Why was the L frame discontinued?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zaydok Allen

Zaydok Allen

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
13,274
As the title suggests I was wondering why the L frame was discontinued by S&W. I was looking at a 696 and it seems like a useful gun.

Then I found myself thinking about a 5 shot 41 magnum in an L frame and what a good woods gun that would be.

Educate me please as I find the L frame an interesting dodo bird.

Oh, yeah I forgot to do a search first so sorry if this has been discussed before at length.
 
L frames are alive and well last I looked. The 696, a specific model in .44 SP, was dropped. I would guess 2 reasons, lack of demand and a somewhat fragile or thin forcing cone if one hotrodded the .44 which I guess some did cracking the forcing cones. Several iterations were built. Aside from the forcing cone issue I would imagine the demand for a medium frame .41 mag is very minimal. Taurus offered versions in .41, 44 MAG and .45 most of which are dropped. Several custom 'smiths will build a .41 SP on the L frame for a chunk of change.
 
Hmmmm yeah I had the total wrong idea. I asked a stupid question. Never mind.

Mods you can lock her up of you want. Sorry for the erroneous thread.
 
Like you, I've always liked the idea of an L Frame .41 Magnum, even if it meant a 5-shooter. As noted, the weak point is the forcing cone, and it probably wouldn't tolerate a lot of jacketed full-throttle .41 Magnum ammo...but I'd think that .41 Special or a resurrection of the old LSWC "Police" load would be a good combo. The .41 Special will boot the same 210-grain lead bullet out of a 4-inch barrel at around 950-970 fps, which is a dead ringer for the police load's advertised numbers.

Or, maybe a 200-grain lead SWCHP at a thousand fps?

I'd like mine to have a 3 inch barrel and a round butt with fixed 651/681-type sights...and contrary to most preferences these days...I'd also like it to have the old "Magna" stocks.

One problem that I see with that idea is demand. If there was sufficient demand, Smith would build it.

The other is that...without the demand for the gun...the .41 Special is pretty much a handloader's cartridge.
 
Not a stupid question, I think you just asked it awkwardly - I think everybody gets that what you were really asking is "why did S&W discontinue making 696's and why not a medium frame .41 magnum" which is a perfectly reasonable question.

Other manufactures have had success with medium framed guns in this configuration. The Rossi 720 in 44 special comes to mind, and the Charter arms 44 special carry guns.
 
I have been carrying and shooting and handloading for a 696 since they first came out (96). The forcing cone issue is only a problem for owners who insist on running +P or light bullet/high velocity (Buffalo Bore/Corbon, etc) ammo in these guns. Stick with moderate loads and the forcing cone is not a problem. Besides, with a .44 Spl. you don't need +P ammo. .44 Spl. ballistics with moderate loads are almost identical to the .45 ACP (which has worked pretty well for a very long time). After years of shooting N frame Smiths I was amazed to discover that the L frame fits my hands MUCH better than the N frame. A 5 round .41 Mag in an L frame would make a VERY GOOD CCW gun IMO. It would never sell in quantities that would justify its manufacture to the makers though. I would buy one though. The .44 Spl. and the .41 Mag have sadly become cartridges for handloaders only because the ammo makers don't think there is any profit in them either. I have been a huge fan of both rounds for almost 40 years now.
 
The 44 special just isn't flashy, it puts up mundane energy #s (which way too many put way too much stock in) so what that a 240gr LSWC @ 900fps will go through 20" of any flesh you put in it's path.
As for the 41 I think you'd have problems with the forcing cone. It's just not enough smaller that the .429 magnum. This is also the problem with it's popularity in general.
 
I'd like mine to have a 3 inch barrel and a round butt with fixed 651/681-type sights...and contrary to most preferences these days...I'd also like it to have the old "Magna" stocks.
Click to expand...


1911Tuner - love your idea.
I like the fixed sighted guns - IDK, they just have that "classic" look to 'em.
I'd also like the classic S&W blue - not that funky color they call blue today.
(But that's in a perfect world.)

And I have short fingers, so an N-frame is hard for me to hold.

If they offered your suggestion, I'd buy one.
 
I always wanted an L-frame in .45 Auto.
Click to expand...

The N-frame 625 allows as many as 6 rounds of .45 ACP. There is just not a world of difference in my ability to shoot my two N frames and my L frame 686. I like the hefty feel, the controlled recoil, and the improvement in my shooting.
 
The poor .41 Magnum was a victim of timing and circumstances. It was a good concept but it was just a little too late to the scene. The .41 Magnum came along just before law enforcement agencies made the switch over to semi-autos. IMO if it had 10 years of availability before the changeover it would be a much more popular cartridge today.

I have a buddy who likes to hunt with handguns but at 70 years old his hands just don't want to cooperate. The .44 Magnum is now too much for him and he doesn't trust the .357 Magnum to get the job done. Enter the .41 Magnum which he feels is the perfect tool for him.
 
I have a buddy who likes to hunt with handguns but at 70 years old his hands just don't want to cooperate. The .44 Magnum is now too much for him and he doesn't trust the .357 Magnum to get the job done. Enter the .41 Magnum which he feels is the perfect tool for him.
Click to expand...

I think we get caught up in the numbers too often. Your buddy would be just fine using a .44Mag with his own reloads tailored to suit is ability to withstand the recoil. No need for another round at all. Or perhaps a heavier bullet shot from a .45Colt would fit in with his desires?

Besides, in terms of factory full power loads from what I understand about .41Mag from reading is that it was a hellacious wrist wrecker as well. So points again to reloading his own .44Mag or .45Colt up to his ability to withstand or enjoy whatever amount of recoil he desires. The big fat bullet "loafing" along at a less than maximum speed is going to both feel softer to the shooter and punch thru stuff just fine.
 
A lot of good points. I think one problem is the .41 mag came in the same size and heavier guns as the .44 and .45's. The other is market demand or lack of it. Clements builds .44 SP and Gary Reeder .41 MAG GP100's so they can take the punishment (the .44 Sp he claims 1200 fps for a 240 gr) but I don't so that much demand albeit the prices are a lot higher than a factory produced gun. As noted above one can also download a cartridge to get the desired recoil level, if desired.
 
I think we get caught up in the numbers too often. Your buddy would be just fine using a .44Mag with his own reloads tailored to suit is ability to withstand the recoil. No need for another round at all. Or perhaps a heavier bullet shot from a .45Colt would fit in with his desires?

Besides, in terms of factory full power loads from what I understand about .41Mag from reading is that it was a hellacious wrist wrecker as well. So points again to reloading his own .44Mag or .45Colt up to his ability to withstand or enjoy whatever amount of recoil he desires. The big fat bullet "loafing" along at a less than maximum speed is going to both feel softer to the shooter and punch thru stuff just fine.
Click to expand...

Not everyone has the option to reload BCRider. Your solution is certainly viable and feasible, but certainly not a catch all.
 
After years of shooting N frame Smiths I was amazed to discover that the L frame fits my hands MUCH better than the N frame.
Click to expand...

That's 'cause the L Frames have K grip frames...and it just don't get any better than a K Frame. ;)

The .41 Magnum came along just before law enforcement agencies made the switch over to semi-autos.
Click to expand...

The .41 Magnum came along in 1964, predating the law enforcement switch to autopistols by a good many years.

I like the fixed sighted guns - IDK, they just have that "classic" look to 'em.
Click to expand...

So do I, but the classic look is only a small part of it. I'm a "function before form" kinda guy. Smith's fixed sights are more duarable than their adjustable sights, and they don't offer sharp corners to snag on clothing.

I like the Magna™ style stocks because they position the gun in my hand perfectly for waist-level point shooting without sacrificing anything in the way of shoulder or eye level shooting.

That these features make the guns look good is icing on the cake.
 
BCRider said:
I think we get caught up in the numbers too often. Your buddy would be just fine using a .44Mag with his own reloads tailored to suit is ability to withstand the recoil. No need for another round at all. Or perhaps a heavier bullet shot from a .45Colt would fit in with his desires?

Besides, in terms of factory full power loads from what I understand about .41Mag from reading is that it was a hellacious wrist wrecker as well. So points again to reloading his own .44Mag or .45Colt up to his ability to withstand or enjoy whatever amount of recoil he desires. The big fat bullet "loafing" along at a less than maximum speed is going to both feel softer to the shooter and punch thru stuff just fine.
Click to expand...
The man is 70 years old so he can do whatever he wants, I'm not going to tell him he's right or wrong. If he feels the .41 Magnum is good for him, it's good for him. He does not reload and he doesn't want to learn, I offered to show him how. I was only making the point that the .41 Magnum has it's following and that it was developed at a bad time, that's all...
 
That's 'cause the L Frames have K grip frames...and it just don't get any better than a K Frame.
Click to expand...

There are aftermarket grips that make an N frame gun feel the same in the hand as one of the L or K frames with factory grips so that issue is solved.

I used to prefer the L framed size guns until I gave one of the larger N framed guns an honest look. I found that with the right grips installed there was no difference in how they felt in my hand. Depending on barrel length the N frames were within 1 oz of the L frame, and with barrrels longer than 4" the N frames are lighter to carry around.

The only real difference was the guns thickness, about 1/8" thicker across the cylinder. I found this to be no big deal, and that many holsters would work with both N and L framed guns.

I still like the K frames if a smaller, lighter gun is desired. I have no problem with someone who feels the L frame is a better compromise over the slightly larger N frame, but I wouldn't want a 5 shot gun built on an L frame when a 6 shot gun in the same caliber can be had in a gun that is so close in size, and would end up weighing less.

I think most people with a ruler and postal scales figured out the same thing I did and that is why the 5 shot L frames failed.
 
That's 'cause the L Frames have K grip frames...and it just don't get any better than a K Frame.
Click to expand...
Really? I don't have either a K or N frame, but I thought the grip from the L frame was the same as the grip from the N frame, just the rest of the gun was bigger?
 
I thought the grip from the L frame was the same as the grip from the N frame, just the rest of the gun was bigger?
Click to expand...

Nope. That was one of Smith's selling points when they introduced the L Frames...that they retained the K-Frame grip on a slightly larger gun...something that was well-received by their customer base.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Q regarding N vs L vs K frames
Replies
9
Views
863
Magnum88C
M
Riomouse911
  • Locked
S&W Frame sizes
Replies
13
Views
971
Ks5shooter
Ks5shooter
S
  • Locked
Ballistics question please:)
Replies
2
Views
729
VictorLouis
V
Monac
  • Locked
10mm L-frame revolver?
Replies
10
Views
2K
RealGun
RealGun
C
  • Locked
S&W 665 & 666 - Why?
Replies
4
Views
3K
Marshall
M
Back
Top