627 or 929

[doc38]

I want to get an 8 shooter. I guess my question is regarding the 38/.357. Is the 627 a dead letter with the new 929 on the market? I LIKE .357/38 special. I would also EDC a 627 with 357 loads and feel great about it. I LOVE 5" N frames. Would be crippled with a 627 shooting short Colts for competition? Is the 929 just easier for folks to feed, or are there some other real advantages to it?

My life would be easier to stick with 38/.357 because I already load huge amounts of ammo for those calibers. I am 100% confident in .357 for deer and varmints ( two and 4 legged) and I have found 5" barrels to be about the best EDC in large revolvers.

[pskys2]

The only advantage would be 1) the Ti Cylinder (some feel this helps with wear) and 2)the possibility of using 9mm, especially if you already shoot Production or SS Minor. The latter is still a questionable issue as to get maximum effectiveness from a moon clip/case combo you will need to standardize on a specific case brand. 3) A 6 1/2" barrel, some would really like that and others may feel it is a bit long.

So if you have no reason to standardize on 9mm and have 38/357 I'd not worry about it. Jump in to a 627 and don't look back.

[RevolverJockey]

I have considered seeing if my 627 Super can be converted to 9mm as I have a Glock 17 that shoots the same projectile. I don't think there would be an advantage other than less calibers to load. As other will say, if you like 38 SPL or want to try SC, I don't think the gun would be holding you back. Think about it this way, if there was a compelling reason to run a 9mm over a 38, people would have been doing it before how.

Seeing what I have seen with Moonclips, 9mm is super short, but the rimless Moonclips don't hold as tight as the SC ones. I don't feel like this is a limiting factor even in Super @ .900" but it is a factor.

Personally, I am not sold on the idea of tapered cylinders and after shooting a few TI cylinder guns, I wouldn't get one even if they did make them for Super. Time will tell.

Lee

[Carmoney]

Crippled?? Hardly. The 627 with short colts will continue to be completely competitive. If that is your preference, you will be perfectly fine with one.

[steel1212]

I think Robbie shot a super with a 9mm chambered cylinder at nationals. I know pretty much my entire squad was shooting 637s with short colts. I think the equipment list has 1 929.

[Jaxshooter]

You can also have the 627 converted to 38 super. I had one of mine done as a back up to my two original 38 supers. I converted a Ti cylinder. It came out great and is accurate.

[Tom Freeman]

When I spend some actual time with my 929 and a timer I will see how much better/faster I am when it comes to reloads.

Just playing around dry fire, I seem a little more consistent and maybe a touch faster with my 929. It might be the bullet shape and a slightly tapered case or I might just be hoping it works better. Right now I am using Zero 147s and I was using 38 Medium Colt with Montana Gold 142s.

Weight wise it is only 2 ounces heavier than my 627 with a Ti cylinder.

[doc38]

I think I kind of answered my own question. You guys just re enforced it.

[gp100man]

Hey lee, I shot with a gentleman this weeken that had his 627 .38 super converted to 9 mm. He was very accurate with it. His rounds did feel loose in the moonclips tho. But I don't think that they were the nice hearthco clips.

Steve

[RevolverJockey]

I know it is just me being silly, but it seems wrong to convert one of the few Supers to 9mm. Usually I am all for doing something simply because I can even if it doesn't help at all but in this case it seems disrespectful.

Lee

[seanc]

I know it is just me being silly, but it seems wrong to convert one of the few Supers to 9mm. Usually I am all for doing something simply because I can even if it doesn't help at all but in this case it seems disrespectful.

Lee

to each there own but I think I agree.

you can probably fetch a very nice price for a super, easily enough to buy a 929 when they start becoming readily available...

[Carmoney]

Two thoughts on that topic:

1. All it takes to "convert" a .38 Super 627-4 to 9mm is to mildly relieve the extractor--it will still function perfectly fine with .38 Super ammo.

2. 627-4s were pretty rare before Bangers did the second run--not so much any more. There was a point where Bangers actually discounted them pretty substantially because they weren't selling.

[RevolverJockey]

Two thoughts on that topic:

1. All it takes to "convert" a .38 Super 627-4 to 9mm is to mildly relieve the extractor--it will still function perfectly fine with .38 Super ammo.

2. 627-4s were pretty rare before Bangers did the second run--not so much any more. There was a point where Bangers actually discounted them pretty substantially because they weren't selling.

Right now my Super shoots ~2 3/4" groups at 50 yards would the difference in case geometry and efficiency or .100" OAL change alter that? Would relieving the cylinder/extractor still require the use or a special lot of brass or would range brass work?

Lee

[seanc]

Two thoughts on that topic:

1. All it takes to "convert" a .38 Super 627-4 to 9mm is to mildly relieve the extractor--it will still function perfectly fine with .38 Super ammo.

2. 627-4s were pretty rare before Bangers did the second run--not so much any more. There was a point where Bangers actually discounted them pretty substantially because they weren't selling.

Right now my Super shoots ~2 3/4" groups at 50 yards would the difference in case geometry and efficiency or .100" OAL change alter that? Would relieving the cylinder/extractor still require the use or a special lot of brass or would range brass work?

Lee

I was going to ask a similar question. I seem to have a sense that the super rev's have somewhat marginal accuracy based on posts I've read over time.

2 3/4 seems pretty good!

Will these -4's run super comp brass or must it be super brass?

Edited May 14, 2014 by seanc

[RevolverJockey]

It also would seem I should stop talking about this before I break out the 9mm reamer. I have a perfectly good Super; I should leave well enough alone.

Lee

[Carmoney]

I was going to ask a similar question. I seem to have a sense that the super rev's have somewhat marginal accuracy based on posts I've read over time.

2 3/4 seems pretty good!

Will these -4's run super comp brass or must it be super brass?

With careful component selection, you can make the supers pretty accurate. Mine didn't shoot all that well with factory WWB 115-gr. 9mm ammo when I relieved the extractor, but it was somewhat better with heavier bullets and their longer bearing surface. I think the 627-4s are never going to shoot all that great with .355 bullets as I think the barrels are designed for .357 bullets. Back when I was experimenting with shooting 9mm ammo in my super, my goal was to buy and shoot WWB (or equivalent el cheapo) ammo and avoid handloading for the gun. This was back when WWB was $10.66 per 100 pack at Wal-Mart all day long!

We are informed that the 929 barrels are sized correctly for .355 projectiles. This is what S&W was saying at the SHOT Show, according to one shooter who talked to them. That will be nice, if it turns out to be true!

Rob L. has posted some good information about why the true 9mm cylinders (with proper chamber and forcing cone dimensions) should allow the best accuracy, and I am confident he is correct.

You cannot use supercomp brass in these, at least not with standard moonclips. However, I see no reason why a custom supercomp moonclip could not be fabricated, if the goal is to use supercomp brass. Check with Dave Hearth on that.

[seanc]

I was going to ask a similar question. I seem to have a sense that the super rev's have somewhat marginal accuracy based on posts I've read over time.

2 3/4 seems pretty good!

Will these -4's run super comp brass or must it be super brass?

With careful component selection, you can make the supers pretty accurate. Mine didn't shoot all that well with factory WWB 115-gr. 9mm ammo when I relieved the extractor, but it was somewhat better with heavier bullets and their longer bearing surface. I think the 627-4s are never going to shoot all that great with .355 bullets as I think the barrels are designed for .357 bullets. Back when I was experimenting with shooting 9mm ammo in my super, my goal was to buy and shoot WWB (or equivalent el cheapo) ammo and avoid handloading for the gun. This was back when WWB was $10.66 per 100 pack at Wal-Mart all day long!

We are informed that the 929 barrels are sized correctly for .355 projectiles. This is what S&W was saying at the SHOT Show, according to one shooter who talked to them. That will be nice, if it turns out to be true!

Rob L. has posted some good information about why the true 9mm cylinders (with proper chamber and forcing cone dimensions) should allow the best accuracy, and I am confident he is correct.

You cannot use supercomp brass in these, at least not with standard moonclips. However, I see no reason why a custom supercomp moonclip could not be fabricated, if the goal is to use supercomp brass. Check with Dave Hearth on that.

Thanks mike. If these guns turn out to be as accurate as people are hoping they will be I am probably going to get on the bandwagon. My open 627 is just not consistent with the current barrel it has on it and I have to admit that getting rid of a caliber to load would be very nice which was where the supercomp brass question came from. I just acquired a new open gun and am back to loading 3 calibers on two presses, if I could get down to 9mm and 38sc I would be very happy.

[pskys2]

Accuracy with my 627 and 38 short Colts and 160 Bayous is fantastic, roll over prone in the X ring of a Bianchi Target. But can't say the same for anything else, especially Plated. Except for 355 MG JHP's, had 3m for the 9mm, which shoot almost as good as the Bayous, go figure? Don't have any FMJ 355's to try, so can't say anything about 355 jacketed bullets in general. But 356 MG FMJ's aren't even close to either of the above bullets.

Edited May 15, 2014 by pskys2

[seanc]

Accuracy with my 627 and 38 short Colts and 160 Bayous is fantastic. But can't say the same for anything else, especially Plated. Except for 355 MG JHP's, had 3m for the 9mm, which shoot almost as good as the Bayous, go figure? Don't have any FMJ 355's to try, so can't say anything about 355 jacketed bullets in general. But 356 MG FMJ's aren't even close to either of the above bullets.

My 627 with short colts and bayous is laughably terrible, like 4" at 20 yards bad. With long colts its 1.5" at 20 yards but opens up well past 4+" at 50.

It has become a hang up for me that I need a gun/load combo that will shoot 2" max at 50....

am i crazy?

Edited May 15, 2014 by seanc

[RevolverJockey]

I didn't a lot of measuring on my Super and came to the conclusion that so long as the cylinder throat is smaller than the bullet and larger than the nominal barrel diameter, if there is a problem with accuracy, it might be best to start looking elsewhere. I shoot the same bullet in Super as 9mm - a Lee tumble lubed 158gr RN sized to .3565. It does seem a little small for lead Super and a little large for lead 9mm, but somehow at around 850fps - magic happens in both loads.

Lee

[pskys2]

Accuracy with my 627 and 38 short Colts and 160 Bayous is fantastic. But can't say the same for anything else, especially Plated. Except for 355 MG JHP's, had 3m for the 9mm, which shoot almost as good as the Bayous, go figure? Don't have any FMJ 355's to try, so can't say anything about 355 jacketed bullets in general. But 356 MG FMJ's aren't even close to either of the above bullets.

My 627 with short colts and bayous is laughably terrible, like 4" at 20 yards bad. With long colts its 1.5" at 20 yards but opens up well past 4+" at 50.

It has become a hang up for me that I need a gun/load combo that will shoot 2" max at 50....

am i crazy?

Look at your muzzle, is there a bunch of rough edges? About all I had to do to mine was ream the muzzle crown and my Bayou 160's are going 3-4" at 50 yards and one ragged hole at 25 yards. Reaming the muzzle crown didn't actually shrink the best groups, but it eliminated flyers every few cylinders that would open them up. Also I use Clays and a tight Taper Crimp .370 and OAL of 1.180. I also noticed an issue with groups getting larger if I drop below 830 f/s, my loads are running 850 f/s, 844 f/s at the Nationals where a lot of guys were getting hit with low numbers. All of my accuracy work is either off of a bench or roll over prone.

I have a reamer coming to clean up the forcing cone, keeps building up lead at the bottom edge. Doubt if accuracy will get any better though.

[seanc]

Look at your muzzle, is there a bunch of rough edges? About all I had to do to mine was ream the muzzle crown and my Bayou 160's are going 3-4" at 50 yards and one ragged hole at 25 yards. Reaming the muzzle crown didn't actually shrink the best groups, but it eliminated flyers every few cylinders that would open them up. Also I use Clays and a tight Taper Crimp .370 and OAL of 1.180. I also noticed an issue with groups getting larger if I drop below 830 f/s, my loads are running 850 f/s, 844 f/s at the Nationals where a lot of guys were getting hit with low numbers. All of my accuracy work is either off of a bench or roll over prone.

I have a reamer coming to clean up the forcing cone, keeps building up lead at the bottom edge. Doubt if accuracy will get any better though.

The muzzle is crowned nicely and recessed.

This is an icore gun, so I never really thought about bringing the speed up to see it if helps. I am generally running them around 800 fps.

I will put a couple extra tenths in a see if that tightens it up.

I hope its that simple, that would be great.