I too have a mix of new and old S&W revolvers. The relatively new Mod 629-something (w/ the trigger lock) shoots great, as does my old Mod 686 which I had to send in to S&W for the mod to make it not spike primers. Currently looking for a good concealment holster for my Mod 19 (4” bbl) which was cheaper than it would have been without the holster wear. There are a lot of revolvers out there which have been carried a lot, but shot very little. Do not fear a used S&W revolver; if there’s a problem, S&W can make it better.
S&W Classic Revolvers
- Thread starter flashhole
- Start date
Still working with the new 27-9 & the 1962 27-2, just about at the range test.
In comparing the two side by side, it's quite obvious where S&W has made changes to cheapen manufacture.
The front sight on the 27-2 is a one-piece base & blade, but a separate piece from the barrel rib.
Attached to that rib by two solid pins, and so perfectly mated & polished you have to look for the join line & look harder for the pins that pretty much disappear.
The 27-9 has an integrally milled base with a blade retained by a single roll pin, and the blade is slightly loose. I can rotate it slightly back & forth.
Obviously much cheaper to do it the 27-9 way.
The famous Model 27 checkering on top is a cheap-looking checkerboard flattish pattern of tiny laser-cut squares on the new gun, nicely pyramidal-pointed actual checkering on the older gun.
Obviously much cheaper to do the new way.
The chambers are counter-bored on the older gun, not on the new gun.
Obviously cheaper the new way.
The ejector star and ratchet teeth are machined quite differently on the newer 27-9.
Obviously much cheaper to do on the new gun.
The rifling was mechanically cut on the older 27, the newer guns use an electro-chemical rifling process that seems to leave badly formed muzzle crowns.
Visible & tactile circular burr ring around the crown on the new gun, older one's clean.
Not the first time I've seen a bad crown on a new Smith.
Obviously cheaper to do the new rifling method.
Laminated wood grips on the new vs solid on the old.
Obviously cheaper to manufacture on the new.
MIM parts on the new.
Obviously cheaper to use than the forged of the old.
Mainspring seat position in the gripframe moved back roughly 1/8 inch.
Not necessarily cheaper to do, but changes the degree of spring arc & the spring tension against the hammer at the top, done in conjunction with the relatively short firing pin protrusion in the frame-mounted firing pin, as an unnecessary effort to increase drop-safety.
Cylinder on the 27-9 is fractionally shorter & the gripframe fractionally thinner than the older 27-2.
Unable to find out why the cylinder length was changed several years ago, and the gripframe thickness is just a minor difference.
Neither should affect manufacturing costs.
Don't need to mention the unwanted lock on the 27-9....
If I did, I'd have to say that one INCREASES manufacturing costs.
There have been other minor changes in things like the crane & other areas during successive dash-changes between the two "generations" of Model 27s, but those are the most obvious.
Some of the changes mentioned are essentially cosmetic & have no affect on performance. The front sight, loose as it is, is still perfectly functional. The cheaper checkering on the new gun just affects aesthetics & shows a degradation in one of the quality indicators the Model 27 has been known for; it has no affect on function.
Changes like the cylinder modifications should not affect performance.
The rough barrel crown process can.
The mainspring & firing pin set-up can affect ignition & do affect trigger pull.
The grips' biggest actual difference in performance between old & new, aside from their looks, is that the newer laminates are thinner & create a thinner overall grip in the hand.
Looking forward to seeing how well both shoot, hopefully next week.
A while back I did a head-to-head between a brand new Smith 686 & a brand new Ruger GP100.
Both had their minor nigglers, but the Smith surprised me by being the most accurate of the two, DESPITE having a distinctly indistinct crown.
So- could see the newer gun outshoot the older gun here.
Denis
In comparing the two side by side, it's quite obvious where S&W has made changes to cheapen manufacture.
The front sight on the 27-2 is a one-piece base & blade, but a separate piece from the barrel rib.
Attached to that rib by two solid pins, and so perfectly mated & polished you have to look for the join line & look harder for the pins that pretty much disappear.
The 27-9 has an integrally milled base with a blade retained by a single roll pin, and the blade is slightly loose. I can rotate it slightly back & forth.
Obviously much cheaper to do it the 27-9 way.
The famous Model 27 checkering on top is a cheap-looking checkerboard flattish pattern of tiny laser-cut squares on the new gun, nicely pyramidal-pointed actual checkering on the older gun.
Obviously much cheaper to do the new way.
The chambers are counter-bored on the older gun, not on the new gun.
Obviously cheaper the new way.
The ejector star and ratchet teeth are machined quite differently on the newer 27-9.
Obviously much cheaper to do on the new gun.
The rifling was mechanically cut on the older 27, the newer guns use an electro-chemical rifling process that seems to leave badly formed muzzle crowns.
Visible & tactile circular burr ring around the crown on the new gun, older one's clean.
Not the first time I've seen a bad crown on a new Smith.
Obviously cheaper to do the new rifling method.
Laminated wood grips on the new vs solid on the old.
Obviously cheaper to manufacture on the new.
MIM parts on the new.
Obviously cheaper to use than the forged of the old.
Mainspring seat position in the gripframe moved back roughly 1/8 inch.
Not necessarily cheaper to do, but changes the degree of spring arc & the spring tension against the hammer at the top, done in conjunction with the relatively short firing pin protrusion in the frame-mounted firing pin, as an unnecessary effort to increase drop-safety.
Cylinder on the 27-9 is fractionally shorter & the gripframe fractionally thinner than the older 27-2.
Unable to find out why the cylinder length was changed several years ago, and the gripframe thickness is just a minor difference.
Neither should affect manufacturing costs.
Don't need to mention the unwanted lock on the 27-9....
If I did, I'd have to say that one INCREASES manufacturing costs.
There have been other minor changes in things like the crane & other areas during successive dash-changes between the two "generations" of Model 27s, but those are the most obvious.
Some of the changes mentioned are essentially cosmetic & have no affect on performance. The front sight, loose as it is, is still perfectly functional. The cheaper checkering on the new gun just affects aesthetics & shows a degradation in one of the quality indicators the Model 27 has been known for; it has no affect on function.
Changes like the cylinder modifications should not affect performance.
The rough barrel crown process can.
The mainspring & firing pin set-up can affect ignition & do affect trigger pull.
The grips' biggest actual difference in performance between old & new, aside from their looks, is that the newer laminates are thinner & create a thinner overall grip in the hand.
Looking forward to seeing how well both shoot, hopefully next week.
A while back I did a head-to-head between a brand new Smith 686 & a brand new Ruger GP100.
Both had their minor nigglers, but the Smith surprised me by being the most accurate of the two, DESPITE having a distinctly indistinct crown.
So- could see the newer gun outshoot the older gun here.
Denis
disseminator
New member
Wouldn't that be because the case heads are no longer recessed? IME the newer non recessed revolvers have a wider gap between the frame and the cylinder face because of this.
Quote:
Cylinder on the 27-9 is fractionally shorter
Yes, that would account for it, but why do it? The original Model 27's cylinder was so short that you couldn't seat a Lyman 358429 so that you could crimp in the crimp groove in a .357 Magnum case without the OAL exceeding the cylinder length. Why not pick up a little extra cylinder length rather than shortening the cylinder further?
Don
Cylinder on the 27-9 is fractionally shorter
Yes, that would account for it, but why do it? The original Model 27's cylinder was so short that you couldn't seat a Lyman 358429 so that you could crimp in the crimp groove in a .357 Magnum case without the OAL exceeding the cylinder length. Why not pick up a little extra cylinder length rather than shortening the cylinder further?
Don
Bushmaster1313
New member
Deleted
Shot both the 1962 & the 2018 27s, and it was a good shoot-off.
Like the last new .357 Smith I did a shoot-off with, it continues to amaze me how well these new Smiths can shoot with such bunged-up muzzle crowns.
Out of 7 different loads covering 125, 130, 158, and 180-grainers, the '62 won by beating out the '18 with best groups with four loads.
It was fairly close overall, though.
All accuracy testing off a rest at 25 yards at an indoor range.
I may prefer older, but newer CAN shoot.
Denis
Like the last new .357 Smith I did a shoot-off with, it continues to amaze me how well these new Smiths can shoot with such bunged-up muzzle crowns.
Out of 7 different loads covering 125, 130, 158, and 180-grainers, the '62 won by beating out the '18 with best groups with four loads.
It was fairly close overall, though.
All accuracy testing off a rest at 25 yards at an indoor range.
I may prefer older, but newer CAN shoot.
Denis
I've never said otherwise.
When I did the shoot-off between the new 686 & the Ruger GP100, the Smith was slightly more accurate, but it had other issues & I bought the Ruger instead.
And I wrote it up that way for publication.
I've never been anything but fair to new Smiths.
I just don't won't own one, for reasons previously mentioned.
Denis
When I did the shoot-off between the new 686 & the Ruger GP100, the Smith was slightly more accurate, but it had other issues & I bought the Ruger instead.
And I wrote it up that way for publication.
I've never been anything but fair to new Smiths.
I just don't won't own one, for reasons previously mentioned.
Denis
armednfree
New member
deleted
Last edited:
Hobie1kenobe
Inactive
I started down this path thinking Classic. After a lot of looking here's the short list.
Smith & Wesson Performance Center Model 19 Carry Comp
Kimber K6S DASA
Smith & Wesson Pro Series Model 60
Rugers don't appeal to me.
The Colt Cobra is interesting but not enough to win me over.
Smith & Wesson Performance Center Model 19 Carry Comp
Kimber K6S DASA
Smith & Wesson Pro Series Model 60
Rugers don't appeal to me.
The Colt Cobra is interesting but not enough to win me over.
Mike_Fontenot
New member
I've got two 360sc ultralight scandium/titanium .357 J-Frame snubbies, a 60-Pro 3" all steel J-Frame, a 686 full-underlug L-Frame .357, a 69 4" L-Frame 5-shot .44mag, and a 629 5" full-underlug "Classic" N_Frame .44mag. The last is my favorite. I carry it every day, from pajamas-off until pajamas-on, in a homemade under-the-shirt cloth vertical shoulder holster.
Last edited:
After eight pages of response it is obvious there are persons who: would purchase / currently own an older issue Smith and those who have/would buy a newer pistol. My first day as a brand new officer found a Model 19 4” in my squeaky new holster, all of my current revolvers are older S&W offerings. Would I purchase a new one? You bet! I have examined the new 66 and came to the conclusion “ this ain’t my Mod 19” but I also found the sleeved barrel, longer length barrel (a tad longer for whatever reason) and Altamont laminated stock are quite livable. As for the round butt ok in some configurations but I want a choice, MIM works just fine in their lockwork and they can take the dreaded lock and stuff it in a liberals ear... not to my liking.