Bmont2409
Member
I recently purchased a Mod 58 S&W with serial # s260070, 41 mag, 4 in barrel. Can anyone tell me approx when it was made and what frame it is? Thanks in advance.
Mod 58
- Thread starter Bmont2409
- Start date
- Status
Lucky Derby
Member
1965-1966. It is an N frame. Factory finish would be either blue or nickel.
Bmont2409
Member
Thanks for the response, I am looking forward to shooting this soon.
shooting4life
Member
The 58 is one my short list. Would like to find one to match my 520
People get mad at me for saying it but the truth is that the 58 was an abysmal failure and is a revolver that serves no real purpose that can't be done better by another pistol. The 58 had one of the shortest production runs of all S&W revolvers. It did not sell well and failed at its intended purpose as a cop gun.
I bought a 58 about 23 years ago as a curiosity. I described it as looking like a heavy barrel Model 10 on steroids. It's too big and heavy for comfortable carry. The fixed sights make it less useful than a 57. The 41 caliber is surpassed in all ways by the 44 Magnum.
But the 58 has become something of a cult icon. Prices for these have reached the ridiculous stage.
PS: The 58 used stocks that were only used on one other revolver- the Model 520 made in 1980 and totaling 3,000 units. That was an even bigger flop than was the 58. Most 58s no longer wear the correct stocks. Mine does.
I bought a 58 about 23 years ago as a curiosity. I described it as looking like a heavy barrel Model 10 on steroids. It's too big and heavy for comfortable carry. The fixed sights make it less useful than a 57. The 41 caliber is surpassed in all ways by the 44 Magnum.
But the 58 has become something of a cult icon. Prices for these have reached the ridiculous stage.
PS: The 58 used stocks that were only used on one other revolver- the Model 520 made in 1980 and totaling 3,000 units. That was an even bigger flop than was the 58. Most 58s no longer wear the correct stocks. Mine does.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
A failure in the marketplace, but for those of us who like the durability and spartan looks of a fixed-sight big bore DA revolver, the Model 58 is...just about perfect.
I've heard many people pooh-pooh the .41 Magnum, saying: "What's the point of a .41 when we've got the .44?"
I say:
"What's the point of the .44 when we've got the .41?"
Of course, I realize that I'm in the minority on this, so put the flame throwers away.
I've heard many people pooh-pooh the .41 Magnum, saying: "What's the point of a .41 when we've got the .44?"
I say:
"What's the point of the .44 when we've got the .41?"
Of course, I realize that I'm in the minority on this, so put the flame throwers away.
The 44 was here first making the 41 the challenger. It did not match... let alone exceed... the 44 in any way so it proved to be irrelevant.
When the 58 was introduced in 1964 the 1950 Military Models in 44 Special (Model 22) and 45 ACP (Model 21) were still in the catalog and cops were not lining up to buy these so I don't know what made anyone think a fixed sight 41 Magnum would be do any better.
When the 58 was introduced in 1964 the 1950 Military Models in 44 Special (Model 22) and 45 ACP (Model 21) were still in the catalog and cops were not lining up to buy these so I don't know what made anyone think a fixed sight 41 Magnum would be do any better.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
In its original conception, the .41 wasn't challenging the .44 Magnum. It was aimed at the police market...not the civilian/hunting niche that the .44 filled. That came later, and that's probably as responsible for its failure as anything else. There were only two factory ammo offerings at the time. A "Police" version, consisting of a 210 grain lead SWC loaded to 970 (advertised) fps...and a 210-grain jacketed soft point loaded to 1350 fps. When the hunting ammo was used in the duty guns, recoil and control were unacceptable in that role.
The other failing is that the gun was large and heavy, and officers with small hands couldn't manage it as easily as they did the K-framed .357s.
For me, and many others who don't hunt with a handgun, but want a big bore with serious horsepower for treks into the deep woods...the more rugged fixed sights make a lot of sense. Had Smith & Wesson also offered a fixed-sight N Frame in .44 MAgnum in sufficient numbers...the Model 58 would be a museum oddity.
For those who do hunt with a revolver, the .41 is a step up in power from the .357 with a flatter trajectory than its larger predecessor...and about the only advantage it gives up to the .44 is the ability to use heavy bullets. For medium, thin-skinned game at reasonable distances and with industry standard bullet weights, there is very little terminal difference...if any. A little less recoil and a little flatter trajectory...and a deer shot well with the .41 will never know the difference.
The other failing is that the gun was large and heavy, and officers with small hands couldn't manage it as easily as they did the K-framed .357s.
For me, and many others who don't hunt with a handgun, but want a big bore with serious horsepower for treks into the deep woods...the more rugged fixed sights make a lot of sense. Had Smith & Wesson also offered a fixed-sight N Frame in .44 MAgnum in sufficient numbers...the Model 58 would be a museum oddity.
For those who do hunt with a revolver, the .41 is a step up in power from the .357 with a flatter trajectory than its larger predecessor...and about the only advantage it gives up to the .44 is the ability to use heavy bullets. For medium, thin-skinned game at reasonable distances and with industry standard bullet weights, there is very little terminal difference...if any. A little less recoil and a little flatter trajectory...and a deer shot well with the .41 will never know the difference.
MMCSRET
Member
I have and have had both 44 and 41 chambered S&W "N" frames. I found that I shoot the 41 chambered guns better than I do the 44 Magnums. My 44 Magnum revolvers went away, all of them, S&W, Ruger and Taurus. My 41's are still here and still being used at least once a week, just because they are easier to use. Took two cow elk, one with a 41 and one with a 44. Garndamteed; those cows never knew the difference, but I do!!!!!!
22-rimfire
Member
I realize this is a diversion from the thread, but it always seems to come up. SaxonPig was 'elequent" in damming the 41 mag caliber and the M58/M57 and 1911Tuner equally elequent in defending it. I fall in the 1911Tuner camp and I also feel along the lines of MMScret's comment as I have made similar ones. No 44's at my house, but I have 4 or 5 41 mags. I also have the 480 Ruger should I want something with a bit more punch. But it is seldom actually needed. THe SRH is simply the only scoped revolver I own and as a result it gets used for deer hunting.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
MMCSRET...Like you, I've several examples of both over the years...and today I don't own a single .44 magnum.
Bush Pilot
Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 2,397
You should reread the original post and answer. When the thread is about why some people dislike the 58 then you can jump in and champion your opinion. BTW, your opinion is in the minority.People get mad at me for saying it but the truth is that the 58 was an abysmal failure and is a revolver that serves no real purpose that can't be done better by another pistol. The 58 had one of the shortest production runs of all S&W revolvers. It did not sell well and failed at its intended purpose as a cop gun.
I bought a 58 about 23 years ago as a curiosity. I described it as looking like a heavy barrel Model 10 on steroids. It's too big and heavy for comfortable carry. The fixed sights make it less useful than a 57. The 41 caliber is surpassed in all ways by the 44 Magnum.
But the 58 has become something of a cult icon. Prices for these have reached the ridiculous stage.
PS: The 58 used stocks that were only used on one other revolver- the Model 520 made in 1980 and totaling 3,000 units. That was an even bigger flop than was the 58. Most 58s no longer wear the correct stocks. Mine does.
teumessian_fox
member
I was about to post the same thing when I read yours.
The OP wasn't asking pig's opinion. He was trying to get info re a gun he bought.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Historically, Saxon Pig is correct. The Model 58 wasn't welcomed with open arms in the law enforcement market that was its target. That don't make it a bad dawg, though...and many outdoorsmen found it to fit just right...the same way as we who like the rugged, utilitarian M&P style revolvers have. They also just seem to "look" right for some reason that I can't put my finger on.
And...touching on the challenge question...It was the .357's spot that it was meant to take by offering uniformed police officers equal or superior fight-stopping power with a less intense cartridge. With the lead "Police" loading, recoil is a bit less rambunctious than full-power 158 grain .357s in the popular K-frame revolvers with less noise, flash, and concussion.
Smith & Wesson pitted the .41 against the .44 in the hunting field by introducing the Model 57 at about the same time. A mistake, since historically, it's hard to unseat the incumbent unless the challenger offers something more than the champ. Loaded to their full potential, the two are ballistically so close as to be practically indistinguishable in actual use, and neither one has a clear advantage over the other. For heavyweight bullets-for-the-caliber, the .44 has a slight edge. For flat trajectory and inherent accuracy, the .41 gets the nod. Flip a coin.
And...touching on the challenge question...It was the .357's spot that it was meant to take by offering uniformed police officers equal or superior fight-stopping power with a less intense cartridge. With the lead "Police" loading, recoil is a bit less rambunctious than full-power 158 grain .357s in the popular K-frame revolvers with less noise, flash, and concussion.
Smith & Wesson pitted the .41 against the .44 in the hunting field by introducing the Model 57 at about the same time. A mistake, since historically, it's hard to unseat the incumbent unless the challenger offers something more than the champ. Loaded to their full potential, the two are ballistically so close as to be practically indistinguishable in actual use, and neither one has a clear advantage over the other. For heavyweight bullets-for-the-caliber, the .44 has a slight edge. For flat trajectory and inherent accuracy, the .41 gets the nod. Flip a coin.
Kendal Black
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
Like Lucky Derby said, an N frame.
Excellent gun, particularly if you handload. Not likely to find the ammo at Wal Mart. (Some kids working in stores these days, they're like, "forty-what?")
Smooth working, tough as nails revolver. If you can't kill it with six from a .41 magnum, perhaps you shouldn't be bothering it.
Excellent gun, particularly if you handload. Not likely to find the ammo at Wal Mart. (Some kids working in stores these days, they're like, "forty-what?")
Smooth working, tough as nails revolver. If you can't kill it with six from a .41 magnum, perhaps you shouldn't be bothering it.
22-rimfire
Member
I have read that the "police load" was not generally available when the M58 came out and the cops were shooting the full power loads which they simply could not control much like a 44 mag revolver. The other "problem" is that the M57/58 came out in the same frame size as the M29 (N-frame) and was a bit large to carry.
The "abysmal failure" has continued to be offered by Smith in various configurations since it was released in 1964. It sells, but not at the rate of the 44 mag N-frames. I believe it is actually more popular today than it has ever been, but that is more intuition than necessarily fact.
For me, once I shot one and could hit really well, I was sold. My first was the 8 3/8" M57 which I intended to use deer hunting. I did, but I never scored. It was during a period when I didn't hunt much due to moving and jobs and really didn't try as hard as I should have. I still have this revolver and it is my best shooting big bore even though I favor the 4" M57 Mountain Gun simply because it is easier to carry in the woods as a "woods gun" or additional gun while hunting versus being used as the primary gun. I use my 480 Ruger Super Redhawk as a primary gun. Hunting has not been the priority it has been for the last couple of years. I need to get back into the groove again. But "the place to hunt" is a perpetual problem without spending substantial sums of money which I don't have and don't feel is worth it to take a whitetail anymore.
The "abysmal failure" has continued to be offered by Smith in various configurations since it was released in 1964. It sells, but not at the rate of the 44 mag N-frames. I believe it is actually more popular today than it has ever been, but that is more intuition than necessarily fact.
For me, once I shot one and could hit really well, I was sold. My first was the 8 3/8" M57 which I intended to use deer hunting. I did, but I never scored. It was during a period when I didn't hunt much due to moving and jobs and really didn't try as hard as I should have. I still have this revolver and it is my best shooting big bore even though I favor the 4" M57 Mountain Gun simply because it is easier to carry in the woods as a "woods gun" or additional gun while hunting versus being used as the primary gun. I use my 480 Ruger Super Redhawk as a primary gun. Hunting has not been the priority it has been for the last couple of years. I need to get back into the groove again. But "the place to hunt" is a perpetual problem without spending substantial sums of money which I don't have and don't feel is worth it to take a whitetail anymore.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
22...That was the rumor. The (rumored) reason being that Remington and Winchester were having trouble settling on a powder that would give up consistent velocities in the range that they wanted. If that was true, it was a clear case of overlooking something under their noses...because 7.5 grains of good ol' Unique woulda done the trick nicely, and would have been a tack-driver to boot.
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,713
This is entirely a matter of opinion. I am 54 years old, 5'9" and 150 lbs, with a spinal fusion surgery behind me (no pun intended) four years ago. I have only been carrying for about seven years (since I moved to a Free State).
My preferred carry during the months when I can wear a cover garment is a 4" N-frame--either my M57 or my M25. I shoot a 4" big bore N-frame almost as well as I shoot a 1911--which is to say, better than anything else. If I lived farther North it might be a practical carry gun more of the year.
I have owned .44s but when I bought my first .41 I knew I had found something special.
Bmont2409
Member
I was actually going to the gun store to look for a 1911 at a good price when I saw this model 58 and just really liked the way it looked, model 10 on steroids is a good description. Now is need a set of dies because that factory ammo is pretty expensive. I am glad Tuner mentioned 7.5 grains of Unique because that is what I use in 380,40,357, and 9mm loads so it looks like it will be in 41 also. Thanks for all the info from everyone.
22-rimfire
Member
You can buy really light loads from GA Arms as well. They load once fired brass with wadcutter bullets. They are almost too light for me. They also have loads that are more powerful, but nothing around 1000 fps which would be about perfect for general use. Bitterroot Valley also has lower priced 41 mag ammo. Cheaper than Dirt sells it.
I kind of look at them as a newer 1917 type with more power vs a bigger model 10. I would think most anything you can do with a 1917 you could do or do better with a 58. Personaly I would love to have a 4 inch for a pack around carry gun in the woods but them I am also kind of partcial to the .41. I have a few N .44 guns but the 57 is the one N I have that I would trade off or sell the last.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Bmont...7.5 grains with a cast 210 SWC duplicates the police load. 8.5 grains is a better general-purpose loading with a balance of power and recoil control in DA shooting. 9 grains is my go-to load for the 4.625-inch Blackhawk. Powerful and accurate without overstating the case, and adding another grain doesn't do much more than increase recoil with only a little gain in velocity. If more horsepower is needed, the next step is 2400.
Ahhh, yes - .41 Mag and 2400. I agree with Tuner though, the old 210@970 police load should do anything a person needs. A little more ain't a bad thing either. I always though Elmer was right about the .41 (standard load) was exactly what the police needed. Too bad it was a little much for most of them. I think it is a very pleasant load to shoot. I shot IPSC and steel with a S&W 57 using that load and it didn't seem to slow me down that much.
- Status
