I have been a proponent of S&W re-introducing the 547 since it was discontinued and have written them several times. Those with the 3" must be hanging on to them as I seldom see one for sale.

Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by a convertible cylinder? Would a 547 without the extractors be a 547?

Tekarra,

I am a great fan of the 547 system the way it is. However, many seem to really prefer the moon clip system, especially for auto rounds in revolvers. I was thinking that if S&W would introduce a "new model" 547 with as an example, a moon clip option, or perhaps even a second cylinder option so that you could switch them out (like the Ruger Blackhawk), it would be marketable and maybe even a big seller. I think they would at least be able to compete with the new Model 22/1917s (to include the Thunder ranch models), both of which I really like. Maybe even include a stainless model as well, since that is also very popular now. The next logical step would be .40 S&W and .357 SIG capable K or L frames. For myself, if they just reintroduced the 547 the way it was, I'd be happy, and I wouldn't even make a sound if they included the IL. I know if S&W reintroduced the 547 in any of those configuration or calibers, I'd be first in line!

M2,

S&W did make a 547M. I do not recall details of the revolver, but there was a post about it a few months back. Might have to do a search and re-read the post.

A stainless 547 would be fine as well. If you are first in line for a new 547, I will be right behind you.

tek,
I found the Thread/posts you referenced; you were the last poster on it (the thread is "dual cylinder 547). It looks like the 547-M is exactly what I'm looking for! It doesn't appear S&W actually produced it though; it seems it was a concept model. The thread contains some great information about some people that do make conversion cylinders so now it's got me thinking about having one made for my 619 and making a safe-queen out of my 547. Still wish S&W would make either one, 547 or 547-M or maybe a "647(M)" (the stainless model)? One can only hope for such things....

Unfortunately, S&W stepped on their own leash with the 647 designation.

Here it is (again):

__________________
Bob

When I stumbled across my 3 inch 547 it was a great day. I first thought it was a model 13 which I had been looking for. Had a 13 many years ago and traded it for something I cannot remember now. A 547 with a 357 cylinder would be a near perfect combination and I also would not hesitate to grab one in a heartbeat.

I think I'd like my version of a 647 much better. How about this: 64-7. I 've just had an idea, wondering what Tekarra might think. On that thread was mentioned an outfit called TK custom. I was kind of thinking about taking a Model 64 and converting the cylinder to 9mm. Sadly, it would only be about halfway to a 547, but would sort of fit the bill. In fact, I'm liking this idea more and more....what do you think Tek? Think the model 64 would be up to 9mm +P? Seems like if the 547 could, the 64 could too.

I picked up my first 4" 547 at the last OGCA meeting. New in the
box with everything but the tool kit and I just put one togeather so
it's now a complete box. Paid $900 for her and I thought I got
a good deal. Thanks again Roger........

__________________
George Jamison

gjamison, I say again...pics please!

Very nice!! Thanks for your service!!!! Hope you get to shoot it more.

M2,
I made the same mistake of calling a stainless 547 a 647 and was corrected. A 64 should handle 9mm +P as the 64 and 547 share a common frame design. After all, the 65 is chambered for .357.

With all the model 10s, 64s and 65s appearing on the used market of late, I am tempted to purchase on and have it re-chambered to 9mm. Having said that, nothing can compare to a 547, at least to me.

Tekarra, I'm still with you about that original 547, just looking for a gap filler for now, and much as I like stainless, nothing beats an old fashioned blue. Imagine though S&W making a stainless 547 in the traditional extraction mode (and whatever alphanumeric soup they settel on)...I just can't understand why S&W isn't getting it. I think just the novelty of it would bring it people that have never heard of the berylium (sp?) clips. I like moon clips okay, but love that 547 system and can't help but wonder if stainless would help with the sticky cylinder issues. I can't remember Tek, do you have a 3", 4" or both?

and thanks, gunrunner

M2,
I have several 4" but only one 3". All I ever see are 4" models, would like another 3". If I ever get photobucket sorted, I will post some photos.

I do not understand your comment on "sticky cylinder issues"? Are you referring to roughness on the chamber walls? The chambers on my 547s are smooth. The only "sticky cylinder issues" I recall reading on the forum have been with the 940, and some of the photos showed pretty rough chambers.

As to S&W not getting it, I can only suppose the 547 is expensive to produce. The extractor system is more complicated than a star and the retaining pin requires additional parts and additional work on the frame. Having said that, I would still be interested.

tekerra,

Wish I had a 3" and a couple of 4"ers to spare!

I have not experienced this, but have heard several 547 owners report spent casings stick after firing (I believe to be quite a bit) of ammunition to the extent of very difficult extraction. A veteran 547 owner's recommendation was to clean the cylinders with acetone and leave no oil in them prior to firing. Some have used these accounts to discredit the 547, but I've even seen that with other calibers as well and so give the story little or no value. I have heard of the expense of producing the 547 and have also heard that it didn't really cost that much. S&W mystifies me at what the keep and what they drop on production...I have a 619, and can't quite understand why S&W dropped it and the 620 either, I think they are terrific alternatives to the 686 (I don't like the full lug, never have), and it seems like many feel the same way. For now, I'm happy I've got what I got. Maybe S&W have got guys like me figured out...drop it from production and we want it even more!

I hope they don't ever get it! For those of us that have a few stashed away for an investment, not interested in devaluaing my assets for those that "wish they had one" when prices were lower....There are still plenty for sale, open up your mattress and buy it. Kind of like gold, I wish I had purchased some when it was much lower...

Good point Big Foot, maybe I'll just satisfy myself with my one real 547 and do a little model 64-to-9mm conversion project.

One thing I've been meaning to ask fellow 547 owners...my 547 has a pinned barrel, but I understand some are not pinned. I wonder why S&W changed up in the middle of production? Or were they all pinned?

The 3" that I recently bought at a pawn shop dirt cheap is not a pinned barrel. I'll have to dig the first one I bought years ago, when J&G was selling them cheap to see the barrel on that one.

I've been shooting the latest one a bit, and I haven't run across any problem extracting, but I hit the ejector with a pretty good whack. The short 9mm cases clear the chambers quickly. I would think 9mm would shine in a small-frame gun.

I have found that sometimes that extractor fingers don't retract completely. Probably my ejector retrun spring, but if they stick out too far, your reload cases can hang up while loading. Usually when it happens, it's not that bad, but it will keep a case from fully seating, and can effect closing the cylinder. You can't just drop them in, you have to physically seat them with your thumb, etc. It's not like it takes much force at all, just something to remember to do. I have a couple HKS 547 speedloaders, but I haven't tried them out on this gun to see if it keeps doing it. I think it probably will still hang un cases, because the HKS seem to rely on gravity a bit. A speed strip-type might be the way to go.

I haven't had any other problems with the gun at all. I think the only "weak spot", if you can call it that, would be in the reloading. And none of the issues I've ran across are big deals. Probably if I replaced the ejector return spring and gave everything a good cleaning, the problem would be gone.

Boy if I had only kept all the nice guns I sold off over the years.

I used to own a beautiful 3 inch one, nearly 100% condition.

It had the original box, papers and everything.

I sold it off several years ago. As I was reading this post it occurred to me that maybe one of you got my old gun.

I do remember firing it on a few occasions and do recall the sticky extraction. I remember having to give it a good, sharp smack with the palm of my right hand to eject/extract the fired casings most of the time. If I hand-loaded some to a little lower pressure, it seemed to work much better and shot fine with lead bullets.

I had read they were discontinued due to the high cost of the beryllium (sp?) copper extractors that mushroomed out to extract the empty casings.

I'm not a metallurgist so I don't know why beryllium copper is so tough but it must have been a very special metal to be able to spring out like it did to catch on the case rims and eject/ extract the casings and then return back to its resting position and to do that over and over without breaking.

I purchased that one several years before after having handled a few at gun shows in the early 1980's. In fact I remember seeing a broken one I passed on back then for a couple of hundred bucks at a gun show in Detroit. I almost bought it but thought after sending it back to S&W for repair, the shipping plus the cost of the gun would have been more than it was worth.

I agree that S&W is really missing the boat with items they could produce that would be very profitable (I think). With what most of us are willing to pay for quality S&W revolvers, I think S&W could definitely produce models from the past that would be money makers even considering the handwork that went into many of their older guns.

If we consider that when S&W did make these models, America was strong on employment and manufacturing, I think a return to our older ways would indeed make sense, especially in light of all the unemployed factory workers with machining experience.

I tend to think I feel like most of the people around here. Who wouldn't love to see models like the 547, the K-32, the convertible revolvers in 22 LR/22 WMR, 9mm/357, 44-40/44 special, 45 ACP/45 Colt and even new ones like the 17HMR/17Mach2, the pinned and recessed K-frame 3 inch models 65 and 66 and L-frames in 3" and 5", the model 27, model 57 and model 29 in 5" versions. Remember the Pinto revolvers? How many of you would love the chance to get a model 651 J-frame stainless kit gun in 22LR/22WMR.

I always hear that because of liability or manufacturing costs or other reasons, they can't go back to making them like they used to. Frankly I don't know how they can afford not to. It seems like there is a market and a real profit potential out there-all someone needs to do is go out and tap into it.

Just my thoughts...

My guess is that beryllium copper was used for the extractors as it is a good spring material with a high fatigue cycle. It also has good strength and good machining properties and is relatively easy to machine into small parts.