The Smith & Wesson Revolver Wishlist

[PD Sgt.]

I would be happy with a no lock 3” barreled Model 69. Basically an updated 696.

[Padwan]

In terms of low hanging fruit, I’d love to see them optimize the 640 Pro for 130-135 grain .38 +P, with a black rear/high viz front. They could install VZ grips at the factory while they’re at it.

[Bucky]

Regarding ejectors (or guide rods as some may call them ), the problem is more an ammo problem. The cartridges are longer than need be with modern powders and technology. Maybe Smith could retro / bring back the .356 in a .356TSWR (for rimmed)

Since we're wishing, I’ll take a 9mm 5 shot “J” frame, but shorten the frame specific to 9mm ( should gain 1/4” reduction). Create a moon clip that is extremely robust, even if they’re $20 each (you’d pay that for a magazine). Put some decent sights, and make them easily replaceable. It probably goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway. NO STUPID LOCK!

[BarryinIN]

I’ll hold myself to five.
In order.

1. Model 12 (or 315) upgraded as already named by others.
2. Model 65 in 3” RB and 4” SB, or both RB.
3. A six-shot L-frame in the biggest caliber they can fit (10mm? .41 Spl/Mag?).
4. Model 547, or something similar.
5. Model 16 in .327.

Item 1 would be my priority. It has been covered by many here already, and I agree with everyone. Make it with Scandium if necessary, but make it +P capable. Barrels in original 2” and 4” lightweight, and a hefty 3”.
Bobbed hammer option, or even better, make yet another model in a new “Big Centennial” design with concealed hammer. Oh my.

Number 2 is my favorite K-frame and self explaining. The 19/66 could be made to work as well, but there isn’t anything to duplicate the Model 12 so I listed it first.

With Number 3 I’m basically asking for a Ruger GP-100 10mm, but from S&W. If a .41 cartridge can fit, that’s good too.

Number 4 wouldn’t have to have the 547 extractor system. Whatever works. The original 3” and 4” choices are still good. Another variation with adjustable sights would be welcome here I think.

Number 5 is more or less there for fun. I think a K-frame .32 would be a great teaching gun with the lighter cartridges and a nice woods stumbling gun in the magnums.

Across all models:
No lock is a given.
They’ve got to give us a rear sight. Ideally, dovetailed sights such as on the PC Pro 640. Do this on K frames too.
I’d rather not have the two-piece barrel, but if it gets things done I’ll bargain that away.

Wow, look at all the K-frames on that list. Whaddayaknow.
The 52 almost made the list in spite of not being a revolver. Hey, it shoots a revolver cartridge.


re: Ejector Rod Length
Not trying to be an a$$, but: Muzzle up, strike the ejector rod sharply. Have there been problems when doing it this way?
That has seemed to work even with the stubby rods on 2” guns. Even doing the one-hand thumb press on the rod method should work if the muzzle is kept upward.
A much longer ejector rod may even be a negative thing. More travel allows more room for a case to get under the star. It seems to me that some agency on the west coast even had collars installed to limit the rod travel in order to prevent cases falling back under the star.

[JTMcC]

Add to that the fact that Smith made some extractor springs longer to limit the extractor rod stroke. I think they were called California springs, at least by some in the S&W world. I think they are painted blue to differentiate them from standard. The story goes Cal requested them for LE revolvers after somebody managed to get a shell under the extractor star, so adding the longer spring that stacked up sooner reduced the rod stroke and reduced the chance of shells getting under the star. i came into one such gun, I was puzzled why it didnt have a normal extractor stroke. I got a regular spring, it was then working like "normal".

As users, most if us classify that as operator error, but some people need to be shepherded down the right path.

There is definitely a proper length to squeeze out maximum reliability, they can be too long, or too short. I don't think it matters a whole lot when we're standing, and reloading as normal but when you start reloading a revolver from positions like on your back or side on the ground, normal prone, shooting under a vehicle, etc. then a rim under the star malfunction becomes more probable.
If I try, It's almost impossible to create that malfunction in my .44 mag N-frame, but firing .44 Specials it's much, much easier and something to be concerned or at least aware of.
In my experience, too short of extractor travel is less a handicap than too long.

[OlongJohnson]

They should make drop-in MIM spurless DAO hammers for the MIM hammer K frames. $30 over the counter from all the usual retailers for a drop-in part that leaves the original intact, so the mod is fully reversible. Then they could also sell factory guns DAO with spurless hammers.

[RAM Engineer]

Some more rambling thoughts:

1. I was thinking last night and wondering why S&W offers ZERO fixed sight, round butt 3" K-frames anymore. To me that seems like a highly desirable configuration for actual, concealed, anti-personnel fighting guns. Think about guns of the past: The FBI's 3" Model 13. The 3" NY-1 Model 64. Now, zilch...

They still offer what are (to me) the best of the K-frames, the .38s (10, 64, 67), but they are all exclusively in 4"

The new Magnum K-frames (19, 66) seemed like the start of a great series of guns, but they haven't really fleshed them out with any fixed sight options, 6" options, 2.75" (a great length compromise) blue guns, etc.

I thought maybe it was Canada limiting them to mostly 4" guns, but except for the new Magnum K-frames, the .38s are still sub 105mm

2. Like OlongJohnson said, spurless hammers, DOA are great options for the K guns. I would love something like a family of .38 fighting guns, along the lines of the old NY-1 series. 1 caliber, 1 finish, 2 sight choices, 2 action choices, 3 barrel lengths. Make them all round butts (which I think they do already now).

3. One thing that has stood out to me in this thread, is how little anyone here actually cares about any of the Perf. Center guns with the exception of the 640 PC.

4. Revolvers are already fairly "modular" when it comes to grips, but only in so far as you replace the whole grip. Something like magna grips plus a T-grip adapter is actually more modular. Something modern along those lines would be interesting. Maybe two different thickness side panels and a removeable filler adapter of a couple different sizes, with/without a finger groove. Magpul, get on this!

[peterb]

1. I was thinking last night and wondering why S&W offers ZERO fixed sight, round butt 3" K-frames anymore. To me that seems like a highly desirable configuration for actual, concealed, anti-personnel fighting guns. Think about guns of the past: The FBI's 3" Model 13. The 3" NY-1 Model 64. Now, zilch...

The new Magnum K-frames (19, 66) seemed like the start of a great series of guns, but they haven't really fleshed them out with any fixed sight options, 6" options, 2.75" (a great length compromise) blue guns, etc.

For "fixed", would you want replaceable/drift adjustable or milled-in?

A new topstrap with a dovetail groove that would accept semi-auto-style rears, paired with a pinned front sight, seems like a reasonable evolutionary step.

[Seven_Sicks_Two]

- Get rid of the lock. I understand that for various reasons, that is unlikely to happen across the product line... but at least get rid of it on the "Classic" series guns. They offer no-lock versions of some guns - I can't see why they kept it on the Classics.

- a 442/642 with decent sights or at least a pinned front.

[03RN]

I wish they'd aquire the right to ahrends grips and make them standard, like the 329.