S&W Model 58 Conundrum

[TexasBill]

Years ago, I bought a S&W Model 58 in .41 Magnum. That was in the early days when it was a new and semi-hot caliber.

S&W has now revived the Model 58, but even when I owned my first one I wondered why S&W didn't offer it in other calibers. IMHO, it would make a fantastic .44 Special or .45 Long revolver and, according to SAAMI specs, it shouldn't have a problem with either one.

I am probably just talking through my hat, but it seems to me S&W would sell more of these if they offered additional calibers.

 

[Radagast]

Simply put, there wouldn't be a market. The Classic line appeals to those who want a 'new collectible'. Chambering them in oddball cartridges would limit the appeal, probably making the potential customer base even smaller. I love my Model 18 in .22lr, if I didn't have it I would buy a Model 18 Classic, and I may still do so to have a spare. I would never buy one chambered in .17 Mach2 however. It would be easy for S&W to do, but where would be the appeal?

They have the Model 24 Classic adjustable sight .44 Special for those who want that caliber, I wouldn't be surprised if in the future they offer a fixed sight .44 Hand Ejector as well. This could be offered in .44-40, .45 Colt, .45 S&W, .38-40 & .455 Webley and remain historically accurate.

 

[SaxonPig]

Agreed. The short answer to any "why don't (or didn't) they make such and such" is that they felt it would not be profitable. The era of the large bore, fixed sight revolver was over by the time the 58 was introduced. It was an instant anachronism and the poor sales performance confirms it. The 1960s and 1970s were the time of the medium frame 357 Magnum and by the 1980s the auto pistol was king.

 

[Jim Watson]

Custom gunsmiths like H. Bowen make a good living munging up the surviving Model 58s to .44 and .45. They also cut up a lot of Heavy Duty .38s, a conversion which S&W fans like but would send a 1911 afficianado into apoplexy.

The owner can get the same ballistics for a lot less money with a set of loading dies and a mould for a heavier than standard bullet.

 

[Guillermo]

of Course Radagast and SaxonPig are correct. If they thought they could make money they would do it.
(if they thought they could make more money, they would sell hairless dwarf hamsters with nose-rings and "Sarah Brady" branded on their haunches)

And Jim is right too. Most of us have all the gun we need if we take advantage of the versatility of handloading.

TexasBill just wants more guns.

So do I

 

[1911Tuner]

In addition to Jim's observations, the .41 Magnum is a more versatile cartridge than the .44 Special or the .45 Colt. It can be downloaded to match the ballistics of either, or stoked up to match the or exceed those of .44 Magnum commercially loaded rounds.

In a Model 58 or a short barrelled Blackhawk, it doesn't get much better than a 210 cast SWC and 8 grains of Unique. At 950-1,000 fps, it's amply powerful, accurate and doesn't beat up the gun or the shooter, and any .41 Magnum revolver shot almost exclusively with at that level will live virtually forever.

The era of the large bore, fixed sight revolver was over by the time the 58 was introduced. It was an instant anachronism...

Not for me...and not for a good many people who like the ruggedness of a heavy caliber fixed sight revolver for boondocks duty. The lack of sharp, square sights make it more comfortable and much less snag-prone for concealed or open carry than many of their target sighted cousins...not to mention that it doesn't shred clothing and skin. All that's needed is a hammer dehorning or bobbing to further reduce or eliminate the tendency to rip'n'tear...and you've got yourself a fine carry piece. I've always wished that Smith & Wesson had offered a 5-shot L frame in .41 Magnum. If Taurus could manage a .44 Special K frame clone, I think Smith coulda done it with an L-frame in .41 magnum.

 

[Radagast]

1911 Tuner:
S&W did produce the 696 5 shot L frame in .44 special. Theoretically the cylinder was just long enough to chamber a .44 magnum. Wether there was enough safety margin in the metal is another thing.
There were also the 296 & 396 airweight guns, both on the L frame, marked for .44 special with a maximum weight of 200 grains.

Tamara has reasonable write ups on the 296 & 696:
http://cosmolineandrust.blogspot.com/2008/02/sunday-smith-36-model-296-1999.html
http://cosmolineandrust.blogspot.com/2008/03/sunday-smith-37-model-696-1-2000.html

 

[1911Tuner]

S&W did produce the 696 5 shot L frame in .44 special. Theoretically the cylinder was just long enough to chamber a .44 magnum. Wether there was enough safety margin in the metal is another thing.
There were also the 296 & 396 airweight guns, both on the L frame, marked for .44 special with a maximum weight of 200 grains.

Don't want one in .44 Special and don't want one with adjustable sights. Want one in .41 Magnum with fixed sights.

 

[Guillermo]

Don't want one in .44 Special and don't want one with adjustable sights. Want one in .41 Magnum with fixed sights.

The man knows what he wants

1911tuner,

while I agree with your reasons as to why fixed is superior to target sights for your use, would it be a deal breaker?

I have several guns with adjustable sights and have not had an issue with snagging or tearing.

 

[1911Tuner]

while I agree with your reasons as to why fixed is superior to target sights for your use, would it be a deal breaker?

Absolutely not!

 

[SaxonPig]

As far as police sales were concerned the era of the big bore revolver was well past by the 1960s. Ended in 1956 with the Combat Magnum. Somebody out there might be interested in buying a new Edsel but that doesn't make it a viable product.

 

[1911Tuner]

Well...as to that...the "era" of lever-action carbines ended around 1895, but they still serve as fast-handling carbines in heavy brush, and they do it better than just about anything out there.

The Model 58 not viable?

Mine is one of only two of my handguns that was on hand when I needed it badly. Had it not been there, I wouldn't be here. There's probably some debate in a few circles as to whether that's a good thing...but it's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I don't think that a .45 auto would have saved me, either. You can read the story by hitting the "See my Real Work" link.

I'll never part with that big revolver. Ever.

I intend to be buried with it.

Not viable? Hardly.

And the Combat Magnum wasn't a big bore. It was a .357 K-frame...aka Model 19. The Model 19 rode in Sam Browne rigs well into the 80s, and even into the early 90s in some agencies.

 

[Iggy]

What Tuner said about the Model 58. It got me through several street squabbles. When it was really needed, it did just exactly what it was designed to do.
My son will get mine some day when I'm done with it.
After he has scattered my ashes, he can have it.

 

[SaxonPig]

Um... OK... I'm wrong. The 58 was a huge success and one of S&W's top sellers. You convinced me.

 

[Radagast]

Shhh SaxonPig. You are letting your dislike of NormanPigs show.

The fact that the .44 special L frames had a short manufacturing run does show that there was limited demand for that round. I think a special run .44 magnum for a distributor (Are Lew Horton still in business?) might be viable as a once off, but not as a cataloged item. Owners could then replace the adjustable sights with the Wilson Combat fixed sight if they desire. That does bring back the issue of wether the rounds would chamber, as the nominal cylinder length of the 686 is very close to the nominal length of the .44 magnum round.

 

[Action_Can_Do]

Saxonpig
Success is a difficult thing to measure. Some measure it in number of sales. Some measure it in achieving a goal. I read somewhere that the number of Model 58s built isn't that far behind the number of pythons built but most people will say the python was a smashing success. By my personal standards, the Model 58 was a success. It was well built and did what it was meant to do. Had it been released 20 years earlier before the title "magnum" became politically incorrect, it might have sold quite differently. On the other hand, the Beretta M92 which has sold by the bajillions I would call a failure. It took millions of dollars and years of research and frustration on the behalf of the American military just to get the thing to work as well as a Sig.

 

[Clifford]

Tuner, Taurus offers a L frame sized .41 magnum 5 shot snubbie. I know Taurus is hit or miss but a local shop has had one in stock for some time and I can't help but think it would make a perfect dual use truck/pocket gun.

The one I've looked at has a 1.75"-2" barrel and fullsized ribber grips. I nearly purchased it once but I was out to buy a 637 and that's what I came home with.

 

[1911Tuner]

Saxon...Getting all condescending and snippy serves no purpose in the discussion whatsoever. I never said it was a top seller. I said it was a good revolver, and it still is. Although the trend is toward adjustable sights and target-type hammers and triggers...there are good many people who prefer the features of the M&P revolver for certain uses...the same as some prefer the iron-sighted Model 94 Winchester over a scoped .300 Win. Magnum rifle at times.

I own and shoot adjustable sight revolvers...single and double-action...but when I carry a revolver, I reach for one of the fixed-sight models, almost without exception.

Clifford...Unfortunately, I've had the um...pleasure...of going into the lockwork of a few Taurus revolvers. 'Nuff said.

 

[SaxonPig]

I said the era of the large caliber revolver (with respect to police sales) was over by the 1960s and I get arguments detailing how good the guns are and how some folks swear by them. Fine. I never said they were bad or wouldn't do the job. I said that they were no longer popular with police by the 1960s and all the comments that came my way were unrelated to my point.

Snippy? Isn't that Gene Simmons' dog?

 

[1911Tuner]

I said that they were no longer popular with police by the 1960s

But they were. In 1972, the NY State police ordered a special run of Model 520 .357 revovers... a fixed sight version of the Model 28. Something happened to cause the contract to be cancelled, and the guns were sold in the private sector. I had one for a while, but didn't like the balance that came with the heavy frame and the tapered barrel. If it had been built with a heavy barrel, I'd still have it.

As the cry went out for more firepower because police were "outgunned" by the bad guys, the hi-cap autopistol came into its own...but there were still a good many M&P revolvers on duty for several years during the transition and it wasn't always dictated by budget concerns.

all the comments that came my way were unrelated to my point.

We understood your point, but it seemed that your other, unspoken point was that because the police no longer wanted them, that they were no longer of any consequence. Discussions like this don't end because somebody makes a point, even if it's a valid point. As such, there really is no "last word" on the subject, and it's open to pro and con commetaries from anyone who wants to offer one, or debate your points and/or opinion.

My other point was that...even if they aren't on duty any longer...they can still walk the walk and talk the talk, and many of us actually prefer them. Until fairly recently, the Forsyth County Sheriff's Department's policy was that the deputies could carry anything they could qualify with. Many of them carried Model 57s and 58s, along with a few who opted for Model 29s. When the policy was changed, and everybody was issued a common sidearm, few of them were happy with the change, and lamented the loss of their big bore revolvers.

So, here's another IMO/Tuppence Worth offering.

Was the transition to the hi-cap autopistol such a good idea? More and more, we see police shootings involving multiple officers in which 50 or 60 or more rounds are fired at a single suspect. When they carried revolvers, the tendency was to shoot more carefully, using marksmanship rather than a wall of lead to bring the bad guy down.

So...Are we really better off than were were during the big bore revolver's heyday?
I don't think so.

 

[joe_security]

Was it Elmer Kieth who said that big bore revolvers save the lives of LEOs ?

 

[Lucky Derby]

IMHO the M58 is one of the best revolvers ever made by any S&W or anyone else. I really would have liked to have seen a similar revolver in .44 Special and/or .45 Colt, but it was not to be. It came at the end of the big bore revolver's popularity with LE. A .357 is NOT a big bore. The .41 Mag is kind of the redheaded step child of the magnums. It shouldn't be. Had a .44 Mag version been made, it might have been marginally more successful, from a marketing standpoint. The days of the large frame .357's were pretty much over for those who carried them. The M520 NYSP guns are proof of that. When the NYSP changed the contract the orphaned M520's sat on shelves for years. Those who carried the guns wanted a K frame size revolver whether with adj or fixed sites. Those who wanted a large frame, of whatever caliber, didn't carry them on a regular basis, and wanted adj sites.

 

[cprher]

This is a great thread!!!

At 57 I've been a big bore fixed sight revolver (N frame primarily) lover for well over 30 years. I agree that the Golden Age for that gun has passed long ago. Therefore, I decided a while ago to recreate it myself with a little help from Master Bowen. My starting points were 58s and 520s with one 27 thrown in for good measure. My concept was simple - to create what the 4th Model Hand Ejector should have been. Two 520s were used to build a 44 Special and a 45 S&W, two 58s were used to create a 45 Colt and a 41 Magnum and the 27 (5") was used to create a 44 Special. Here are the pics minus the 45 Colt. The 41 Magnum has the Cocobolo (orange) grips and the other three have Makassar Ebony, all Extended Boot grips by Spegel. The 45 Colt is a duplicate of the 41 Magnum. The key feature of the 4" guns are barrels modified to match the contour of the original 58 barrel and rib, but with a full shroud around the ejector rod.

 

[TexasBill]

I said the era of the large caliber revolver (with respect to police sales) was over by the 1960s and I get arguments detailing how good the guns are and how some folks swear by them. Fine. I never said they were bad or wouldn't do the job. I said that they were no longer popular with police by the 1960s and all the comments that came my way were unrelated to my point.

Snippy? Isn't that Gene Simmons' dog?

The era of the big bore revolvers was over by the 1960s? Do you remember the 1960s? I do and I sure as heck remember N-frame Smiths being issue weapons in Central Texas well into the 1980s. I carried a Model 28 and moved up to a Model 27 back when they still had 3.5-inch barrels (and the police price was $150.00).

I like fixed sights on a duty or SD weapon. That's why I liked the Model 13, the Model 65 and the Model 58 and why I'll never understand the adjustable sights on the Model 60 with the 3-inch barrel. Plus, those M&P-style revolvers were some of the most natural pointers in the history of firearms. If you knew which end the bullet came out of, you had a decent chance of hitting the target.

I know there are lots of fun things you can do with the .41 Magnum. Remember, I owned one. Smith & Wesson decided there was a market for a .44 Special, they made a batch of the Model 21 with the silly round butt. They also make a .45 Long, but only with adjustable sights and a 6.5-inch barrel. You all say S&W didn't think they could make any money with additional calibers for the Model 58, but I have to wonder, did they ask anyone?

cprher: Love the photos. Love the guns. Thanks for posting them.

 

[oldbear]

The era of the large bore, fixed sight revolver was over by the time the 58 was introduced. It was an instant anachronism and the poor sales performance confirms it. The 1960s and 1970s were the time of the medium frame 357 Magnum and by the 1980s the auto pistol was king.

Sir with all do respect the want/need for a big bore revolver with fixed sights has, for good reason, never gone away. Yes, it was waning when the M-58 and M-57 were introduced. From my reading the reason that neither gained a great deal of L/E acceptance was the additional cost and few police departments or individual officers understood the potential of the .41 caliber “police load” a 210 gr. SWC between 900 -1,000 FPS. So too many departments issued the factory full power load that was developed for handgun hunting. Add into the mix that too many “hot-dog” young coppers who insisted on the trying to shoot the full power load and found it was damn hard to fire accurate follow up shots and it hurt to shoot more than a few rounds.

One last thought, if the San Antonio, P.D. would have spent the extra $50.00 to have their guns marked .41 police who knows how the M-58 would have fared?