If S&W makes another 10mm, what frame size would you prefer?

[Dave Lively]

A thread in a different forum got me thinking about 10mm revolvers again. My two S&W revolvers are a 610 and a 69. While my 610 is a great shooter so is the 69. And pretty much everything the 10mm can do the 44 can do just as well or better.

But if S&W does make another 10mm revolver I think it should be based on the L frame they use for the 69. The N frame of my 610 always seemed needlessly large for the cartridge. Looking at my 69 I think it would be a 5 shot gun in 10mm but maybe they could cram an extra round in. If it shot inexpensive (compared to 10mm or 44) 40 S&W ammo accurately I might buy one just for that. Since I quit reloading I find myself shooting a lot more 9mm than anything else since it is so easy to buy in bulk at reasonable prices but still really enjoy shooting revolvers even though the ammo is more expensive.

 

[Ray1970]

I know the 10mm has kind of a cult following but I'd like to see an L frame in 41 mag.

 

[k22fan]

The Model 646 L frame 6 shot .40 S&W did not sell. However, it demonstrated that six 10 mm size cartridges fit in an L frame without resorting to to the Model 69s yoke and ejector assemblies. I voted L for an L frame.

 

[justintyme]

I already have a 610, so I vote for the L frame as well, although they should do both, and the 5 shot .41 mag L frame, cuz I love both cartridges.
Actually since 10 mm has enjoyed quite a resurgence the last couple years, more guns than ever chambered for it right now, the timing is right for S&W to bring it back.

 

[epj]

I know the 10mm has kind of a cult following but I'd like to see an L frame in 41 mag.

If they did, it would have to be a 5 shot. The wildcat .41 Special would work with the L frame. It's basically the old .41 Mag police load in a shorter case. Same length as .44 Special. I'm sure some of the ammo companies would be glad to load it, and it could be used in 41mag guns as well.

 

[629shooter]

I'd try a L-frame.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[Arik]

I'd want a N frame but the look of a 28.

For some reason I equate full length ejector rod with L frames, which I like, but not as much as a N frame.

Make it looks like a 28 or a 38-44 HD

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[CH4]

I voted for the L frame. I would like a 10mm version of the PC 686 snubbie to compliment my 2.6" 627.

 

[Tanners Owner]

While I'd like to see a 6 shot L frame, I recognize it'll likely be a 5 shot if produced. As such, I'd also welcome the return of the 610.

 

[BarryinIN]

The 1911 frame.
Oh! What revolver frame?
I voted L frame. The N frames are beautiful and all, and nice to shoot, but an L frame is a lot more practical for me.

I think the 646 would've sold a lot better if it had been a 10mm. If you take out the departmental purchases and people who buy what they heard about on TV, it cuts out a lot of .40 sales, and none of those would be 646 buyers.

I know a lot of times, we hear a lot of talk about what people will buy until it's out there, but I think a 10mm L frame would sell.

So would a .41 Mag.

As for a .41 Spl, I'd sure like one. I could just about guarantee a few hundred people who would buy the first one they saw.
After that, to be honest, I feel the sad reality is, you'd be down to people saying "A .41 what?".

 

[Dennismn]

The Model 646 L frame 6 shot .40 S&W did not sell. However, it demonstrated that six 10 mm size cartridges fit in an L frame without resorting to to the Model 69s yoke and ejector assemblies. I voted L for an L frame.

That's too bad,

I wasn't in a position to pick one up at the time or I would have.

**** loads of free .40 s&w brass means it's a great shooter for a re-loader.

 

[epj]

The 1911 frame.
Oh! What revolver frame?
I voted L frame. The N frames are beautiful and all, and nice to shoot, but an L frame is a lot more practical for me.

I think the 646 would've sold a lot better if it had been a 10mm. If you take out the departmental purchases and people who buy what they heard about on TV, it cuts out a lot of .40 sales, and none of those would be 646 buyers.

I know a lot of times, we hear a lot of talk about what people will buy until it's out there, but I think a 10mm L frame would sell.

So would a .41 Mag.

As for a .41 Spl, I'd sure like one. I could just about guarantee a few hundred people who would buy the first one they saw.
After that, to be honest, I feel the sad reality is, you'd be down to people saying "A .41 what?".

Most .41 Special loads are in the 210@900fps range, similar to the .41 mag "police load". About the same velocity as the .40, but heavier bullet. That could probably be bumped up to 1000-1050 fps without much concern. The Colt "L frame", i.e. the Python, was occasionally rechambered to .41'mag, but the round was really too hot for that frame size. The .41 Special would be a real hoot in a 686 or GP100.

 

[colt_saa]

I would like to see the 10MM Auto chambered in the M&P frame.

I already own several L-frame sized 41 Magnums (29oz in SS, 19oz in Ti), even an L-frame sized 45 Long Colt, they were all made by Taurus. While I think S&W missed the boat on that configuration, the Taurus never sold very well compared to their full size counterparts. Though I must admit that the 45 Long Colt looks pretty bad-*** with those big Barnes hollowpoints.

In revolvers, I would like to see the return of the 310/610 family. I think that they are fantastic when opened up for the 10MM Magnum cartridge, even the snubbies

For some reason I never warmed up to the Model 646. Probably because I am not a fan of the 40S&W cartridge. If the 646 had shipped with a stainless cylinder I might have bought one and rechambered it to the 10MM Auto, I did not want to rechamber Titanium

 

[BruceM]

I'd want a N frame but the look of a 28.

For some reason I equate full length ejector rod with L frames, which I like, but not as much as a N frame.

Both the L-Frame guns and the N-Frame M28 have full length ejector rods. Shortened ejector rods are usually made necessary by very short barrel lengths regardless of frame size. You are probably thinking of full length underlug barrels on the L-Frame and that feature is not mandatory just because a gun is built on that frame size.

My personal feeling is that the ".41 Special" is a solution to a non-existent problem. The practical terminal ballistic benefits of a 210 grain .410" bullet at 900 or so fps from the ".41 Special" vs a 200 grain .400" bullet at about the same velocity from a .40 S&W or 10mm are slim to none IMO. The vast majority of .41 Magnum shooters hand load and creating accurate reduced velocity ammo in the full length case is pretty much a non-issue. If the only reason for a new case is to fit the round in the next size smaller frame revolver, well...........

Bruce

 

[johngalt]

I prefer the N frame, it fits better in my hand.

 

[44specialfan]

I'd vote for a 5 shot, L frame with a 3 - 4" barrel.

 

[JDinAZ]

Max pressure and fps are pretty beefy on 10mm. Never really looked at it till just now. I can remember folks saying it beats frames to death in 1911s years ago so that made me not even look at 10mm. I'd say they better wrap it in an N frame for strength

 

[justintyme]

If they can do .44mag in the model 69 L frame, I would think it can handle 10mm

 

[JDinAZ]

True. Thanks man didn't think about the 69. I gotta be careful or I'll talk myself right into looking for a 44mag 69 for sale on the street out here in AZ.

 

[Neumann]

A 5 round, L-frame in 10 MM would be good for a carry gun, but 10 mm might be a bit much. I doubt it could outperform a .44 Mag in the slightly larger M-69. Furthermore, you would need to use moon clips or carry a stub pencil to eject cases.

I think I would rather see a 7 or 8 round N-frame, something woods-worthy in predator country. My snubby 629 loaded with hot .44 SPL is as far as I would go for urban SD.