IMHO the Titanium cylinder may have had more to kill the .40 revolver than anything else. I think it would have stayed in the line and developed a following with a conventional cylinder. Instead, the bad buzz instantly created within the shooting ranks of the elite revolver competitors this gun was created for . . . doomed this gun. And the gripes about the hard extraction from the Titanium cylinders was the deal breaker but certainly not the only serious problem.
The bugs had not been worked out of the PC646 back in the day and competitors faced three big problems when using their 646s in matches:
1. VERY hard extraction at times, when spent, expanded brass stuck to the titanium walls!
I remember the first match I ran with mine . . . on a typical IPSC-type stage. I was used to my slicker than butter M625 and suddenly in the middle of a stage, I went for reloads and tried to dump the spent moonclips in my normal, fluid motion . . . but the damned spent cases refused to budge.
At speed, and in frustration I chopped pretty firmly with the heel of my hand on the ejector rod . . . and was rewarded with a nasty puncture wound. I finished the stage with blood all over the gun . . . but my times sucked and I regretted not using my 625-3 instead of course.
I believe I ran one more match with the gun before going back to my 45ACP revolvers and putting the 646 into the safe. I eventually was contacted by a deep pocket collector who liked the photos of my still-pristine PC646. He waved big bucks at me (four figures) so I let it go to someone who needed a nice specimen for his collection, and I used the money to fun other gun projects . . . a good deal for both of us.
2. The second HUGE problem was the inconsistencies with the head diameters on various makes of .40 Short & Wimpy brass.
S&W provided two thicknesses of moon clips with the 646 . . . but the damn cartridges flopped around still . . . TOTALLY different from .45ACP moon clips perfected decades earlier . . . and thus the rounds were NOT sticking straight out when you went to drop 'em in the smaller cylinder holes of the 646. This made reloading a tad slower at best . . . and speed wins matches.:banghead:
Also, some ammo flopped around so bad that rounds could even fall out of loaded moon clips . . . and grabbing a moonclip missing a round or two is HARD to load . . . not to mention the gun going "click" randomly!
NO ONE EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT IT BEING HARD TO LOAD AND UNLOAD .40 S&W MOON CLIPS THOUGH!!!
3. An equally serious problem . . . no optimum bullet shapes on the market for a .40S&W caliber cartridge in a revolver!
Where the .45ACP revolvers using moon clips had access to the big old, round nose FMJ bullets that literally can be dropped into an open cylinder from a foot or so above (by folks who have practiced this stunt), the .40 S&W ammo did not offer the same bullet shape needed for maximum speed. Thus, it was easy to fumble around with floppy cartridges that had bullets that also wouldn't cooperate!
I could also add number four if I wanted . . . harder to clean internal cylinder walls with the Titanium. Titanium may make sense to lighten the weight of AirLite J-frame and Taurus snubbies and such, but these little revolvers aren't being reloaded at optimum speed either where their shortcomings become glaring.
BOTTOM LINE . . .
As I alluded to initially, the 646 WAS a good idea . . . but the bugs hadn't been worked out yet.
I truly believe that this revolver idea needs to be readdressed today by someone. 40 S&W ammo is hugely popular with the public and with law enforcement . . . and this caliber will always be around and accessible.
Being able to have a tackdriving, fast reloading (moonclipped) revolver in America's current favorite caliber . . . to go with an enthusiast's .40S&W autos, would be a great idea.
I'm sure the floppy moon clip/cartridge variance issues can get ironed out. I'm not sure the Titanium cylinder is the way to go though. Stainless steel would be more reliable.
IN THE MEANTIME . . . the few 646 revolvers out there (300 PC guns, and the 800 guns built on L frames using 686-type barrels and the remaining 646 cylinders saved for parts from the only S&W run), represent a rare and desireable gun in the safes of wise collectors! It is also the last new model S&W revolver before they wimped out and put the weep hole lock on the guns in 2002 . . . giving the guns the dubious distinction of being the last "good gun" out of the factory before S&W's then-owners wimped out to the Clintonian pressures of possible law suits and put the damn lock on a REVOLVER!
Locks belong on revolvers as much as the belong on the ripcord mechanism of a parachute!!! Both these things are used to save your life in a sudden point in time where to delay . . . is to die.
I'd love to see it come back as a 5-shot K-frame personally . . . with a 3" barrel. Any revolver with a lock on it will never be in my possession either, so the damn locks eventually have to go away if S&W will ever again get my business for new guns.
Luckily, there are plenty of pristine OLDER guns with all the "right stuff" out there for S&W lovers to acquire and enjoy.
Here's my latest this year . . . a pristine 1970 S&W Model 27-2. Recessed cylinders that went away in the '80s . . . a pinned barrel that was dropped from S&W production in 1982 . . . forged parts that were replaced by Metal Injection Moulded parts around 2000, the firing pin on the hammer replaced by the frame mounted firing pin of today's models . . . PLUS a checkered top strap . . . and gorgeous, premium wood stocks that are now all replaced by cheaper methods and poorer results.
Times march on but my standards don't . . .
