For what purpose is the 351PD intended?

What demographic prompted S&W to manufacture this revolver?

I have read somewhere that it was intended as a deep concealment undercover weapon.

It is kind of expensive to use as a plinker, the barrel is to short for hunting and whenever I or anyone else mention carrying it for self defense the .40 or larger league kick up the dirt with their hind legs and pee on our legs!

Comments?

Recoil sensitive folks maybe? The Mossad prefers the .22 for up close work, but probably not the magnum.

I have 351pd it is light and easy to carry . but mine shoots high and to the right no matter what kind of ammo iI use. I can shoot my 317 awhole lot better. The 317 are a whole lot cheaper to shoot than the 351.

You always here of that they are extremely loud to shoot and have very stiff triggers to set off the rimfire primers as well. I know a guy who purchased two of them and keeps one in each car. He had trigger jobs done on them and loves them.

They're excellent little revolvers. Yes, they're loud, and its an understatement. So wear your muffs when you're playing with them, easy solution. If you need the gun to save your life, some minor ringing in your ears is easy to overlook.

Yes, its a minor caliber. From time to time a magazine does an unbiased article on 22s vs the other minor calibers. It'll never be a .45. But it does shine as being head and shoulders over anybody's .25, .32, and probably on a par with .380s. And its in a revolver format that seems to be very dependable and low recoiling when you compare it to little automatics.

The sight alignment thing can easily be resolved with a laser. It makes a nice, tight little package.

The ammo cost issue looks bad when you compare it to 22 lr. But even that round has been hard to obtain over the last year and a half. If anything, the 22 mag is easier to find, if more expensive. And its certainly much more available and cheaper than .25/.32/.380. I resolved my problem with the gunshow purchase of 14 boxes for $5 a box. Added to my already respectable stockpile, I'm pretty well set for casual shooting.

Yes, I own one. Technically at least. I haven't seen it in a long time. I loaned it to one of my son's for his CCW course. His instructor only made one comment "thats a really nice little revolver." I knew that, its why I bought it. It might be well advised as a womans gun. Purse duty, or carry on her body if she can conceal it. And you get 7 shots, not the 5 most J frames offer. The one thing most non-shooting women say the first time someone hands them a gun is "wow, thats heavy." You don't get that response with the 351. When they shoot any other super light handgun in a caliber shooting men deem as adequate, they never want to shoot a gun again. The 351 may be loud, but recoil is very manageable to non-existent. Because of that, the shooters on target performance is pretty good. And its just a J frame, a gun with a 58 year (plus or minus) reputation for being rock solid in dependability.

The comparison with the 317 makes it shine. I had a 317 and hated it. It was just a terrible little revolver. Hard to shoot, under powered, its only advantage was how light it was. The 351 rivals the weight and has a fairly good chambering.

S&W has apparently has found a market with the 351PD as they are now offering the 351C.

Is S&W producing the 351C at this time? If not when will it be available?

blackflyguy said:

Is S&W producing the 351C at this time? If not when will it be available?

Click to expand...

All I know is it is listed on S&W's website....more to the point of this thread, why are you interested in a lightweight hammerless .22 magnum?

regards,

mtheo

Purpose? Well, let me count:
1. The 22 mag is a better stopper/penetrator than 22LR.
2. Some folks want low recoil in a defense handgun (grandma? daughter?).
3. In snake country, like my folks in Texas, you can load both 22mag shotshells and hollowpoints to dispatch vermin with ease.
4. Hunting / Fishing; can provide a low(er) noise kill shot for wounded game, or big fish on the line that you would like dead before you bring it onboard. Yes, my dad once hooked a 5 foot hammerhead shark in the Florida keys, and cheerfully hoisted it into our 18 foot boat where it caused havoc for 3 minutes before we could subdue it.

mtheo said:

What demographic prompted S&W to manufacture this revolver?

I have read somewhere that it was intended as a deep concealment undercover weapon.

It is kind of expensive to use as a plinker, the barrel is to short for hunting and whenever I or anyone else mention carrying it for self defense the .40 or larger league kick up the dirt with their hind legs and pee on our legs!

Comments?

Click to expand...

In my opinion, the .22 Magnum is a very poor choice for short barrel revolvers, and the shorter the barrel, the worse it becomes. The same size revolver is available in centerfires that offer better performance and cheaper ammo in the form of reloads. The .22 Magnum is incredible loud, has a tremendous muzzle flash, and not much better performance than the .22 rimfire in short barrels. The .22 Magnum needs all the barrel length it can get in handguns. Like a lot of products, I think S&W offers it because they can sell it to shooters who don't know any better!

Not in the same 'small gun' category....I've recently become enthused about a certain 647. Never have seen any snubbie 17HMRs though.

n4zov said:

In my opinion, the .22 Magnum is a very poor choice for short barrel revolvers, and the shorter the barrel, the worse it becomes. The same size revolver is available in centerfires that offer better performance and cheaper ammo in the form of reloads. The .22 Magnum is incredible loud, has a tremendous muzzle flash, and not much better performance than the .22 rimfire in short barrels. The .22 Magnum needs all the barrel length it can get in handguns. Like a lot of products, I think S&W offers it because they can sell it to shooters who don't know any better!

Click to expand...

Ahhh........my socks are warm and wet now!

Most of your reply I can agree with. As far as cheaper reloads, I barely find time to shoot, for me that doesn't apply.
As far as flash and bang, my ears and eyes don't perceive much difference between my 651PD and and my 642. Yes, a .22 rifle cartridge blows a lot of energy uselessly out of the end of a short barrel.

Some companies do fish for the ignorant with their product offerings, I hope S&W has greater integrity and was basing their offering on a niche application.

I have never been a big fan of the 22 Mg. in a handgun.

I just don't see the scenario in which the .22 Mg. saves the day where the .22 LR would not. I suppose there are cases like that, but so far I have not been confronted with them.

On the other hand, the .22 Mg. in a rifle is a great varmint cartridge for the non handloader...think farmers and woodchucks...it extends the range by 50% over a .22 LR and is sufficiently accurate to take advantage of that extra range.

Just my view is all....

There is a lot involved to add a new offering to a product line. Generally a new product is concept is initiated by customer requests, what the competition is doing or the availability of new technology that will gain advantage over competitors. After a concept is finalized a complicated combination of, CAD drawings, materials selection, CNC programs, tool selection, finish processes, quality control protocols, safety assurance, reliability testing, spare parts inventory, assembly protocols, packaging, marketing and advertising and a whole bunch I'm leaving out, must occur before that first new item is sold.

I cannot believe Smith and Wesson would invest that much effort in a product based on the concept of the unknowledgeable shooter.

Again, I was just wondering if anyone had some special insight as to what purpose S&W believes the 351PD and now the 351C serve.

The most common thought so far is that it was marketed for the weak handed.

I'd say S&W produces ANYTHING it can sell. I doubt if they really question "usefulness" instead they think PROFIT.

FN in MT

mtheo said:

There is a lot involved to add a new offering to a product line. Generally a new product is concept is initiated by customer requests, what the competition is doing or the availability of new technology that will gain advantage over competitors. After a concept is finalized a complicated combination of, CAD drawings, materials selection, CNC programs, tool selection, finish processes, quality control protocols, safety assurance, reliability testing, spare parts inventory, assembly protocols, packaging, marketing and advertising and a whole bunch I'm leaving out, must occur before that first new item is sold.

I cannot believe Smith and Wesson would invest that much effort in a product based on the concept of the unknowledgeable shooter.

Again, I was just wondering if anyone had some special insight as to what purpose S&W believes the 351PD and now the 351C serve.

The most common thought so far is that it was marketed for the weak handed.

Click to expand...

Building for the weak handed makes no more sense than building for the unknowledgeable shooter. They're both user failings.

The most likely objective was to build a .22 that took advantage of the more powerful cartridge, in a format that sells huge for them (J frame).

Their thinking was likely...if there's a market for the 317 short barrels, there will likel be a healthy market for the 351 short barrels with a more powerful cartridge (for dispatching varmints at short range, self defense in a real pinch, or a recoil averse situation).

"For what purpose is the 351PD intended?"

To make me happy, and to make S&W some money.


Seems to be working.

Bullet Bob said:

"For what purpose is the 351PD intended?"

To make me happy, and to make S&W some money.


Seems to be working.

Click to expand...

Would you please elaborate......are you happy because S&W is making money or because they marketed a lightweight .22 magnum?

I'm happy about both things.

I would think that .22 mag from that short a barrel is not going to burn to it's fullest potential. I'd be interested to see what the velocity is at muzzle.

Personally, I have no problem with the gun since no one would want to look down the barrel of any gun, much less one with 7 shots.

My only comments are:
1.) If you can carry a lightweight revolver for defense, why not the 637? about the same weight, only you get 38+p vs .22
and standard 38 is not bad at all recoil-wise.
I looked at both guns BTW, and I purchased the 637.

and 2.) As far as snake shot goes, 38 and larger are the ones you want if you are carrying that type of ammo. Not that I condone killing snakes.
Check out this link to snake/bird shot effectiveness per caliber...
GunWeek.com