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