When I proffered the notion of a .41 special or .44 special configuration I didn't mean to infer I thought that would have been more successful commercially at the moment; your points about what was available at the time and not selling, etc. are well taken. But there are a lot of guns that are mythic and much sought after now that "no one wanted" when they were introduced. For example, the 696. I believe (like many others) that a fixed site version of a .41 or .44 special, or a 45 caliber offering like the 58 would today have a much wider acceptance and appeal. Had the course of the history of it not veered toward semi-auto technology and improved ammo performance, such would have been more in demand had revolvers remained the mainstay of the police and smaller sized/framed, larger caliber offerings would have had more commercial appeal in line with the more liberal concealed carry policies of today. And not my intention to drag "the lock" in as a major part of the discussion, but here (among the faithful) at least, I suspect many a 45ACP, .41 Special, or .44 Special L frame snubbie would be sold if available without that "improvement".

Of course, the market place dictated and it will always be argued that the only reason the 58 and 696's are so revered today is because they (in the original incarnation) are in limited supply. Sometimes a good concept dies in the market place before enough people learn to appreciate it to make it commercially viable before something different comes along to fill the need as well or better. And doesn't matter how good of an idea it is, if the manufacturers can't turn a buck on it and sell enough of them, they aren't going to make them.