Has S&W ever considered creating a 44 Magnum revolver with more than 6 rounds? I have this 627PC, and I like the 8 round capacity...It seems to hit a sweet spot between revolvers and semiauto’s...to me anyway. I don’t want to add new calibers like I’d need to for the 500 or 460...but I already have 44.

If they did build one, would it be an X Frame? Or could it fit in an N Frame? How much would it weigh? And the last question I have...Would people buy it? Honestly, I think I would if it was an X Frame with 8 rounds and a 4” or 5” barrel.

It would have to be an X-frame, I don't see how a 7th chamber could be squeezed into an N-frame cylinder. And it would be one of those things were everybody goes "WOW!"-and nobody buys it.

It might be possible to make such a beast using the X-Frame, but for a firearm of such massive size and weight, I can't help but question...In what circumstances would more than 6 rounds of .44 Magnum be necessary?

Seriously, not to question the appeal of a high capacity .44 Magnum Revolver or anything, (it's definitely a cool idea) but in terms of practicality it seems highly questionable, especially considering the necessary size and weight of an 8 shot .44 Magnum. Although I suppose they could reduce the weight by making the frame out of Scandium Alloy, maybe even a Titanium cylinder as well like the 329PD, only on the X-Frame.

Somebody, (maybe John Ross) mentioned that S&W was all tooled up to produce a revolver with a frame size between the X Frame and N Frame -- the project was shelved with a management change IIRC.

FWIW,

Paul

Maybe a 41 Mag would fit better. That I would consider.

__________________
Foster Positivity.

Yeah joe44va, I would think a 41 Mag on the X Frame would have a better chance of making a 7 round cylinder than the 44 Mag.

7 shot of a .44 round could not fit in an ''N'' sized cylinder.The 6 that are there are already pretty well tight in!
And an X frame .44 mag would be,well,let me put it this way,not a big seller.

How can this be a legitimate question-- without spawning a laundry list of similar questions?

Why would anyone need five shots of .500 Mag? How is an 8-shot N-frame .357 necessary? What makes six shots of .44 necessary to begin with? Is there anything that anyone would ever shoot a .44 Magnum at that couldn't be figured out in 2 or 4 rounds?

Not trying to be obnoxious, I just can't understand how "six rounds of .44 Mag" is some kind of baseline for what is sensical or needed or proper... but a 7th is preposterous...?

I assumed I wasn’t the only one to wonder about this idea...Same topic from this Forum in 2011:

Want an X frame 8 shot 44 magnum!

Actually, all such proposals/questions/sundry musings arise from fishing tackle---and its place in our world. Many, perhaps most folks will tell you fishing tackle is made to catch fish. Given a modicum of thought on the subject (and myriad others), a case can be made fishing tackle is made to sell to fishermen----and fisherwomen. And so it is with other vital products.

One such is a "bull pup" combat style shotgun I caught sight of not too long ago. Being of a "bull pup" design, I supposed it would be comparatively light weight. I supposed that right up until I learned it had a dual tubular magazine which would hold the better part of, if not an entire box of shells. So much for light weight. Rather than ponder the imaginary merits of such a weapon, it's likely more entertaining to wonder about the dialogue in the conference room which preceded the decision to manufacture such a beast in the first place. I reckon it was fairly easy to convince the boss man such an absurdity could be sold.

Ralph Tremaine

Just carry a couple of speed loaders and call it done.

Fortunately I had 2 speed loaders of 700 gr 500 SW on my last T-Rex Hunt!!!

__________________
I BACK OUR BLUE

AMT or maybe they were IAI at that point... when marketing the AutoMag V in .50AE, they used a T-Rex in their print ads.

Back when the X-frame was a new offering, I had a conversatin with S&W engineer Herb Belin. He indicated that a Scandium framed 44 Magnum 8shot and a 7.62x39 X-frame were both on his list of possibilities.

He also joked about a 20 shot 22LR/Magnum revolver

The difference is that the 5-shot S&W Model 500 came with 5 shots by default, and was likely made that way because it's a revolver which tend to come with 5-6 shots on average.
As for 8-shot N-Frames, I believe that the first 8-shot N-Frame .357 revolver was requested by Law Enforcement, which makes sense given that Law Enforcement would want a high capacity revolver in a potent round such as .357 Magnum.
Same as the Model 500, the Model 29 was designed with a 6-shot cylinder because that's the capacity folks expect to see in a revolver and that's the configuration Smith & Wesson has long since mastered.

That being said, is the 5-shot S&W Model 500 practical? Honestly no, and I doubt that anybody would claim that the Model 500 is by any means practical. In reality, the Model 500 only exists because S&W wanted the marketability and bragging rights associated with the title of "The most powerful handgun in the world!" Same goes with the S&W Model 460 being dubbed "The highest velocity handgun in the world!" and is offered in barrel lengths which exceed that which one generally considers to be synonymous with handguns.
Both firearms were/are marketed based on hype alone, not because they're practical. They're extremely large, extremely heavy, extremely powerful, produce extreme muzzle flash, recoil, and report, thus making them extremely impractical in just about every role because they're excessive for just about everything.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against firearms which major selling point is their cool factor. (Heck, I carry a PPK/S and my Home Defense firearm is a Taurus Judge Magnum.) I'm just telling it like it is, an 8-shot X-Frame .44 Magnum is less practical and more hype.

If you want a 7-8-10 round .44 magnum..........buy a rifle.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

This is AMERICA, NEED has nothing to do with anything.

If NEED was a standard, there would be no Rolex\Piguet\Vacheron-Constantine watches or Corvette\Mustang\Porsche cars that can go faster then the speed limit or 3D televisions or private planes or a host of other things that people do not really NEED.

In AMERICA if you want and can afford it, that is all that should matter.
The 8 shot N-frame was a 1996 collaboration between Lew Horton and Smith and Wesson. The 1997 exclusive offering was 300 pieces.

Yes when I heard about it, I thought an 8 shooter was very cool. I tried to order serial number 357 and that is how I learned that it was going to be one run of only 300 pieces.

Law Enforcement had nothing to do with the design of this firearm

That 8 shot 357 Magnum revolver was the fastest selling Exclusive that Lew Horton ever had and an additional 300 were produced just a few months later.

That first design has been in continuous production for over two decades now. It has spawned off about two dozen variations and is now a cataloged Performance Center offering. The revolver in the upper left is #27 while the one in the upper right is #357 both manufactured in 1997

Would the wheels and tow vehicle be standard or optional?

Neither...But I would expect the Deck Mount to be standard equipment...

Well of course I agree entirely. Quoting my post takes it a bit out of context -- it was a response to when it was questioned why anyone would need more than six rounds of .44 Magnum.

Cuz 'Merica!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Jeff Cooper thought the question that needed to be addressed when evaluating firearms and proposed firearms is “But what is it FOR?”

So, what in the world is a 7 or 8 shot 44 mag revolver for?

I can’t imagine an answer to that question that would pass the straight face test.

Coming from the SemiAuto world, I’ve heard similar questions many times. The answer is so simple it’s occasionally overlooked...This isn’t a Task to accomplish a specific goal...This is about pushing boundaries, trying something different. I could see this as a backpacking/hiking/bear gun.

Most advancements in any field come from experimentation and curiosity. In the grand schemes of things, an 8 shot 44 Magnum is inconsequential...It’s just an exercise in the possible. Why not? The really cool muscle cars of the 60’s and 70’s never would have happened without some serious curiosity and experimentation. Imagine a world without the Shelby Mustangs, or the movie “Vanishing Point”?

Makes me wanna cry just thinking about it...

Clint would not let them. NO way.

"Did I fire six, or did I fire seven?" just won't work in the "Do you feel lucky?" scene.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

A high cap 44 revolver would be a great bowling pin gun. This 25-2 is may current pin revolver.

Attached Images

25-2 w dot.jpg (102.2 KB, 13 views)

__________________
Shoot fast & live long
Warren

Taurus built the six-shot Raging Judge in .45 Colt, .454 Casull, and .410 3 inch. Crazily enough, they built an UltraLite version chambered in .45 Colt and .410 3 inch with 7 chambers!

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk

__________________
CPT, Armor (Ret)
Luke 22:36

Yes, because you want one , or because it's cool is reason enough . And yes , S&W could initially sell a certain number just for the cool factor .

That being said, I wouldn't be interested , and not really foresee much interest beyond the novelty factor .

The N Frame/ plain Redhawk, / Dan Wesson 44 are about the upper limit for a practical belt gun, all of which limited to 6rd . An X frame's size & weight are a necessary evil Worth putting up with for a .50cal bore size ? Maybe . For 1 more round of .44 ? Not for me . I'd be more interested in an N frame 5 shot in .480 .

An 8 shot .44 Magnum exists , and been around for quite a while . Desert Eagle .

Yes, the DE 44 Mag is 8 shots, but again, it's also one heavy, solid chunk of steel and plastic (mostly steel). I have one and I wouldn't want to lug that puppy around in the woods. My 629 Classic with 6 shots would be much preferable, weight-wise.

"What is it for?"
Why to sell of course!! Duh................

__________________
Forum consigliere

Honestly, I think my 500 is pretty practical.

I've always thought the real benefit of an X-frame 44 would be the strength of the action. They counderstand give it a long enough cylinder to fire the famous "Ruger Only" loads and really torque off a bunch of Redhawk guys by throwing in the higher capacity, to boot.

*they could




Stupid phone.

If they made a ‘tweener’ frame that held 7 as someone mentioned earlier, I know i’d want one. For no practical reason whatsoever.

__________________
Oui Chef!