An X frame 7 or 8 shot 41/44mag...WOW!!

TDC

TDC

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
1,313
Reaction score
873
Location
Oregon
I'd be for expanding the whole X frame platform to several existing calibers as well. How about a 7 or 8 shot .41 mag and a 7 shot .44 mag?

The design and strength of the X frame would open these older calibers up to a whole new level of performance and power.

Those caliber additions could provide many of us with firearms similar to the weight, balance and feel of the X frame we've become familiar with. The concept would provide a wider variety of larger calibers along the line of what has existed with the current N frame platform).

If there are enough others that would buy them perhaps S&W product planners will hear our plea..... Anybody else have a pro or con opinion?:):)

EDIT-- If you own an X frame please indicate. If you don't please indicate that too..

500Ltilt2.jpg
 
Last edited:
With a K, L, N frame you can go out for an afternoon of shooting and have fun. Not so much with the X. Even if you reload and load it way down it is just too big and heavy to enjoy for three or four hours. The calibers it's in right now suit it well for it's purpose. I'll take an N frame or a Redhawk for the 44 and 41 thanks.
 
I seem to enjoy my X frames just fine, loading them in 41/44 would just require less reloading, less recoil = More fun But then again I shoot up to 700 gr out of my 4" Smith, but they keyhole at 25-30 yds. People are buying 7,8 shot 357's, why not do an X frame in the same?? I would try it, even though I do not know what the balance will feel like. Enjoy
 
Wayne M said:
With a K, L, N frame you can go out for an afternoon of shooting and have fun. Not so much with the X. Even if you reload and load it way down it is just too big and heavy to enjoy for three or four hours. The calibers it's in right now suit it well for it's purpose. I'll take an N frame or a Redhawk for the 44 and 41 thanks.
Click to expand...

I agree with this as well...but let me add..

Want to push the .41 mag or the .44 mag a bit more than your N frame will stand? Look at a Freedom Arms M-83 .

FN in MT
 
There are a few problems with this idea.

The X-frame is not a real popular frame to begin with. Granted that may be because of the caliber. However, the frame itself doesn't lend itself to a great many uses. It's not really concealable. It's heavy, unwieldly. It's also expensive.

The 7 and 8 shot revolvers are also in a very popular, affordable round. The .41 and the .44 aren't remotely as popular a round nor nearly as available or affordable.

I think if you add up all the reasons the 7 and 8-shot 38 is popular you'll find a 7 or 8-shot X-frame wouldn't possess any of those reasons other than the round count.
 
Speaking personally, there is nothing about the X-frame that interests me. I've long been of the opinion that if a N-frame .44mag won't do it, its time for a long gun.
 
Interesting comments so far, guys... Thanks!!

I edited the topic and asked those commenting to add if they own an X frame or not. I'd also appreciate keeping the primarily focus on double action S&W handguns in this thread....:)
 
Personally, I think the market for a 7-8 shot X-frame is even smaller than it is for the .460 and .500. I'm sure some would really enjoy such a model but I don't think S&W will make one.

Good luck, with what I consider a flooded market, I think S&W will be very reluctant to branch out there.

I have 2 Model 500s. Don
 
TDC said:
Interesting comments so far, guys... Thanks!!

I edited the topic and asked those commenting to add if they own an X frame or not. I'd also appreciate keeping the primarily focus on double action S&W handguns in this thread....:)
Click to expand...

I admit I do not own an X but a friend of mine decided he had to have some of them(yeah......SOME). He bought the stuff to load them and I stuffed the cases. I also shot them what I consider a bunch(about 30 shots each). They are just BIG and heavy to the point of being no fun for this man.
 
Last edited:
Read this from 2004: The Heavy Magnum Revolver

In a later discussion of the "too much" factor of the .500, I had this to say:

The obvious answer is to go the other way and shorten the frame and cylinder .400” and chamber the gun in .500 Special, a round that already exists, is SAAMI-certified, and that Cor-Bon is currently loading. In February of 2004 (see my website) I urged Herb Belin to do just that, as well as also chamber the new frame size in .475 Linebaugh, .454 Casull, and 7-shot .44 Magnum.

It is my understanding that in 2005 the shorter frame was tentatively given the green light in .500 Special and 7-shot .44 Magnum, with the latter caliber also planned in a Ti/Scan version as well as stainless steel, and Brett Curry got all the design work done and made or procured the tooling.

When I found this out, I lobbied heavily for a Ti/Scan .500 Special as well. The .500 Special has a SAAMI spec of 38,500 PSI maximum pressure, which would tax a Ti/Scan X-frame less than the .44 Magnum does the 329. A 36-ounce Ti/Scan .500 Special firing a 400 grain bullet at 1300 FPS would give 1500 foot-pounds of energy, which is 665 foot-pounds energy per pound of gun weight, a nice level. I thought it was going to happen.

Then, before the CNC equipment started cutting metal on the new XS (“X Short”) frame, there were some management changes and Herb Belin got moved over to the handcuff division. As I understand it, all or almost all the needed work on the XS project is already done, but no one has pushed the “START” button. I offered to order 500 guns to get the new model rolling but only the Performance Center will do runs that small, and they have to get frames and cylinders from the main factory.

For now we’ll have to be content with a working revolver that’s a bit heavier than we’d like and that we might have to load down just a bit. There are worse fates…
 
Put me down for one of the first in both 44 and 500Sp caliber.... 5 inch please....:):)
 
Just give it up and get a Ruger SRH or Alaskan, already....
 
Last edited:
While these big ole revolvers have their nitche uses, they are more of a novelty for a specific challenge to ones self for target or game.

I have a Mod 29 44mag with the 8 3/8" barrel and handload my own stuff...my personal challenge was a very nice deer at 180 yards with a thru the heart using the iron sights.

I could see some excitement for the X-Frames as they are for even more challengeing situations or game! But to get them with larger cylinders to accomadate 7 or 8 shots is ubsurd for an already heavy pistol...
 
Shadow1006 said:
I could see some excitement for the X-Frames as they are for even more challenging situations or game! But to get them with larger cylinders to accommodate 7 or 8 shots is absurd for an already heavy pistol...
Click to expand...

Er...no. The existing X-frame cylinder is already large enough in diameter to accommodate seven .44 magnum rounds, just as the existing N-frame cylinder was retooled to take eight .38/.357 cartridges, the existing K-frame cylinder was redone to take ten .22s, and the J-frame to take eight .22s. And remember, putting more holes in something usually makes it lighter, not heavier.

We (most of us, at least) are also talking about making a version of the X-frame that is .400" SHORTER through the frame and cylinder, further REDUCING size and weight.

Engage logic circuits (if present) before operating keyboard...
 
It will never happen:)

Ruger had the same issue with the .357 Redhawk.......a massively overbuilt revolver for the .357, it didn't sell well and was dropped.

The X-Frame is a huge revolver made for a very powerful round. The customer base for this gun is large and dangerous game hunting and protection, thrill seekers, magnum and recoil junkies, S&W addicts and guys that just need to have the biggest handgun that exists!

A .44 Magnum X-Frame just wouldn't sell very well, and the capacity wouldn't justify the size. If you want a massive .44 Mag revolver there's the 9.5" Super Redhawk or any of the Magnum Research or FA offerings.
 
Last edited:
Nothing brings out the all knowing and would be "Captains of industry" like this type of thread...:D

Well... I for one always appreciate innovation and creativity... I could give a rip about anyone elses "It'll never fly" assessment.

This gun wouldn't be "a .357" but a .44 Mag, the variation making it much like a big bore 686 7 or possibly 8 shot. A 44 Mag firearm much stronger and rugged than anything Ruger has ever produced.

If S&W or John Ross build it I will buy it -- and I know a lot of others who would too.

Just because Ruger didn't or can't sell something similar certainly is no indication S&W can't or won't sell a better designed gun.... I wouldn't buy a .357 Redhawk either.....

Just sayin'
 
I keep wondering if there is marketing room for a high-speed small-bore chambering in an X-frame. I believe the cylinder is long enough to chamber .223 Remington. Pressures permitting, you could get six of those in the wheel.

Or maybe a wildcat chambering like a necked down .22/500 or .25/500? Imagine a high speed 140-150 gr projectile with enormous cross-sectional density. Karamojo Bell used to drop elephants with a 6.5x54 Mannlicher Schoenauer.

There might even be a purpose (or from S&W's point of view, a small market) for a 9mm round based on the .500 Magnum case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Emcm2
X Frame 350 Legend
Replies
0
Views
180
Emcm2
Emcm2
steelslaver
Modern M frame
Replies
2
Views
454
steelslaver
steelslaver
offensive
K or L frame ultra carry
Replies
1
Views
373
Well Armed
W
OutAtTheEdge
L-Frame .44 Spl
Replies
17
Views
1K
Garandpappy
G
G
N-Frame Wish List
Replies
7
Views
582
rct269
R

Latest posts

Back
Top