Smith and Wesson resurrects the fighting .44 Special

[The Real Hawkeye]

It's on the cover of this month's American Handgunner. What they don't show on the cover shot, however, is the huge and gaudy gold emblem mounted on the other side of the frame. Also unfortunate is the fact that it is in a round grip frame configuration, unlike the originals. Why can't they take a clue from companies like Colt and Winchester, and bring back classics that are actually reproductions of the originals, down to the wood furniture (In Winchester's case, they have added certain modern safety features, but otherwise they are identical to originals, while Colts are almost 100% identical). This could have been a great addition to their line up, i.e., bringing back the old model 21 .44 Special, but in the form they are offering it, you couldn't give me one. What a shame.

P.S. I am not complaining that it is a Thunder Ranch model, only that the Thunder Ranch logo is way too big and gaudy. It should have been understated, like a small colorless engraving including the words "Thunder Ranch." I could even have lived with the round grip frame if it didn't have that huge, gaudy, gold emblem on it.

 

[B27]

You forgot to mention the absurd MSRP.

Even with the normal knock off the MSRP it will still cost an amount of money that I can buy TWO fine old S&W revolvers for with no butt ugly, tacky logo glued on and no lawyer lock hole drilled in the side.

I hope S&W sells a pantload of them, but they won't be selling one to me.

 

[targetshootr]

Why can't they take a clue from companies like Colt and Winchester, and bring back classics that are actually reproductions of the originals, down to the wood furniture

Ditto. I also wish Ruger would resurrect their old models but they won't even sell parts for them so that isn't likely to happen. So I'll keep buying and shooting old guns. Heck, they'll all be illegal in a few decades anyhow.

 

[MrMurphy]

I would have kept the ramped front sight... the circular front sight is not the best for sight pictures.

 

[Dienekes]

What S&W needed to do was to just make up a .44 Spl. version of the 520. Guess that was just a little too logical.

Not to mention the price. I like this stuff as well as anyone but food, shelter, and clothing rate some attention, too. Nobody "needs" a $900 sixgun. At least I don't.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I have no trouble spending $900 on a six-shooter, but that one's just plain too ugly.

 

[P. Plainsman]

Heck, they'll all be illegal in a few decades anyhow.

No, they will not. Don't encourage the b*st*rds.

(clears throat)

Anyway -- I agree that the Thunder Ranch .44 Special seems to have been somewhat botched by S&W. Icky gold blob, odd front sight, overall "off" look. A lot of similar sentiment has been expressed here, on the S&W Forum, and at my local gun shop.

And then, as B27 points out, there's the fact that, for the projected street price of the TR 21-4, you could pick up two minty Model 19s -- beautiful, classic blued sixguns -- with enough cash left over to throw a pizza party. But that's secondary to me; like Standing Wolf, I'd be willing to scrape up big $$$ for a new .44 Spl that was truly cherry.

I'll still keep one eye open for this piece on the shelves, but overall, the situation is a pity. It will rankle me if the TR 21-4 tanks, and then S&W uses that to conclude that there is no market among gun buffs for reissues of classic blued revolvers. There is a market, gents; but you gotta come correct.

 

[Lone Star]

Re the review in the current, "American Handgunner"...

Did anyone else notice that the company name and the caliber marking are on the "wrong" sides of the barrel, as compared to older S&W .44 Specials?

And did anyone else feel that Roy Huntington acted more like a member of the S&W team, (allied with Clint Smith) than he did like an objective magazine editor reporting honestly on a new product? That crack he made about us having to get used to The Lock and like it stuck in my craw.

And did you wonder why a man editing a gun magazine would have to ask two of his writers for the very basic history of S&W .44 Specials?

Sorry to sound bitter, but I really didn't care for the hard sell from an editor who I feel should be objectively reporting to his readers instead of seeming a member of the S&W marketing staff. Not that he's the first gun editor to cater to a manufacturer...

In fairness, Huntington at least offfers a cultured look in his personal appearance. I'm tired of most gun editors/writers dressing like they are on the way to rope some calves or be in a Western movie. Huntington's more polished look may help us avoid the common public presumption that all gun enthusiasts are hayseeds. Roy Cuny and Clint Smith also looked very presentable in the article. If more "gun people" in the public eye cultivated a more refined appearance, much of our public relations battle would be won. The gun war is largely a cultural war.

Lone Star

 

[MrMurphy]

Ummmm.... some writers and editors DO live on ranches, so their dress is appropriate I guess.


While he did act like a S&W employee, not everyone knows the history of the .44 Special off the top of their head. He's a heck of a lot older than me, but I sure couldn't tell you more than the basics without pulling out a book either.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I would have kept the ramped front sight... the circular front sight is not the best for sight pictures.

The round front sight is a compromise that made a lot of sense in a revolver intended for rugged combat applications. A rounded front sight will not catch on clothing and such, while a sharp one will. This is one of the things they did right with this gun. The original had it, and for good reason. A ramped front sight would have been an incorrect departure as bad as the rounded grip frame.

Regarding the price issue, I would have gladly laid down $900 and more if they had simply offered us a new production Model 21, with the correct grip frame and grips, absent that ugly gold logo. Like I said, if they wanted to make it a Thunder Ranch Special, they could have used an understated engraving. That would not have deterred me at all from buying it. As it is, you could not give one to me.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Yeah, I was very disappointed with their 'reproduction' of the Triple-Lock. Man those are ugly. Just break out the old machinists drawings and make new ones.

 

[Lone Star]

Actually, they didn't even pretend to replicate the Triple Lock. They were supposed to be re-making the Military Model of 1950.

Nice idea, lost in the process. Pity they didn't mange to do the right thing, in both four and five-inch barels.

Lone Star

 

[MBane666]

There's a couple of nice original Triple-Locks on Gunsamerica.com for less than the TRS.

mb

 

[Cosmoline]

And did anyone else feel that Roy Huntington acted more like a member of the S&W team, (allied with Clint Smith) than he did like an objective magazine editor reporting honestly on a new product?

That seems to be SOP these days among far too many of the slick gun rags. It's also why I stick to the pulpy rags like "Shotgun News" and "The Backwoodsman" or the more technical mags like "Handloader" and "Rifle."

 

[Slim Geezer]

Can someone explain what the lock is on the 21-4?

 

[chief]

I carried a model 29 with mid-range loads for years as a patol officer, I would have been glad to have had a real working gun like the 21, not the glitzy thing they are offiering. Another problem to be faced now is that I only know of one ammo company that makes a conventional load for the .44 special that I would risk my tail on and it's a fair guess that this gun isn't regulated to shoot to point of aim with them. Give us everyday user types a break and bring it out in stainless and no silly frills

 

[Zebulon]

Don't these guys ever gather opinions from someone off the payroll???? This is'nt the first ugly piece og garbage from S&W. Their strong suit has always been their revolvers....in recent years it appears as though they can't even get that right. There's no reason why they can't just offer some of the best revolvers they've made in the past-the way they were made in the past. Is that too difficult? Adios S&W.................Zebulon

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

There's no reason why they can't just offer some of the best revolvers they've made in the past-the way they were made in the past. Is that too difficult?

Exactly right! What is with their decision to only make rounded grip frames? Did they throw out the machines they used to make the square grip frames? Why? I have never been a fan of round grips on anything but a snubby. They don't make sense on full sized service and sporting revolvers, and certainly make no sense on recreations of classic service revolvers. Am I alone on this point?

 

[Stainz]

I was saddened indeed when my phone call to S&W revealed the $958 MSRP. I bought both a new 629MG AND a 696 for less total! It just doesn't represent a good value for a .44 Special shooter. I guess the old 'collectable' bandwagon got their attention. If their recent Heritage Schofield had been a 3rd model .44 Russian, it would have fared better, too. I would certainly have one. Maybe a plain Jane version 21 will surface next year at a better price. Gee, take off the gaudy gold and that thing is plain! I hope they sell well enough to keep S&W 'interested'.

Stainz

 

[P. Plainsman]

It's striking how consistently negative these responses to the TR 21-4 are. (The subject line doesn't say "Bitching about the new .44 Special," either.) Yet nearly all of us who are complaining stress, at the same time, that we do want to buy newly made, "old-school" S&W revolvers.

Smith got the blued .45 Colt Mountain Gun right, for example, and my understanding is that they have been a big success. My local gun dealer says he can't stock enough of them.

It's not an absence of demand -- it's a demand that's not being properly met.

Someone should forward this thread to Roy Cuny.

 

[B27]

They, S&W, are perfectly capable of getting things right if they try.

In this case the hitch in the gitalong seems to be that they have built the gun that Clint Smith wants.
The assumption being that most everyone else will want one too.

They are, in this case, IMO wrong.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Here's what they should have offered us, but with standard service grips. http://www.armsbid.com/images/51252he443.jpg

 

[guy sajer]

I was saddened indeed when my phone call to S&W revealed the $958 MSRP.

MSRP is a dealers dream price . Smith's haven't sold at retail since Dirty Harry was released back in the early 70's sending the M29 prices over retail .

... A realistic price that you are going to see is about $700-$750 .

I have ordered 3 for our store . Based on customer interest , we'll have no trouble selling more than we ordered .

 

[guy sajer]

Here's what they should have offered us, but with standard service grips. http://www.armsbid.com/images/51252he443.jpg

I'm kinda partial to the 5"

 

[Zebulon]

"I have ordered 3 for our store . Based on customer interest , we'll have no trouble selling more than we ordered "

So Guy, and I'm not being critical of you personally, you'll have no problem selling the 3 you ordered....As a businessman, I'd rather sell 50 units than 3-10. I'm sure you would too. I'd be steadily raising hell if a manufacturer continued to produce high priced, limited appeal "bones" instead of something that folks have said for years that they really, really want...I just don't believe that many gun makers "get it" anymore. That's OK though...Businesses rise and fall, happens all the time..and many fall due to their own arrogance or stupidity, and so they should. Let's hope that some of the other makers learn from the likes of Colt and Smith and Wesson. Sometimes I think that these American Icons really think they can produce crap and get away with it, because of past Legendary success! We must remember that a company only produces a product...we, the consumer, either buy it or we don't. The success of a business is dependent upon us. Kind of like American automakers in the '70s.....They fed us garbage for years and it ended up costing that industry dearly. Eventually someone came out and offered quality and value and we bought it. Too bad it was'nt our own product, and it should'nt have been. Only idiots continue to spend their money on crap...Just because it says "Made in the USA". How utterly foolish. We are way short of both Wisdom AND memory! It's a shame, but there are none so blind as those who WILL not see...............Zebulon