As a wheelgum fanatic, its my personal opinion that a Smith N frame in 357 is the perfect gun

 

Great guns , built like tanks with style . I bought mine from Karl also ,dates to the 60s . Very accurate revolvers.

 

Starting to give me second thoughts offering mine in the classifieds. I agree great guns.

 

Haha, truly it is -NOT- that I was born to argue, it's a combination of love for the genre and the fact that some words just jump off the page at me. So please forgive me while I argue the title of this fine write-up.

I have four Highway Patrolmans currently and I'm a big, big fan. But there is no way that the Model 28/HP is the most versatile N-frame. It's just not possible. 28's were only ever offered in two barrel lengths and precious few options. 27's were offered with every option imaginable. And one could argue that a Model 29 .44 Magnum (also an N-frame of course) is every bit as versatile as any .357 Magnum N-frame.

In fact it's difficult to successfully argue that any N-frame .357 Magnum is the most versatile .357 Magnum because the cylinder length limits you whereas the L-frame .357 Magnums have a little more room if you want to experiment with heavy-for-caliber bullets.

I love these guns and I enjoyed your write-up. But I also love the discussion angle and some friendly splitting of hairs!

 

I've certainly shot S&W Model 29's, I simply haven't owned them.

This is my first line in this discussion:

Haha, truly it is -NOT- that I was born to argue, it's a combination of love for the genre and the fact that some words just jump off the page at me. So please forgive me while I argue the title of this fine write-up.

...not sure when or where this went sideways but I'm the new guy here so yes certainly, enjoy your discussion.

 

Actually, my contention is that the 4" 28 is the most versatile N-Frame. You could put a 4" 27 in its place because for what I am describing they are entirely interchangeable. The options on the 27 are fine, but don't have anything to do with the fact that you can cover the lightest .38 Special target loads and the heaviest Keith loads in the .38 or .357 case.

The .44 does not have that versatility of the .38/.357, but if you feel it does that's fine. I could stretch really hard to find a load that won't work in the 28, but I don't need to go to those lengths and I've mentioned over and over again that the 686 is the greatest .357 revolver ever made, but it's not an N-Frame. I never said that any N-Frame is the most versatile .357. I said the exact opposite. The .357 is the most versatile N-Frame because unlike the larger calibers what you can do on the low end cover "versatile" in a way a .44(or .41 or .45) can't.

 

Okay, all is well, back to the debate... or discussion... or whatever term might describe it.

Actually, my contention is that the 4" 28 is the most versatile N-Frame. You could put a 4" 27 in its place because for what I am describing they are entirely interchangeable.

Except that they are not entirely interchangeable due to the available options of the 27, including barrel length options, sight options, trigger width and style options and hammer style options.

The options on the 27 are fine, but don't have anything to do with the fact that you can cover the lightest .38 Special target loads and the heaviest Keith loads in the .38 or .357 case.

Except that you cannot use the heaviest .357 loads in either a 27 or 28 due to cylinder length.

The .44 does not have that versatility of the .38/.357, but if you feel it does that's fine. I could stretch really hard to find a load that won't work in the 28, but I don't need to go to those lengths and I've mentioned over and over again that the 686 is the greatest .357 revolver ever made, but it's not an N-Frame. I never said that any N-Frame is the most versatile .357. I said the exact opposite. The .357 is the most versatile N-Frame because unlike the larger calibers what you can do on the low end cover "versatile" in a way a .44(or .41 or .45) can't.

Except that you can most certainly load 750fps full wadcutters in a .44 Special or a .44 Magnum cartridge case and go popgun target in .44 as well.

Cannot say that the 29/629 is DISQUALIFIED from the discussion because it chokes on 310gr cast bullets when a 28 cannot chamber 220 or 230's because it's physically impossible.

Pretending to back out because you're the "new guy" is fine.

I was not pretending, I was offering to let you enjoy every facet of this argument so that it fits your narrative and walking away from it. However, you don't want me to walk away from it. Eventually I'll have to because I'm cooking .38 Special on a rare open stretch of time that I have and this debate isn't worth the time I've spent on it.

The Model 28 isn't the most versatile N-frame "but if you feel it does that's fine."
The Model 28 isn't even the most versatile .357 Magnum chambered N-frame "but if you feel it does that's fine."

The Model 28 is a long underrated and under-appreciated stalwart in the S&W line and I've loved all that I've owned and I'll probably end up with another here or there.

 

The S&W N frame is my favorite .357 Magnum. I really like the Model 28, and I've owned a number of them, but they always seem to get away from me. My favorite model is the 520 with the fixed sights. It's second to my absolute favorite revolver, the Model 58. I have one 520 for looking at, and then the shooter below.

 

Model 28s are exceptional. Wouldn't worry about plated, I just use cast here. Feel better, Doc was pretty sure I had it in Nov misdiagnosed ae bronchitis

 

I disagree about the six-shot .357 N-frames of any model or barrel length being the most versatile. The reason is simple: cylinder inertia and the stress it imparts to the lock work. The older M27 and M28 revolvers are prone to going out of time as the small cylinder stop has to deal with the larger mass of the .357 N-frame cylinder. Much fast DA work can wreck a classic M27 or M28 in very short order. The cylinder is just too heavy for a design that dates back to before the beginning of the 20th century. S&W added insult to injury with the unfitted cylinder editions of the .357 N-frame.

The later L-frames are more versatile and more durable, but the Ruger GP100 is even more versatile due to the grip frame stud and modular construction and much more durable than any S&W L-frame or N-frame. I like the old S&W revolvers, but mine are mostly retired.

 

My no dash 28 does just fine.

 

I sold my model 27-2 a while back and regret it. Last week the buyer contacted me to see if I wanted back and I reaquired it. Glad I did.

 

That was a great stroke of luck! You should buy a lottery ticket now!

 

A 29 or 629 can happily digest the lightest .44 Special that you can buy or handload and the same revolver can sling full-nuts 300 grain .44 Magnum at the top end.

It's a more versatile N-frame than a Model 28-2. And this is coming from a guy that has owned six Model 28's and two Model 27's and I have owned zero 29/629's ever, so this isn't any personal bias.

 

Well, I've owned all of the above and once you lock up a 29 with factory loads you'll change your mind, or at least I did. The theory is great, but the practice isn't the same. Factory and book loads can and will tie up a 29 and my preferred heavy was the Lee 310gr. FP. It's a hell of a bullet, but in Redhawk. At the same time, low end .44 Specials will never come close to 720fps. WC's in .38 Special cases. They absolutely will not and saying that they will changes nothing. It's OK to prefer one or the other, but it is odd to state your preference for the one you never owned compared to the one you had several copies of. That's the internet.

I could go over years of what I've put through S&W cylinders and you'll have to excuse me if you were under the impression that the statement I made was without the actual trial and error of a lifetime of shooting. I can even be "wrong" or we can have a different perspective. I'm OK with that. My experiences with N-Frames in .357 & .44 are pretty exhausting and I won't take away from anyone else's experiences or my own by comparing them to theories. I understand theories, I just am capable of separating the theory and the practice, especially when I've done it myself.

 

While the 27's are super gorgeous.....the HP is the "all business" handgun. Very versatile and sturdy. I really like mine.

 

I'm not much of a .44 Magnum guy, so my single .44 is a Redhawk also, from 1985. I have big bore fun with the 460XVR.

I entered this conversation with praise of the review and what I thought would be a fun debate but you seem pretty entrenched in your position. It seems like the only snippet of the conversation that you enjoyed was anything you've authored. Cheers to you.

 

I'm not much of a .44 Magnum guy, so my single .44 is a Redhawk also, from 1985. I have big bore fun with the 460XVR.

I entered this conversation with praise of the review and what I thought would be a fun debate but you seem pretty entrenched in your position. It seems like the only snippet of the conversation that you enjoyed was anything you've authored. Cheers to you.

You have no interest in debate. You want me to concede to your point while not engaging in the debate. Who told you that debate is where I present a statement, you misrepresent it and then go with "entrenched" because I have shot the guns we're speaking of? I'm sorry that my experience doesn't jive with your theory?

What have you presented to change my position and if the answer is "nothing", why would it change? I've responded with facts and experience and I'm supposed to set that aside based on what? The example you presented with the 29 is a theory and you've never dealt with the issues that I directly brought up in response. It will not shoot the loads you want it to without issue. Why would you want me to omit fact to make your theory work? Who's entrenched?

I'm happy to debate. One of us doesn't like defending their position and it does "entrench" you when you've done what's being suggested. That is true. As you said, good day indeed.

 

Yes, I have had not one, but two, N-frame .357 Magnums go out of time, including one that Robar smithed for me. Less than a few hundred rounds shot for both at fast cadence. Both were repaired. I repeated the range session that caused the failure on one of them and it went quickly out of time again. It was repaired again, and I sold both of them.

If you do not shoot a lot of rounds quickly in DA, the N-frame .357 is fine. If you shoot on a timer, not so much.

 

Yes, I have had not one, but two, N-frame .357 Magnums go out of time, including one that Robar smithed for me. Less than a few hundred rounds shot for both at fast cadence. Both were repaired. I repeated the range session that caused the failure on one of them and it went quickly out of time again. It was repaired again, and I sold both of them.

If you do not shoot a lot of rounds quickly in DA, the N-frame .357 is fine. If you shoot on a timer, not so much.

I don't shoot on a timer and I would imagine that the majority of my shooting by a wide margin with this gun will be in single action. I'm much more interested in this revolver for 50-200 yard shooting, but I could see it as a woods carry gun as well.

I don't shoot double action for speed, but I would like to be able to if necessary and definitely would not be impressed if I were able to shoot this 28 out of time in a few hundred rounds. Everything has a limit and the mass of the N-Frame cylinder is real and it makes sense that an issue would be much more likely to happen in a .357 cylinder than a lighter cylinder. I have heard of the issue, but you are the first person that I have actually heard a first person citation from and I appreciate that.

Now there's a part of me that wants to never shoot it DA and another part that wants to hammer it in DA only until I force an issue, just to test it! Damned curiosity.

 

I would not hammer on the M28 after learning what I did doing what I did. There are other revolvers that can take the punishment as the designs are more recent, taking advantage of lessons learned. They are also still in production, meaning less expensive and easier to modify and repair.

If you shoot the M28 slowly, either in DA or cocking speed in SA, there should be no issues. I just do not shoot like that, except when lining up a long-distance shot in DA. I am hard on guns, much harder than most with high round counts at high cadences. I break guns every year as I use the heck out of them. If you do not shoot like me, the M28 will be fine. It just is not the most versatile revolver as it lacks the endurance to handle a lot of rounds shot quickly.

 

I don't need to test the limits and for the most part I shoot single action with all of my revolvers anyway.

 

I suspect that we agree FAR more than we disagree.

 

I’m partial to K-frames, but the 27/28 is one of the best looking guns ever and an overall masterpiece.

 

A 3 1/2" 27 is the epitome of a good-looking handgun.

 

I had a 6" model 28. Bought in the 70s traded for 4" blue python

 

Now THAT is a fine trade. I have fired several, but never owned a Python.

 

I’m an absolute fan of the 27/28 family. I briefly owned this 28 to which, at some point in its life, a 3-1/2” barrel from a 27 had been fitted (along with a few other nice touches). I likely should have held onto this one haha…alas, some 27s have come along since to help ease the blow.

 

An interesting discussion on .357 N-frames and fast shooting. Durability of Smith .357 N frames shot DA

 

Post #11, in the above referenced post, sums it up well. IMO
YMMV

 

For the average shooter a 27/28 will last a lifetime. I have a couple of each including a Florida Highway Patrol 27-2 and a New York State Police 28-2. Both from the late 1970s. They are fun shooters.

 

I have a model 28-2 with a 5 inch barrel. Lot of fun to shoot .38 specials with almost no recoil. Also easy to retrieve my brass for reloading nice target ammo. Don’t think it will ever wear out.

 

Did you swap out the barrel or cut it down? I don't believe any 28-2's were shipped with 5-inch barrels.

 

I bought it that way. It’s 5 inches back to the frame, maybe 6 inches back to the forcing cone. I’ll have to measure it again. It looks original.

 

Yep, revolver barrel length is always measured to the forcing cone. Yours is almost surely 6-inch.

5-inch is a fantastic length and would have been a supreme offering but just really wasn't the thing back in the day.

 

I went back and measured as you suggested. It is a 6 inch. Maybe now I can find a holster a little easier.

 

I so wanted to love the 28. In fact, at one time had 2 28-2's that have since been sold off. The N frame was, for me, just too big and heavy for the round, especially with other choices available. Now my 686-4 4" is an entirely different story. Snagged it in essentially unfired condition and now its my favorite revolver to take to the range. Perfect fit in my hand, spot on accuracy, no failures to date-just a joy to behold and shoot. The 629 is my second favorite revolver to shoot. With 44 spl, it's like shooting a .22. Shooting 44 magnum is pure fun with every trigger pull putting a Cheshire cat grin on my face. Really just depends on your individual preferences...