S&W bringing back the 610

[Pelo801]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...mpaign=wideopen&utm_content=[[rssitem_title]]

I’m surprised no one has brought this up yet. But I got this in an email today. My guess is S&W wanted to get in on the success Ruger has been having with their 10mm revolvers. I know a lot of people don’t care too much for the modern S&W’s with internal lock and all.

I’m hoping this won’t turn into a “auto loader rounds in revolvers are silly” thread. But who’s excited about this? Who could care less? With the MSRP at $969, I’m thinking the price will eventually settle maybe around what the 625’s are going for. Wether I get one or not, I’m still unsure. But I’d be looking at the six inch version. Either way I think this is good news for the 10mm fans.

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

I think I'd have rather seen it in an L-frame, even if it were only a five-shooter; an N-frame seems oversized for the round. I think a 4" L-frame in 10mm would be an excellent gun for packing in the woods.

 

[crestoncowboy]

Well...I think do in fact think an automatic round in a revolver is....oh, never mind.

I love the 10mm round. Always have. A viable big game cartridge in a semi automatic defensive gun. So I'm all for the success of any gun chambered in it. Maybe someday I'll buy factory ammo again.
The only way I'd consider one is a scandium frame. I like my 329s but they tend to shoot themselves all to hell pretty often. Maybe a 4 inch 10mm/40 with the weight around the 340pd, I might consider.

ETA I mean big game in my area.....whitetail and 3-400 lb bear is about the biggest here.

 

[gotboostvr]

Im with @Michael Tinker Pearce.
I think a six-shooter 10mm or 41mag on the L frame would be a great general purpose belt gun.

 

[mcb]

S&W made the 646, a 6-shot L-Frame in 40S&W. There is no reason it could not have been 10mm Auto other than S&W wanted to use a titanium cylinder and that likely would have resulted in hard extraction with 10mm. Apparently extraction was sometimes an issue with hot 40S&W in the titanium cylinder. Had they used a stainless steel cylinder it would be an easy thing to make 10mm Auto work on the L-frame.

As the owner of a 610-nodash, I think a fixed sight, 4-inch full under lug barrel, fluted cylinder, round butt, L-frame in 10mm Auto would be the ultimate combat revolver. Moonclips rule!

 

[cfullgraf]

Just what I need is another revolver in another cartridge.

Maybe not optimum but I'll probably bite.

 

[earlthegoat2]

My only foray so far into the world of 10mm was with a 610, also no dash. I don’t have that gun anymore but I bet that if anything, the re-release of this 610 is going up the price of the old ones that are out there. That seems to happen with Smith and Wesson.

 

[bannockburn]

I think a six-shooter 10mm or 41mag on the L frame would be a great general purpose belt gun.

Another "me too" to that notion!

 

[Havok7416]

I've owned one each of the of first two versions. Another re-release certainly can't hurt anything. Unless these have something special about them I probably won't be acquiring a spare.

 

[SharpDog]

Not sure why I would be interested in a 5-shot 10 mm with moon clips over any of my several 6-shot .44 mags with speed loaders. And I'm both an S&W and 10mm guy (however I'm also a .44 mag guy). I would be more interested in a semi-auto in this caliber. My genie just arrived and I'm wishing for an original stainless third-gen in 10 mm .... oh Genie just suggested a name, they could call it the 1006 ! (actually make mine the 1026).

 

[mcb]

Not sure why I would be interested in a 5-shot 10 mm with moon clips over any of my several 6-shot .44 mags with speed loaders. And I'm both an S&W and 10mm guy (however I'm also a .44 mag guy). I would be more interested in a semi-auto in this caliber. My genie just arrived and I'm wishing for an original stainless third-gen in 10 mm .... oh Genie just suggested a name, they could call it the 1006 ! (actually make mine the 1026).

Who is talking about a 5-shooter? The 610 is a 6-shot revolver. The 646 L-frame is also a 6-shot 40S&w revolver so the theoretical L-frame 10mm several of us wished for would also be a 6-shooter. There is enough room, especially if they started with a 627/327/929 version of the N-frame to make a 7-shot 10mm N-frame (a 610 Plus as it were) but that would require a new moonclip. The theoretical 10mm L-frame could use the existing 646 Moonclips.

 

[jmorris]

They are a pretty decent “game” gun, almost as good as the 625’s.

 

[ATLDave]

Neat!

 

[mcb]

They are a pretty decent “game” gun, almost as good as the 625’s.

My first USPSA revolver was a 610.

Back before the rule change they were a distant second behind the 625. I believe an equipment survey showed that about 80% of USPSA Revolver shooters where using 625, about 15% where using 610 and the balance was some variety of 38 or 44. In IDPA it might have been slightly more popular but not much in ESR. Supposedly the 646 was made to be a competitive IDPA revolver though it never really caught on.

Since the rule change in 2014 the 625 and 610 have nearly disappeared from the USPSA Revolver division. Not a single 6-shot revolver was used in the 2018 National Match. It was all 8-shooters.

Since IDPA combine ESR and SSR together into one Revolver division the popularity of moonclip fed revolvers is slowly fading in the sport. Not that revolver has ever been super popular in IDPA. The fact that reload speed is not as critical given nature of the sport (small stages with low round counts and greater emphasis on accuracy over speed) the mo0nclip fed revolvers are falling well behind speed-loader feed revolvers in popularity. When you also realize that moonclip fed guns have a much higher require power factor requirement in IDPA than speed-loader fed revolvers (155PF vs 105PF) the moonclip guns are not seen as very competitive anymore.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Moon clips? I wonder how they handle extraction.

 

[mcb]

Moon clips? I wonder how they handle extraction.

Are you asking what is a Moonclip?





The black piece of spring steel that is snapped into the extractor groove of the six 10mm cartridge is the moonclip. The extractor star pushes on the moonclip and the moonclip then pushes on the cartridges extracting them. The Moonclip is there primarily to facilitate extraction, especially in the case of revolvers chambered in rimless cartridges like 10mm Auto. It also allows the user to load the entire cylinder in one smooth action. Moonclips also ensure you extract and eject all the empty cases from the cylinder. It is nearly impossible to get a case under the extractor star when using moonclips and completely impossible with a rimless cartridge like 10mm Auto.

 

[ATLDave]

Moon clips? I wonder how they handle extraction.

If you're asking whether the revived 610 will be a moonclip gun from the factory, then I think the answer is yes. The prior incarnation of the 610 was a moonclip gun. I can't see any reason they'd not take that same approach.

 

[Typetwelve]

Not sure why I would be interested in a 5-shot 10 mm with moon clips over any of my several 6-shot .44 mags with speed loaders. And I'm both an S&W and 10mm guy (however I'm also a .44 mag guy). I would be more interested in a semi-auto in this caliber. My genie just arrived and I'm wishing for an original stainless third-gen in 10 mm .... oh Genie just suggested a name, they could call it the 1006 ! (actually make mine the 1026).

I agree, and I said the exact same thing when Ruger announced the 10mm Super Redhawk...why?

If you're a huge 10mm nut, sure...but why even bother when a 44 magnum is available in the same size, and the same capacity. If it's going to be a full sized N frame...I just don't see the purpose of it.

...then again, that same thing could be said for most of my firearms...so different stroke for different folks, I guess.

 

[Gridley]

If you're a huge 10mm nut, sure...but why even bother when a 44 magnum is available in the same size, and the same capacity. If it's going to be a full sized N frame...I just don't see the purpose of it.

Well, I might actually be part of the intended target demographic for the "new" 610. I shoot .40S&W already, so if I got a 610 I'd just be adding 10mm ammo to my inventory (and could shoot it right away without needing to buy any ammo at all). I don't shoot 44Mag (nothing against it, mind you), so if I were to pick up a 44Mag revolver I'd be adding both .44Mag and .44Special.

Also, at a glance, .40S&W is significantly cheaper than .44Special. Haven't looked into the ballistics of 10mm vs. .44Mag, but from comments on this thread and elsewhere they're often considered to be in the same "class". So... I can pack a roughly comparable punch in a firearm that's cheaper to practice with.

Mind, that's not enough to get me to pay $900+... but I at least thought about it.

 

[Typetwelve]

Well, I might actually be part of the intended target demographic for the "new" 610. I shoot .40S&W already, so if I got a 610 I'd just be adding 10mm ammo to my inventory (and could shoot it right away without needing to buy any ammo at all). I don't shoot 44Mag (nothing against it, mind you), so if I were to pick up a 44Mag revolver I'd be adding both .44Mag and .44Special.

Also, at a glance, .40S&W is significantly cheaper than .44Special. Haven't looked into the ballistics of 10mm vs. .44Mag, but from comments on this thread and elsewhere they're often considered to be in the same "class". So... I can pack a roughly comparable punch in a firearm that's cheaper to practice with.

Mind, that's not enough to get me to pay $900+... but I at least thought about it.

You're the prime reason why I try not to be too harsh with my useless opinions. Companies won't make something that no one wants to buy...and there's plenty of 40 owners out there. I'm like you, I want to have like-calibers. I have a 38 revolver, and 357. I have a 44 special revolver, and a magnum. I even have a 9mm revolver to go along side my 9mm semi's...

Owning zero 40 or 10mm firearms, something like that is pointless to me, but not to you. So I try my best not to chuck stones.



...but I'll still take a 44 over a 40/10mm any day of the week

 

[mcb]

I agree, and I said the exact same thing when Ruger announced the 10mm Super Redhawk...why?

If you're a huge 10mm nut, sure...but why even bother when a 44 magnum is available in the same size, and the same capacity. If it's going to be a full sized N frame...I just don't see the purpose of it.

...then again, that same thing could be said for most of my firearms...so different stroke for different folks, I guess.

I agree the Super Redhawk in 10mm Auto didn't make much sense, even if you reamed it to 10mm Magnum. The Redhawk and N-frame are more frame/cylinder than the 10mm Auto cartridge needs unless we are making it a 7-shooter. The GP100 in 10mm Auto made a lot more sense. It's a medium framed gun for a medium bore/power cartridge. This is why so many of us S&W fanboys want to see the S&W L-frame also chambered in 10mm Auto. 10mm Auto would be a nice fit in that frame size.

 

[ATLDave]

A .44 is definitely quite a bit more powerful than a 10mm. And quite a bit slower in terms of splits (time between initial and subsequent shots). And, being a rimless/moonclip format, the unloading and reloading of the 610 will be faster. Is any of that appealing? To some people, sure, as reflected by the big premium used 610's started commanding a few years ago. But not to everyone, as reflected by their discontinuance!

 

[SharpDog]

A .44 is definitely quite a bit more powerful than a 10mm. And quite a bit slower in terms of splits (time between initial and subsequent shots). And, being a rimless/moonclip format, the unloading and reloading will be faster. Is any of that appealing? To some people, sure, as reflected by the big premium used 610's started commanding a few years ago. But not to everyone, as reflected by their discontinuance!

but, but, but IMHO if I wanted to shoot revolver competition it would be a 929 or .38 spl out of one of the numerous large-framed .357's. These guns already dominate revolver competition. For hunting (again IMHO) .44 Mag is superior and I really don't expect to need a lightning-fast reload, just a convenient reload.

Also, I agree with you and many others above, to each their own and if it sells then it's good for all of us as participation may increase in the shooting sports.

 

[Typetwelve]

I agree the Super Redhawk in 10mm Auto didn't make much sense, even if you reamed it to 10mm Magnum. The Redhawk and N-frame are more frame/cylinder than the 10mm Auto cartridge needs unless we are making it a 7-shooter. The GP100 in 10mm Auto made a lot more sense. It's a medium framed gun for a medium bore/power cartridge. This is why so many of us S&W fanboys want to see the S&W L-frame also chambered in 10mm Auto. 10mm Auto would be a nice fit in that frame size.

I agree, unless max capacity is your goal, I think a L frame would be a much better fit. If the 69 can handle 44 magnum, it can definitely handle a 10mm.

 

[mcb]

but, but, but IMHO if I wanted to shoot revolver competition it would be a 929 or .38 spl out of one of the numerous large-framed .357's. These guns already dominate revolver competition. For hunting (again IMHO) .44 Mag is superior and I really don't expect to need a lightning-fast reload, just a convenient reload.

Also, I agree with you and many others above, to each their own and if it sells then it's good for all of us as participation may increase in the shooting sports.

Depend on the competition and rules change as I indicated in an earlier post. Yes the 929 is the current king of USPSA, but that title was once held for years by the 625 and for a short time between those two it was the 627, and it may yet change again. A 4-inch 610 is still a competitive IDPA revolver if you want to run moonclips. I am sure there is still a home for the 610 in ICORE.

I never had much issue with hunting with my 610.


But I though the answer was always to get both...