Revolvers you wish they made, but they don't ...

[DeanMk]

Top breaks were inherently weak, even with the relatively low power rounds of the early ones and I suspect this was still an issue with a modern design as well.

That literally sums up the entire story of how S&W pissed off Colt to the point to where he developed the SAA.

 

[CountryGent]

This was the gun I always wished had made it into production.

View attachment 1195442

You and me both. Been hoping for a modern, double-action top-break as well.

If made with today's metals and designs I would think someone could come up with one that would withstand today's ammo. Maybe a minuter doubles rifle or Greener crossbolt lock. Whether they could sell enough guns to make it economically feasible is another matter.

I agree. They do make modern repo SA top-breaks in "serious" calibers like .38 Special, .45 LC, et al. presently. (Parenthetically, Karl made reference to this in a recent Q&A.)

 

[Quirt Evans]

The 696 L frame 5 shot .44 special.
S&W last produced the 696 over 20 years ago.
They weren't a big seller, they only made them for ~4 years, but now they are rare as hen's teeth and collectors pay big bucks for them.
A perfect field revolver, good power level and not too heavy.
Yeah, they got the M69, but it isn't the same, it doesn't have a "classic" look.

 

[RX-79G]

The problem wasn't the size of the revolver. Cops had been carrying model 28's for years and had no qualms about it.
The problem was the .357 bullet was too light to fully encompass the intended job, thus the need for a larger caliber round.
What they needed was a more capable bullet.
So why not duplicate it as a .44? That would be the load Skeeter Skelton developed for the Model 24 he carried as a Def County Sheriff.
However, one can also reduce recoil by going to a lighter bullet.
So the trick here is to develop a magnum round that uses a more capable bullet than the .357, while being more controllable than the .44.
Skeeter thought he had the answer with the load most refer to these days as "The Skeeter Load", in the .44 Special.
Remington knew that the days of any "Special" round being viable for police work were numbered (although it would be many years later before the venerable .38 Special was finally retired from police duty).
Their answer was to build a Magnum round in a "tweener" caliber and thus, it would house a more useful bullet.
(38 + 44) / 2 = 41.
...and The .41 Remington Magnum is born.
They couldn't chamber the .41 mag in a smaller frame, because at the time, the next smaller frame was the K-frame and S&W was of the opinion that .38 caliber was as large as one could go in that frame.
This is why the L-frame was developed. To fit larger caliber rounds into a smaller gun than the N-frame.
However, that didn't happen until longer after the .41 failed in its intended role.

That doesn't make any sense. First, K frame magnums have been around since 1957, and the L frame didn't come around until 1980. Cops weren't just as happy carrying large N frame 6 shot .357s when there were K frame 6 shot .357s around that were much lighter, so that's what they largely carried. By the time .41 came out in 1964, LE had K frame .357s available for 7 years.

Between .44 Special and .44 Magnum, standard bullet weight run 200 to 300 grains, and it wouldn't be difficult to make a much lighter bullet since .45 can be had down to 165gr. So it is ludicrous to suggest that some flavor of .44 couldn't be created to match whatever ballistics you would want out of .41, especially when it was supposed to be 200 or 210 as well.

In fact, .41 was originally intended by Elmer Keith as .41 Special, with ballistics like .44 Special. And for the same reason - it could be chambered in a smaller gun than an N frame. Which he thought was likely, because he came up with that around 1955, two years before S&W decided they could use metallurgy to get a .38 K frame to handle .357 pressures. So it would have seemed to Keith back in '55 that S&W was due to create a new frame that was smaller than the N but strong enough for .357 - which could have also worked for .41. But instead S&W managed to get a K frame to do it for less cost than developing an L frame in back 1957, and the .41 had nowhere to go but in the N frame.

There just isn't anything you can't do with .41 that you can't do with a .44 case and appropriate weight bullet. All .41 has going for it is being narrow enough to work in a smaller gun than the N frame that was designed around .44 Special.


So now we have 7 shot .357s Ls, 5 shot .44 Mag Ls and 8 shot .357 Ns. There is no reason that S&W couldn't cram 7 .41s in an N at this point, except it wouldn't sell. 6 in an L seems to be too hard because the bolt cuts line up with the cylinders, making the walls to thin for .41 Mag pressures. Shame they didn't consider that in 1980, but the .41 had been unpopular for a long time at that point or they just wanted the L to be as compact as possible for .357. Dunno. It's too bad. Had .41 become wildly popular with police, maybe a .41 compatible L frame would have popped up around 1970 instead of a decade later. But .41 wasn't popular, because police were still wrapping their heads around .357 and that came in the little K frame. Which is part of the reason that there really wasn't anything new in .357 N frames either for a very long time - the Model 28 came out in 1954.


Either way, you will find multiple references to Keith wanting .41 to be used in a smaller than N frame gun. He might even talk about that factor in Sixguns. Which I'm sure is worth reading.

 

[The Heretic]

There just isn't anything you can't do with .41 that you can't do with a .44 case and appropriate weight bullet. All .41 has going for it is being narrow enough to work in a smaller gun than the N frame that was designed around .44 Special.

Technically, a smaller diameter projectile with the same mass as a larger diameter projectile, will have better sectional density, and theoretically better penetration, especially against barriers.

 

[RX-79G]

Technically, a smaller diameter projectile with the same mass as a larger diameter projectile, will have better sectional density, and theoretically better penetration, especially against barriers.

Theoretically, but not by much, and not in a way anyone cared about in 1964. .410 vs .429.

 

[The Heretic]

Theoretically, but not by much, and not in a way anyone cared about in 1964.

True - somewhat.

I seem to recall hearing comments from pundits and LEOs back in the 60s, about preferring the .45 ACP for its penetration of car doors/windows and even bumpers (?! Why a LEO would shoot thru a bumper on purpose I don't know, but bumpers back then were something much thicker and often steel, instead of plastic like many are today - maybe they were going for the gas tank?).

That said, yes, today, there is much more concern, testing and talk about barriers, from soft to hard.

 

[RX-79G]

True - somewhat.

I seem to recall hearing comments from pundits and LEOs back in the 60s, about preferring the .45 ACP for its penetration of car doors/windows and even bumpers (?! Why a LEO would shoot thru a bumper on purpose I don't know, but bumpers back then were something much thicker and often steel, instead of plastic like many are today - maybe they were going for the gas tank?).

That said, yes, today, there is much more concern, testing and talk about barriers, from soft to hard.

If they preferred a .451 bullet for penetration, why would they go to a .41 in preference to .429?

That's not a sectional density issue.

 

[The Heretic]

If they preferred a .451 bullet for penetration, why would they go to a .41 in preference to .429?

That's not a sectional density issue.

They were talking about the .45 in a 1911 vs. .357 vs. 9mm at that point - at least as I recall. I have not done much research on .41 mag history or the timing, so I will let you guys hash that out. And IIRC, it was more about the mass.

I agree, that there is nothing the .41 mag can do that the .44 mag can't - which is why I have a 329 and a '92 in .44 mag. I personally like the 10mm/.40 S&W cartridges.

 

[edzz]

It was smaller than .44 Magnum so it could be used in a smaller gun than an N frame. Otherwise there isn't much point in having .41, because you can duplicate the ballistics with .44 in any bullet weight. The reduction in diameter was Elmer Keith's idea to get away from N frames into something like what eventually became the L frame, but with larger caliber rounds than .357.

Otherwise, it makes no sense. "44 Magnum Light" or ".44 Special +P" would have been ballisticly identical to any load the police wished to carry in a large frame revolver. .44 bullets weren't thought to underpenetrate or something that would have made a smaller caliber attractive for terminal ballistics.

On paper you may be correct. A lot of .41 magnum fans may not agree.

 

[edzz]

Very interesting. I don't think I've ever heard of a Detonics revolver.
Also interesting to note is Detonic's main office address.
The Seattle Tower is our ode to The Chrysler buiding in NYC.
It's very much that Art Deco "spire". It's only 29 stories tall and is pretty much hidden in the skyline now, but its a really cool building, inside and out.
View attachment 1195620

The top break revolver idea was being floated around by Peter Dunn when I worked there, don't know if it was his design they were showing in the ad.

As far as the Seattle Towers office I was only there a few times. Always questioned if the upper elevator would make it to the top.

Was a strange company to work for.

 

[RX-79G]

On paper you may be correct. A lot of .41 magnum fans may not agree.

It is hard to summarize the importance of emotions in terminal ballistics.

 

[Will_White]

A 5 shot in a short .50cal cartridge (50gi Rimmed/ 500 S&W special)

 

[edzz]

It is hard to summarize the importance of emotions in terminal ballistics.

Ever spend any time loading and shooting .41 mag and .44 mag in like guns (57 vs 29)?

 

[RX-79G]

Ever spend any time loading and shooting .41 mag and .44 mag in like guns (57 vs 29)?

Nope. Do you think if I spent time shooting two guns of slightly different weights at dirt clods and milk jugs I'd realize the night and day differences between them? Maybe dig some bullets out of stumps? You know: Science.

 

[DeanMk]

Alright, we're getting off-topic here, so let me just say this....RX-79G, that's the story of the .41 mag. If you can't wrap your head around that, its not my fault. Deal with it.
This conversation is becoming circular, so I'm out.
Have a nice day.

 

[orygun]

The 41 Mag would be a very nice companion piece to the L framed 44 Mag Model 69. Five rounds of 44 Special or Magnum fits nicely in the cylinder of an L-Frame, so a 41 would be an easy fit. (probably a sloooow seller, though) Taurus made a similar gun in the Taurus Tracker 5 shot 41 Mag. I'd likely have kept the 69 I had if it was a 41 Mag.

 

[Greg S]

Like the idea of a S&W 686 in 41 mag. Would like to see a 69 5 shot 45.Colt too.

I'm got a 44 Redhawk out right now to get rechambered to 45 Colt and a Ruger 45 Colt barrel installed along with a reliable action job. Tried one in 45 Colt but the chambers were too loose hampering brass life and the double action was hit n miss with mag primers.

As soon as that gets back, got a super redhawk alaskan going to Bowen for an andaconda barrel install and chambered in 45 Colt.

Would like to see a SA offering in something like 25-20, 256 Winvhester ect. Something between 22.Mag and 32.

 

[orygun]

Like the idea of a S&W 686 in 41 mag. Would like to see a 69 5 shot 45.Colt too.

I'm got a 44 Redhawk out right now to get rechambered to 45 Colt and a Ruger 45 Colt barrel installed along with a reliable action job. Tried one in 45 Colt but the chambers were too loose hampering brass life and the double action was hit n miss with mag primers.

As soon as that gets back, got a super redhawk alaskan going to Bowen for an andaconda barrel install and chambered in 45 Colt.

Would like to see a SA offering in something like 25-20, 256 Winvhester ect. Something between 22.Mag and 32.

An L-Frame in 41 Mag would have me on the hook! I finally found a "replacement" 686 and owned a 69 previously.
It's easier to find ammo for the 44 Mag, but I still have dies for the .41. The 41 Mag is one of my favorite cartridges, but I shoot a double action revolver much better than a single action and most available 41's are the Blackhawk.

 

[TTSX]

I would love to have a Smith 617 with a 4" barrel in a black rather than a polished finish. Maybe they'd call it a 517? Would be the same difference between a 686 and 586 but in .22 LR