S&W Thunder Ranch 21-4 .44 Spl

[44and45]

I agree with the starting post of this thread, S&W has once again misread the consumers of their products.

They don't make traditional type revolvers anymore and what they do make sucks...especially the M-21 with its ugly gold blotch and crappy front sight.

The price they are asking is rediculous, screw 'em...which is what I did.

I had a beater S&W 3rd model (1926) restored to like new condition and it was pretty far gone in the finish department. Had gray matte paint over nickle that was corroding underneath. Smith said under the nickle was traces of original blue of what the gun once really was.

This 3rd model came from Houston a few years back for the nominal price of $225. Tack on the restoration fee of $380 and you got $605 total investment.

Plus you got a real S&W revolver in .44 special.


BEFORE...

AFTER...

This firearm had the side plate S&W logo engraved by a real pro, all roll markings very sharp and clear.

Jim

 

[Dave Williams]

Jim,

Sweet gun.

In my opinion, the notion that .38 is better than .44 is silly. Bigger bullets are better.

Dave Williams

 

[tulsamal]

I just don't get the whole "get used to it" idea with regard to the hole in the sideplate. Fine, the new guns have to have them. But that doesn't explain something like this M21. Why can't S&W continue this idea of a Heritage series? Old guns in reissue. As close as possible to the originals. Such a gun should NOT have a lock!! And you can't convince me that "the lawyers make them do it" because how do you explain all the Colt SAA replicas on the market? Somehow US Firearms makes all those beautiful guns. They make them better than the originals. And they don't have any kind of stupid safety on them.

The lock alone lets me out on this gun. I will only buy one if they end up at CDNN a couple years down the road for $399 or something.

Big swing and a miss for S&W. This could have been the beginning of something great.

(And I love .44 Special. My daily carry is a 296 with CorBon's. That load will do the job.)

Gregg

 

[44and45]

Thanks, Dave on the compliment of my .44 special...and it is very special to me.

Recon its the last S&W .44 special I'll ever own and wanted it to be a good one.

I'm pushing 70 and you know the prices ain't coming down for us guys who like these .44s.

If I can get lucky and find another basic beater in .44 special that don't have any internal problems that can't be fixed...I'll go the same route and have my Texas Smith restore it for me.

He is the best as far as I'm concerned, name's Gene Williams of Princeton Texas.

Gene has tremendous skills and knowledge in metal preparaton and bluing. He also has a guy on tap who is a master engraver and can re do S&W side plate logos as well as other roll on markings...the guy is a whiz but he takes his sweet time doing it. two to three months is about average.

Though I live retired in northern Wisconsin I'm hatched in Sasakwa Oklahoma. Nice to see a couple of kinsmen posting here.

One last shot at S&W, get with it and make some treditional guns from decades long ago -- and in .44 special and .45 Colt. To heck with this new age generation crap...these guns suck and are overpriced.

Jim

 

[RWK]

Plainsman . . .

Thanks for your excellent post, but . . .

"The .44 Spl should be the .45 ACP of defensive revolver cartridges -- old reliable, launching a fat, slow, heavy bullet with manageable recoil"

While the .44 Special is perfectly fine, I believe you've ignored the .45 Colt -- a real revolver cartridge, which can be powered from .45 ACP levels to .44 magnum levels (and beyond), and which was the basis for the .45 ACP's initial performance requirements.

No offense intended here, but the .45 Colt is (IMHO) the most appropriate .45 ACP revolver equivalent.

 

[BluesBear]

tulsamal,

While I personally agre with you and I dislike the whole internal lock policy, we have to face it that it's probably never going to go away.

It's the same as when S&W decided that they were going to convert ALL revolvers to floating, frame mounted firing pins. They even did this to the Schofield reissues. Now to me that was the height of blasphemy.

But I have resigned myself to the fact that if I ever want a new S&W revolver I'll have to accept the lock and firing pin.

Thankfully S&W hasn't issued a new revolver that I want in over 10 years.

 

[zeke]

44and45-A very fine 44 special ya got there. Am kinda lonely liking 44 special , while being in NW Wisconsin .

Only bout 50-65 miles south of the lake, right off hwy 63.

 

[tulsamal]

While I personally agre with you and I dislike the whole internal lock policy, we have to face it that it's probably never going to go away.

Like I said, new guns - fine, old reissues - not fine. There is a market for the old guns. Sure, US Firearms sells a lot of SAA's because of the Cowboy game. But I own guns like that and I've never even been to a cowboy event. S&W could make a bundle selling the old guns but they have to be EXACTLY like the old ones. (I'm talking parts and engineering here. Everybody knows they won't be able to do the final finish as good or price will go crazy. That's OK as long as the "new M21" is the same as the "old M21.)

So if S&W can't (or won't) do it, I guess the only hope is that someone else will. I would love to see a company like US Firearms start making one of the grand old DA wheelguns. Lots of choices to pick from. Maybe the cowboy guys could even help by adding another class for DA and with a later date! We all win if we can go buy an old gun with new steel!

Gregg

 

[P. Plainsman]

the .45 Colt is (IMHO) the most appropriate .45 ACP revolver equivalent.

That's a fair point. I think the typical sixgun buff's fondness for both .45 Colt (in standard loadings) and .44 Spl springs from the same numinous place as the autoloader buff's love of the .45 ACP.

And the .45 Colt was first.

Semi- on topic: Smith seems to take the CCW revolver market more seriously than it takes the old-school blued revolver market. OK. Then it should take aim at the Taurus and Charter .44 snubbies, and squeeze the Model 696 down into a five-shot, 2.5" barrel, production K-frame in .44 Spl. Hammerless optional. Basically, it'd be the snubby Model 66, with five fat holes instead of six slim ones. House gun, purse gun, serious IWB gun, whatever, it would rock.

I'd pay $600 for it.

 

[trapshooter]

Here's my take, FWIW:

1. The logo bit is fugly.

2. Fixed sights on this gun are 'tupid. I street carried S&W adj. sights on a Model 15 for years, through fights, riots, etc. The sights were fine, and I could still shoot a clean PPC on the day I moved on. I don't know Clint Smith, but maybe he uses his guns for hammers. I don't.:banghead:

3. The prices S&W is asking for new revolvers are, in a word, criminal. Especially for guns with the asinine lock thingys that no one with half a brain would buy, much less use, given a choice.

I'll hang out at the 'used gun counter', until S&W can get thier SIOS.

In fairness, the caliber is right. The round butt and barrel length I can dig. But that's less than fifty per cent of what I'm looking for.

To Recap:

Logo - downcheck
Fixed sights - downcheck
Price - downcheck
Goober lock - downcheck
Caliber - upcheck
Round butt - upcheck
Barrel length - upcheck

That's only 42.8%. Sorry. But I would take it for free.

 

[gunfan]

TR 21 - 4

This is not a bad revolver. If it will fulfill its mission, then I have no complaints. If the ugly stuff on the side plate can be removed, so much the better. This is a "fighting handgun" no more, no less. I want one for my wife, because she likes the .44 S&W Special. Loaded within reason she'll be able to defend herself. That, my friends, is what counts!

Scott

 

[BluesBear]

The Thunder Ranch S&W is only half of the system.

For those who are po-pooing the fixed sight idea...
Don't knock them until you try them.

Black Hills has developed a 250gr Keith SWC .44 Special load that will shoot to point of aim in the S&W/Thunder Ranch revolver.


I currently carry an adjustable sight N-frame and have for years. Yes the sights are rugged. But they have also beem known to snag on clothing.
I carried both a cut-down 1917 .45acp and a Model 58 .41 Magnum for years and found the fixed sights to be just fine.

The main reason I use the adjustable sighted models currently is because that's all they have made for years.

Most of us sight in our revolvers with our carry load of choice, but once set we forget about it.

Fixed sights are not a handicap at all. At most civilian SHTF shooting ranges sight adjustment is not all that critical.

 

[Dienekes]

Agree on the utililty of fixed sights, as long as they are *visible*. I have used both fixed and adjustables about equally for many years. Once adjustables are zeroed I tend to leave them strictly alone thereafter.

I have seen a few S&W adjustables come adrift over the years, and the sound of them getting banged around coming in and out of steel security gun boxes does put your teeth on edge. My Rugers stood up fine to the occasional knocks but with fixed there was a little less worry.

BTW there is a (substantiated?) rumor that S&W is essentially dropping K frames, the 65 and 66 at the least.

If so that speaks volumes about their thought processes in Springfield. If there was ever a handier, more practical gun than the various K frames, I never met it.

The executive who would ax the K frame would probably also evict his mother on a cold winter night.