S&W needs a Bulldog

[Sox]

They need a large caliber on a smaller frame. 5 shots, not six. Something along the lines of the older Charter Arms Bulldog in .44, but S&W quality and style.

Closest thing I had was a 625-10 Ti snubby .45 ACP all black with grey cylinder. It was still BIG cause it was built on N frame and offered six shots.

Dave

 

[moxie]

Then there was the 696...

 

[pendennis]

Although not on a smaller frame, the Night Guard series used scandium alloy frames. The .325 NG was a .45ACP, and they produced a 329 in .44 magnum, a 310 in 10mm, and a 396 in .44 special. They've also produced the Model 696 in .44 Special; no longer available.

They just brought out a new L frame, five-shot, in .44 Magnum. That one may have legs.

The Night Guard series was discontinued because no one was buying them in any quantity. If S&W saw markets in a small frame .44 Special, they'd be there.

 

[Hondo 60]

Yup, what moxie said... a 696

For those of you who don't have The Standard Catalog of S&W memorized, the 696 is a stainless "L" frame 5 shot 44 special.

 

[Catshooter]

S&W Needs a Bulldog.

Yes!!!


Cat

 

[fastbolt]

Hey, if they thought it would SELL, they'd be producing them.

One of the things I've been told gun makers look at is the production & sales figures for commercially loaded/factory ammunition. No demand & lukewarm sales? No interest to make a gun for which few companies are making much in the way of ammo, and few people are buying it.

I once owned a pair of original CA Bulldogs. I can understand some of the nostalgic appeal, being a big-bore revolver shooter.

S&W's tried a couple of 5-shot .44 Spl snubs and the market response has been underwhelming.

The ammo companies aren't exactly producing & shipping a variety of great defensive hollowpoint .44 Spl loads, either.

More's the pity, all the way around.

On the other hand, my several 5-shot .38's are smaller & lighter than a 5-shot .44 snub, and my CS45 is thinner, probably lighter than a new .44 snub, and has 6+1 capacity with modern .45 ACP loads.

The market demand for a 5-shot .44 Spl short barreled gun is probably somewhat akin to that of a new .41 Magnum.

Now, you might generate some interest among action shooters if you talked about a 5-shot snubbie .45 ACP. But not for any more practicality. They might just have a better lobby at their disposal.

 

[torqem]

Smith needs to emphatically, publicly and repeatedly repudiate the deal that they tried to make with Clinton to mess over all the FFL dealers, that's what Smith needs to do. They abandoned the civilian market to do nothing but make revolvers for the Russians, back in Bill Cody's day, too.

 

[Snubshooter]

I want the new model 69 in a 2.5" or 3". I do wish that ammo companies would make 44 spl ammo.

 

[TennJed]

Make it in 45 colt, that can handle heavy loads and I will be first in line

 

[rhinoh]

Just buy the Bulldog....I did and really like it. Decent gun and half what S&W would charge if they did make one...
Just for the record I also own the 325NG and 329NG so I do have a comparison point...

PS- also have a .40 Pitbull. Had an initial problem with it but I corrected it myself. No problems since. Detailed here on THR somewhere.

 

[PabloJ]

I want the new model 69 in a 2.5" or 3". I do wish that ammo companies would make 44 spl ammo.

Ain't going to happen. People at S&W and ammo companies need their jobs therefore products lines that sell many units need to be made. How many out there even know what .44special is?

 

[bannockburn]

Sox

I agree with you but doubt if the limited market for just such a revolver would be worth it to S&W to tool up for a new revolver design. If anything maybe Ruger might consider it but again it would require considerable expense to produce a new small frame .44/.45 caliber 5 shot revolver. Don't know if potential sales would be worth it.

 

[jameslovesjammie]

The new model 69 is a 5 shot .44 Mag L frame.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/..._827559_-1_757769___ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwD2oOAc1Z8

 

[Lawdawg45]

I couldn't agree more, I carried a Bulldog off duty for years, and for a pocket gun I'd much prefer a .44 Spl over a .380/9mm any day!

LD

 

[righteoushoot]

I would love to see a Bulldog done by Ruger at their price point, not S&W's. That gun won't sell #'s if it costs $1000.

 

[snooperman]

S&W needs a bulldog 44 ? They made the 36 oz 696 and it did not sell well, from 1997-2002. They made the 18 oz, OUCH, 296 and it did not sell either. Both sold for too much money and people just bought the Charter bulldogs and "called it good". And so did I.

 

[Catshooter]

fastbolt and others have pointed out that they think that Smith might make one if they thought it'd sell.

Probably a sound opinion at least assuming that there is some sort of logic in play and the manufacturers end of things.

However, what's implied in that presumption is that a Bulldog wouldn't sell. That is false. It would sell. It just might not sell enough to make the accountants happy and that wouldn't surprise me.

But by not making one Smith is not satisfying some of their customers' demand. Which is not an accident, that is by design. Master of Business grads are taught not care about all their customers, just the majority. This is folly in my opinion.

That idea leads to situations like Taurus making the Judge, which if you'd asked here if it would sell the answer would have been no, but it did. So then Smith comes out with their copy in order to play catch up. Smith looks the fool and they were/are.

The truth is that a Smith Bulldog would sell and Smith is missing out on those sales. Would they make the huge profit that the M&P line is making them? Doubt it. But they'd be making more Smith customers now wouldn't they. Companies need more loyal customers, not less.

Idiots.


Cat

 

[Drail]

I wish Ruger would build a small .44 Spl. revolver on a frame size between the GP and the SP. I'm sure they feel that it would require far too much investment in tooling up for a new frame and the market just isn't there (probably right). And it's pretty ironic that the gentleman who designed the Charter used to work for Ruger but could not convince them to produce it so he quit and started his own company. There is actually a lot of similarity between the Charter and Ruger's DA revolver line (trigger group parts installed from the bottom of a solid frame with no sideplate and the use of a transfer bar). I have used and carried a Charter and a 696 for many years and handload for the .44 Spl cartridge. It is very easy to load .44 Spl. rounds equal to .45 ACP ballistics without stressing a small revolver frame at all. It is a very good CCW caliber. The reason the 696 failed to launch IMO is because the ammo companies would not support the cartridge and the dealers would not stock it. They can sell tons more .357 Mag and 40 cal and 9mm than they would ever sell .44 Spl. Americans have always chosen to buy whatever L.E. uses. Whether it is better or not. The other problem with a small frame .44 Spl. is that idiots will immediately start trying to make it into a .44 Mag with handloads that will beat the gun to death in short order. I have seen lots of Charters suffer that fate. I bought the first 696 I could find as soon as I read of its introduction in 1996. It was a great idea and beautifully executed but it went over like a Led Zeppelin. My 696 will never be for sale.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Check out the S&W model 69. I have a feeling they will come out with a 2.5 or 3" bbl version next year.

 

[righteoushoot]

I sure hope you are right.

 

[Catshooter]

Yes, a 2.5 incher would be great. Actually even better than the Bulldog concept as it's also a .44 mag. More versatile.

Might kick some though . . .


Cat

 

[kanook]

PabloJ Quote:

Ain't going to happen. People at S&W and ammo companies need their jobs therefore products lines that sell many units need to be made. How many out there even know what .44special is?

You might wanna let Ruger know that people don't know what a 44spcl is and to drop one of there more popular single actions.

 

[Drail]

My gut instinct tells me that S&W will probably discontinue the Model 69 by next year because people will insist on using ultra light bullets traveling at the speed of light (like Corbon/BuffaloBore/ridiculous handloads) and then sending them back for replacement/refund when they go out of time or split the absurd two piece barrel. My gut instinct tells me that .44 Spl is a niche/cult caliber. And so are revolvers for most people. Learning to shoot a DA revolver well is simply too much effort for most people. People seem to want little tiny plastic flyweight alloy pocket pistols with a laser sight and an "Auto-aim app" for their iPad.

 

[LeonCarr]

I with they would back the Lew Horton Specials...those were neat revolvers. Big bore, short barrel.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[fastbolt]

SA revolvers are another niche group of revolver owners & shooters.

Sure, hunters and CASS like them, but how many numbers are we talking about, even in them?

Whittle down 5-shot .44 Spl enthusiasts from among that group, and what do you get?

There are probably a lot more 10mm owners/users.

Learning to shoot a DA revolver well is simply too much effort for most people. People seem to want little tiny plastic flyweight alloy pocket pistols with a laser sight and an "Auto-aim app" for their iPad.

Agree.

It's a not-uncommon lament expressed among older firearms instructors - (the ones who carried DA revolvers and learned to shoot using them) - to hear how it's easier to teach pistols to revolver shooters, than the other way 'round. (I'm one of them. )