL!!"

I agree.... they are. No, you don't get lost in the deep blue luster - but neither do you fear damaging that luster if you choose to carry it on a canoe trip, hiking, etc. These revolvers come from a time when S&W was doing some of their best work, and even at $300 they are a bargain compared to the competition (including the new S&W.) Something of that quality would cost far more today - if you could even find it. I don't disagree that the M27 is far better looking, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and in this case the beauty is in the utility. It's a brutal beast.... and it looks the part.
 
"It was made to be a cheap replacement for the M27..."

That strongly implies degraded overall quality.

It also wrongly implies that the 27 was discontinued and the 28 took its place.

You'll noted that I NEVER said that you said crap.

I said your statement IMPLIES crap. Even if it wasn't meant to imply that, it leaves that impression on the reader.

Your further statement "and that's what it is... cheap." also leaves the impression that you consider the 28 to be nothing but a shoddy knockoff.


"Simply dismissing the differences as "the deletion of the checkering on the sighting rib and a brush blue finish instead of a high polish blue" sort of misses the point."

Actually, it doesn't miss the point at all.

When the Model 27 was introduced in the pre-model number days, it was essentially a custom gun, essentially hand built.

After World War II, when civilian handgun production resumed at S&W, the demand for the Model 27 made it impossible to give anything even remotely close to the sort of internal hand finishing that the pre-war guns had gotten.

An attempt was made to maintain the external fit & finish, especially the high-gloss mirror finish that had marked the pre-war guns, more or less the theory that "The eye sees more than the finger feels."

Quite frankly, the Model 27s through the 1950s had triggers that were comparable to the Model 28s of the same time frame. Nothing much to write home about.

The cost difference between the two guns can be easily explained by the checkering of the sight rib, but especially by the mirror polish. 27s were given their final polishing by S&W's most experienced workmen, people who had been doing largely the same job since the 1920s, or even longer; the brush finish done on the 28 didn't require nearly as much skill to finish.

Then, also, was the time difference. Polishing a Model 27 took 3 to 4 times as long as it did to polish a Model 28, with several extra steps.

The 27 and 28 started out life on the same production line. The barrels came from the same boring machines, the frames came from the same forging mills.

Hammers, triggers, and other internal parts came from the same bins.

The 28 was designed to be a less costly firearm than the Model 28, but it was never designed to be cheap.
 
Frosty- I need to chill? You folks are the ones getting all bent out of shape. I do not understand your argument. I say the M28 was of lesser quality because it had an inferior finish to the M27. You say it was not of lesser quality, but yes, it did have an inferior finish. How am I supposed to take that? Apparently you do not consider an inferior level of finish as being "cheaper" than a high quality finish. Isn't finish one of the things by which we judge a firearm's quality? Surely reliability, etc, count, but doesn't finish matter at all? Not even one bit? Not the tiniest amount?

On the matter of my own M28, mine was a perfect specimen. There was nothing wrong with it as has been suggested. It was, exactly as S&W intended, a cheaper version of the M27. It was OK. The M27 is far better.

Yes, Mike, the pre-war S&Ws were better than post war. Just as the pre-1981 guns are better than the more recent ones. And just as the M27 is superior to the M28. What are we arguing about?

Mike, you deny saying that I implied the M28 was crap. Excuse me, but you most certainly did. You said "cheap implies crap." If that is not saying that I called the M28 crap then what was it?

If you like the dull finish, fine. If you do not miss the small "extras" found on the M27 and lacking on the M28, fine. But please don't say it doesn't mean anything in terms of a quality comparison between the two guns because it does matter. All I said was that the M28 does not measure up to the M27, and I believe it does not, and that I was surprised at the prices these guns seem to command. I am not trying to go to war with anyone and frankly I am surpried at the level of animosity my comments generated.

Like I said, just my opinion. You are free to disagree. Don't take it so personally. I wouldn't expect any of you to exactly share my taste in guns, and there's no reason to feel like you're being attacked. I'm just stating an opinion. Am I not allowed to that? If not, please say so now.
 
Well-stated Mike. I have owned both and except for the obvious cosmetic differences, they are the same gun. My 1955 vintage pre-28 has one of the nicest triggers I've ever pulled, and the "soft" finish is quite pleasing to the eye. It is anything but a cheap gun.

I say the M28 was of lesser quality because it had an inferior finish to the M27
Click to expand...

QUALITY

The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs. Not to be mistaken for "degree of excellence" or "fitness for use" which meet only part of the definition.


How do you define "inferior" SP? How do you define "lesser quality"?
The 27 has a higher level of finish and that's the ONLY difference.
If the 28 had blotchy bluing, machine marks, ill-fitting parts, etc., you might have a point concerning "inferior" & "quality".
 
Last edited:
Well,

All I can say is, holding this gun and shooting it this past Sunday impressed the heck out of me. What a well made machine. I can hardly wait to go shooting again this was one case where the gun actually let me shoot better than I ever had before.

I've GOT to figure out a way to make this my CCW. Somwhere out there there has to be a rig that I can carry this sucker concealed in.

I LOVE THIS GUN!

I would challenge someone to buy a NIB or used modern manufacture revolver that has near the quality of one of these or many of the old smiths for anywhere near the same money...


FWIW I LOVE the finish on the M28. Nice and dark and not so pretty Im afraid to get a fingerprint on it.

Canis
 
Saxonpig, of course you are entitled to your opinion. I must say that I don't really understand what your beef is. I have owned a 28 and handled/shot several 28's and 27's. I see very little difference between the two. My 28 had a very nice finish and was built as well as any S&W revolver I own.

Why do they have a cult like status? I don't know. Why does the Makarov? The CZ's? The 1911? Even the Kel-Tecs?

People form allegences with certain things for many reasons (in this case a great revolver) and it really doesn't matter wether you understand it or not. :rolleyes:

Canis is very excited over his new purchase, why can't you just let him enjoy that instead of mucking up his thread? :confused: :mad:
 
To a degree, I see the 28-2 as being the replacement for the old 38/44 Outdoorsman. The similarities are pretty close as far as external finish goes.


The 27 is primairly the fancier gun, like everyone has already acknowledged.


My 38/44 Outdoorsman was the one that started it all for me, the N-frame addiction that is. My 38/44 has had a lot of rounds fired out of it over the years and is going to be put away as a limited use gun, I'm waiting for a 28-2 to come along so that I can have a fitting replacement for the 38/44, some of the older 28s still manage to have a very nicely done bluing job on them.


To me, a nice 28-2 is worth upwards of 450, heck I consider it to be a better value than most of what is found out there with the current production S&W product line.
 
"Mike, you deny saying that I implied the M28 was crap."

WRONG. I absolutely, EMPHATICALLY said that you implied by the tone of your message that the 28 was crap compared to the 27.

That is my ENTIRE beef with your original message.

Geezsus...


Here's my statement from my first message again.

"You'll noted that I NEVER said that you said crap."

I said your statement IMPLIES crap. Even if it wasn't meant to imply that, it leaves that impression on the reader."

The tone of your first message implied (oh, that word again!) that you felt that the 28s had developed a somehow less-than-warranted following, and that they were inferior to the Model 27s because they were produced to fulfill a different set of requirements and needs.

Does that mean that the Model 10 is inferior to the Model 15?

Or the Model 13 to the Model 19?

Simply because they have characteristics that deviate from their apparently higher-quality siblings?

I never put words in your mouth. I only interpreted what was there based on the tone and timber of the overall message that you delivered.

Did you ever stop and think that it could very well be "cheap" attributes of the 28 that make it so desirable currently? That they're being purchased for working guns, instead of pretty guns?
 
"... an inexpensive .357 Magnum... that would do away with the cosmetic beauty..." (Describing the M28.)

- Roy Jinks, History of Smith & Wesson, 10th Ed., (p. 216).

Inexpensive and lacking cosmetic beauty. OK, I used the word "cheap." Maybe not the best choice, but that's how I talk. If I mean to say a gun is no good, I call it "junk." The M28 is not, in my opinion, junk. However, compared to the M27, I think it is cheap (how about cheaper?). Sorry, but apparently Mr. Jinks agrees with my evaluation of the aesthetic qualities of the M28. That's all I was talking about. (Well, I did mention the better trigger pull on the M27s, but I realize that may have just been my imagination at work. Perhaps the better looking gun also seemed to work better.)

Frenchy- You ask how I define "inferior" and "lesser quality." How many times did I say it in the previous posts? I define quality as, in part, the level of finish. In comparison to the more deluxe S&W N frames, the M28 comes up short in this department. I stated that this is not the only criteria, but some people here seem to be saying that it matters not at all. I disagree. I say the quality of the finish does make a difference when evaluating the gun. Roy Jinks also said it. I don't know of any serious collector who would not also agree. Now, if you like (or even prefer) the "satin blue" (read that as unpolished) that's OK by me. Everyone has their own preferences. I would never try to tell a man what gun to carry.

All I said was that the M28 was not as nice as the M27, and I believe this to be a fact. I said that I was surprised at how many people seem to pursue this gun and are willing to pay a premium to have one when a few years ago you couldn't hardly give one away. This is also a fact. I said that I could not see paying nearly as much for a M28 when the M27 was a better choice at current prices. This is my opinion.

Hey, buy what you want. If the M28 turns you on, I'm behind you all the way. I just think the M27 is a better gun and is worth the extra money.

Please don't beat me over the head anymore with your M28s!

:rolleyes:
 
One last post (complete with picture) and I'll let it go. Jinks also went on to say, "C. R. Hellstrom discussed the problem with his engineers and it was determined that a revolver could be manufactured that had the smoothness of Smith & Wesson lockwork, but that would do away with the cosmetic beauty of the revolver.". Later he says of the samples sent out, "Samples were forwarded to various agencies for evaluation. By March 1954, the factory had received enough favorable comments so that a production run could be planned.". Much later, "To date, sales of the Model 28 have remained strong, since the revolver has met high acceptance from law enforcement personnel as well as the sportsman who is looking for a rugged handgun at a reasonable price.". Suffice to say that the Model 28 has earned it's good reputation and I think that Roy Jinks would agree with that evaluation.

Here is my 1955 M27 and my 1965 M28. I'm afraid that my lighting and photographic capabilities don't do justice to these fine firearms. But if you closed your eyes and tried each trigger I doubt you would be able to tell which one you had fired.

"However, compared to the M27, I think it is cheap (how about cheaper?)."

Nope. Less expensive and lacking cosmetic qualities which have no effect on the primary function of a handgun which is to launch bullets. But cheap? Or any version thereof? Not hardly, pilgrim.

Now let's all smile, shake hands, and go to the range as friends.
 

Attachments

  • mvc-027s.jpg
    mvc-027s.jpg
    20 KB · Views: 52
No argument that the M28 did what it was intended to do, which is be a less expensive (is that better?) alternative to the M27.

But denying that it is of lesser quality in terms of finish is unrealistic.

Oh well.
 
No argument that the M28 did what it was intended to do, which is be a less expensive (is that better?) alternative to the M27.
Click to expand...

I agree with this assessment.



But denying that it is of lesser quality in terms of finish is unrealistic.
Click to expand...

But I don't agree with this one. Maybe it's a matter of semantics. ;)
The "quality" in my mind would be the same if you compared a perfectly polished blue finish with a perfect satin blue finish (all other things being equal).
Would the quality be any better for instance if that beautiful Model 27 was engraved, and sporting carved ivory stocks?
 
I agree, Frenchy.

I think Saxon is using quality when he really should be using presentation.

There's no lack of quality in the satin blue finish on a Model 28.

Were there tool marks still evident, dished flats, rolled edges, those would be marks of a lack of quality, and quality assurance.

A good analogy would be between the engraving levels.

Is an A-level engraving job (only a little coverage) lacking in quality because a D-level engraving job covers the whole gun?

Nope. It's a difference in presentation.
 
Actually, this is kind of a fun issue for me. Prior to becoming a uniformed adult babysitter (Jailer), I spent a few years dealing with quality assurance issues for a tier two automotive company.
I look at the term “quality” as a purely technical term. If all technical specifications are met and within tolerance, then quality (by definition) is achieved.
In the case of the Highway Patrolman, there was a need for a less expensive (more affordable?) alternative to the Model-27. Law enforcement (and many civilians) needed a budget-minded weapon, without sacrificing the balance, accuracy, power, ergonomics, etc., of the M-27. The simple answer was to do away with costly and time-consuming extras such as high polished finish and checkered top strap and rib. Tight specifications were not sacrificed, just the time and manpower it took to arrive at the finished product.
The presentation issue is a good one Mike, and I think what we are looking at are two sides of the same coin.
 
This post has been a fun read. I have a S&W Model 28 and think it looks great. I've seen Model 27's and they look even better, making me want to purchase one someday in the future.
 
OK, I am completely at a loss. Of course there is a difference in quality between an engraved pistol and one with a standard finish. That's why it costs more. Of course there is a difference in quality between a satin finsih and highly polished finish. That's why the latter costs more. It appears that Mike and Frenchy are maintaining that the satin and polished finishes are equal in quality. They are not. That's why the M28 is described (by yourselves no less) as "budget-minded" and "affordable" and other such terms that mean of lesser quality. I don't understand your thinking at all. It's one thing to say you like the cheaper finish (sorry, gotta go back to that word) or even that you prefer the lesser grade of finish (just as not everyone likes engraving), but to steadfastly maintain that there is no difference is illogical.

I guess you think gold and lead are the same, too? They are both metals, and they both serve their respective functions, so you don't see any difference in quality between them, right? Sheeesh! I give up!

Canis- Sorry for hi-jacking your post. Enjoy your new gun.
 
I understand perfectly where you're coming from SP, and if my thought process was running in the same direction, I would completely agree.

Of course there is a difference in quality between an engraved pistol and one with a standard finish. That's why it costs more. Of course there is a difference in quality between a satin finish and highly polished finish. That's why the latter costs more.
Click to expand...

No...There’s a difference in appearance because of the labor expended in developing the final finish, but that’s not a quality issue.


It appears that Mike and Frenchy are maintaining that the satin and polished finishes are equal in quality.
Click to expand...

They are as long as both finishes meet or exceed manufactures specifications.


That's why the M28 is described (by yourselves no less) as "budget-minded" and "affordable" and other such terms that mean of lesser quality.
Click to expand...

Only if I use your definition.

My daughter Samantha, a Quality Assurance Layout Technician, explains it this way.
----------------------------------
Quality is defined as product meeting or exceeding customers expectations dimensionally as well as aesthetically. It is also defined as being offered at a price that is fair and competitive. As long as two products are structurally the same and meets manufacturers criteria, then there is no differerance in quality, just the customer's opinion of appearance.
-----------------------------------

but to steadfastly maintain that there is no difference is illogical.
Click to expand...

By your definition of quality SP, anything less than a Mercedes "S" class would be considered inferior.
 
Pardon me if I'm wrong but I've always heard that the 28 was developed to provide a "budget conscious" law enforcement officer with a tool equivalent to a S&W 27. The lawmen grew weary of carrying around all that steel (or was it lead/gold) and the 19 was developed to replace the 28 and did in most holsters. I wonder why S&W went back to the high quality finish on the 19's instead of sticking to the matt finish? I believe the reason the 28 became a step child for a time is that law officers wanted the weight saving 19 and most recreational shooters wanted the pride of ownership afforded in the 27. YMMV
 
In comparison, Frenchy, in comparison. Things do not exist in a vacuum. I keep saying compare the two guns and you keep saying just look at the one. Compared to the M27 the M28 has a finish of inferior quality. Period. Argue semantics all you like. It doesn't matter what each of us is looking for or is willing to settle for, quality is measurable. You're right, a Mercedes Benz is a high quality car. Much higher than my Chevy. Does that make the Chevy worthless? Of course not. Does the fact that I have a Chevy or that it serves its intended function (cheap transportation) make it equal to the MB? Of course not. You argue that the M28 does what it was intended so it is equal to the M27. Sorry, but no way. My Chevy does what it was intended, but equal to the Mercedes? HA! No way.

If you are happy with the M28 or even prefer it over the M27 that's your choice. If you don't think the M27 is worth the extra money, that's also your choice. But denying that a difference exists is ridiculous.

Beating my head against a wall gives me a headache. Reply if you like, but I won't be back to read it. This is obviously getting us nowhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top