jdmb03
Member
I agree with the turkle.
Smith and Wesson resurrects the fighting .44 Special
- Thread starter The Real Hawkeye
- Start date
- Status
I agree with the turkle.
Zebulon
No offense taken .
I've been the buyer / manager and many other job titles for our family gun shop for 20 of the 30 yrs we've been in business . I'll be the first to admit that I make buying errors .
"As a businessman " , obviously I'd rather sell 50 of something than 3 . Not sure what your point is ? If we , for example , only carried a gun that we sell 50 of each year , we'd carry an average of 20 models [my job would be easier] . Not much selection and it would make it tough for us to sell the approximately 7,000 firearms each year that we average . Our customers come from as far as 100 miles away because of our selection . Using this logic would also prevent our customers from viewing and possibly buying our Merkels , Les Baers , Wilsons , and most over/under and semi auto hunting long guns .
Manufacturers can charge whatever they want for their product . If the quality is good and they sell , I'll carry them . If they price themselves out of the market I won't . There are many choices for the gun customer to choose from . It's not up to the dealer to "raise hell" with a manufacturer about price . Lack of sales is the only way to send a message to any manufacturer . We set our prices , they set theirs . If their's is too high , the consumer will "raise hell" by not buying it .
As far as "Made in USA" goes , it is important to some to buy American . But for most consumers we deal with , they just want the best value for their dollar .
Respectfully ,
Mitch English
No offense taken .
I've been the buyer / manager and many other job titles for our family gun shop for 20 of the 30 yrs we've been in business . I'll be the first to admit that I make buying errors .
"As a businessman " , obviously I'd rather sell 50 of something than 3 . Not sure what your point is ? If we , for example , only carried a gun that we sell 50 of each year , we'd carry an average of 20 models [my job would be easier] . Not much selection and it would make it tough for us to sell the approximately 7,000 firearms each year that we average . Our customers come from as far as 100 miles away because of our selection . Using this logic would also prevent our customers from viewing and possibly buying our Merkels , Les Baers , Wilsons , and most over/under and semi auto hunting long guns .
Manufacturers can charge whatever they want for their product . If the quality is good and they sell , I'll carry them . If they price themselves out of the market I won't . There are many choices for the gun customer to choose from . It's not up to the dealer to "raise hell" with a manufacturer about price . Lack of sales is the only way to send a message to any manufacturer . We set our prices , they set theirs . If their's is too high , the consumer will "raise hell" by not buying it .
As far as "Made in USA" goes , it is important to some to buy American . But for most consumers we deal with , they just want the best value for their dollar .
Respectfully ,
Mitch English
seeker_two
Member
I, for one, am glad to see the TR Special hit the market. It's been too long since a good full-sized .44SPL has been available.
But I would suggest a couple of things...
1. I understand why all the frames went to round-butt configuration (easier to make one style than to try to figure out how many of each may sell each year.) But I would have--at least--put grips on this one to replicate the feel of the square-butts. That would offer the best of both worlds to the consumer.
2. I hope a TR "Highway Patrolman" version is being planned. Even disregarding MSRP, the price tag is way out of my range--& the range of many others. A less-finished version (stainless steel, perhaps) w/ fewer embellishments at about half the cost would sell like crazy--and generate more profit for S&W.
But, that's just me....
But I would suggest a couple of things...
1. I understand why all the frames went to round-butt configuration (easier to make one style than to try to figure out how many of each may sell each year.) But I would have--at least--put grips on this one to replicate the feel of the square-butts. That would offer the best of both worlds to the consumer.
2. I hope a TR "Highway Patrolman" version is being planned. Even disregarding MSRP, the price tag is way out of my range--& the range of many others. A less-finished version (stainless steel, perhaps) w/ fewer embellishments at about half the cost would sell like crazy--and generate more profit for S&W.
But, that's just me....
Len_in_Phoenix
Member
If anyone in Arizona is looking for one of these, Randall's Guns in Phoenix has one of these on the shelf. $725 on the tag........
Len in PHoenix
Len in PHoenix
Marshall
Member
That Thunder Ranch is a nice looking gun from one side, and it ain't the bling bling billboard side. 
If I thought I could take that gold logo off with no marks and no cost, I might be interested.
If I thought I could take that gold logo off with no marks and no cost, I might be interested.
Cosmoline
Member
Meet the newest hire at Smith & Wesson's engraving department:
armedcitizen
Member
Well, I must be an idiot, because I bought one of these.
Earlier this year I decided to make a gun purchase--haven't bought one in a few years. I have all the guns I "need" so I was looking for something I "wanted". I decided to look for a big bore revolver when the American Handgunner came out and I saw the Thunder Ranch .44. I ordered one, sight unseen in October. After a two month wait it came in in mid-December.
I took it out to the range last week for the first time and put 50 rounds through it. The ammo was PMC 180 gr jacket hollow points. I was indoors and put the target at 21'. As long as I did my part, the revolver did its job.
I got consistent 1"-1.25" three shot groups. At times it shot low but that was my fault--I'm not used to the all black sight set up.
Over all, I couldn't be happier. It was well worth the money ($799-and I'm not a wealthy man). And, when I'm pointing it downrange, I can't see the lock or the logo!
If you're letting the logo stop you from buying, you're only hurting yourself. As Clint Smith himself recommended on the Smith forums, you can drop a replacement side plate in and the logo ceases to be an issue. As for the lock, they are here to stay. Even is Smith would bring back some the the "old guns" mentioned in this thread, they'll have locks. It's a fact of life now.
I'm toying with the idea of using it as a carry piece. If I go that route, I'll have the action polished and the hammer spur removed.
Could the gun have been better? Sure, what couldn't? Is is great as is? You bet it is. At least I think so and since I'm the one that dropped the $$$ for it, my opinion is the only one that matters in this case!
Earlier this year I decided to make a gun purchase--haven't bought one in a few years. I have all the guns I "need" so I was looking for something I "wanted". I decided to look for a big bore revolver when the American Handgunner came out and I saw the Thunder Ranch .44. I ordered one, sight unseen in October. After a two month wait it came in in mid-December.
I took it out to the range last week for the first time and put 50 rounds through it. The ammo was PMC 180 gr jacket hollow points. I was indoors and put the target at 21'. As long as I did my part, the revolver did its job.
I got consistent 1"-1.25" three shot groups. At times it shot low but that was my fault--I'm not used to the all black sight set up.
Over all, I couldn't be happier. It was well worth the money ($799-and I'm not a wealthy man). And, when I'm pointing it downrange, I can't see the lock or the logo!
If you're letting the logo stop you from buying, you're only hurting yourself. As Clint Smith himself recommended on the Smith forums, you can drop a replacement side plate in and the logo ceases to be an issue. As for the lock, they are here to stay. Even is Smith would bring back some the the "old guns" mentioned in this thread, they'll have locks. It's a fact of life now.
I'm toying with the idea of using it as a carry piece. If I go that route, I'll have the action polished and the hammer spur removed.
Could the gun have been better? Sure, what couldn't? Is is great as is? You bet it is. At least I think so and since I'm the one that dropped the $$$ for it, my opinion is the only one that matters in this case!
BluesBear
member
My predection...
Ten years from now there will be those bragging because they have one and there will be those bemoaning the fact that they couldn't have but didn't get one with the gold encrusted sideplate.
Ten years from now there will be those bragging because they have one and there will be those bemoaning the fact that they couldn't have but didn't get one with the gold encrusted sideplate.
P. Plainsman
Member
What are those grips, cigardad? They improve the 21-4's look a lot.
Nice to see those fat .44-cal. speedloaders, too.
I am kinda lukewarm about the execution of the 21-4, but I hope everyone who snagged one enjoys theirs thoroughly. Revolvers good.
Nice to see those fat .44-cal. speedloaders, too.
I am kinda lukewarm about the execution of the 21-4, but I hope everyone who snagged one enjoys theirs thoroughly. Revolvers good.
armedcitizen
Member
Here is an example of what mine can do.
First three cylinders, all double action shots:
Two three-shot groups:
First three cylinders, all double action shots:
Two three-shot groups:
Poohgyrr
Member
Thanks for the pictures guys. Now to other important stuff: How are your triggers??
I'm going home soon & wipe down my one & only 4" M24-3.
I'd like an original M21, but what they cost is way out of my budget. This M21-4 is reachable.
Also, a lot of new pistolas go for $700 to $800 around here these days.
I'm going home soon & wipe down my one & only 4" M24-3.
I'd like an original M21, but what they cost is way out of my budget. This M21-4 is reachable.
Also, a lot of new pistolas go for $700 to $800 around here these days.
Mikul
Member
I was able to run a couple of cylinders through one last week. The appearance is good, but not very impressive. It's neither a plus or minus in my opinion. The grip is wonderful. It looks real small, but fit my big mitts perfectly. I'm going to base my new Redhawk grips off of this gun. The trigger is long, heavy (felt like 15 pounds), and butish. The trigger might feel as good as my Ruger Redhawk trigger after the TR has a chance to break in. The trigger was the big disappointment. For a $900 gun, I expect a nice trigger and the TR's trigger is pretty poor. It shot well. I put most of my 12 shots into a 4" circle at 25 yards and I wasn't trying too hard.
If the street prices are coming in around $700, that's a good deal. I'd say $600 to $650 is the value on this gun.
Bottom line: I'd rather have my .44 Redhawk than the Thunder Ranch revolver.
If the street prices are coming in around $700, that's a good deal. I'd say $600 to $650 is the value on this gun.
Bottom line: I'd rather have my .44 Redhawk than the Thunder Ranch revolver.
HankB
Member
In the last issue of American Handgunner (the one where Clint Smith called everyone who didn't like some features of this gun a "turd sucker") there was also an article by Massad Ayoob in which he mentions that he knows of three instances of the locks malfunctioning. All involved light S&W revolvers and heavy loads, but still . . .
Also, in the original AH article about this revolver, note that Clint Smith's personal revolver did not have the lock. Hmmm . . . makes me wonder if his had MIM parts or not.
I suppose it's as good as anything S&W is putting out now. Fortunately, the used market hasn't dried up completely . . . yet.
wheelgunslinger
Member
thunder ranch special
I've seen one in my local gun/pawn store. It's in a glass case with a certificate of authenticity or something... price was 800 bucks. Okay, 799.
Though I'm not a big fan of the gold medallion, and believe that Thunder Ranch isn't so much as important as any training that you take away from it, I like the philosophy of Clint as he described the gun.
He said that it didn't need to be a magnum, and didn't need adjustable sights. Because it's a combat engineered weapon, it lacks these two features on purpose. I believe that this makes it a departure from the usual ideas of copies or reproductions.
Not knowing much about the S&W history (Sturm Ruger has been my shooting brand for a while now), I'm not inclined to be very Jingoistic about their history and brand. Meaning, I don't care what model it's named or fashioned after or whether it meets historical criteria.
Seems that this is a combat revolver, to me. And, with the low supply of good defense rounds available (as previously mentioned) the caliber seems an unwise nod to earlier years.
If it were me, I'dve done it in .45 Colt. But that's me.
All other considerations aside, I won't purchase one since I don't buy weapons for investment purposes. And, really, I see no other reason to buy. With all due respect to the caliber of training that is carried out at Thunder Ranchâ„¢.
I've seen one in my local gun/pawn store. It's in a glass case with a certificate of authenticity or something... price was 800 bucks. Okay, 799.
Though I'm not a big fan of the gold medallion, and believe that Thunder Ranch isn't so much as important as any training that you take away from it, I like the philosophy of Clint as he described the gun.
He said that it didn't need to be a magnum, and didn't need adjustable sights. Because it's a combat engineered weapon, it lacks these two features on purpose. I believe that this makes it a departure from the usual ideas of copies or reproductions.
Not knowing much about the S&W history (Sturm Ruger has been my shooting brand for a while now), I'm not inclined to be very Jingoistic about their history and brand. Meaning, I don't care what model it's named or fashioned after or whether it meets historical criteria.
Seems that this is a combat revolver, to me. And, with the low supply of good defense rounds available (as previously mentioned) the caliber seems an unwise nod to earlier years.
If it were me, I'dve done it in .45 Colt. But that's me.
All other considerations aside, I won't purchase one since I don't buy weapons for investment purposes. And, really, I see no other reason to buy. With all due respect to the caliber of training that is carried out at Thunder Ranchâ„¢.
G. Glock
Member
Glad so many people don't like it; it left one for me to take home. I paid less than $700.00, however, admittedly, a bit pricy. And I really don't care for the new S&Ws with the locks and such.
For whatever reason, when I held this baby, with the heavy frame and blued steel, the lock and the frame-mounted firing pin didn't seem as cheap and tacky. Still doesn't.
I have four old P&R Model 29s, which are more in line with my kind of Smiths for collecting or shooting, but I really like this TRS .44 Special. I can take or leave the gold emblem and especially the display case; I bought the gun to shoot, not display.
Much of what people have said may be true, but I love mine. My first love is the Colt SAA in .45 Colt. I shoot black powder cartridges in all of mine exclusively, so I'm not someone who fails to appreciate the more traditional, and even period correct, features on a nice firearm. For whatever reason, though, I like this gun, perhaps partly because of the dearth of .44 Special firearms out there on gun shelves. Ain't that many choices if somebody gets a hankerin' for a .44 Special.
For what it's worth.
For whatever reason, when I held this baby, with the heavy frame and blued steel, the lock and the frame-mounted firing pin didn't seem as cheap and tacky. Still doesn't.
I have four old P&R Model 29s, which are more in line with my kind of Smiths for collecting or shooting, but I really like this TRS .44 Special. I can take or leave the gold emblem and especially the display case; I bought the gun to shoot, not display.
Much of what people have said may be true, but I love mine. My first love is the Colt SAA in .45 Colt. I shoot black powder cartridges in all of mine exclusively, so I'm not someone who fails to appreciate the more traditional, and even period correct, features on a nice firearm. For whatever reason, though, I like this gun, perhaps partly because of the dearth of .44 Special firearms out there on gun shelves. Ain't that many choices if somebody gets a hankerin' for a .44 Special.
For what it's worth.
armedcitizen
Member
Good for you, Mr. Glock. It's nice to know cigardad and I aren't standing alone!
BluesBear
member
wheelgunslinger said;
The sights are regulated for it and while I am not really all that excited about the revolver I am really looking forward to getting my hands on some of that ammo for my current carry .44s.
Since I have been out of most of the loops for the past six months (my how time flies when you break your back) has anyone seem or tried this ammo yet?
What everyone seems to be overlooking is that this revolver was designed to use the new 250gr lead SWC ammo that Black Hillls is supposed to produce.
The sights are regulated for it and while I am not really all that excited about the revolver I am really looking forward to getting my hands on some of that ammo for my current carry .44s.
Since I have been out of most of the loops for the past six months (my how time flies when you break your back) has anyone seem or tried this ammo yet?
armedcitizen
Member
Unfortunately, no.
My gun store (a huge, well stocked store) had exactly two boxes of .44 Special ammo, the PMC that I purchased and one other. I too would like to try the Blackhills.
Does Blackhills sell direct or through any online or catalog distributors?
My gun store (a huge, well stocked store) had exactly two boxes of .44 Special ammo, the PMC that I purchased and one other. I too would like to try the Blackhills.
Does Blackhills sell direct or through any online or catalog distributors?
Well, I'm not a fan of Clint Smith's; I really neither like nor dislike his articles. However, regarding a previous post about his latest column in American Handgunner, I believe a correction is in order.
Smith's "Turd Suckers" column was about those who can find something to bitch about, no matter what, not necessarily calling those who don't like "his" revolver a turd sucker. He addresses the grips issue, the lock issue, the price issue, the logo issue, etc. And he's right; some people will complain, even as he put it, about the new rope they're about to be hanged with.
Smith's "Turd Suckers" column was about those who can find something to bitch about, no matter what, not necessarily calling those who don't like "his" revolver a turd sucker. He addresses the grips issue, the lock issue, the price issue, the logo issue, etc. And he's right; some people will complain, even as he put it, about the new rope they're about to be hanged with.
SpookyPistolero
Member
Sorry if I am contributing to the ressurection of a dead thread, but I never really voiced my opinion. It took a minute to get used to the idea, but Im a big fan of this model. I love the 44 special cartridge and wish there were more models chambered for it on the market. Unfortunately, there aren't many. A very solid, simple 4" blued steel revolver (a big bore at that) is just what the doctor ordered for a combat piece. There isnt much to it so there isnt much to go wrong. It's small enough to carry around, and not so big as to be carried rarely. The logo? I could certainly leave it, but as stated, just get a replacement side plate if its that big a deal to you.
I think the point missed is that this is not a safe queen. It's supposed to be a great fighting revolver. If the pistol in my hand is the best tool for the job, and goes boom with reliablity and accuracy, I dont care much if its been a little over-zealously decorated. The BG you shoot sure wont be thinking about it, nor will the cops who confisacte it afterwards, nor will the people you pass on the street beforehand, who wont see it because its concealed.
If you're looking for an orginal M21, then find one, save pennies, and get it. But accept that this isn't it. At least Mr. Smith encouraged them to make a model with a few of the features that people treasure about the old models, and maybe the next one will have even more of those features. I'm simply saying that we should look at the great things about this piece instead of at the things it isn't.
That said, the price is a bit steep, but I'm a poor college punk. Had I more dollars in the bank than textbooks in my bookcase, I'd really consider purchasing this beast.
Incidentally, I think areas like this are where Taurus could rake it in. A fighting .44, maybe kind of retro, fixed sight, would be a big seller based on internet chatter (maybe not the best indicator!).
Congrads to those who picked one up! I'm very jealous, but thanks for posting a few pics for me to drool over.
-Spooky
I think the point missed is that this is not a safe queen. It's supposed to be a great fighting revolver. If the pistol in my hand is the best tool for the job, and goes boom with reliablity and accuracy, I dont care much if its been a little over-zealously decorated. The BG you shoot sure wont be thinking about it, nor will the cops who confisacte it afterwards, nor will the people you pass on the street beforehand, who wont see it because its concealed.
If you're looking for an orginal M21, then find one, save pennies, and get it. But accept that this isn't it. At least Mr. Smith encouraged them to make a model with a few of the features that people treasure about the old models, and maybe the next one will have even more of those features. I'm simply saying that we should look at the great things about this piece instead of at the things it isn't.
That said, the price is a bit steep, but I'm a poor college punk. Had I more dollars in the bank than textbooks in my bookcase, I'd really consider purchasing this beast.
Incidentally, I think areas like this are where Taurus could rake it in. A fighting .44, maybe kind of retro, fixed sight, would be a big seller based on internet chatter (maybe not the best indicator!).
Congrads to those who picked one up! I'm very jealous, but thanks for posting a few pics for me to drool over.
-Spooky
HankB
Member
And as a correction to the correction, Smith initially used the term generally to describe someone who would find somethng, ANYthing, to complain about . . . IIRC the example used was a guy who would, on a beautiful sunny day, bemoan the chances of rain later on in the week.
Smith then extolled the virtues of his revolver, and used the "TS" term to describe people who didn't like the gaudy logo, or who didn't like the grip, or who didn't like the lock (which HIS orignal gun did NOT have) etc. So someone who didn't like the features of his creation was someone who was just looking for something, ANYthing, to complain about, i.e., a turd sucker. Asserting his critics were just habitual complainers was the argument he used to justify dismissing valid criticisms leveled at "his" project gun. To many who read the article, he came off sounding like a petulant child with a potty mouth who would rather indulge in name calling rather than reasoned debate.
To those who have one of these revolvers and like it, good for you.
To those who found not one, but multiple issues with the revolver (and there are a LOT of those folks - do a search at THR for prior threads on this topic) Mr. Smith failed to impress with his arguments.
Stainz
Member
Firstly, I love the .44 Special...
Several weeks back, my dealer got one of the TR 21's in while I was in attendance. I had come to see it, as he had warned me it might be in on that date. I came with cash, a trade ('LN' Ruger #1 in .458 Lott), and my plastic (... and my CFO's blessing, believe it or not!). He unpacked it... my heart sank. The revolver had a cylinder ring... more like a deeply engraved line. One expects a cylinder line... but not this deep when it is brand new. I have an '83 vintage 24, an '02 Heritage 24, and an '03 10... none have that prominent of a drag line now, after many rounds! Additionally, the 'blueing' was not as 'bright' as the newer two, the old 24-3 having the worst finish by comparison.
When I picked up the revolver, I noticed one detriment immediately... I had no place to put my rh pinky! I just didn't care for that shorter plain stock, having really gained a fondness for those Ahrend's squared conversion fg grips of late. The dimunitive stocks which graced my new Heritage 24 when it arrived were a less desired feel, but they looked nice (It looks and feels better with those Ahrends now.). Of course, turning it over revealed that gold TR symbol... yeah, it is loud! I politely set it down, it's $699 price not being appropriate, in my view. Of course, having bought that Heritage 24 new for $600 last year didn't help my perspective - it was a bargain, indeed. . I saved quite a few bucks and left with the $519 5" half lug 686+ 'Stocking Dealer Special' (Yes, it comes equipped with those beloved-by-me Ahrend's grips!).
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. I am sure some folks will/do love this gun... but not me. I already have 24's... it would be like buying a service 28 after owning some nice 27's, in a way. Additionally, some folks have had issues with ammo selection and hitting near POA. My main objection is value for the money spent. As a retired educator, my funds are limited. This thing would have cost me $68 less than the total I paid new for both my 296 and 696, just over two years ago... and that properly regulated 296 hits POA at 12-15yd with 200gr GDJHP's. Somewhat pocketable, it is my 'combat' piece. I guess the final factor is simple... is it a proper value for the money spent? That will have to be your answer.
As to wearing a new label for my less-than-complementary opinions of the 'TR' 21, I will consider the source. I don't know the man at all... just from his supposed replies in cyberspace and the unprofessional remarks he was allowed to make in his column... in a periodical for which I had just bought a subscription. I will not 'support' such a lack of professionalism. I will not renew if his column continues... my 'contribution', albeit meager, to the derision.
Stainz
PS I do hope it sells well enough to keep S&W 'interested' in making .44 Specials, never their best sellor's... despite my 'help'!
Several weeks back, my dealer got one of the TR 21's in while I was in attendance. I had come to see it, as he had warned me it might be in on that date. I came with cash, a trade ('LN' Ruger #1 in .458 Lott), and my plastic (... and my CFO's blessing, believe it or not!). He unpacked it... my heart sank. The revolver had a cylinder ring... more like a deeply engraved line. One expects a cylinder line... but not this deep when it is brand new. I have an '83 vintage 24, an '02 Heritage 24, and an '03 10... none have that prominent of a drag line now, after many rounds! Additionally, the 'blueing' was not as 'bright' as the newer two, the old 24-3 having the worst finish by comparison.
When I picked up the revolver, I noticed one detriment immediately... I had no place to put my rh pinky! I just didn't care for that shorter plain stock, having really gained a fondness for those Ahrend's squared conversion fg grips of late. The dimunitive stocks which graced my new Heritage 24 when it arrived were a less desired feel, but they looked nice (It looks and feels better with those Ahrends now.). Of course, turning it over revealed that gold TR symbol... yeah, it is loud! I politely set it down, it's $699 price not being appropriate, in my view. Of course, having bought that Heritage 24 new for $600 last year didn't help my perspective - it was a bargain, indeed. . I saved quite a few bucks and left with the $519 5" half lug 686+ 'Stocking Dealer Special' (Yes, it comes equipped with those beloved-by-me Ahrend's grips!).
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. I am sure some folks will/do love this gun... but not me. I already have 24's... it would be like buying a service 28 after owning some nice 27's, in a way. Additionally, some folks have had issues with ammo selection and hitting near POA. My main objection is value for the money spent. As a retired educator, my funds are limited. This thing would have cost me $68 less than the total I paid new for both my 296 and 696, just over two years ago... and that properly regulated 296 hits POA at 12-15yd with 200gr GDJHP's. Somewhat pocketable, it is my 'combat' piece. I guess the final factor is simple... is it a proper value for the money spent? That will have to be your answer.
As to wearing a new label for my less-than-complementary opinions of the 'TR' 21, I will consider the source. I don't know the man at all... just from his supposed replies in cyberspace and the unprofessional remarks he was allowed to make in his column... in a periodical for which I had just bought a subscription. I will not 'support' such a lack of professionalism. I will not renew if his column continues... my 'contribution', albeit meager, to the derision.
Stainz
PS I do hope it sells well enough to keep S&W 'interested' in making .44 Specials, never their best sellor's... despite my 'help'!
Gunnutz13
Member
My 2 cents...
Yea...gotta love the 44 special. But why would anyone buy a 44 spec only handgun when you can get a 44 magnum and shoot 44 spec or 44 mag. It's like buying a 38 special only handgun when you can get a .357 magnum and shoot both...two birds, one stone ! Just my 2 cents...
Yea...gotta love the 44 special. But why would anyone buy a 44 spec only handgun when you can get a 44 magnum and shoot 44 spec or 44 mag. It's like buying a 38 special only handgun when you can get a .357 magnum and shoot both...two birds, one stone ! Just my 2 cents...
- Status
