|
|
 |
01-13-2017, 05:21 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,738
Likes: 477
Liked 16,683 Times in 3,302 Posts
|
|
Who was responsible for the "Look" of the Regisered Magnum
Form often follows function, but the Registered Magnum and its successors have a definite "Look" that is very appealing.
Who was the designer?
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
|
01-13-2017, 05:25 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 969
Likes: 1,658
Liked 1,203 Times in 427 Posts
|
|
I understand it was basically the S&W Heavy Duty chambered in 357.
|
01-13-2017, 05:27 PM
|
 |
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: AL Wiregrass
Posts: 7,217
Likes: 34,786
Liked 10,777 Times in 3,670 Posts
|
|
I suspect it was Col. Douglas Wesson with a lot of input from his sales and engineering staff.
__________________
Guy
SWHF #474 SWCA LM#2629
|
01-13-2017, 07:17 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas & San Antonio
Posts: 33,589
Likes: 239
Liked 29,097 Times in 14,068 Posts
|
|
It was basically the .38/44 Outdoorsman chambered in .357 Magnum with some enhancements. So the question is who designed it. Wesson is a good possibility. Many credit Phil Sharpe for the cartridge, but I don't know that he had much to do with the gun design. It's possible that he may have recommended chambering the Outdoorsman for use with the .357.
Last edited by DWalt; 01-13-2017 at 07:20 PM.
|
01-13-2017, 07:30 PM
|
 |
Moderator
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 9,397
Likes: 1,322
Liked 30,430 Times in 4,367 Posts
|
|
I believe Douglas B. Wesson deserves the lion's share of the credit for the design of the ".357" Magnum. Phil Sharpe pioneered the cartridge development.
Bill
|
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
01-13-2017, 07:41 PM
|
 |
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mount Carmel, TN USA
Posts: 3,171
Likes: 1,626
Liked 3,178 Times in 933 Posts
|
|
Since this was during the peak of the depression, I'm sure the design team was told to do whatever they could to add 'retail value' to the basic .38/44 Outdoorsman footprint. Tweaks like leaving the rib on the barrel didn't add production cost but made for a unique silhouette for a hand ejector not seen since the 1896 .32 and the top breaks. The additional checkering/knurling activities wouldn't have been extensive added labor. Adding optional grips, hammer and barrel lengths added more perceived value plus they were additional billable profit margin. In my opinion (which is absolutely worthless at face value :-) ), the marketing department had more to do with the design aspects than the engineers or designers did. A good engineer/machinist would have simply chambered the .38/44 OD for .357. But what we have instead is marketing genius!
__________________
Chris
SWCA #2243 SWHF #292
|
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
01-13-2017, 08:47 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 596
Likes: 583
Liked 924 Times in 225 Posts
|
|
Edward S Pomeroy, plant superintendent, chief designer from the teens to early 1940s may have had some input. He held patents on the magna stocks, adjustable rear sight, 9mm light rifle, straightline pistol, 32 automatic pistol and handcuffs.
|
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
01-13-2017, 11:34 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: pa
Posts: 3,069
Likes: 4,005
Liked 5,297 Times in 1,443 Posts
|
|
Wasn't King gun sight company putting full ribs on guns before the into of the Reg mag?
I wouldn't be surprised if their sights had any influence on the rib being added. Reg Mags seem to have a good bit of King influence on them.
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|
