Is It Possible S&W Will
- Thread starter ArchAngelCD
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
ArchAngelCD
Member.
Above I said S&W re-designed the crane, it should have been the yoke. Sorry...
the outside chamber walls on the model 69 measure .052" per the handloader article mentioned above. ignoring the fact that the 45 long colt chamber is tapered, the outside chamber wall thickness would be around .030" (subtracted difference in bullet diameters).
that is getting pretty thin. s&w would probably have to increase the diameter of the cylinder to make this work. not sure that is going to happen.
of course, they already modified the frame for the larger barrel, so why not enlarge the frame cutout a bit for the 45 caliber round?
murf
that is getting pretty thin. s&w would probably have to increase the diameter of the cylinder to make this work. not sure that is going to happen.
of course, they already modified the frame for the larger barrel, so why not enlarge the frame cutout a bit for the 45 caliber round?
murf
RealGun
Member
Did they actually do that? Is it a K frame or an L frame in 44? It is already down to only 5 shots. A larger cylinder window always takes you to the next larger frame.
I see the same question come up over at the Ruger Forum regarding the GP100. I think it is mainly the frame that governs this. A larger diameter cylinder would be needed along with a larger cylinder window and the frame top strap adjusted accordingly. Also, the frame width would need to be adjusted at the front so a larger diameter barrel shank could be fitted to allow a sufficient forcing cone thickness. In the end the company would look at the possible sales vs. the cost to do this. Too bad the whole frame design did not take this into account at the initial design as as Taurus managed to do this with their medium large frame.
realgun,
according to the handloader article, brian pearce states that the receiver ring has been increased in diameter to accommodate the larger caliber. this has the added benefit of increasing the unsupported barrel shank (forcing cone end) diameter.
murf
according to the handloader article, brian pearce states that the receiver ring has been increased in diameter to accommodate the larger caliber. this has the added benefit of increasing the unsupported barrel shank (forcing cone end) diameter.
murf
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Yes but the redesign for the .44Mag resulted in the platform accommodating a longer, higher pressure, higher performance cartridge. Why would they do it again for one that gives you half as much???
Master Blaster
Member
I have a Taurus 455 Tracker revolver its a 5 shot .45 ACP revolver the size of a L frame Smith. Somehow Taurus was able to defy geometry...... So I think Smith & Wesson could do it in an L frame as well.
http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=119&category=Revolver
http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=119&category=Revolver
craigc,
357mag, 44mag and 45lc cases are all the same length.
they do it for the money. if demand is there, and the 45lc double-action platform hopefully is in demand, and the modification not too complex, we may see a 45 long colt (or 45 acp) l-frame.
actually, i see more demand for a 45acp l-frame. they would still have to enlarge the frame cutout though.
murf
357mag, 44mag and 45lc cases are all the same length.
they do it for the money. if demand is there, and the 45lc double-action platform hopefully is in demand, and the modification not too complex, we may see a 45 long colt (or 45 acp) l-frame.
actually, i see more demand for a 45acp l-frame. they would still have to enlarge the frame cutout though.
murf
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Easier said than done and for what purpose? To sell a handful of guns to diehard fans? Make no mistake, the model 69 is a big investment for a major manufacturer and there's a reason why it's a 36,000psi .44Mag and not a 14,000psi .45. I understand the enthusiasm for the cartridge but it doesn't make sense for a manufacturer.
ljnowell
Member
Exactly. In the case of the N frame it's not a cost issue to produce the 45 Colt but to have to spend the money in making an L frame there would have to be serious demand. As much as many of us would love it, the real demand just isn't there.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
I'd love me a 3.5" .41 mag L frame. Would be a fantastic trail, carry, and short range hunting gun for thick brush.
OP
OP
ArchAngelCD
Member.
The M66 is a K frame and the M69 is an L frame.
Guys, I'm not talking about a Ruger or a Taurus, I'm talking about one particular "Modified L Frame S&W revolver", the M69. The M69 was re-engineered like I said above and it's a 5 round cylinder. I'm not talking about S&W putting the 45 Colt in any other revolver but that modified L frame.
Lucky Derby
Member
My 696 does that. No IL and the FP is where it belongs.
Maybe S&W will revive the "Revolver of the Month" program and produce one! For a while they were introducing limited runs at a good rate.
Yes, a 45 caliber "L" frame would be a great idea, realistically, probably not a big seller.
Yes, a 45 caliber "L" frame would be a great idea, realistically, probably not a big seller.
RealGun
Member
Well, based upon 5 rounds being a tight fit in my 696 (44 S&W Special), I'd say the larger 45 is out of the question for that L-frame and would remain in the N-frame. I would think that if they reintroduced the 696, there would be little need for a 45 except for those who don't reload hard-to-get ammo.
Well, you can load and shoot 44 Special ammunition in a Model 69 so a similar argument would apply to re-introducing the Model 696.
That said, guns chambered in the old, low pressure rounds are cool. I'd buy a Model 696 if it were re-introduced, or if I found a good used one, and I'd buy an L-frame 45 Colt if S&W were able to make one.
I'll never say never, but I will agree the 45 Colt cartridge may be physically too large to shoe horn into a standard L-frame.
RealGun
Member
There is a distinct difference in that a gun specializing in 44 S&W Special is too lightly built for 44 Magnum but lighter and physically smaller to carry concealed. It may also have a shorter barrel that would be too short in 44 Magnum and a devil to shoot for most people. You will convince me if and when the 69 is offered in a 3" barrel, standard for the 696.
Panzerschwein
member
Just shove some .44 specials in your Model 69 and you will get a resounding "close enough" LOL! But yeah I mean while it would be cool, I've heard there isn't enough metal in a K or L frame cylinder for .45 caliber holes.
- Status
