10mm or .41 magnum in L frame.

[LawofThirds]

Why hasn't S&W pushed the 5 shot L frame concept farther and introduced a .41 magnum or 10mm 5 shot L frame? Both seem to be a way to reach low end 44 magnum power while keeping it in the L frame for concealability.

 

[wow6599]

I guess it could take the 10mm, but I don't think it could handle .41 Mag for long.

 

[W.E.G.]

The price would be sky high, and nobody wants an oddball gun that bad.

If you want a one-off, there are builders who you might talk to.

More likely, they will come up with something that's a double-oddball, and call it something like 10mm Federal.

Then nobody will make ammo for it.

 

[Clifford]

Taurus makes a 5 shot L frame sized snubbie in .41 mag.

 

[Chuck Perry]

Saw one of those Taurus yesterday in the dealer's case. Looked pretty nice! I left it in the case, cause I knew if I held it I'd have to bring it home.

 

[CraigC]

The L-frame makes a dandy 10mm or .41Spl but there ain't enough meat for the .41Mag. In the .41Spl handloads must be kept moderate, while in a Colt SAA 215's can be pushed to 1200fps. Remember, the N-frame is at its limit with the .44Mag so you can't expect the L-frame, which was designed around the .357, to handle the .41Mag.

 

[Chuck Perry]

I see no reason why the L frame couldn't be made into a 5 shot 41 Magnum. The SAAMI spec for 357 is 35,000psi while the 41 Magnum is 36,000 (10mm is 37,500). If the little J frame can be made to handle 5 shots of 357, certainly the same can be done with the L and 5 shots of 41. Now I understand the market may not be there for it, but putting that aside it sounds doable.

 

[420Stainless]

.41 Mags. and 10mm don't seem to generate much fanfare. I can understand why they might not be eager to add another model in either of those calibers. I like both of them and the L-frame, but frankly don't find a 3" 686 much more concealable than the N-frame Mountain Gun and slightly less so than the Delta Elite. 5 round moon clips would be different in a cool way though.

 

[Drail]

It could be done. If Taurus can build a compact .41 Mag S&W could also. They just don't think it's marketable and the caliber is not popular with people who do not reload. Consider the Charter Arms Bulldog Pug in .44 Spl. Imagine what Ruger Or S&W could do with that design. I wouldn't hold my breath. Besides nowdays everyone just wants Glocks and XDs and M&P tupperware toys.

 

[CraigC]

It would have to be a five-shot but you also have to consider the barrel shank. Even the lowly .44Spl on the L-frame has a paper thin forcing cone. Don't think the L-frame could withstand a steady battering of .41Mag factory loads without a redesign. At which point it would no longer be an L-frame. You have to ask yourself, how much are you really gaining with a five-shot L-frame .41Mag that can't be had with a six-shot N-frame???

 

[Drail]

I've been using a S&W 696 as a daily carry gun since 96 so I have no problem with 5 round capacity. The forcing cone on an L frame with a .430 bore is on the fragile side, no doubt about that. With a .410 bore it would be a little better but I would still be tempted to keep the loads down around 900 fps as I have done with the 696. It seems to be holding up extremely well even after thousands of rounds of 200 gr. loads @ 900 fps. If I can approach the ballistics of the .45 ACP in an L frame revo I am a happy camper. There is probably no good reason to make an L frame .41 (or 10mm) considering how many idiots would try to load it to the max or over, but if S&W would do it I would probably have to buy one.

 

[Confederate]

The .41 mag, in my view, doesn't have the stopping power that the .357 does, plus it has greater recoil and penetration (which is why it's not as good a manstopper). The 10mm gives the vaunted .357 mag a run for the money, but doesn't offer any advantages from a revolver. Recoil and blast are vicious in both calibers and the .357 is a better hunting round. The .41 is pretty much a .44 mag with a cold. It's a wee bit less hard on guns, but I don't think an L-frame can handle it. Even if it were a 4-shot, the frame would be battered with hot rounds unless they found a way to make it a solid frame (like a Ruger).

 

[Stainz]

The mixed media .40 S&W (moonclip) L-frame 646 had to go to Ti for the cylinder's chamber pressure. That was made in two runs, at least one from their PC Shop. I just cannot imagine an L-frame 10mm or .41M. Over 7.5 yr of owning a 296 & 696 have made me cognizant of their small forcing cone and it's limitations. I'll just take N-frames.

Stainz

 

[Seven For Sure]

I've got a couple 646's and shooting 180 and 200 gr. loads is a pleasure in both .40 and 10mm. Moonclips, an extra round and MUCH cheaper ammo make it the better gun over the 696, IMO of course. I rebored an unfluted SS six shot 686 cylinder and it handles my 10mm reloads very nicely. The weight difference between the two is pretty signifigant, it helps recoil with the bit of extra power it gets. Nothing crazy, 180's @ 1200 and 200's @ 1050max. The extra space in the cylinder just bothered me and actually 10mm Mag would fit, the cylinder is a tiny bith longer than the 610. If you kept power levels close you could roll some nice lower pressure loads.

 

[Stainz]

There were two runs of the 4" Ti-cylindered .40 S&W 646 - the tapered lug/slab-sided barrel 36 oz PC Shop one from 2000 - MSRP ~$850 and the special production regular barrel/full lug 38 oz one from 2003 ~$560 MSRP. I broke down nearly eight years back and bought my 296 ($349 on closeout) and 696 ($439 regular price) new on the same day - got another $10 off for buying two new S&W's. The PC 646 was $729 there, I believe - the last new production 646 I saw was $449! Those were the days... and that wasn't that long ago. During the ammo shortage, everyone had .40 S&W.

A 10mm would fit the 646's .40 S&W chambers? In O.J.'s "If it fits..." scenario, as I found when I removed my first S&W's , a .45 Colt 625MG, cylinder to clean it, some .454 Casull ammo would fit in that same cylinder's chambers - and be below the cylinder exit's face. That was a shock. That and the 10mm in a 646's chambers, I feel, is a very bad idea. I would never do it. I soon sold my SRH and said goodbye to the .454 ammo & reloads I had, determined that SAAMI spec .45 Colt was 'enough' for me.

Never liked the 10mm - or saw the need in an N-frame .41M - the .44 is so wide-ranging, Russians - Specials - Magnums, and widely available - try to find .41M's.

Stainz

 

[45crittergitter]

The .41 mag, in my view, doesn't have the stopping power that the .357 does

I disagree, considering experiences I've had with factory 170 SJHPs at a chronographed 1600 fps. You don't want to be standing very close to a live target when you shoot it.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

A new five-shot cylinder could be fabricated, at considerable cost of course.

 

[surfinUSA]

Although I've always wanted a model 58 in 41 mag, the hard reallity is when I'm spending my hard earned money on a revolver its a 44 mag due to the wider ranger of loads and availability.

As far as semi-autos go, I really like the 10mm as a woods and swamp gun. They really don't get any better than the G20. All the semi-autos chambered for revolver magnum cartridges are super big, heavy and relativley unreliable.

 

[22-rimfire]

There was an article in the Sept 2010 Shooting Times magazine about the 10mm. It made me itch for a G20.

I am no expert on pressures, so I would guess that a 5-shot L frame in 41 mag would be stretching the margin of safety. They would have to assume full factory 41 mag loads for it even if "specials" are being shot for liability reasons. The "41 Special" pretty much exists with the 40 S&W.

 

[Gunfighter123]

I still like my S&W 646 ;



But I like my S&W 610 in 5" much better;

 

[bhp9mm]

here is a rare 610-2 3 inch barrel

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=187881163

 

[WC145]

The mixed media .40 S&W (moonclip) L-frame 646 had to go to Ti for the cylinder's chamber pressure. That was made in two runs, at least one from their PC Shop. I just cannot imagine an L-frame 10mm or .41M. Over 7.5 yr of owning a 296 & 696 have made me cognizant of their small forcing cone and it's limitations. I'll just take N-frames.

They went with titanium because, as a 6 shot, there was not enough metal left around the chambers for steel to handle. As a 5 shot the situation could be completely different.

 

[gofastman]

They went with titanium because, as a 6 shot, there was not enough metal left around the chambers for steel to handle. As a 5 shot the situation could be completely different.

I doubt that, per unit of volume steel is stronger than titanium.

 

[Gryffydd]

The .41 mag, in my view, doesn't have the stopping power that the .357 does, plus it has greater recoil and penetration (which is why it's not as good a manstopper).

I'm not sure I read this right, because it sounds like you're saying that the .41 Magnum has less stopping power because it's much more powerful
I'm not sure how a bigger, heavier bullet going faster is going to give you less stopping power.

 

[WC145]

I doubt that, per unit of volume steel is stronger than titanium.

Okay, have you got a better reason for titanium? Look it up. I researched the gun after purchasing one and that's what I found, apparently titanium has some properties that steel doesn't that made it more practical for the application. Since it was designed/marketed as a competition gun, weight wouldn't have been a major factor. I'm no metallurgist but I'll bet that if S&W could have made it work with steel they would have instead of using a much more expensive and non-user friendly metal like titanium.