S&W 327 vs 627

[Guest Lester Weevils]

So have been thinking about S&W 27, 327, 627. Especially the custom center 327's and 627's, eight shot using moon clips. About the same capacity as a .45, and about as quick to reload as a .45, at least in my hands, where a mag reload ain't exactly like lightning. Not that I'd likely carry a full size revolver, though they sell snubbies set up the same way.

Anyway, haven't yet seen a 5" barrel stainless 627 "in the flesh" but the other day ran across a 5" barrel black 327 at a store to fondle. The gun was surprisingly light. Felt lighter than my old 4" barrel 586.

So went back home and looked at the S&W custom center page again. The 627 is stainless but at least those models of 327 have a scandium-alloy frame and spec'd significantly lighter for the same size guns.

I suppose if you didn't mind self-defense recoil then a scandium-alloy light snubbie would make sense. On the other hand, wonder if a full-size 327 would be "less pleasant" to shoot at the range, because it is lighter? The old 586 doesn't hurt to shoot and the 627 weighs a little more than my 586. Just curious if anyone has shot something in the ballpark of a 5" barrel lightweight 327 and can report whether the recoil is "noticeably stiffer" than the same size steel .357 mag revolvers?

[DaveTN]

I was never able to get into the N frames. I owned a model 27 and carried it on duty for a short time, but it was just too big even for that. In steel or stainless it won’t feel much different to shoot than your 586.

I don’t think they have anything to offer over the 686.

“Scandium†is just a marketing tool; its aluminum. I would stay away from alloy frame guns in heavy calibers; unless that alloy is stainless steel.

If you just want an N frame for your collection I would check out the model 29 or 629.

Just my opinion having carried them all.

There are no bad Smith & Wesson revolvers.

[leroy]

Lester:____________

Like Dave said: "...There are no bad Smith and Wesson revolvers...". He is exactly right. I'm a long time fan of the "N" frame smiths. The 357's are my pick of the "N" frames because they are the first "fancy" ones (...checkering on the topstrap and barrel...). I like shooting the 357 in the "N" frame size. All ours are steel, so they have a relatively tame recoil with the "real" 357 loads.

The only downside to them is that if you have small hands, the grip and reach to the trigger may be a bit long. I'm blessed (...or cursed...) with pretty big hands. That makes the "N" frames easy for me to shoot. The magna grips that came on the old "duty" model 27's and 28's are a bit smaller. We always tried to find the uncheckered target grips; but they are pretty big for normal to small hands. The magnas may be the best bet if ya have smaller paws. While im at it; the "N" frame grip prices are idiotic when you start lookin for them.

The bottom line of all this ramblin is that the "N" frame smiths in any flavor, from 44 to 357 are a great thing.

You simply cant go wrong with them if you like revolvers. I'd like to have a 327 for carry myself; but i cant bring myself to give the same or more money for a new smith than you can buy a great old "N" or "S" s/n gun from yesteryear; but that's just me. Maybee i can find a "used but not abused" 327 for a reasonable price somewhere.

Hope this helps a bit.

leroy

Edited May 27, 2012 by leroy

[nightrunner]

If you decide on a 327 and need some extra cushion in the grips, try a set of grips from the x frame S&W ( the big 460 and 500 models). They are larger for recoil reduction on the large caliber x frame but bolt right on the n frame

[Guest tymekeeper]

I'm also a great fan of the "N" size smiths....my recent aquisition is a model 25 in 45 LC caliber. It is one from the late '80s with a 5" barrel, un-fluted cylinder, and rubber Hogue-style grips. It is very pleasant to shoot with current cowboy ammo, and does almost as well with the hotter handloads made up for my Blackhawk .45 convertible. A little large for concealed carry, but a whole lot of fun at the range. Yep, really love this addition.

[TNWNGR]

I own an early 1970's 6" M-27 and have owned a 5" and 8 3/8 " as well, I prefer the 6" model. A TGO member has (?) a 4" M-28 listed which is a sweet heart of a 357 Magnum field gun to own and shoot, it's also easier to find holster's for as well. I'm a S&W N frame fan and consider it the best platform for the 357.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thanks all for the good advice. That performance center 5" 327 was at Sportsmans Warehouse in Chatt. Would be more inclined toward blue steel 27 or a stainless 627, though that 327 is a handsome gun. Was curious whether the "lightweight" aspect of the 327 would be a significant disadvantage for recreational shooting full power .357 rounds.

I used to have two .357 revolvers but traded off the j-frame snubbie because it got painful to shoot. Not wanting to be a collector but in interests of redundancy it would seem prudent to have at least two .357 pistols because the .357 ammo would be useless without something to shoot it out of. Have loaded some pretty aggressive but not "over spec" .357 to shoot out of the Henry lever gun, and it might be fun to shoot those loads in pistol as well. The 586 would handle em but there's no sense beating it up for no good reason.

Ain't no hurry and been thinking on it for awhile. The 586 is excellent at launching .357 projectiles. If redundancy were the only consideration could look for another good-condition 4" 586 and have a matching pair. But it seems unimaginative to get two of the same thing when there are so many possiblities. Would seem interesting to get another barrel length and perhaps other differences. Possiblitiies include--

6" barrel 586 or 686

5" barrel or longer in an N frame.

Coonan .357 1911

One attractive feature of some of the Performance Center guns is factory-moonclip-capable. But dunno if merely that feature is worth the extra money. Similarly nothin wrong with a 6-shooter but a 7 or 8-shooter might be nice as well.

My old 4" 586 weighs 41.5 oz. S&W specs the this-year reissue 6" barrel 586 at 46.3 oz. The current stock 4" barrel 8-shot 627 is 41.2 oz, The Performance Center 5" barrel 627 is 44 oz. Factory stock 5" barrel 686 Plus is 38.5 oz.

The old J frame 649 that got too painful to shoot is about half that weight, 23 oz. So if weight is the primary factor of objectionable recoil, then that little guy is about half the weight of the above models. Supposedly the "jet" of hot gasses is a significant part of recoil, so maybe short barrel would also have worse recoil due to more energetic jet of gas, all released almost simultaneous with the recoil from bullet acceleration in that short barrel. A longer barrel might "stretch" the recoil out a little longer, but it would still be such a short time-duration pulse, dunno of the length of the pulse would make it noticeable less painful out of a longer barrel, if the weight of the two guns was in the same ballpark..

Just ramblin. Thinking out loud. S&W shows three full-lug TALO versions but haven't checked to see if they can be bought. Maybe they are all sold out or whatever. About the same suggested retail as the other models. A set of three 686 plus's with unfluted cylinders and identical accounterments except barrel length. It is called the "Model 686 3-5-7 Magnum Series" which is very witty because the barrel lengths are 3, 5, and 7. Funny. The 3" model supposedly weighs 38.6 oz, so assuming that weight has more effect on felt recoil than barrel length, it is almost as heavy as my old 586 and ought to shoot pretty easy?

[gjohnsoniv]

I like that top one, enough of a barrel to look proportionate, but not too long like the bottom.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I like that top one, enough of a barrel to look proportionate, but not too long like the bottom.

Hi gjohnsoniv

It's in the eye of the beholder. In a 586 or 686 full lug, perhaps 4" is the most "visually balanced" though some folk opine that they prefer the "shooting balance" of the 5" 686 to either the 4" or 6". Dunno, having never shot a 5".

It is, however, a cruel and evil plot to take advantage of neurotic people with obsessive compulsive disorders. Why stop at 686 plus in 3", 5", and 7" when you can also get 2.5", 4" and 6"?

Hopefully the sickness would not be so extreme to cause extreme anxiety because three pistols have fluted cylinders and three unfluted. Or perhaps the symmetry of the pattern-- fluted, unfluted, fluted, unfluted, fluted, unfluted, would be acceptable. Similarly, though a truly sick OCD fella might order three extra Talo grips so all six guns would have matching grips, perhaps he would only have to order one set of S&W stock grips as seen on the 4" model and 6" models? If the grip on the 2.5" 686Plus looks the same as the four and six inch models, there would at least be grip shape symmetry of square, round, rquare, round, square, round.

[gjohnsoniv]

Hi gjohnsoniv

It's in the eye of the beholder. In a 586 or 686 full lug, perhaps 4" is the most "visually balanced" though some folk opine that they prefer the "shooting balance" of the 5" 686 to either the 4" or 6". Dunno, having never shot a 5".

It is, however, a cruel and evil plot to take advantage of neurotic people with obsessive compulsive disorders. Why stop at 686 plus in 3", 5", and 7" when you can also get 2.5", 4" and 6"?

Hopefully the sickness would not be so extreme to cause extreme anxiety because three pistols have fluted cylinders and three unfluted. Or perhaps the symmetry of the pattern-- fluted, unfluted, fluted, unfluted, fluted, unfluted, would be acceptable. Similarly, though a truly sick OCD fella might order three extra Talo grips so all six guns would have matching grips, perhaps he would only have to order one set of S&W stock grips as seen on the 4" model and 6" models? If the grip on the 2.5" 686Plus looks the same as the four and six inch models, there would at least be grip shape symmetry of square, round, rquare, round, square, round.

Quite a lengthy explanation. I'm not sure how to answer that other than it is in the eye of the beholder. The fluted cylinders are nice though, I like those.