[uglygun]

Atleast so that they gave us a 10mm Auto offering?


Think it would be a pretty popular handgun, would it be possible that this gun would actually be more popular than the idea of the 329?


You'd have the power of the 10mm Auto and the various loadings for that cartridge, you'd have the light weight of the frame material, it probably wouldn't be quite as nasty recoiling, and most importantly it would be a gun that encorporates moon clips.


Kind of a marriage of all things good, little bit of something old(moon clips of the 1917 and the N-frame we all know and love) mixed with something new(modern frame material and chambering).


Anyhow, was just looking at somebody who was raving about their new Glock 10mm they purchased and I couldn't help but think that something TRUELY cool would be something like a 329/610.

[Dave T]

Wouldn't it be cool if the N-frame Scandium frame guns were expanded?

No, but it would be cool if S&W dropped the stupid scandium and titanium guns from their line and went back to steel, maybe even chrom molly steel. No, that would be too much to hope for. In fact, you can keep your scandium if they'll just drop the idiot titanium cylinders.

As always, YMMV!

[uglygun]

Well, I'd love it if they went back to carbon steels and went back to doing quality bluing jobs on things that weren't custom shop creations.

Love my 25-3 and model 27-2, same goes for my 5screw 38/44 Outdoorsman.


But having held the 329, not having gotten to shoot it yet though, it's like the ONE new release from S&W over the past 15 years that I actually like.


What can I say, my more classic S&Ws feel betrayed. A 329 and a similar offering in 10mm Auto could find their way into my collection. I have worries of flame cutting and scarred cylinder faces as well, but the 329 that I saw had an insert in the top strap to keep flame cutting down so it looks like that issue has been addressed. Maybe if they could build the guns right so the cylinder face doesn't whack a burr on the forcing cone of the barrel their high tech coatings wouldn't get FUBAR.


Still though, something about the 329 sings to me.

[C.R.Sam]

Model 27 should keep up right well with the 10s.

9X32R is a right respectable cartridge.

Mostly loaded way down to accomodate the light guns available in the last 20-30 years.

Sam

[Jim Watson]

I have no need of or interest in a 25 ounce .44 Magnum. Or a 10mm anything.

The 339 should have been a "325" a .45 ACP/AR revolver at the weight of a Commander.

[Erich]

I'm in for a 358! :D

[Tamara]

I must admit to a pretty serious hankering for a 329. A 310 would be even, um... er... "hankeringer." :uhoh:

[tex_n_cal]

wonder if they could fit seven 10mm's into an N frame cylinder?:evil:

[RWK]

Question for our experts: Uglygun’s thread title indicates Smith makes N Frame Scandium revolvers. I thought all the S&W Scandium firearms were L (or smaller) frame-based. Have I missed something?

Thanks and best regards -- Roy

[Nightcrawler]

Recently Smith & Wession introduced an N-Frame, scandium .44 Magnum with a titanium cylinder, the model 329.

[only1asterisk]

The 325 is a reality, sort of. They are making a few with 2" barrels out of the Performance Center. Only problem is I promised I'd never buy a smith with the extra hole in the sideplate. Well, and the #^*%$&^* price.


David

[Nobody]

What's wrong with titanium cylinders???

[Jim Watson]

David,

I have seen the 2" .45.
Ugly with a double UG.
Too big to go in a pocket, styles have changed since Fitz'es day, so I had just as well have some barrel and sight radius on a holster gun.

[Tamara]

Far as I know, those 2" .45's have steel cylinders and alloy frames. (But with stainless sideplates. Go figure.)

http://www.smith-wesson.com/products/firearms/pc/m625_2.htm

I kinda like it, actually... :uhoh:

[Brian Williams]

Nope to original question, do not like N frames.

I want blue steel.

[only1asterisk]

I know they aren't titanium but at 24 oz, I'm not complaining. In fact, I wish they had gone this way on the 329. Mountain gun style barrel with al frame. They are sort of ugly, but then so am I. I've never picked guns based on style or good looks, don't guess I'll start now.


David

[gulogulo1970]

I like my 329 a lot. Shooting 44 specials in it is no problem. 44 Magnums on the other hand is a double handful but not as bad as I expected. A 10mm one and a 45 Colt one would be nice too. But I think an 8-shot 357 would really be cool and its wieght wouldn't be uncontrollable.
I do wish they would coat the cylinder so it would match the frame. Even with the silverish cylinder it is still a good looking gun.

[uglygun]

I had to laugh when I saw the picture of the 325 with 2 inch barrel.

Looks like the profile of a boxer, not a professional fighter but rather the canine.

Oh, and I hate boxers! Women seem to like those dogs lots though, go figure.



Back onto the topic of "ugly" guns. It's my screen name and as such I tend to be drawn to things that are generally less popular, the OD Green Stealth Hunter 629 is one of those things even if it does have the Tobblerone barrel profile. The 329 isn't pretty but there's something about it that sings to me.


The 325 "boxer" though is just too pimptastic for me to get on board with. Maybe if it had a 3-4 inch barrel, I missed out on a nice little 625 model of 1989 back about 4 months ago. Stainless guns just aren't me though, bright and shiney ain't my thing.

[500swmag]

3 words...

SHOT show.... 325PD

500swmag

[Sean Smith]

I'd like to see a small-frame 5-shot Scandium/Titanium 10mm snubby. Why? Because it would be eeeeeeevil.

:evil:

[Dave T]

The question was asked, "What's wrong with titanium cylinders???"

Dig up a book on metalurgy. You will find that titanium erodes at high temperatures! Guess what happens when you fire your revover (say at the chamber mouth??). S&W advises never to use any abrasive in cleaning their titanium cylinders. Why, because you will scratch through the protective coating they put on them to keep down the erosion.

Over on the S&W Forum there was a long post, with many pictures, of a 296 that blew its cylinder firing factory ammunition. That's factory 44 Specials, a low pressure round.

I had two Phd Engineers who work in the defense industry attend my CCW class. Someone in the class asked what I thought about the titanium guns. The two engineers fell out of their chair laughing. They said making guns out of titanium was an example of the triumph of technology over common sense.

You pay your money and you take your chances!

[tex_n_cal]

Heat Treatable Titaniums, like 6-4 and Beta C, have some very, very odd habits. Touch it with your bare hands, throw it in a heat treat oven, pull it out, and you find the metal will break like glass where you touched it. seems the metal will absorb the salts from perspiration, once it is heated to age hardening temperatures.

Yes, the same titanium that is impervious to salt water and acids will be killed by the touch of a finger at the wrong time. That doesn't bode especially well for it in the hot zone of a magnum revo.:eek:

[Tamara]

Over on the S&W Forum there was a long post, with many pictures, of a 296 that blew its cylinder firing factory ammunition. That's factory 44 Specials, a low pressure round.

You know, I've seen pictures of blown steel cylinders for a long time now; 'bout time a Ti one let go. ;)

(Y'know, the one thing nobody seems to be adressing in that thread is that one of the chambers is obviously badly jugged. If that load wasn't seriously overpressure, I'd be amazed. The .38/.357 Ti guns seem to be holding up just fine; one .44 Spl Ti gun cracks a cylinder, and everyone starts shaking their heads and pontificating. Think about it...)

[Nobody]

Sounds like I have little too worry about with my .32 H&R Maggie Titanium cylinder then.

[Dave T]

Tamara,

It's been a while since I read the post about the 296 letting go but my recolection is that they owner had "agressively" cleaned the cylinder and probably scratched through the protective finish. That being the case, the failure probably had more to do with the underlying properties of titanium than the pressure of the cartridge being used.

I suspect this is not unlike the whole discussion of Glocks doing the dreaded KB, which I'm sure you will remember from your Glock Talk days. For every one that lets go, there are a couple thousand that don't have a problem.

I'm just offended by the concept of making a revolver with a cylinder you can't clean properly for fear of scratching it. I've also seen enough people in my CCW classes who purchase these things (the scandium/titanium Smiths) and then find they hate to shoot them because of the recoil. I know damn well they are never going to practice sufficiently and consequently not gain the skill or experience to defend themselves.

This is kind of a sticking point with me, but that's because I see so many people purchase these guns for the wrong reasons (it's light and easy to carry - never mind that I can't hit anything with it). For those of you who like your sc/ti revolvers, more power to you.

[gulogulo1970]

I don't under stand the logic behind, "you will never be able to hit anything with it." The first aimed shot is the most important one. Yes, follow up shots will be harder than if the gun weighs 40oz. I saw another thread yesterday and many people said a hit with a 38 beats a miss with a 357. I agree with that. BUT, if you can't hit with the first shot when you are under no recoil recovery, its not the light or heavy recoiling gun's fault, its yours. Practice with what you have or you won't be any good, pretty simple. Don't put anytime at the range and you won't be able to hit with a 50oz target 38. It will just take longer to learn to shoot these Airlite guns well.

[500swmag]

Dave T,
I personally have more than 10000 rds of 38 spec, 357 mag, 44 spec, and 44 mag through titanium cylinders and never had a cylinder burst during testing. I find it humorous myself that these engineers laughed, it is menalities like this that hamper progress, can you imagine where we would be if every time an "expert" said "you can't do that" everyone listened. we would probably still be plowing our fields with wooden sticks and living in caves and no way in H@ll that we would have put a man on the moon.
The protective coating that is on all titanium cylinders prevents erosion from the high velocity high temperature gases produced during firing the gun. This coating does nothing to enhance the strength of titanium. We are changing the concept of what Ti can do. Think about steel, if heat treat was not used the steel in your gun would bulge and burst under tremendous pressure from the cartridge.

BC

[Dave T]

I don't under stand the logic behind, "you will never be able to hit anything with it." The first aimed shot is the most important one.

OK, I'll explain it to you. Take a beginner who doesn't know how to shoot. They buy a sc/ti revolver because it is so light and easy to carry. They never practice because the damn thing hurts their hand. They never develope the skill to make that "first aimed shot" that you think is so important.

To an experienced shooter, someone who has another gun to practice with, the ultra lights may not be such a problem. I don't care if someone like that makes the decision to experiment with one, even carry one. I was talking about the rank amature I see in my classes that still doesn't understand the basics. The sc/ti revolvers spell nothing but trouble for those people.

500swmag,
So you've fired 10000 rounds through titanium cylinders - well good for you. Did you even read my post? I said I thought the failure was a small problem, brought on by improper cleaning procedure.
As for the engineers I referred to, they work on the hi-tech military armement you see in all those Pentagon film clips. Yea, they sure are stick in the muds that aren't interested in progress. Come on, man - give me a break.

You know, sometimes posting some well intended information on these boards isn't worth the trouble.

[Tamara]

I was talking about the rank amature I see in my classes that still doesn't understand the basics. The sc/ti revolvers spell nothing but trouble for those people.

You're right, and that's why I don't recommend AirLites to beginners, and even warn them that an Airweight is going to kick like a beast with +P loads to someone not familiar with it. Look at what happened to Mastrogiacomo; somebody sold her an Airweight J-frame for her first handgun, and she wound up leery of revolvers for about a year. :uhoh:

I firmly believe that if someone gets a J-frame as a first handgun, they should spend a fair amount of time with light ball loads, or even powderpuff target wadcutters to get the feel of the gun before they shoot heavier loads in it. To this day, one of the worst tattooings I've ever taken while shooting a handgun was with an all-steel Model 36 with splinter grips and +P+ 158gr loads. I was still relatively new to revolvers, and the back of the triggerguard split my social finger knuckle open pretty good in just one cylinderful. :o

[Preacherman]

When the S&W .500 Magnum first came out, I took a bet with the owner of a local gun store. I bet him $10 that within a year, someone would have sawn off the barrel to 2" or 3" to produce a .500 Magnum snubby. Well, I just saw my first one on Sunday - a guy had done just that... :rolleyes:

Now I'm waiting for the Scandium snubby .500 Magnum!

:what: :eek: :uhoh:

[500swmag]

Dave T,
"You know, sometimes posting some well intended information on these boards isn't worth the trouble."

you know I suppose I could say the same thing. I don't believe anything in my post had malicious intent or insulted you in any way.

"So you've fired 10000 rounds through titanium cylinders - well good for you. Did you even read my post? I said I thought the failure was a small problem, brought on by improper cleaning procedure."

good for me?

I was only pointing out, with facts that we have done losts of testing on these cylinders.

Did I read your post?

Yes I did. I don't believe I said I thought you said it was a big problem.

"No, but it would be cool if S&W dropped the stupid scandium and titanium guns from their line... No, that would be too much to hope for. ...drop the idiot titanium cylinders."

I'm not sure why you are so against Ti and Sc, but everyone is entitled to thier opinions. I only meant to point out a couple of facts and maybe make you sit back and think, "hmm maybe it's not such a bad thing".

I suppose we should drop this before we get our feelings all hurt :D

[gulogulo1970]

I don't like people telling me what I need or don't need. Dave T wants Smith and Wesson not to make a line of revolvers because some people will not learn how to use them efficently. Well guess what, I would bet most self defense guns bought in this country are bought, shot soon after and put into a drawer for the next 20 years. Is that smart, well no. The people using this forum are different from the people that buy guns and put them up without learning them inside and out. Which is all I was saying in my first post, "learn your weapon." If you want to get on anyone get on the salesman for selling that weapon to a gun "newbie", not Smith and Wesson.

Go to a Corvette forum and tell them Chevy shouldn't sell Corvettes because some fool will get behind the wheel, not know how to handle the power and hurt himself.

These guns, like a Covette, are pushing the limits of today's technology. They are both high performance machines. I appreciate that in Smith and Wesson, they are still tring to push the envelope and create some cool guns that never really were possible before. They just need to be marketed to the experinced shooter or gun professionals. People that will take the time to learn their gun. People like the ones that use this forum.