7 or 8 round 44 Magnum?

[Czechvar]

Has S&W ever considered creating a 44 Magnum revolver with more than 6 rounds? I have this 627PC, and I like the 8 round capacity...It seems to hit a sweet spot between revolvers and semiauto’s...to me anyway. I don’t want to add new calibers like I’d need to for the 500 or 460...but I already have 44.

If they did build one, would it be an X Frame? Or could it fit in an N Frame? How much would it weigh? And the last question I have...Would people buy it? Honestly, I think I would if it was an X Frame with 8 rounds and a 4” or 5” barrel.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

It would have to be an X-frame, I don't see how a 7th chamber could be squeezed into an N-frame cylinder. And it would be one of those things were everybody goes "WOW!"-and nobody buys it.

 

[Echo40]

It might be possible to make such a beast using the X-Frame, but for a firearm of such massive size and weight, I can't help but question...In what circumstances would more than 6 rounds of .44 Magnum be necessary?

Seriously, not to question the appeal of a high capacity .44 Magnum Revolver or anything, (it's definitely a cool idea) but in terms of practicality it seems highly questionable, especially considering the necessary size and weight of an 8 shot .44 Magnum. Although I suppose they could reduce the weight by making the frame out of Scandium Alloy, maybe even a Titanium cylinder as well like the 329PD, only on the X-Frame.

 

[Paul105]

Somebody, (maybe John Ross) mentioned that S&W was all tooled up to produce a revolver with a frame size between the X Frame and N Frame -- the project was shelved with a management change IIRC.

FWIW,

Paul

 

[joe44va]

Maybe a 41 Mag would fit better. That I would consider.

 

[muddocktor]

Yeah joe44va, I would think a 41 Mag on the X Frame would have a better chance of making a 7 round cylinder than the 44 Mag.

 

[Qc Pistolero]

7 shot of a .44 round could not fit in an ''N'' sized cylinder.The 6 that are there are already pretty well tight in!
And an X frame .44 mag would be,well,let me put it this way,not a big seller.

 

[Sevens]

I can't help but question...In what circumstances would more than 6 rounds of .44 Magnum be necessary?

How can this be a legitimate question-- without spawning a laundry list of similar questions?

Why would anyone need five shots of .500 Mag? How is an 8-shot N-frame .357 necessary? What makes six shots of .44 necessary to begin with? Is there anything that anyone would ever shoot a .44 Magnum at that couldn't be figured out in 2 or 4 rounds?

Not trying to be obnoxious, I just can't understand how "six rounds of .44 Mag" is some kind of baseline for what is sensical or needed or proper... but a 7th is preposterous...?

 

[Czechvar]

I assumed I wasn’t the only one to wonder about this idea...Same topic from this Forum in 2011:

Want an X frame 8 shot 44 magnum!

 

[rct269]

AND THEN AGAIN--------

How can this be a legitimate question-- without spawning a laundry list of similar questions?

Why would anyone need five shots of .500 Mag? How is an 8-shot N-frame .357 necessary? What makes six shots of .44 necessary to begin with? Is there anything that anyone would ever shoot a .44 Magnum at that couldn't be figured out in 2 or 4 rounds?

Not trying to be obnoxious, I just can't understand how "six rounds of .44 Mag" is some kind of baseline for what is sensical or needed or proper... but a 7th is preposterous...?

Actually, all such proposals/questions/sundry musings arise from fishing tackle---and its place in our world. Many, perhaps most folks will tell you fishing tackle is made to catch fish. Given a modicum of thought on the subject (and myriad others), a case can be made fishing tackle is made to sell to fishermen----and fisherwomen. And so it is with other vital products.

One such is a "bull pup" combat style shotgun I caught sight of not too long ago. Being of a "bull pup" design, I supposed it would be comparatively light weight. I supposed that right up until I learned it had a dual tubular magazine which would hold the better part of, if not an entire box of shells. So much for light weight. Rather than ponder the imaginary merits of such a weapon, it's likely more entertaining to wonder about the dialogue in the conference room which preceded the decision to manufacture such a beast in the first place. I reckon it was fairly easy to convince the boss man such an absurdity could be sold.

Ralph Tremaine

 

[bigggbbruce]

Just carry a couple of speed loaders and call it done.

 

[vipermd]

Why would anyone need five shots of .500 Mag? How is an 8-shot N-frame .357

Fortunately I had 2 speed loaders of 700 gr 500 SW on my last T-Rex Hunt!!!

 

[Sevens]

AMT or maybe they were IAI at that point... when marketing the AutoMag V in .50AE, they used a T-Rex in their print ads.

 

[colt_saa]

Back when the X-frame was a new offering, I had a conversatin with S&W engineer Herb Belin. He indicated that a Scandium framed 44 Magnum 8shot and a 7.62x39 X-frame were both on his list of possibilities.

He also joked about a 20 shot 22LR/Magnum revolver

 

[Echo40]

How can this be a legitimate question-- without spawning a laundry list of similar questions?

Why would anyone need five shots of .500 Mag? How is an 8-shot N-frame .357 necessary? What makes six shots of .44 necessary to begin with? Is there anything that anyone would ever shoot a .44 Magnum at that couldn't be figured out in 2 or 4 rounds?

Not trying to be obnoxious, I just can't understand how "six rounds of .44 Mag" is some kind of baseline for what is sensical or needed or proper... but a 7th is preposterous...?

The difference is that the 5-shot S&W Model 500 came with 5 shots by default, and was likely made that way because it's a revolver which tend to come with 5-6 shots on average.
As for 8-shot N-Frames, I believe that the first 8-shot N-Frame .357 revolver was requested by Law Enforcement, which makes sense given that Law Enforcement would want a high capacity revolver in a potent round such as .357 Magnum.
Same as the Model 500, the Model 29 was designed with a 6-shot cylinder because that's the capacity folks expect to see in a revolver and that's the configuration Smith & Wesson has long since mastered.

That being said, is the 5-shot S&W Model 500 practical? Honestly no, and I doubt that anybody would claim that the Model 500 is by any means practical. In reality, the Model 500 only exists because S&W wanted the marketability and bragging rights associated with the title of "The most powerful handgun in the world!" Same goes with the S&W Model 460 being dubbed "The highest velocity handgun in the world!" and is offered in barrel lengths which exceed that which one generally considers to be synonymous with handguns.
Both firearms were/are marketed based on hype alone, not because they're practical. They're extremely large, extremely heavy, extremely powerful, produce extreme muzzle flash, recoil, and report, thus making them extremely impractical in just about every role because they're excessive for just about everything.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against firearms which major selling point is their cool factor. (Heck, I carry a PPK/S and my Home Defense firearm is a Taurus Judge Magnum.) I'm just telling it like it is, an 8-shot X-Frame .44 Magnum is less practical and more hype.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

If you want a 7-8-10 round .44 magnum..........buy a rifle.

 

[colt_saa]

Why would anyone need five shots of .500 Mag? How is an 8-shot N-frame .357 necessary? What makes six shots of .44 necessary to begin with? Is there anything that anyone would ever shoot a .44 Magnum at that couldn't be figured out in 2 or 4 rounds?

This is AMERICA, NEED has nothing to do with anything.

If NEED was a standard, there would be no Rolex\Piguet\Vacheron-Constantine watches or Corvette\Mustang\Porsche cars that can go faster then the speed limit or 3D televisions or private planes or a host of other things that people do not really NEED.

In AMERICA if you want and can afford it, that is all that should matter.

As for 8-shot N-Frames, I believe that the first 8-shot N-Frame .357 revolver was requested by Law Enforcement, which makes sense given that Law Enforcement would want a high capacity revolver in a potent round such as .357 Magnum.

The 8 shot N-frame was a 1996 collaboration between Lew Horton and Smith and Wesson. The 1997 exclusive offering was 300 pieces.

Yes when I heard about it, I thought an 8 shooter was very cool. I tried to order serial number 357 and that is how I learned that it was going to be one run of only 300 pieces.

Law Enforcement had nothing to do with the design of this firearm

That 8 shot 357 Magnum revolver was the fastest selling Exclusive that Lew Horton ever had and an additional 300 were produced just a few months later.

That first design has been in continuous production for over two decades now. It has spawned off about two dozen variations and is now a cataloged Performance Center offering.

The revolver in the upper left is #27 while the one in the upper right is #357 both manufactured in 1997

 

[WR Moore]

Would the wheels and tow vehicle be standard or optional?

 

[Czechvar]

Would the wheels and tow vehicle be standard or optional?

Neither...But I would expect the Deck Mount to be standard equipment...

 

[Sevens]

This is AMERICA, NEED has nothing to do with anything.

If NEED was a standard, there would be no Rolex\Piguet\Vacheron-Constantine watches or Corvette\Mustang\Porsche cars that can go faster then the speed limit or 3D televisions or private planes or a host of other things that people do not really NEED.

In AMERICA if you want and can afford it, that is all that should matter.

Well of course I agree entirely. Quoting my post takes it a bit out of context -- it was a response to when it was questioned why anyone would need more than six rounds of .44 Magnum.