One time, I was at an indoor range in Wichita with my 629 Mountain Gun, and I had just finished shooting it with 44 Specials, and was trying some magnums in it and this guy comes over and asks me what I am shooting as the MG was LOUD. He had been shooting a 22 or some such.
I said, "it's a 44 magnum MG. Would you care to try it?"
"Yeah!"
"Now I have to warn you that it kicks like hell."
He shrugged it off. "Aw, that's no problem."
All right I handed him the MG, and some Remington 180gr cartridges. He loaded the gun and cocked the hammer. You could tell he was not prepared for that recoil. He touched another one off and then one more. He handed the gun back.
He then calledme a very profane name.
"What are you talking about? I told you it kicked like helll."
"You told me." And he walked away.
With that introduction, the MG is a very good concept, IMHO, because even though it is chambered for the 44 Magnum, I regard it as a 44 Special that I can shoot Magnums in if I want to. But since I am not a masochist, that does not happen that often.
My particular specimen is around thirty years old, and it was produced in the early 1990's, right after S&W recognized that the Magnum rounds were causing timing issues, and I understand that they made some improvements to the lockwork to correct these problems and I have noticed the difference in other newer N-frames that I bought after the MG.
A description: it is a stainless steel six-shot revolver, built on the N-frame--that is, the large frame. This is also, I believe, one of the first of the round-butt N-frames. My impression is that they did this primarily to shave weight, and I note (somewhat ruefully) that whereever they could safely reduce weight on this revolver, they did so. I am talking here of reducing the outside diameter of the barrel, and they even bevelled off the front of the cylinder. In this regard, the caliber listed on the barrel is laser-etched on the right hand side and the manufacturere's name on the left side. Possibly, the barrel was too thin to allow the stamping that they normally do.
The result is a very lightweight revolver; one that weighs less than some of my L-frames.
One day, I decided to take it out and do some shooting, but not with Magnums. I didn't have any anyway. I didn't do a bench test, preferring to evaluate the practical accuracy of the revolver at what we on this forum typically use a handgun for: defensive-style shooting.
I shot about 50-60 rounds of some old remanufactured 240 grain RNFP ammo that I got from a local shop and some old Winchester 246 grain RNL and finally, some of the PMC 180 grain JHP stuff. There were no misfires, and the gun handled everything with aplomb. I did my usual shoot-while-move drill and if the poor target was not deader than old Marley before I started shooting, it certainly was after. I would shoot a couple of rounds and move back and to the side at the same time, then repeat the exercise while moving back and to the other side. Most of the time I did not use the sights, doing plain old point shooting.
All shooting was DA and there were no misfires.
Now, is this the ideal carry-gun? Of course not. It is an N-frame S&W and not everyone can conceal it effectively. But, if you can conceal it well, and are interested in a large-bore six-shot wheelgun, the MG might be the gun for you. Assuming, of course, that you can even find one.
***The above is a near C&P of a post I first made in the old Kansas forum. ***
I said, "it's a 44 magnum MG. Would you care to try it?"
"Yeah!"
"Now I have to warn you that it kicks like hell."
He shrugged it off. "Aw, that's no problem."
All right I handed him the MG, and some Remington 180gr cartridges. He loaded the gun and cocked the hammer. You could tell he was not prepared for that recoil. He touched another one off and then one more. He handed the gun back.
He then calledme a very profane name.
"What are you talking about? I told you it kicked like helll."
"You told me." And he walked away.
With that introduction, the MG is a very good concept, IMHO, because even though it is chambered for the 44 Magnum, I regard it as a 44 Special that I can shoot Magnums in if I want to. But since I am not a masochist, that does not happen that often.
My particular specimen is around thirty years old, and it was produced in the early 1990's, right after S&W recognized that the Magnum rounds were causing timing issues, and I understand that they made some improvements to the lockwork to correct these problems and I have noticed the difference in other newer N-frames that I bought after the MG.
A description: it is a stainless steel six-shot revolver, built on the N-frame--that is, the large frame. This is also, I believe, one of the first of the round-butt N-frames. My impression is that they did this primarily to shave weight, and I note (somewhat ruefully) that whereever they could safely reduce weight on this revolver, they did so. I am talking here of reducing the outside diameter of the barrel, and they even bevelled off the front of the cylinder. In this regard, the caliber listed on the barrel is laser-etched on the right hand side and the manufacturere's name on the left side. Possibly, the barrel was too thin to allow the stamping that they normally do.
The result is a very lightweight revolver; one that weighs less than some of my L-frames.
One day, I decided to take it out and do some shooting, but not with Magnums. I didn't have any anyway. I didn't do a bench test, preferring to evaluate the practical accuracy of the revolver at what we on this forum typically use a handgun for: defensive-style shooting.
I shot about 50-60 rounds of some old remanufactured 240 grain RNFP ammo that I got from a local shop and some old Winchester 246 grain RNL and finally, some of the PMC 180 grain JHP stuff. There were no misfires, and the gun handled everything with aplomb. I did my usual shoot-while-move drill and if the poor target was not deader than old Marley before I started shooting, it certainly was after. I would shoot a couple of rounds and move back and to the side at the same time, then repeat the exercise while moving back and to the other side. Most of the time I did not use the sights, doing plain old point shooting.
All shooting was DA and there were no misfires.
Now, is this the ideal carry-gun? Of course not. It is an N-frame S&W and not everyone can conceal it effectively. But, if you can conceal it well, and are interested in a large-bore six-shot wheelgun, the MG might be the gun for you. Assuming, of course, that you can even find one.
***The above is a near C&P of a post I first made in the old Kansas forum. ***
