The MODEL 58 RETURNS

B

BillCA

New member
The S&W Model 58 "Classic" returns - from S&W.

SKU: 150500 (150501 for Nickel)
Model: 58
Caliber: .41Mag
Capacity: 6 Rounds
Action: Single/Double Action
Barrel Length: 4" Light Lug
Front Sight: Integral Black Ramp
Rear Sight: Fixed Service Sight
Overall Length: 9 1/4"
Weight: 40.8 oz.
Grip: Wood Service Grip
Material: Carbon Steel
Finish: Bright Blue

Yes, it has the lock in the photos... darn it.

Available in Blue or Nickel.

Still, this is good news as the Model 58 was one of the most suitable self-defense revolvers - and still could be with the 175g Silvertips.

See the S&W site here
 
N

nate45

New member
Nice.:) I think it would be really neat if they also came out with a .41 Mag, or .41 Special on an L-Frame.
 
G

Gun 4 Fun

New member
The weight difference between an L frame in .41 and an N frame with 4" barrels would be insignificant, and the N frame is a much better platform for the .41 from a strength and durability standpoint.

The model 58 was a much under valued weapon. I would love an original.
 
B

BillCA

New member
The Model 58 feels good in the hand and has a good amount of weight to help with the .41 Mag recoil. The original "Police" load fired a 210g LSWC at 1100 fps out of a six-inch barrel. It was stout, but controllable in practiced hands.

The Winchester 175g Silvertip at 1250fps is pleasant to shoot from the M58 too. And I've loaded some to 950 fps out of the 4" barrel which feel like you're launching fence posts at your opponent. :D

As carry guns go, it's large and heavy. At 40 oz, it's not a pocket gun, but makes a swell car/travelling gun. In the small number of shootings I've heard about (mostly police use) it has an excellent track record. And if you load it with the full-goose bozo factory hunting loads, you have a bear gun too.

Gun 4 Fun -- why stop at having just one original?
M58x2SW_1027S.jpg
 
R

RickB

New member
So, is the "extra weight" better put to use on a heavy barrel, or barrel underlug? I like the looks of thin barrel and lug (M21, M22, M27, etc.), but does the heavy barrel handle better?
 
G

Gun 4 Fun

New member
BillCA said:
Gun 4 Fun -- why stop at having just one original?
Click to expand...

I'll tell you why. It's because I don't have enough original Ben Franklins to go around to fund all my needs (Read wants).:D:D
 
G

Gun 4 Fun

New member
RickB said:
So, is the "extra weight" better put to use on a heavy barrel, or barrel underlug? I like the looks of thin barrel and lug (M21, M22, M27, etc.), but does the heavy barrel handle better?
Click to expand...

The pencil barrels or even the lugged barrels on an L frame look great, but when firing a round like the .41 or .44, the extra weight in a target or "bull" barrel helps with sight recoverry and reduces muzzle flip quite a bit.
 
B

BillCA

New member
Nice. I think it would be really neat if they also came out with a .41 Mag, or .41 Special on an L-Frame.
Click to expand...
Been covered in other discussions. S&W says there's not enough meat on the L-Frame to handle the .41 Magnum.

So, is the "extra weight" better put to use on a heavy barrel, or barrel underlug? I like the looks of thin barrel and lug (M21, M22, M27, etc.), but does the heavy barrel handle better?
Click to expand...
The Model 58 is a bull-barrel like the heavy barrels on the Model 10, 13 and 65. The balance of the revolver is very good and it sits nicely in your hand. It also carries well in a duty holster or field holster.

If you were to build it with a "pencil" barrel and underlug I would think it would be lighter and you'd get more muzzle flip. The Model 58 can produce lots of that already. :D

At 15 yards, the Model 58, using 210gr LSWC will punch through car doors easily. With the Remington 210g JSP it would slice through both sides of a '68 Buick.
 
S

steveracer

New member
Why, oh why...

Didn't they ever make a 58-ish revolver in .44MAG?
I just think fixed-sight n-frames are perfect, and love the .44 Magnum.
 
W

Webleymkv

New member
Why, oh why...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn't they ever make a 58-ish revolver in .44MAG?
I just think fixed-sight n-frames are perfect, and love the .44 Magnum.
Click to expand...

Marketing my friend, the .44 Magnum was marketed from the get-go as a sporting (read hunting) revolver thus the adjustable sights. The .41 Magnum, however, was concieved by Kieth and Jordan as a police cartridge thusly the M58 was marketed as a police revolver with fixed sights.
 
D

dgludwig

New member
The L-frame is nowhere near enough gun for the .41Mag but makes a wonderful .41Spl!!!
Click to expand...

I think the L-frame is plenty of gun for the .41 Magnum. My Taurus Model 415 is a significantly smaller revolver that handles full-house .41 Magnum ammunition just fine.
 
A

Auto426

New member
Though I don't see a 58 in my near future, I am at least happy that S&W is re-introducing most of their older models in the "Classics" series. While I don't really want it, the lock doesn't really bother me. I also prefer new guns with warranties, versus older, more worn guns with no warranties. I can see a 1917 and a 27 in my near future.
 
C

CraigC

Moderator
I think the L-frame is plenty of gun for the .41 Magnum.
Click to expand...

It would have to be a five-shot if it was at all feasible. Note the barrel shank on the 696 is dangerously thin and it doesn't operate at the .41's pressures. No sir, I don't believe the L-frame is enough gun for the .41Mag.
 
D

dgludwig

New member
The aforementioned 415 is a five shot .41 Magnum, not nearly as robust as an L-frame, and it should go without saying that an L-frame chambered in .41 Magnum would also be a five shot. The 696 was a five-shot L-frame chambered in .44 Special, a caliber affording a lot less metal in the cylinder walls than any .41 Magnum provides and the "barrel shank" was a whole lot "thinner". It would seem that if Taurus can make a .41 Magnum in a much smaller revolver (and even one made out of a much lighter than steel alloy), Smith&Wesson should have no problem doing the same thing, especially when using a much larger frame. My opinion is unchanged: employing the proper metallurgy, an L-frame Smith is plenty strong enough for the .41 Magnum.
 
C

CraigC

Moderator
Sure, through a thorough redesign and possibly a change in alloy, anything is possible. But then, you really don't have an L-frame, do you? Yes, obviously the cylinder walls and barrel shank would be thicker on a .41 but only slightly so. As the difference in diameter is only about .02". If I remember correctly the outer chamber walls are also very thin on the 696. The .41Mag also operates at well over double the pressure, 36,000psi vs. 15,500psi. Then you have to consider other variables such as backthrust and frame stretching. Besides, many consider the N-frame to be only marginal for the .44Mag and it was built for the big bore cartridges, just not at "magnum" pressure levels. Not to even mention the fact that there would be almost no market for a pseudo L-frame .41Mag and surely the startup costs would completely outweigh the revenue potential. I just don't ever see it happening and for a multitude of reasons.

How big is the barrel shank on the Taurus anyway? How heavy is the topstrap?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top