s&w model 58 - strong enough?

Looking at an S&W model 58 in .41 mag. Wondering about a couple of things; first, if i am reading correctly, this is a K-frame gun? If so, is that frame strong enough to handle the round?
Many Thanks-

 

The model 58 is an N frame, same frame as the model 29 44 magnum.

 

The Smith & Wesson 58 is built on S&W’s “N” frame and it’s plenty strong enough for the 41 magnum cartridge.

 

It’s a N frame. The same that S&W uses for the 44 mag- It is Strong enough for the 41 magnum. Many have stated it’s the appropriate caliber for the N frame… as the 44 mag is “Too much”
I had a 57, Target sited version of the 58 and it had a 6.5 “ barrel. This was many years ago before Reloading. So I sold it and tracked down a 29-2. I still have the Grips tho , as I shot a Doe with that 57. Those Factory wood grips are on my 29-2.

Anyway- that 58 is a Great gun, like a big model 10. Can handle stout loads. I always wanted to have a 58 cut down to a 3” and the Square grip rounded off- then a beautiful bluing done….. Rebore and New cylinder…. so I could have a Fixed site 44 mag.

Well if ya get that 58- Hope ya reload as it’s expensive otherwise.

Any photos?

 

Yes, it is an N-Frame. The top strap portion of the frame is not built-up, to accommodate an adjustable rear sight, so, it can appear smaller than it is. Notably, due to less metal on the top strap, and no metal surrounding the ejector rod, the Model 58 has less weight/mass to damp recoil. Of course, that somewhat lighter overall weight makes it friendlier to carry all day. I toted my Model 58, on and off the clock, from late 1985 to early 1990. I transitioned to a Colt Stainless Commander, and retired my Model 58, as some of its parts were becoming too loose. A talented ‘smith could tighten it up, but I finally admitted to myself that my index fingers are a bit too short, for using an N-Frame with a proper hold, for DA shooting, so, repair has not been a priority.

My Model 58 had started life as a duty revolver, issued by San Antonio PD. It showed signs of heavy use, at the time i bought it, in 1985.

 

My very first carry gun. 1978. I wanted blue. All they had was nickel.

The 210 Gr Semi Wadcutters were the bomb. The 210 jacketed soft points..sucked swamp water. Like slamming my hand in a car door.

 

Like the others have said, the Model 58 is an "N" frame and is plenty stout enough to handle the 41 Magnum.

 

Any N-frame with Magna or Magna-type grips and loads towards the higher end of the load spectrum... are a form of inhumane torture. I shot my 58 with Magnas once. Only once.

Model 57 top, Model 58 bottom.

 

The Model 58 was made as a Law Enforcement option. A 200-215 SWC at 950-1000 FPS from a 4” barrel. Thats what Elmer Keith specified. That’s why the SWC’s are shootable and the factory “Magnum” hunting rounds can be unpleasant (with the wrong grips). The revolver is plenty strong enough so I would not be concerned about factory ammo in it. It’s no Super Blackhawk though. Great revolver! Enjoy but no need to overload it.

 

Duty sidearm for 13 years and close to a million miles in a holster.


This is a 210 JHP loaded to the top of Elmer's specifications. It went through the tail gate, upper part of the bench seat, and lodged in the dashboard radio of a stolen 1970 Ford Bronco.
I use it as a tie tack.

 

It's the same Frame SIZE, but differs from the N frame used for the M57 and M29 because it is machined for a fixed rear sight instead of an adjustable target sight. But, yes, both are N frames. OP: The M58 will easily handle full power .41 magnum loads as often as you want to pull the trigger, but I guarantee your hand will get tired before the gun does. The PC magna is the standard stocks for the M58, a bit smaller than target stocks, which will fit and make the concussion more bearable. I tried a set of Altamont target-size stocks on mine, but like the looks of the smaller PC's better. Both hurt my arthritic hand after a while, so I just left the PC magnas on it.

 

That's perfect, makes it look like a bulletproof tie

 

IIRC, Smith & Wesson called the Model 58 the "41 Magnum Military & Police". Since the K-frame had been known since the start as the Military & Police Model, this may have confused people into thinking the Model 58 was a K-frame gun. That is, IF I have remembered correctly. I notice nobody in this thread has used that model name, which gives me pause. Google seems to back me up, but I've been fooled before.

 

With the S&W 69 44mag L frame using today's technology, a L frame 41mag would be a great little revolver. K frame would not handle the recoil of the standard magnum loads.

 

Monac,
Your memory is correct.

 

Wow. WisBorn, if I ever knew about the Model 69, I had forgotten all about it. I thought S&W had made a 44 Special on the L frame but I was clueless that they had made a 44 Magnum. That's what I like about this place; I learn things!

 

4" and 2 3/4" barrel models

https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/model-69

 

I love heavy hitting revolvers but the 69 is flat out abusive to me with .44mag. As Hickok 45 has said….think of it as a .44 special capable of shooting .44mag. Having it chambered in .41mag would seem to make sense.

 

It sure would! I'd trade my L frame S&W 69 44mag for a S&W L frame 41 Mag in a heartbeat.

 

Look at the top picture in post #12, the original instruction and care sheet shows you are correct. After S&W started model numbers in 1957, it became less common to refer to the gun by its original name, even though many still were advertised by the name. I find it odd that the M58 was given a name, since it was not released until 1964, seven years after S&W started using model numbers.

 

Thanks, bangswitch, and sorry for not looking at your post closely enough in my rush to be clever. Doesn't S&W still its guns names? The Model 69 is a "Combat Magnum", for instance, and has that stamped on the barrel.

 

I used to tell people, “We don’t need bulletproof vests, our ties are tough enough.”

 

I suppose for advertising purposes the name is still handy and is more descriptive, but the model number is more definitive and gets used more to identify the gun, especially with the series dash added to it. The names confuse me as well, trying to remember which one is a "Combat Masterpiece" versus a "Combat Magnum". Those names are correct for the particular gun all the way back to its origin, so using them doesn't give much clue as to the age when discussing one. The last new S&W I ever bought was back in the 1980's, and it was a M459 semiauto, which I no longer have. I generally only use the model number myself, and don't even recognize some of the "given names". Plus, my focus on desired guns is fairly narrow, my shortcoming when seeing a reference to a gun using its name rather than model.