You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
No 5-Shot .45acp Revolver Market?
- Thread starter amprecon
- Start date
I have a S&W 625JM, 625NG and a Dan Wesson 460 and Rowland (that also chambers .45 acp) as well as 2 1911s. You can say I'm a fan of the caliber and I love the revolvers. I don't know that I'd be attracted to a 5-shot version, though. My woods carry guns are an Alaskan in .454 Casull (for bear country), a 629 .44mag 4", a 657 3" and a 686 4" 7-shot for general purpose.
WildBill45
New member
.45 ACP revolvers are relevant, and hit like a Rhino!
I find it disingenuous of knowledgeable shooters that love the 1911 as the most effective man-stopper in most polls, and in real life, and then question the same caliber when loaded in a revolver. The receiving end of the .45 ACP round will never know the difference … ask any war vet. My dad told me he found his .45 ACP a great stopper in Korea up close and personal.
The .45 ACP is probably the most efficient loading for a revolver, with the case capacity versus the bullet length, it makes a proper load that works … and is compact. We have used the .45 ACP for 100 years and it works on people, not paper, not ballistic gelatin, or other new fangled tools to simulate how it works. The lab tests are not relevant, I repeat:
WE HAVE USED THE .45 ACP FOR 100 YEARS AND IT KILLS PEOPLE DEAD ALL DAY LONG! What more can one ask of a cartridge?
The ammo is easy and cheap to get. Even with hardballs it works, again for 100 years. Shoot hardballs out of a .357, .40, 9mm, or whatever new or better, or improved cartridge and wait a 100 years and tell me how it looks!
The fact that it is in a revolver platform doesn’t matter; it is still just as effective. I don’t know where people get this idea that the revolver isn’t for .45 ACP. Moon clips are faster than reloaders or magazines, and revolvers are more reliable or at least as good as any auto ever made. They are great home defense guns as well, as there are not a lot of springs sitting there under tension like an autoloader for 30 years to get worn out and tired. If it gets dusty or dirty it works, and I talking about years of sitting on that nightstand or in that drawer!
The only real disadvantage to a revolver in .45 is capacity, and that is not much compared to the 1911 platform. This is especially so for off-duty work where your job does not require you to GO to the trouble. AS a civilian, a non-duty status, you should be using your gun to GO AWAY FROM, AND ESCAPE the trouble. A few rounds here under these non-duty status scenarios doesn’t matter, if you use six in your bedroom and he is still standing, number 7 won’t matter!
The .45 ACP stops men, period! Hardball or hollow-points, it works, and this is beyond contestation! 100 years of dead folks says so!!!
Besides, would lowering the capacity save much? I doubt it. The model 325 carries nice now. You need a loose shirt in the summer for the six shot, and you would as well for a five shot, so in effect there is no difference, which means no marketing points to sell one!
I find it disingenuous of knowledgeable shooters that love the 1911 as the most effective man-stopper in most polls, and in real life, and then question the same caliber when loaded in a revolver. The receiving end of the .45 ACP round will never know the difference … ask any war vet. My dad told me he found his .45 ACP a great stopper in Korea up close and personal.
The .45 ACP is probably the most efficient loading for a revolver, with the case capacity versus the bullet length, it makes a proper load that works … and is compact. We have used the .45 ACP for 100 years and it works on people, not paper, not ballistic gelatin, or other new fangled tools to simulate how it works. The lab tests are not relevant, I repeat:
WE HAVE USED THE .45 ACP FOR 100 YEARS AND IT KILLS PEOPLE DEAD ALL DAY LONG! What more can one ask of a cartridge?
The ammo is easy and cheap to get. Even with hardballs it works, again for 100 years. Shoot hardballs out of a .357, .40, 9mm, or whatever new or better, or improved cartridge and wait a 100 years and tell me how it looks!
The fact that it is in a revolver platform doesn’t matter; it is still just as effective. I don’t know where people get this idea that the revolver isn’t for .45 ACP. Moon clips are faster than reloaders or magazines, and revolvers are more reliable or at least as good as any auto ever made. They are great home defense guns as well, as there are not a lot of springs sitting there under tension like an autoloader for 30 years to get worn out and tired. If it gets dusty or dirty it works, and I talking about years of sitting on that nightstand or in that drawer!
The only real disadvantage to a revolver in .45 is capacity, and that is not much compared to the 1911 platform. This is especially so for off-duty work where your job does not require you to GO to the trouble. AS a civilian, a non-duty status, you should be using your gun to GO AWAY FROM, AND ESCAPE the trouble. A few rounds here under these non-duty status scenarios doesn’t matter, if you use six in your bedroom and he is still standing, number 7 won’t matter!
The .45 ACP stops men, period! Hardball or hollow-points, it works, and this is beyond contestation! 100 years of dead folks says so!!!
Besides, would lowering the capacity save much? I doubt it. The model 325 carries nice now. You need a loose shirt in the summer for the six shot, and you would as well for a five shot, so in effect there is no difference, which means no marketing points to sell one!
Last edited:
Andy Taylor
New member
penndennis: I believe you have your production dates wrong on the M696.
From Standard Catalog of S&W
696 (1996) Product intorduction
696-1 (1997) Change frame design....
696-2 (2001) Introduce internal key lock system.
2003: Discontinued.
I purchased a 696 new in 1996. It was a new offering at that time. In fact it was the first one the gun store that I worked at was able to get.
All that said this 5 shot L frame .44 Special is at it's limit as to the diameter of the cartridge it will accept. The cylinder walls and forcing cone are VERY thin. Going from .429 cal to .452 cal is not going to happen in this frame size.
From Standard Catalog of S&W
696 (1996) Product intorduction
696-1 (1997) Change frame design....
696-2 (2001) Introduce internal key lock system.
2003: Discontinued.
I purchased a 696 new in 1996. It was a new offering at that time. In fact it was the first one the gun store that I worked at was able to get.
All that said this 5 shot L frame .44 Special is at it's limit as to the diameter of the cartridge it will accept. The cylinder walls and forcing cone are VERY thin. Going from .429 cal to .452 cal is not going to happen in this frame size.
Hunter2678
New member
Ever since I got my prelock 625, Ive gotta say I have little to no desire to get a 1911 anytime soon..theres something about this gun along with the cartridge that Im loving more and more each day..6 accurate shots by way of a buttery smooth DA/SA through a 5 inch barrel....... its so pleasing to shoot.
Nobody's questioning the effectiveness of the loading itself. We're discussing the mechanical and logistical problems of chambering small and medium revolvers for it.I find it disingenuous of knowledgeable shooters that love the 1911 as the most effective man-stopper in most polls, and in real life, and then question the same caliber when loaded in a revolver.
Hunter2678
New member
So since the S&W NG has 6 shots its null and void for all intended purposes in this discussion...? why does the 5 round criteria even need to be a factor..is that extra round an honest deal breaker in reality? IMO its not.
Whirlwind06
New member
Whatever market niche there is for a 5 shot .45. It seems to be getting satisfied with the various "Judges" and S&W "Governor".
I guess S&W take on it will chamber the 410, 45LC and 45 ACP. So there you have a 5 shot 45.
I guess S&W take on it will chamber the 410, 45LC and 45 ACP. So there you have a 5 shot 45.
Last edited:
Judge = Ugly.
Governor = Judge's Ugly Sister
They are not something I will ever buy.
But the little Taurus snubbies are nice looking. And that is why I have owned 5 of them in two calibers.
The 2.5-inch Tracker in .44 Magnum is a very fine gun, since I can shoot .44 Special in it, and since it the smaller rubber grips can replace the ribbed ones. And if it were offered in .45 ACP with a non-ported barrel, I would be very interested in buying it.
Bart Noir
Governor = Judge's Ugly Sister
They are not something I will ever buy.
But the little Taurus snubbies are nice looking. And that is why I have owned 5 of them in two calibers.
The 2.5-inch Tracker in .44 Magnum is a very fine gun, since I can shoot .44 Special in it, and since it the smaller rubber grips can replace the ribbed ones. And if it were offered in .45 ACP with a non-ported barrel, I would be very interested in buying it.
Bart Noir
jglsprings
New member
Whatever market niche there is for a 5 shot .45. It seems to be getting satisfied with the various "Judges" and S&W "Governor".
Like Bart said. The Judge and Governor - the Lee sisters. Ug and Home.
I told myself years ago that I was done buying new guns because I managed to find everything I ever wanted when I was in the business. (and I haven't seen anything "new" in years that I could get excited about) But if S&W would make an L frame 5 shot .45 ACP with moon clip capability I would HAVE to have one. I have a 625-2 but it is a little too large for carry for me personally.
WildBill45
New member
Nobody's questioning the effectiveness of the loading itself. We're discussing the mechanical and logistical problems of chambering small and medium revolvers for it.
Ok then, I guess I got off topic!
In that case I can see the problem, as someone before me described, the size required to facilitate the .45 may be THE limiting factor for smaller frame use. Although I have doubts as to whether is could be designed just big enough to accomodate the .45 if they thought it was worth the effort business wise. Plus, after carrying the 325 for a while now, I don't think the size is that much of a problem once you leave the pocket size out of the equation. It carries nice, I can hit on target at very long distances that the micro-wheel guns can only dream about, and it shoots nice.
The logical options are of course accepting the night guard in .44 special, I believe it is a little slimmer, and five shot, or, the other obvious option is .357 pocket-rockets, or a micro-1911... Sometimes a Ford Pickup is just bigger than a Camry, and that is the way it is...
Last edited:
But if S&W would make an L frame 5 shot .45 ACP with moon clip capability I would HAVE to have one.
+100
Andy Taylor wrote:
You are, of course, correct, Andy. Thanks for the catch.
If you reload, hardball is not the only choice of bullets. I reload 250gr SWC's in .45ACP cases, using Bullseye. It's a .45 Colt load, and it doesn't have to be compressed. The powder load doesn't touch the bottom of the bullet, and I use a taper crimp. It's a great self-defense load, and has a bit more punch than the 230gr hardball load.
penndennis: I believe you have your production dates wrong on the M696.
From Standard Catalog of S&W
696 (1996) Product intorduction
696-1 (1997) Change frame design....
696-2 (2001) Introduce internal key lock system.
2003: Discontinued.
You are, of course, correct, Andy. Thanks for the catch.
If you reload, hardball is not the only choice of bullets. I reload 250gr SWC's in .45ACP cases, using Bullseye. It's a .45 Colt load, and it doesn't have to be compressed. The powder load doesn't touch the bottom of the bullet, and I use a taper crimp. It's a great self-defense load, and has a bit more punch than the 230gr hardball load.