Seen many discussions on the wish list for guns that to me are not practical from an engineering standpoint, nor would some of them be shootable IMO if they could be made.

A 50 Caliber J frame or Scandium N frame would be a real wrist breaker just due to weight of gun versus bullet unless the velocity were cut down to the point where marketability and mad bear stoppability would suffer.

Per reports no one enjoys shooting full power loads in the Scandium 44 Magnum. It is, I suspect really intended to handle light bullet medium velocity personal defense loads such as those that Corbon lists and 44 specials. I imagine that a full power 300 grain+ hard lead grizzly buster load would be virtually uncontrollable in a 25 ounce gun. Recoil might also be violent enough to cause severe bullet pull, tying up the gun. Same for the 12 ounce Scandium/Titanium 357 Mag J frames. This is warned about in the owners manual.

There are limits to both materials strength and the amount of punishment that wrists can take. I suspect that we have already reached those limits with things like the 500 S&W magnum, 475 and 500 Leinbaugh longs and 454 Casull as well as many of the TC Encore chamberings from SSK.

Also remember that the J frame is an elongated I frame revolver. It was originally chambered for the 38 S&W or 32 S&W long, pipsqueak loads. The N frame was designed for the 44 Special, again a low pressure load. It took considerable redesign in the 90's with the endurance package addition to stop the 44 Mag guns shooting loose with heavy use of 44 Mag loads as used in Silhouette shooting.

Others may disagree but I suspect that S&W chambers or will chamber their revolvers for the largest cartridges that they feel they safely can, if they feel there is an adequate market for them.

Before making a suggestion for an extreme cartridge and gun combo try taking a few measurements on the gun in question to see how much metal is available for the combination being proposed. If less than the amount available in current guns for a particular cartridge it probably is not safe.

Also forget about revolvers for bottle necked cartridges. Based on the history of most of those tried the two designs are just not compatible except in very low pressure loadings such as the old 38-40 and 44-40.

The 22 Jet was not a success and the 256 Win Mag nevermade it into a revolver though Ruger tried. I have even heard of set back problems in revolvers with the 30 Carbine unless the cylinder is kept totally free of any trace of oil. It has minimal taper.

yeh, some rational judgement goes a long way
for reality realization.

quote:

Originally posted by Rich W:
I suspect that we have already reached those limits with things like the 500 S&W magnum, 475 and 500 Leinbaugh longs and 454 Casull

We have not even begun yet. Fortunately.

+ 1 on the lets be practical front.

Many of the posts in this thread are for things that are never going to happen--either due to engineering problems or because the caliber desired is so obscure.

Wishing that S&W would make a J-frame snubbie in 5.75mm Velo Dog is just a waste of time. Never going to happen.

Wishing that S&W would make revolvers in any number of bottle-neck rounds is also not going to happen.

If the caliber is less popular than the 10mm Auto, the odds are not good that S&W will start making guns in the more obscure calibers.

The “market” for the Scandium .44’s and J frame .357’s have nothing to do with engineering. S&W just saw that there were a lot of people who would be willing to part with large parts of their paychecks, so they built them. “Build it and they will come.” Doesn’t always work, but when you’re S&W, you can get away with the ridiculous.

Kevin;

Building the ultra light weight Scandium/Titanium guns has to do with both engineering and percieved market demand.

Marketing told engineering that the demand was there from the CCW folks and engineering said that they could be made without blowing up.

How practical these ultra light guns are is another matter entirely. I suspect for most owners they fall into the "carry a lot and shoot damn seldom" category. Carry comfort wins out over controllability if used with full house 357 loads I suspect.

SASU;

I suspect that you may be mistaken as the 500 is a 4.5 pound revolver in long barrel lengths and still heavy and large in the bear protection short barrel model. Get much larger and heavier and you might as well get a carbine in the desired caliber. Would not weigh much more I believe.

I admit that the Magnum Research BFR is available in even longer cartridges, including the 50-90 as I recall, but how practical is it and how many are sold in that caliber. I have also read mention of a 600 Nitro Express revolver. No idea of how large or heavy it is.

There is a definite limit to what the wrist can take in the way of repeated shocks and twists just from a physical standpoint. I suspect things such as the maximum pressure heavy bullet loads in the 500 and some of the BFR chamberings, as well as heavy bullet loads in the ultra light weight 329 44 Mag and 3 pound 500 Leinbaugh Long revolvers are at or beyond that limit.

Someone can design and build it but can you fire it effectively and with reasonable recovery time for multiple shots? If not then it is not a practical handgun from my point of view.

Carpal tunnel operations are no fun I hear from people who have had to have them.

What are the practical limits for the various S&W revolver frames?

The J frame is probably at it's limit at 357 in 5 shot form and 32 mag in 6 shot. Possibly 327 Mag in a 6 shot but I doubt it. I suspect it's pressure is too high.

K frame limit is 357 in 6 shot and this is primarily due to problems I have seen mentioned with occasional barrel splitting at the forcing cone even with this chambering. Could go larger in a 5 shot but that would require it to be a lower pressure chambering due to the mentioned failure mode.

L frame probably at it's limit with the 5 shot 44 special chambering. As I recall it has restrictions on S&W recommended bullet weights to be fired.

N frame limit is 45 caliber in 6 shot cylinders. Theoretically I believe a .475" to 50 caliber low pressure load would be possible in a 5 shot version if enough meat in the barrel forcing cone area.

X frame could certainly go to a larger caliber if the pressure was reduced. The problem is with the limits imposed on over 50 caliber guns by the feds. Anyone heard of any criminals using a S&W 500 for a street shooting yet?

There might be new innovations that allow firing humongous cartridges in lightweight guns.

E.g. Benelli Argo R1 rifles have some clever "chevrons" in the stock to soften felt recoil.

I am expecting new ways to counter felt recoil in both long guns and short guns.

As ultimate dreams go... A big bore hunting rifle weighing just 2 lbs would be dandy. Or a 500 caliber class revolver at 1-1.5 lbs. I still might have several decades to live, so I could even see something along these lines.

Or maybe we will have some completely new technology that will make big bores and heavy bullets obsolete.

My engineering part agrees, somewhat, but some other part says - it's a wish, we can wish for what we want.

We can always say that we wish that whatever technical hurdles exist can also be overcome.

We need those semi-recoilless bullets that get a bit of a charge to pop them out of the barrel and get them spinning, and then ignite the booster once they are out.

Of course, not too useful for short range, unless you want the booster exhaust in your face.

Yeah, I guess you can have a pistol with shock absorbers in it, like the new Browning .50 rifles. Don't know how that would work.

glypnir;

Your "booster" ammo sounds interesting and technicallly feasable as it is currently being used for some military larger caliber ammo as I recall, 5" or so on up. It can apparently increase effective range enormously.

For us poor civilians though probably be banned by the BATF just like the old Gyrojet ammo was. They put an interesting concept right out of business. Understand accuracy was poor but it might have been improved with further development.

Wonder how it would have affected night vision as must have been staring right at a miniature rocket exhaust. Talk about muzzle flash

Since "practical" was mentioned here is a revolver that sets a whole new standard:

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x261/n4zov/WorldsLargest.jpg

It's only 28mm!

Amazing what can be done with photoshop.

Looks to me like someone combined a photo of a Remington cap and ball revolver or clone thereof with the photo of the supposed shooter.

How does he grip it for shooting while reaching forward with one hand to pull the trigger?

Don't think photoshop was involved at all:

www.vincelewis.net/bigrevolver.html

A 6-shot "K" frame chambered for the .327 Federal Magnum is inherently practical. I believe that the barrels should be 3, 4, 5 and 6 1/2" in length. Most should have "bull" barrels and all should be manufactured without the dreaded lock. This would be one of the finest offerings that S&W could ever make for many of us.

1) A powerful cartridge that can "accomplish the task" when it comes to personal defense.

2) A versatile field cartridge that mirrors the "sainted" .32-20 at the upper end of the cartridge's power band.

3) It can shoot a hot-loaded .32 H&R Magnum without burping and still come back for more.

4) It will shoot the .32 S&W Long and quite accurately, I might add.

5) It can be used to eliminate "garden pests" with either "gallery" loads in .32 H&R Magnum, .32 S&W Long, or the old .32 S&W loads. This revolver will shoot all these with consummate grace and aplomb.

In conclusion, there are many things that we can wish for that are inherently practical. I see this revolver as one.

Scott