In the last few months, I had a Model 686 extra cylinder converted to 9x23, 38 Super, and 9x19 by Pinnacle Gunsmithing and used it as an alternative so I could fire 9mm, 357, and 38 from one of my favorite revolvers. I was really interested in the 9x19 but the others came along in one package. The idea worked out very well.

Today, I learned that Taurus is releasing a revolver combo that does the same thing(without the 9x23 and 38 Super). In doing a little research, I found that Taurus has also released a 22/22 mag double action. I have looked for some time for one of the S&W factory retrofit combos.

I am sure most if not all the members here and a lot of the buying public would prefer a S&W product to a Taurus. Any ideas on how we could wake up S&W management?

__________________
SWCA 3417 HF 642 NRA-TC

Isn't that the answer to ALL the "why doesn't S&W make . . . " questions? They're in business to make money (as is Taurus, and Charter, and all other revolver makers). They know their customer base (ALL of it) better than any of us, AND their production capacity.

They can easily calculate the cost to produce any variant our minds can imagine, including setup/conversion costs for the production line AND lost opportunity costs from NOT making something they're already making on that line. They compare those costs against projected sales. NONE of us have any idea what those costs and projected sales income are. But it's reasonable to assume that S&W makes those sorts of calculations all the time. And THAT's why they don't make a . . .

That said, I wonder why they don't make a humpback 32 Magnum? All it would take is . . .

Well, no. As a revolver shooter and reloader who shoots .38 by the bushel, the LAST thing I want is a slop-fit chamber to accomodate cartridges I don't want to shoot in a 6-shot revolver.
I wouldn't buy it.

__________________
Science plus Art

The number of revolver enthusiasts that would think of new ideas like that probably make up a very small percentage of new gun sales. That and everyone wants something different.

I for one wish they would make a plain 3 inch 586. Is there enough people out there to buy one though? Apparently not

__________________
-Matt

Mr Project 616 here. As many folks as have speculated on what a great idea it would be for Smith to tool up and make 32s and 327s in a K-frame, the fact is, there would not be that many people willing to plunk down Yankee Dollars to buy one... plastic fantastic bottom feeders and various black guns are cheaper to build and easier to sell.

Of course all of the changes to S&W revolvers (MIM, IL, etc) would serve as an excuse from those who wouldn’t buy... “I’d buy one if they made them the old way.” And we know that ship has sailed.

If you “have a dream” you will probably have to have it custom built and be willing to put up with howls from the purists who complain that it is no longer original. Sometimes you just can’t win!

Froggie

I must admit Froggie's right in my case. Much as I'd like a 32 Magnum humpback, I wouldn't buy one with a lock.

The Taurus 692 revolver comes with two cylinders, one for .357/.38 special and the other for 9x19 Luger using moon clips.

I would guess with the new Taurus plant in Georgia, came the latest prototyping and product developing tools, and probably in Brazil too. Taurus looks to be able to modify an old or create a new product, get it in production and to market without going bankrupt if it's a flop. Not many companies can do that... like the one I work for.
I think S&W is in that position where revolver production cost lets them make a profit, but development of a new one is cost prohibitive.

...funny, Ruger seems to have no problem at all in making "Distributor Exclusives" of just a few hundred pieces and I don't see them loosing money....and many of these are revolvers.

A couple of years ago they made a run of three .41 Magnums...a 4.2" Redhawk, a 2.75" Redhawk and a 6.5" Super Redhawk....go try and find one now. Saw one of the 4.2s sell on GB two days ago for $1275.00...when they were available they were about $850.00.

Ruger listens to their customers...S&W tries to dictate... It's why all my "new gun" money has gone to Ruger in the last 15 years. I still buy Smiths...but they were all made before 2002....

Bob

How is offering a 2nd cylinder chambered in a caliber they have already made them in "developing a new product" ?
Making a test run of 1000 guns would only cost them the price of one cylinder and the man hours to fit it.

...I LOVE the versatility of the .38/.357 cartridge. I have a .686 and I can duplicate the performance of most any round out of it without changing cylinders. I have shot 9mm bullets through a revolver but to me that was a novelty. It's better for bullets to fit the barrel.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

I really missed the boat on the 41 Redhawk 2.75. Honestly if my time and money wasn’t so consumed with buying out of production smiths I’d have a lot more new ruger revolvers. They seem to get the message

__________________
-Matt

I think this is what folks are missing here. Smith will make whatever you want. Distributor specials are special orders by distributors, not catalog items. Want a run of something, just buy enough to make the job profitable to Smith and Wesson they will make it. It used to be 5000 units, today maybe less?

Who converted the cylinder for you? I'd be interested in getting an extra one and having it converted to 9mm. Thanks.

Ruger did a run of 5" GP-100 stainless. I wish I could find one. I missed one by a few days.

Just picked up a Lew Horton Special 657-4 PC 3"...there were only 161 made... Have a Lew Horton Little Hunter 60-10 of which I think only 139 were made...

Take the IL out of their "Classic" line and see sales take off....

Yes, the IL does not help sales at all. It may be a good sales tool for S&Ws
competitors.

__________________
SWCA 3417 HF 642 NRA-TC

Maybe we could recruit Jerry Miculek to threaten SW that he'll leave SW and move to Taurus unless they get rid of that damn lock hole

I thought I remembered reading that it was the lock company that bought S&W and then changed its name to S&W. If that's so, then we're basically talking about a lock company that makes guns to move their locks. What lock company executive is going to listen to customers asking him to get rid of the locks, and just sell the products they used to put their locks in? That's just crazy talk.

https://pinnaclehighperformance.com/

__________________
Sure you did

Manufacturers across the board are reluctant to accept product suggestions from the public because the chambering you suggest may already be in the works. Then, when the product materializes, a small percentage of suggesters will sue the manufacturers for "theft of ideas" and demand a royalty. Yet, "theft of ideas" is usually not enough to sustain a lawsuit. The idea must first be reduced to a protectable form. Even a defective lawsuit must be defended against and that involves substantial legal fees for the manufacturer. including a disclaimer against future royalties doesn't persuade them. If there's a way to extract money from a manufacturer, someone has already thought of it.

We avoided such problems by noticing the submitter that any submission is without confidentiality or recompense.

That's not really a big issue.

__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611

I'm one of those people. I personally don't see the use for a 3" barreled revolver and won't even consider buying one.
To me a J frame .357 is another one I would never buy or pick up to look at.

With what a new S&W revolver costs. I wish they’d go back to the day when one could special order barrel length, sights, square or round frame and the real grips of yesteryears. Make the doofus proof lock and hole optional. By eliminating the middle man directly to the buyer’s FFL. S&W could easily make a decent profit by bumping the list price 10%.

__________________
Dave

Boy, wouldn't that be sweet! I'd design my own .44 mag and make it a 2" like the run of Camfour distributors.

Unfortunately, we're like those snowballs in hell - ain't gonna happen.

I’d like a revolver in 7.62x25 for plinking.

Bottleneck cartridges in revolvers tend to cause problems. When fired the cases push back and fire form in the chamber. The bottleneck prevents the empty case from sliding forward so the cases are still pushing back against the frame causing drag.

I'd like to see the Model 325 in 9mm and with 8 rounds capacity. Also, I'd like to see the return of the Nightguard series but in Aluminum so the costs can be reduced. And an N Frame .22lr with 13-15 chambers. If they can get 10 rounds into a K Frame, what could they get in an N Frame......?

Not a problem in my .32-20.

__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611

Let me give you some free advice, if you like something that Taurus is selling, then buy it.

Between my family and I there are a total of 5 Taurus brand firearms in my household, I've never had any issues with any of them.

I've said it before and I'll say it as many times as the subject is raised, the issue with Taurus isn't lack of quality or reliability, but rather terrible QC/CS, which in turn has resulted in the illusion that a lack of overall quality/reliability is the issue due to the sheer amount of negative feedback from those who got a lemon and had to deal with Taurus' inept CS Representatives and couldn't reach a positive conclusion.
In reality, Taurus has no worse overall quality control than Ruger, but unlike Taurus, Ruger actually has very good Customer Service, ergo those who get a lemon tend to get the issue sorted out promptly, thus leaving them with a much more positive opinion of the company.

It also doesn't help matters that many folks have a bad habit of making Taurus' reputation for lack of reliability something of a self-fulfilled prophesy when they go in so expecting the firearm to fail that any hiccups they experience during their first trip out to the range get immediately self-diagnosed as symptoms of a much bigger problem when in reality the gun just needs broken in. (And before anyone says, "My Smith ain't need no break-in!" Your Smith & Wesson probably cost you 2x the amount of a Taurus.)
In addition, I've seen a lot of folks in videos online who really seem to neglect their Taurus firearms, handling them with far less care than they do their other firearms, and thus likely neglecting them even furthermore behind the scenes. You can't expect a firearm that you neglect, handle carelessly, and do not clean/lube on a regular basis to maintain perfect function/reliability.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

I've found that .357 chambers will also accommodate and fire .38 Super and .38 ACP without alteration.

So your .357 Magnum will really fire 4 cartridges - .38 special, .357 magnum, .38 super and .38 ACP.

The semi-rim on the .38 Super and .38 ACP (same case) is a bit thinner than the .357/.38 special cases, but it usually makes no difference in providing for reliable ignition.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Just be aware that the .357 Magnum runs at 35,000psi whereas .38 Super runs at 36,500psi, so use of .38 Super in a .357 Magnum Revolver will result in accelerated wear, and at no particular benefit because .357 Magnum is substantially more powerful and less expensive than .38 Super, so unless you've got a huge supply of .38 Super on hand with nothing better to shoot it out of, it's best to stick with .38 Special or .357 Magnum.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

I guess the .32-20 has a shoulder but its not much of one. I never owned anything in that caliber but being an old cartridge I am guessing it has thin brass which minimizes the problem and much less pressure than a 7.62x25. The 7.62 Tok has a much more pronounced shoulder too.

Look up why S&W discontinued the 2 Jet chambered model 53. There were other problems but cylinder binding was the main reason.

The 32-20 has a lot more in common with the 22 Hornet than the 7.62x25. Taurus makes a 22 Hornet revolver and I have not read any complaints about. Probably for the same reasons your 32-20 revolver works.

BTW, keeping the chambers clean helps too. Do you keep your 32-20 clean?



I heard

Of course, after every range trip. But she'll ingest 2-3 boxes in a trip without issues.

Comparing the two, you're right the 7.62 does have a more pronounced shoulder

32-20


7.62 x 25

__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611

I don't think we'll ever get a can-do-it-all from any factory... I mean that's why we have master gunsmiths that truly can perform any custom work there is. That way we have something truly unique and special.

Same with the car industry. I bet 90% of car owners personalize their vehicle in some way.... rims, grille, exhaust, whatever. They do have their "performance brands" i.e. Mercedes-Benz AMG, BMW M series, Dodge SRT, etc. They come pretty close to being great but they still get personalized.

S&W has their PC and I like their products. But again, is it perfect as it comes? Probably not and we still think about switching grips, sights and/or re-chamber.

What I'm trying to say is; would it be nice to get it like this from the factory? Yes. Would I prefer it to get it custom made exactly to my specs? Yes.

If you spend all this money on an item I rather have an unique one that suits me like I want it to.

__________________
Jorge

I remember that at one point in time Taurus was in the process of making a Revolver chambered in .223 Remington of all things, which had generated a lot of buzz, but the project was quietly cancelled and further investigation by inquiring minds revealed that behind the scenes, Taurus just couldn't prevent the cylinder from binding up, and also there were a lot of problems with extraction in which the tolerences/clearances had to be extremely precise, so precise that it was driving up production costs above and beyond what Taurus felt comfortable investing in an oddball .223 Remington Revolver.

Taurus doesn't design their *ahem* "more unique" firearms because they have a lot of eccentric designers working for them, but because they know that there's money to be made producing firearms with a bit of novelty or unique characteristics to them, but they also know that folks typically aren't willing to spend a lot of money on something which isn't exactly practical.

Case in point, consider the Taurus Judge. Despite its utility, it is most often fiercely denigrated by professional shooters or firearms trainers for being a sort of jack-of-all-trades, master of none, yet it continues to sell over a decade later because it's an interesting premise offered at an affordable price.
Folks can go right on ahead struggling to make arguments like; "There's nothing cool about a Big Bore Revolver that shoots both .45 caliber bullets and shotgun shells!" or "There no fun to be had shooting a hand cannon which yields dramatic effects on target downrange without excessive concussive blast or brutal recoil!" not to mention cherry-picking scenarios in which it obviously isn't going to do well in order to support their stance, but sales say otherwise, and insulting the intelligence of those who bought one doesn't make you sound smart, it just confirms that you're a hipster or the shooting communities equivalent of a image-conscious highschool jock.

So yeah, a Revolver chambered in 7.62x25 Tokarev would likely have very high production costs without significant mass market appeal, and as cool as such a thing would be, nobody would want to buy one at a high price, especially considering that most fans of 7.62x25 Tokarev are used to paying only a couple hundred dollars for MilSurp Tokarev Pistols, thus making the price seem so much higher by comparison.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

I'm not sure some out there know a lot about the New 32's.

My Ruger Blackhawk Buckeye Convertible shoots both 32-20 WCF and 32 H&R magnum. Those are not your Grandma's 32-20 shooters or the ones blues legend Robert Johnson sang about in the 20's.

I regularly shoot my handloads to 1330fps with 135g pills. Their accuracy can be phenomenal. The Blackhawk barely sneezes. These are Ruger Tanks !

And way past that is the 327 federal magnum approaching 1800fps;
that is 357 magnum territory.

The handloading of the bottleneck cases in 32-20 is sheer joy when you get the kinks worked out. I'm on the 4th reload with some of my cases and they look brand new.

The only reforming of my 32-20 cases came when I fired them in a 30 Caliber revolver. The 30 Carbine is not bottle necked and the 32-20 cases became straight wall cases when fired. Interesting test, but really a dumb idea to loose good 32-20 cases.


Prescut

I would like to see them take their M&P .45acp and fit a 10mm barrel to it.

Then, I would buy an M&P.

10mm has made a bit of a comeback, but S&W has nothing to offer in that caliber other than the 610, which not many folks are really interested in.

I have a model 66 re-chambered to 7.62x25. Works like a dream, with no issues. Moonclips for 9x19 are a perfect fit; they work with 9x18 makarov, too (ask me how I know).

The problem isn't with bottlenecked cartridges, per se, the problem is with cartridges that have relatively long necks and sloping shoulders (e.g. 22 Jet). It gives them a relatively large bearing surface to set back on firing. Cartridges with sharp shoulders and very short necks (like 7.62x25) are non-issues re: binding the action.

This can be had relatively inexpensively, today. Pick up a Ruger Blackhawk in .30 carbine (in current production, retailing $550-$600) and rent a 7.62x25 chamber reamer (~$40). Twenty minutes of your time later, you'll have a sweet plinker.