Ruger GP100 cylinder vs. S&W Model 27-2 cylinder

[tja6435]

147078
The 27-2 has quite a bit larger cylinder than my gp100. I had been thinking I needed to keep an eye out for a Redhawk in .357. Then it dawned on me that I have something in the safe built for beefy loads, the 4" 27-2. I think a range trip is in order soon to get reacquainted with this guy.
What're the thoughts on the vintage Model 27's for some of the higher end loads compared to say a 4" GP100?

[Rustyleee]

While I've been a S&W fan for over 40 years now I will have to admit that the Ruger does have a stronger Chamber. That said nothing is as smooth as a classic ( meaning old) N frame.

[dubber123]

I've leaned on a M28 pretty hard. The cylinder has only one shortfall, it's short. I ran my 6" to 1,412 fps. with a 180 jacketed. Easy extraction and long brass life. Be aware there is a 10+ grain difference in the weight of different headstamp brass, and it can get you in trouble with top end loads. Pick one headstamp and stick with it if you are going to run them on the top end.

[square butte]

I have a 5" model 27. Wouldn't trade it for anything. The short cylinder seems it's only drawback - but not much of one

[tja6435]

I have noted that some of the loads I make for Ruger revolver and the 77/357 will not fit in the 27's cylinder.
Thanks for the note about volume difference in different brass. I have 1k Starline .357 I haven't used yet. Once I have time to dial in some accurate loads for the 27, I'll dedicate a lot of the new Starline brass to it.

[Blackwater]

The M-27 is the gun that led to the development. I think it was Phil Sharpe and others that started heavy loading the .38 Special, which led S&W to come out with the 357/44 model (a .357 on a .44 frame). S&W and I think it was Remington then joined forces to produce high pressure ammo that wouldn't fit in older, weaker guns, so nobody could blow themselves and some fine old guns up, and they just lengthened the .38 case .135" and voila', the .357 magnum was introduced, and gee golly wow did it take the shooting world by storm. At first, a lot of old timers found it "too powerful," and its recoil more than they were used to. The muzzle blast was severe back in the day when few wore ear muffs or plugs, and many just hated the noise of the muzzle blast. Those who adapted, however, made it one of the best and most versatile "all-around" calibers ever invented. The cylinder walls on a .357 are thick enough, and the N-frames strong enough, that it'd be hard (not impossible by any means, but "hard") to blow one up. The 27's were typically one of S&W's most finely finished revolvers, also. You have a VERY nice gun! It'd be sacrilege NOT to take it out for a stroll, and even a nice run on occasions!

[zarrinvz24]

The reason why the Ruger is stronger than a N-frame smith is because the cylinder notches are off-set from the chamber on a Ruger. Its not just how much meat is in the cylinder, but rather how thick is it at the thinnest point.

[JSH]

The reason why the Ruger is stronger than a N-frame smith is because the cylinder notches are off-set from the chamber on a Ruger. Its not just how much meat is in the cylinder, but rather how thick is it at the thinnest point.

And to say a Ruger trigger can't be made as smooth as SW, I would differ on that to a point. I have a few slicked up Rugers with excellent triggers. IMHO it is what you can shoot the best.

[tja6435]

I have a Redhawk that has the smoothest trigger of any revolver I've ever felt. I am working on touching up the finish on the 27-2. I bought it with damaged finish for a good price and have smoothed out the scratches and slight pitting the original finish had. I had always intended on sending to Smith for a factory reblue, I should get that going now I'm thinking about it again.

[happie2shoot]

My best 187gr fngc will not fit in a m27, too long, it shoots 1500fps in my three gp 100s.

Three inch groups at 100yds are doable and under six inches at 200yds are doable in
the 6.5'' BH.

Some of my GP100s and SRH have 30oz triggers.

I also have a 7.5'' RH that shoots a 213gr boolit that is 1.780'' OAL.

[Petrol & Powder]

Both of those cylinders are more than strong enough for any sane .357 magnum load. The strength of a revolver is more than just the amount of metal in the cylinder and the thickness of the chamber walls.
Someone mentioned the offset notches for the cylinder bolt on the Ruger and it is true but not unique to Ruger; in fact S&W uses that same technique on its little 5 shot J-frames. That feature does allow for a little more metal in the cylinder wall near the rear of the chamber.
The GP-100 has a little longer cylinder and can therefore take a slightly longer bullet than the N-frame cylinder. The GP also locks the cylinder to the frame at the front and rear as opposed to the S&W that uses the detent at the end of the ejector rod as the secondary lock. Of course the big Colts only used one locking point at the rear of the cylinder. Point is, the strength is derived from several features, including the type of steel used and the heat treatment of that steel, not just how thick it is.
In the end I would say the Ruger is overall a stronger revolver but that is like saying a 100 pound anvil is stronger than a 95 pound anvil. It's just not a significant difference. Both of those guns are very strong.
As for the triggers, don't allow dogma and conventional wisdom fool you, the Ruger trigger can be made very smooth. It might not match a well used old Smith but they can be a lot better than people think.

[osteodoc08]

If you guys wanna see beefy, check out a 357 mag cylinder on a RedHawk. With a 7.5" barrel, even top end loads feel like shooting a big, heavy 22.

[Rustyleee]

I believe the step up in power went from the .38 Special to the 38/44 Outdoorsman that S&W made, then to the .357.
I haven't looked for any 38/44s at any gunshows of late but there are usually 1 or 2 around if you look.

[EOD3]

The cylinder isn't the only thing about a revolver that determines its strength. The one-piece frame of the Ruger will stand up to more abuse than the Smith. Having said that, either gun will handle heavy loads just fine. If you really want to fire "boomers", get an Encore pistol and go to town.

[pme166]

http://eickpm.com/picts/redhawk_vs_pre27.jpg

Here is a photo comparison of a Redhawk 357 to a Pre-27 which would be the same cylinder size as your 27-2. Think wimpy when it comes to the S&W compared to the Redhawk.

http://eickpm.com/picts/redhawks.jpg

Get some Redhawks if you want to play. Well worth the money. I have one of each size.

http://eickpm.com/picts/redhawk_barrel.jpg

[dubber123]

http://eickpm.com/picts/redhawk_vs_pre27.jpg

Here is a photo comparison of a Redhawk 357 to a Pre-27 which would be the same cylinder size as your 27-2. Think wimpy when it comes to the S&W compared to the Redhawk.

http://eickpm.com/picts/redhawks.jpg

Get some Redhawks if you want to play. Well worth the money. I have one of each size.

http://eickpm.com/picts/redhawk_barrel.jpg

Or get a Freedom 353 if you are afraid of the stength of the Redhawk :)

[tja6435]

I think I'd rather get an unfluted 6" GP100, as the .357 Redhawks are not easily found for sale for under $900