New S&W M27 broke!

J

jwise

New member
I recently had my local shop order me one of S&W's revolvers from their Classic line, a 4" M27.

I took it to the range and put some .38s downrange. The trigger was pretty stiff, so I bought some snap caps and dry-fired the heck out of it, trying g to break in the trigger. My M29's trigger is SO much better, and I hoped it would smooth out and lighten up like that one did.

Well, I was dry-firing it when it did something weird (felt kinda like a short stroke) and the double-action trigger pull just stopped.

I took it to my gunsmith (same local shop that ordered it). He took it apart and discovered the hammer stud (pin the hammer swings on) broke! Darn thing snapped clean! It was put back together and boxed up to send back to Smith.

I have the WORST luck with firearms.
 
Sorry to hear that, but it might just mean that you have the worst luck with a currently produced S&W revolver.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Urban legend from back in the early 1970's was if you could find a S&W that could be legitimately sent back to the factory you were golden.

The urban legend part, unverified as far as I know, was that if S&W got the gun back the custom shop took care of the defect and usually checked out the whole gun and polished up the things that needed to be polished up and you got a much better gun back than you'd get if you found good 'stock' S&W.

Don't know if it was really true then but I guess you can always hope they'll check out the whole gun and slick it up a little.

Good luck.
 
Got a brand new Model 66 in the 1980s.

On its first range trip, on about the fifth round, just a click.

Checked and saw that the firing pin had broken off.

While my gun dealer got the hammer repaired, he
put in a spare K-frame hammer which worked
perfectly.

So JMag1, it's nothing new. Neither are broken
off hammer or trigger pins of which I have encountered
on the older guns.

I actually think having a frame mounted firing pin
an improvement over Smith's older hammer mounted
one.
 
I had a similar experience with a recent (2015?) 642. The trigger was scratchy/sandy feeling ever since I got it. It was consistent, but I thought it might be dry since you couldn't put a couple of drops of oil on the front of the cocked hammer. I started shooting it a lot more earlier this year, and removed the side plate to install a lighter rebound spring in hopes of lightening /smoothing up the trigger pull. It had a broken hammer stud, and I'm convinced it was broken all along because there never was a moment where the trigger instantly changed. I won't go into the rest of the problems with that 642, but I have ZERO interest in buying anything new from S&W again.

And your gun is a 27, a big one made from real metal. Good luck with it.
 
Last edited:
Urban legend from back in the early 1970's was if you could find a S&W that could be legitimately sent back to the factory you were golden.

The urban legend part, unverified as far as I know, was that if S&W got the gun back the custom shop took care of the defect and usually checked out the whole gun and polished up the things that needed to be polished up and you got a much better gun back than you'd get if you found good 'stock' S&W.
Click to expand...

That's funny because when I was buying my first handgun, a Model 19 as it turned out, back in the mid 70's, the "old timers" told me not to bother at all with anything new. Just like today, they told me to "get an old one."

I don't know about Smith & Wesson sending a gun back in nicer shape than they got it on a return, but I believe Ruger did with a Security-Six I sent back during that time period. I couldn't really put my finger on anything they did, but the gun just seemed nicer than it was when I sent it back.
 
Nothing made by Man is perfect. Machines break. New machines can be faulty. With that said, S&Ws made since 1982 seem to have experienced an unusually high number of failures. Many associated with barrels being off center, loose, of leaving the frame. I would assume that modern materials and computer aided production would make new guns less prone to problems, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

This one is 60 years old and despite plenty of use has never failed.


standard.jpg
 
Seeing Cajun Bass' report brings to mind something I've
believed for a long time:

While I love Smith & Wesson revolvers as excellent,
they have never been as excellent as so many make
them out to be, especially the older ones. Nor Colt.

They all have had or do have their faults from time
to time just like every other mass produced item.

And if you read enough or talk to enough people who
have had custom and semi-custom guns such as so
many 1911s, even they have their faults and failures
from time to time.
 
That's why I take with a BIG grain a salt those posters who continually badmouth Ruger, Kahr, Remington, & SA.

If I relied on Internet posts about what gun is good for SD, I'd carry a Louisville Slugger.
 
If I had to keep only one of my handguns, it would be a SA XD-S, and it was made in Croatia partly out of a mysterious non-metal substance.
 
I used to have bad luck with handguns, then I stopped buying junk. And by junk I don't mean cheap, old guns. Sometimes it's newer, expensive guns that have problems.

You should have done a little bit of research and not have bought a modern S&W. They have gone through so many cost-cutting steps that experts recommend buying ones made before the 1980s (personally I like them up until about 1987). You should read the Kuhnhausen K-frame shop manual to learn about the cost-cutting changes they made.

Is your gunsmith a real gunsmith or is he just an armorer? If he knows what he's doing maybe you could talk him into tuning your mainspring to get you a lighter trigger pull.

In the future you must only purchase firearms that have a stellar reputation for reliability.
 
Unhappy though I may be with S&W's current revolvers, in fairness to the company this has nothing to do with "new".
It has happened infrequently over the years, old AND new. Can't attribute this one to a QC issue strictly in new Smiths. :)

The design does allow it to happen, when certain stars line up wrong.
Denis
 
That's why I take with a BIG grain a salt those posters who continually badmouth Ruger, Kahr, Remington, & SA.

If I relied on Internet posts about what gun is good for SD, I'd carry a Louisville Slugger.
Click to expand...

Ultimately you need to take your choice of gun to the range and prove to yourself that the individual unit you have is reliable. But let's be honest, would you bet on any of those being more reliable than say an H&K or a Beretta? I would not.
 
Decades ago, prior to the internet, the big manufacturers, S&W, Colt, Ruger, Remington, Bear Archery, Ben Pearson, Ford, Chevy, etc., they all had defective items slip through quality control. It happens when you produce hundreds of thousands of units, multiple stations , employees, shifts, etc. There was no internet then so the issues were not as widely known. The good company's back their work. No worries!
 
I just got word a couple days ago from the shop. My M27 is back from the factory. I can't wait to get it in my hands, but it will have to wait until I get back from holiday travels.

I've had guns from Colt, H&K, Sig, etc. go back for warranty work. My shop considers me a test dummy for firearms.
 
I remember a lot of S&W guns coming from the factory in the late '70's to early '80's with problems. I avoid stuff made during that period, in most cases. My new to me 28 was made in 1971, and looks great, inside and out. Just for grins, we compared it side by side with one made in the early 80's and the older one looks better, is a little smoother, and just seems to be better made. Both are much better than current guns, IMHO, in about every way. I have no interest in any new S&W handguns, poly or metal.
 
I have several S&W revolvers from the early to mid 1970's that are wonderful. The 2 recent ones I bought cannot compare in fit and finish, but they have given me no problems. I did inspect each one carefully in person before buying.
 
As far as I remember S&W employees that assembled the revolvers were paid a pitiful amount in the late 1980s, something like $3.80 per piece. Quality went down and returns and complaints went up to cut into profits. That is when the assemblers were issued codes that were found on the gun and returns had to be fixed by the assembler without extra pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top