So What Exactly Is The Point? New S&W Revo.

Bwaahahaha. Needs a bayonet.

Click to expand...

You mean like this;

Smith Wesson. 357 mag with 5 inch barrel-and 8 shots.

Ok I admit. I own that gun as my main home defense weapon. Of course I do not have all the bull**** lights, but who needs em. It has a stainless steel cylinder, and scandium is the same as titanium. Actually it is a very accurate gun with acceptable recoil. And really if you need more than 8 shots of .357 magnum you probably need a swat team. Actually the wife is a great back-up w/her Ruger .357 mag. I must say, this is really a very durable, accurate revolver.

To think they're making crap like that when they could be turning out real guns for real people.

Think I'll go look at my "new" 1953 Military and Police again to wash this out of my mind.

I saw this thing just the other day while scrolling through S&W's web site - I did a double-take and just had to laugh......



I think that someone must have put it there as a joke, or something....

I'm still waiting for a "tac'ed out" Winchester 1894.

If this didn't take much extra tooling, the point may be sales.
What did Winchester offer in the classic '94? Any caliber you wanted as long as it is .30-30.
It may be "tacticool", but people buy stuff like that. Meatheads have money too.
How many times have you been in a gun store and the kids behind the counter (an owner's son) panned the "older" designs? New sells and without constant sales all these companies that make the stuff we love disappear.
Really, if you look only at the basic designs, how many from each line-up do you need? Remember that this is a different question from "want".
Now look at all the modifications and ask yourself how much it increases "want".

I got my .22LR plinker, 1911, small CCW, and medium CCW. Really all the niches I need (don't handgun hunt) are covered.

carpettbaggerr said:

Bwaahahaha. Needs a bayonet.

Click to expand...

Well it's out there.
Wasn't it Sig that had a rail mounted bayonet at the S.H.O.T. show last year?

Actually I've said for a few years now that I knew it was only a matter of time until someone put a rail on a production revolver.
I just figured Nightcrawler would drool more.

croyance said:

What did Winchester offer in the classic '94? Any caliber you wanted as long as it is .30-30.

Click to expand...

Well the WInchester 1894 was always offered in other calibers. In fact I didn't think .30 WCF was even one of the original calibers sold?
Wasn't .32 Winchester first? It was the second most popular chambering. It was first loaded as a black powder cartridge. .30 WCF came later as smokless powder was improved and .30cal was considered too small for black powder use due to excessive fouling.
.32-40 and .38-55 were also very early chamberings.

Although not as popular as the 1873, 1876, 1886 and 1892 musket versions there was a model 94 Musket offered, complete witrh full stock and bayonet lug. Now a bayonet fitted, lever action "musket" is the epitome of Wild West Tactical!

I can see that I am in the minority here but when I saw the gun I thought it would be a great home defense piece. Eight rounds in a 35 oz. package with the option of a light. Works for me! But, home defense is about the only use I would have for it. I've never been fond of carrying N-frames, even at 35 oz. Just too large.

I actually don't mind the 327. The Aimpoint Red dot is a bit much but the flash light rail is a good idea especially for home defense. I believe it would make a nice home defense or woods gun in small bear country.

I kinda like it.

But I'm a sick individual.

8 rounds of .357Mag should be plenty, but i'd still be a little more interested in a .45ACP or .44 Mag flavor. At the same time, I'd probably just get a 1911 with a light rail on it instead for that money.

But like I said, I kinda like it.

Not To Second Guess....

...S&W marketing people, but I bet they would move more units of a decent concealed carry 5 shot snubby in .44 spl or .45 LC.

If was all steel,fixed sight, 3 " bbl I'd be strongly tempted, even with the goofy lock. I mean, the only other company consistently making someting like that is ChartCo and its Bulldog. The quality of said revolver supposedly on the suspect side

There was an L-frame .44 Special. Didn't sell when new, but they are sought after now.

I'll add one to liking the light rail. I can't say much for the sights, though. As a home defense gun I like the idea of an 8-shot revolver with a light.
Hey, if revolvers become all the rage with the tacticool crowd it will not only introduce a whole gaggle of shooters to the Love of the Wheelgun but it will give all y'all curmudgeons lots to gripe about... a win/win situation if there ever was one!

I'd complain about how they gobble up all the used S&W's and Colts & drive up prices.

I'll admit I actually liked this model in it's raw form, but hanging anything off of it is truly laughable. S&W's marketing department is in overdrive with the gimmicks their dreaming up.

I do like the other blacked out revolvers like the 625, 45 Colt Model with the 5 inch barrel.

I would actually buy one if they would stop trying to invent gimmicks and substitute the same gun with better QUALITY such as non-MIM'd parts, a NON-sleeved barrel, STEEL and no friggin integral lock because it's not required in 99% of the states.

Alas, S&W is owned by a lock making company and many people don't even know it.

Mag...

scandium is the same as titanium.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's a different element. Scandium is a group IIIB transition metal, titanium is a group IVB transition metal. The vertical columns on the periodic table are significant, in some ways more so than the rows. The element below or above any given element is likely to have more in common than ones to either side. While I'm not up on all of the properties of scandium, I'd expect them to be quite different from, and not interchangable with, titanium.

Also, "scandium" in this context (I think) refers to an alloy of aluminum and scandium. The Sc is added to the Al to improve the alloy's yeild strength, an area where aluminum pretty much sucks. The payoff is a large improvement in strength for a small weight penalty. Scandium is proportionally much stronger than aluminum than it is heavier. Like any materials decision, it's a compromise. If weight isn't an issue, you use steel, as not only is it very strong, but it's failure modes are "better." Steel tends to fail slowly, in that cracks and elongations proceed in a slow, linear manner, which is not true for most of the other common structural . When you switch over to exotic aluminum alloys, or titanium, it's almost always due to weight issues, or, for Ti, corrosion. Alloy choices, for aluminum, are almost always based on the need for additional strength.

Back on topic, while I will never buy one, I hope Smith sells a ton of 'em.

--Shannon

If your going to put a rail on a revolver it should be fo a bipod not a tac light.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...d=10001&productId=45918&langId=-1&isFirearm=Y

MCgunner said:

For me, I can't see a full size revolver like that having much application...It has no niche.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think this gun does have a niche. It looks like a pretty good HD/nightstand gun, especially for those who are not really "gun people." Keep it loaded with 8 rounds of .357MAG. When you need it, the red-dot scope and light make it ready to just point and shoot. Not a bad concept. Just a bit too expensive for that niche.

There WILL be one of those in my safe one day.

Forget the light and put a weight on it for plate shooting. That thing balances very well stock, I can only imagine how well it would do with the proper set up.

I live in Mass, otherwise I would allready have one.

Bob