It’s been a while — too long, really — since I posted a Gratuitous Gun Pic, for which I apologize. Here’s one that has me puzzled, though, and it comes from Collectors:
And here’s my question: why on earth would anyone want a lightweight snubnosed revolver in .44 Mag? And that especially when the entries are literally one after the other, and the prices are more or less the same?
I know, the pics are woefully small, so here’s the addendum (links in pics):
Lemme tell you, I even find the latter’s 5″ barrel a little short for comfort — but it’s still way better than that 329’s weeny pipe.
Of the Scandium lightweight frame we will not speak.
Discuss.
I have never understood the fascination with lightweight revolvers. Never. Since about 1989 I’ve carried a steel framed 2” snub in a Kramer pocket holster in my jeans pocket and never really noticed the weight. I don’t know if it was women carrying that started the trend or if once one company made a lightweight revolver everyone else had to follow suit and try to outdo each other on lightest weight. Call it the lightweight wars.
I have a 1989 Taurus Model 85CH (hammer is ground off, DA only) from a time when their QC was outstanding. At the time I’d have been indifferent between a Taurus 85 and a S&W. All steel, with Eagle “Secret Agent” grips, and the Kramer horsehide pocket holster. Practice with .38 spl, load it with Sig HPs for carry. Been serving me for over 35 years and I never really thought about the weight.
For a medium or full sized revolver I REALLY don’t get it. If I want to carry a 4” Ruger GP100 it’s going to be in a good leather holster on a good gun belt, and again, weight makes no difference at all. And the weight on that bad boy makes .357 almost pleasurable to shoot! Did my own trigger job, complete with shims and it’s a wonderful shooter.
While I can understand someone wanting a lightweight pocket snub, I guess, I cannot fathom why anyone would want a lightweight medium or large revolver in anything that shoots more than .38 spl. I am perplexed.
Can’t figure out how to post a pic here or if it’s even possible, but here is a photo of my Taurus M85CH as it came in the box. My current grips are even smaller.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=taurus+model+85+boot+gun&ia=images&iax=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Finside.safariland.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F05%2Ffancy-model-85-750×571.jpg
Up close and personal, down and durty?
“One shot’ll do ya!”
That scandium thing better come with a wrist strap so you can find it after the first shot. Of course, if the front sight is embedded in your forehead, the strap is moot.
I’ll wager a bunch of those will show up for sale on the used gun market with the phrase “shot very little.”
Given the price of ammunition it’s not unreasonable to anticipate NRA-sanctioned pistolwhipping events.
.
The only semi-decent argument I’ve seen for a snub-nosed light weight .44 mag is for bear country carry. In that case the pistol is definitely not a range toy or a shooter, it’s a last ditch up close protection from the largest predator on the continent. Meant to be carried a lot, shot very little. Yeah, recoil will be bad but becoming bear shit is worse.
I suppose if one wanted to use it for goblin protection you could load it up with .44 specials.
That bottom gun with the 5″ barrel looks mighty nice, but I’d probably go with a Ruger Redhawk instead. Still, Smith makes some purty guns.
Having grown up in Minnesota I generally regarded remote-country backpacking as being “Portaging…all day long.”
But when you’re doing a 10-day hike and carrying everything you need for that time, then weight becomes a critical factor in what you choose. Heck, I’ve seen fanatic backpackers cutting the margins off their maps to keep the weight down.
I’ve also seen backpackers coming off at the end of long trails; one of my favorite places to watch that kind of thing is in Alpine, MT, where the parking lot for the trailhead that takes you up from Cooke City, over some of the highest peaks in Montana, and (most importantly) through some of the higher grizzly bear populations in the country, ends up at East Rosebud Lake. It’s funny to watch them come down the trail, with the ones who didn’t know what they were getting into totally exhausted. Some of them have full-sized (and full weight) .44 Magnum revolvers in a shitty holster flopping on their belt as they make their way down the last hill towards the parking lot.
For those folks shaving a pound or more off the weight of their last-ditch bear gun makes sense; in any kind of situation where you’re actually going to use it to keep a grizzly from eating you, you will NOT notice either recoil or report, and you’re just going to keep shooting until either you run out of ammo or the bear stops its attack. I wouldn’t even bother carrying a reload; you wouldn’t have a chance to use it. But having that ultra-light .44 is a whole lot better than trying to bash a bear in the head with your titanium cook pot.
Agree with Don C. Back when I was in the biddness, I recall the sales pitch for lightweight S&W 44 mags being carry in bear country.
44 mag–hah! Anyone remember these?–
https://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/revolvers/-500-s-w-revolvers/rare-new-in-case-s-w-smith—wesson-500-es-revolver-emergency-survival-bear-attack-kit-w–knife—extras-pelican-case-blaze-orange-grips-hard-to-find.cfm?gun_id=102242208
We used to joke that even if you missed, your target would be deaf, and on fire.
Thanks, I’d never seen that. No I don’t need to get out more. lol
I’d like to have it in my stable. Not to use. Just to have. But not at anywhere near that listed price. I’d shoot 5 rounds through it, just because, then clean it and put it away. More of an investment thing, I guess.
I used to shoot IDPA with a guy who “won” one of the light weight revolvers in .357 magnum or .45acp. It was a five shot revolver. He said that after the first three rounds, he’d give the gun to the perp if the perp survived because he was all done shooting it. I think the lightweight .45acp revolver worked with some sort of reduced load but still, why bother?
As other said, the light weight revolver in .357 magnum and up is meant to be carried a lot and shot very little. The shot very little part is concerning because you have to shoot a gun frequently enough in order to develop skill with it. The larger caliber light weight guns work against that.
I tend to prefer revolvers with a 4″ barrel to be a good compromise between portability and shootability. I do have a couple of snub nosed revolvers. They work well with .38 special. The light weight J frame is a handful with .38+P cartridges. S&W’s kit gun, a J frame in .22lr with a 3″ barrel is handy on the trail. Smaller critters can be dispatched, 8 rounds of .22lr will dissuade a two legged critter or a larger four legged assailant pretty well. It’s not a stand and fight revolver, it’s a cause the assailant to pause or retreat while I beat feet out of there. but I digress
I think the 329 would be a good gun for bear country, something that you carry a lot but shoot very little.
And I’ve heard it would be a good lightweight carry platform for warm .44 special loads. But full-charge .44 mags? Forget it. I’ve also heard that they don’t hold up to a steady quantity of magnum loads. As in frames crack and fail if you shoot them too much.
I had a friend that was ill advised in to buying a S&W 340PD scandium 2′ revolver. Her first firearm almost became her last. Two rounds of 38 and she was done.
Feeling bad I traded her a polymer Kahr 9mm which she learned to shoot fairly well. I then traded the S&W to a former Grunt for a Ruger Security Six. The Grunt loved the gun. I think all Marines have a masochistic streak in them.
Crikey. I didn’t even know lightweight .44 Mags were a thing. My most frequent EDC is a Ruger LCR in .357. Contemporary design & materials make it quite manageable, but it’s definitely not a fun shooter. My wife will shoot .38 Specials out of it. She won’t even touch it with .357s.
@Polack
During a blogger-shoot event many moons ago in Southern NH, I had the opportunity to run a full cylinder of .357 out of the S&W Scandium/Titanium flavor, the one with the 2″ barrel. The owner named the little wheelie The Snubbie From Hell. I was loaded up with “full house” 158gr 357 loads. After two rounds I put the gun on the bench. That was the moment I learned the real meaning of “Sir Isaac Newton will not be denied.”
– Brad
I bought a Ruger Alaskan in .44 mag not too long ago. 2 1/2” barrel. Not much fun to shoot, but the thing weighs about 9 lbs so it’s manageable. Next time I meet a grizzly in Houston, I’m all set. Of course, I’ll need hearing aids for the rest of my life if I use it in the car … or the house … or outdoors. It’s a beauty, though.
Oh, poo, the .44 is a pussycat in the the big Ruger.
Well, maybe a snarling lynx, but still.
I have the .454 version. THAT gun will let you know it’s there!
…
All that being said, I tend to agree in sentiment, but not quite the same degree, when it comes to the 329. It IS too light, for starters. Way too light: in a featherweight like that, there’s a very real risk of bullet pull under recoil, which WILL jam up the gun, and hard.
My own ideal bear and survival revolver would be the all-steel Model 69 from S&W, with the 4″ tube. That length of barrel, combined with my hand loads, will send a 240g downrange at around 1400 fps, significantly hotter than factory ammo but still within the pressure envelope of the round. That round will crack any skull on North America, if I can hit it.
The 5 shot cylinder is also stronger at the sidewall then the N frame’s 6 hole, due to the placement of the cylinder stop notches
And the L frame itself is no slouch either.
As for recoil, well, it will be brisk to unpleasant, as the 69 is NOT a heavy gun, but it will not be anywhere nearly as brutal as that 329. Frankly, I would rather shoot full power .454 from the Alaskan versus even the mild offerings from the factory in that 329.
Sadly, however, my ideal belt gun for the woods is not made.
You see, while S&W does indeed manufacture the 69 with a 4″ barrel, they persist and insist on installing the damnable Clinton era Lawyer Lock on every one. They do make some few limited runs now without the lock, but not that model, and they give zero indication they ever will.
I will not have one with the lock, and I won’t give the company money for a gun with that liability installed, either.
I had a 329PD. Sold it a year or so ago. Not even a fun gun to shoot. Absolutely BRUTAL. Definitely one of the “carry much, shoot very little” variety. One time I did 12 rounds with a speed loader to see how I could do. Just stock remington 44 mag loads. I wound up with several blisters and a cut on my hands. I MUCH prefer my original Model 57 4″ in 41 mag. There’s plenty of good hard cast 41 boolits that’d do the number on a grizzly, and it’s far more pleasant to shoot.