I like full underlug barrels.
Wish they would have done 4" 657 and 4" 629
I got a 5" 629, sweet shooting gun, looks badass too
Wish they would have done 4" 657 and 4" 629
I got a 5" 629, sweet shooting gun, looks badass too
Revolvers S&W "Should" have made??
- Thread starter Mbrgr1
- Start date
Frogie;The one I would suggest has already been proposed... the K frame 327. In fact, I’ve had one built (see Project 616) in stainless with a 4” barrel, but not everyone has the contacts and resources to do this for themselves.
I can’t understand why 32s of whatever length sold so slowly in the ‘50s through the ‘70s but are so popular now. Part is lack of ability I suppose, but a bigger reason may be the rise in popularity of reloading, making performance ammo more readily available. I fear the ship carrying new versions of S&W revolvers has left the dock and is headed for the horizon.
Froggie
I had Bowens do mine...a 4" 16-4 in 327 Federal....what a great gun!!!!
Green Frog
Member
tjp, Bowen announced a while back he no longer works on Smiths, just Rugers. 
Kermit Grenoille
Member
Two.
The first is simple. I wish S&W would produce a 4.25" 69 without the lock. I've wanted one of those almost since they came out, but I've always hated the lock. Love everything else about the setup of this gun, and wouldn't change anything else in the configuration.
The other is a little more involved. I would like a 610, without the lock, but I veer from the normal here. I want a 5" barrel with no full underlug, and an unfluted cylinder. Basically, take the 25-7, make it in stainless, and chamber it for 10mm.
....
Okay, I've got one more, now that I think about it. Combine the two. Make a half underlug 4.25" barrel L frame, model 69 style, but chamber it for 10mm with moon clips. I'm unsure if there's enough meat in the cylinder to get 6 rounds of the 10, so I'll be okay with a 5 shot version, if that's all that can be stuffed in there safely. Oh, and don't include the lock.
Those half lug L frames are dang near the perfect size for a belt gun while hiking or hunting, and one in .44 or 10mm would be EXCELLENT.
The first is simple. I wish S&W would produce a 4.25" 69 without the lock. I've wanted one of those almost since they came out, but I've always hated the lock. Love everything else about the setup of this gun, and wouldn't change anything else in the configuration.
The other is a little more involved. I would like a 610, without the lock, but I veer from the normal here. I want a 5" barrel with no full underlug, and an unfluted cylinder. Basically, take the 25-7, make it in stainless, and chamber it for 10mm.
....
Okay, I've got one more, now that I think about it. Combine the two. Make a half underlug 4.25" barrel L frame, model 69 style, but chamber it for 10mm with moon clips. I'm unsure if there's enough meat in the cylinder to get 6 rounds of the 10, so I'll be okay with a 5 shot version, if that's all that can be stuffed in there safely. Oh, and don't include the lock.
Those half lug L frames are dang near the perfect size for a belt gun while hiking or hunting, and one in .44 or 10mm would be EXCELLENT.
- Joined
- May 20, 2025
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 100
I'm onboard with the L or N frame .22 as mentioned multiple times. L could be a 12 round cylinder, and N at least 14 (15 maybe?).
Aside from that:
- M69 in .41 Mag
- Offer high tech finish options like DLC, PVD, etc
- Ditch the ejector rod detent and install yoke/frame mounted ball locks on all models
- Completely eliminate the damn lock across the board, forever
Aside from that:
- M69 in .41 Mag
- Offer high tech finish options like DLC, PVD, etc
- Ditch the ejector rod detent and install yoke/frame mounted ball locks on all models
- Completely eliminate the damn lock across the board, forever
Once again. I want a modern M frame 22LR
