Nightcrawler
Member
I haven't been on the board much lately. Been busy. (Hey! I'm an NRA certified handgun/personal defense instructor now!) Going to be busier in the future.
But...
I'm a revolver fanatic. I've got one semi (a 1911) and four wheelguns (three S&W and a Ruger GP100 that's an absolute tank and I got it for a steal) and have little desire for more semi-autos. I'm told that it's odd, at my age, to have that preference (I turned 27 last week), but it is what it is.
Anyway. I used to have a 625 5" in .45ACP that I really liked. I sold it to Correia to help fund the purchase of my 629 Classic, figuring for the same size and (considerable!) heft, I could get a lot more power with the .44 Mag.
And I've shot the hell out of that .44. Probably more than a thousand rounds now, only one box of which was .44 Special.
But...I miss the moonclip gun. So then S&W has to go and release not one, but two moonclip guns, either of which I could own and love.
The first is the Model 327 M&P R8.
This is a 5" barreled Performance Center eight-shot .357 Magnum. It is machined to accept moonclips, and can mount a weapon light. I've handled this gun several times and the Scandium frame makes it very light and handy. As a matter of fact, it weighs less than a standard single-stack 1911, has about the same capacity, and is more powerful. Plus you can still plink with .38 wadcutter, and it doesn't require moonclips. In the same frame size as every other N-Frame, you get two more shots without giving anything up.
On the downside, I understand .357 Magnum moonclips aren't as easy and effortless as .45ACP ones. The brass is a lot longer for one thing. For another, some brass will "wobble" or not be steady in the clip, but others will, from what I've read. .357 is more expensive than .45ACP. .38 is cheaper, but I prefer to do a lot of practicing with moderate-to-full power ammo, or at least, ammo that's close to what I'd carry. The really good match .357 moonclips, which I hear-tell on the interweb don't have any cartridge wobble, are like seven bucks a piece.
The other gun I'm looking at is the Model 325 Thunder Ranch.
This is a Performance Center .45ACP revolver, with a 4" barrel, that also has the ability to accommodate a weapon light (something with I consider to be an advantage, also cool as hell, unorthodox aesthetics notwithstanding).
This gun has several advantages. It comes with a gold bead front sight, which I prefer. The 4" barrel is easier to find holsters for and is easier to conceal; the light rail is detachable if I should decide I don't want to use it. It's lighter.
.45ACP is a low pressure round that won't be hard on the gun, possibly an advantage with the Scandium alloy frame. If I had to, I'd much rather touch off a .45ACP round, indoors or in the car, without hearing protection than a full-power .357 Magnum. (I imagine a full-house .357 in that setting would be ear-splitting; if you download .357 Magnum to get around this, you lose the advantage in power over .45ACP.)
The six fat, round-nosed, front-heavy cartridges, held firmly in place by the moonclip, allow you to practically toss your reload into place with no fumbling.
Finally, this model has a forged hammer and trigger as well as a pinned sear, which is nice, even if I can't tell the difference.
The gun has disadvantages as well. For one thing, it's less powerful than most any other N-Frame. .45ACP simply can't compete with the full house loadings of .357 Magnum as loaded by Buffalo Bore and Double Tap. For another, you get six shots instead of eight.
I know, I know. If I'm worried about capacity why get a revolver in the first place? I'm not really worried about it, but as I said, with the .357 you get two more rounds without giving anything up (so far as I know). It's kind of an efficiency thing.
Also, the 325TR has a short ejector rod to accommodate the light rail. This could be a disadvantage with sticky brass, but given the low pressure of even +P .45ACP rounds and the short cartridge length (and utilizing a proper, firm smack of the ejector rod) I doubt ejection would be an issue.
So, there it is. I'm just looking to see what folks' opinions are. I understand a good number of revolver shooters have no use for these Scandium guns and their light-rails; fair enough! For my part I'm not hunting down and hoarding all of the nice used Model 19s, either. See? Savin' 'em for you guys! I'm so thoughtful!
Yes, I know they're ugly. They're cool-looking ugly, though. Post-modern, whatever you want to call it. I simply have to get one of these. So if you were so inclined to get a gun like this in the first place, which would you get, and why?
(Note: This firearm will be for range use, plinking, carry, self defense, and maybe competition. I have a .44 Magnum that I can use for when I'm out in the wilderness, or if ever I go hunting.)
But...
I'm a revolver fanatic. I've got one semi (a 1911) and four wheelguns (three S&W and a Ruger GP100 that's an absolute tank and I got it for a steal) and have little desire for more semi-autos. I'm told that it's odd, at my age, to have that preference (I turned 27 last week), but it is what it is.
Anyway. I used to have a 625 5" in .45ACP that I really liked. I sold it to Correia to help fund the purchase of my 629 Classic, figuring for the same size and (considerable!) heft, I could get a lot more power with the .44 Mag.
And I've shot the hell out of that .44. Probably more than a thousand rounds now, only one box of which was .44 Special.
But...I miss the moonclip gun. So then S&W has to go and release not one, but two moonclip guns, either of which I could own and love.
The first is the Model 327 M&P R8.
This is a 5" barreled Performance Center eight-shot .357 Magnum. It is machined to accept moonclips, and can mount a weapon light. I've handled this gun several times and the Scandium frame makes it very light and handy. As a matter of fact, it weighs less than a standard single-stack 1911, has about the same capacity, and is more powerful. Plus you can still plink with .38 wadcutter, and it doesn't require moonclips. In the same frame size as every other N-Frame, you get two more shots without giving anything up.
On the downside, I understand .357 Magnum moonclips aren't as easy and effortless as .45ACP ones. The brass is a lot longer for one thing. For another, some brass will "wobble" or not be steady in the clip, but others will, from what I've read. .357 is more expensive than .45ACP. .38 is cheaper, but I prefer to do a lot of practicing with moderate-to-full power ammo, or at least, ammo that's close to what I'd carry. The really good match .357 moonclips, which I hear-tell on the interweb don't have any cartridge wobble, are like seven bucks a piece.
The other gun I'm looking at is the Model 325 Thunder Ranch.
This is a Performance Center .45ACP revolver, with a 4" barrel, that also has the ability to accommodate a weapon light (something with I consider to be an advantage, also cool as hell, unorthodox aesthetics notwithstanding).
This gun has several advantages. It comes with a gold bead front sight, which I prefer. The 4" barrel is easier to find holsters for and is easier to conceal; the light rail is detachable if I should decide I don't want to use it. It's lighter.
.45ACP is a low pressure round that won't be hard on the gun, possibly an advantage with the Scandium alloy frame. If I had to, I'd much rather touch off a .45ACP round, indoors or in the car, without hearing protection than a full-power .357 Magnum. (I imagine a full-house .357 in that setting would be ear-splitting; if you download .357 Magnum to get around this, you lose the advantage in power over .45ACP.)
The six fat, round-nosed, front-heavy cartridges, held firmly in place by the moonclip, allow you to practically toss your reload into place with no fumbling.
Finally, this model has a forged hammer and trigger as well as a pinned sear, which is nice, even if I can't tell the difference.
The gun has disadvantages as well. For one thing, it's less powerful than most any other N-Frame. .45ACP simply can't compete with the full house loadings of .357 Magnum as loaded by Buffalo Bore and Double Tap. For another, you get six shots instead of eight.
I know, I know. If I'm worried about capacity why get a revolver in the first place? I'm not really worried about it, but as I said, with the .357 you get two more rounds without giving anything up (so far as I know). It's kind of an efficiency thing.
Also, the 325TR has a short ejector rod to accommodate the light rail. This could be a disadvantage with sticky brass, but given the low pressure of even +P .45ACP rounds and the short cartridge length (and utilizing a proper, firm smack of the ejector rod) I doubt ejection would be an issue.
So, there it is. I'm just looking to see what folks' opinions are. I understand a good number of revolver shooters have no use for these Scandium guns and their light-rails; fair enough! For my part I'm not hunting down and hoarding all of the nice used Model 19s, either. See? Savin' 'em for you guys! I'm so thoughtful!
Yes, I know they're ugly. They're cool-looking ugly, though. Post-modern, whatever you want to call it. I simply have to get one of these. So if you were so inclined to get a gun like this in the first place, which would you get, and why?
(Note: This firearm will be for range use, plinking, carry, self defense, and maybe competition. I have a .44 Magnum that I can use for when I'm out in the wilderness, or if ever I go hunting.)
