Or whatever Harry said. Anyway, there’s a new one;
kablowie
So, is all forgiven over at S&W? Are we still pissed at them for that “sell-out” by the old owners?
My opinion is that some will forgive and forget so they can get one of these babies. Hell, I’m tempted. 
Peace,
mangeorge
I’m somewhat OK with S&W…though I’m not happy with earlier political decisions, or the decision to incorporate internal ‘locks’. Non-the-less, (older) S&W’s are some of my fav weapons. My ‘handle’ should say it all.
I am not likely to buy a new S&W revolver because of the internal lock system. Principle thing. Handguns are only as safe as the person handling them. Internal locks do nothing more than complicate the issue.
As far as the new .50 cal handgun does, I’ll probably pass. My .44 mags are plenty of firepower for the shooting I do. I’ll admit to being curious, though.
Jim
mangeorge, i’m at work, so my company’s firewall prevents me from looking at any website related to firearms, but I assume you are talking about the new .500 S&W Magnum revolver. I just read a review about this handgun and the ammunition for it. Holy smoke, Batman! The dang thing has a K-frame grip and a howitzer body! Well, maybe not a howitzer, but BIG! I own several S&W products and consider them to be very good indeed. The main reason most folks were upset with S&W was that the corporate leaders acquiesced to the government insistence for new safety technology for new firearms. This was done to enable S&W to procure lucrative government contracts. In retrospect, no harm was done to the quality of S&W products or the S&W reputation, and the technology has proved to be a good thing. We now see several locking safety devices of various designs on revolvers and pistols from a growing number of manufacturers.
The buyers of S&W, Saf-T-Hammer, have gone above and beyond to repair the damage to the S&W brand name. One or two of the main principals at Saf-T-Hammer were former execs at S&W. radar-ralf hit the nail on the head with one of the real reasons the former Brit owned S&W capitulated to the Clinton administration. The other big reason was to remove their name from the lists of gun manufacturers the Clinton administration wanted to sue for product liability. Saf-T-Hammer’s acquisition of S&W apparently made any contract by the previous owners null and void (IANAL, just recalling what I read). It seems that S&W have come all the way back in the last year and a half, with a big presence at this year’s SHOT show, and at the NRA convention.
Oh yeah, that .50 is so schww-eeeet. (ain’t gettin’ it tho, gotta save up for a new trap gun instead)
Here’s another story for those who are interested.
Sucker weighs 4 1/2 lbs. That’s like holding a bag of sugar at arms length. And it costs $1,000.
IIRC, locking safety devices have been available on some firearms for around 100 years (so it’s not a new thing), but if you think the agreement was only about “safety” you are way off base.
Here are some of the things that the S&W agreement covers:
CONSUMER IMPACT (Any dealer that sells S&W)
Prohibited from buying more than one handgun in a 14-day period.
Prohibited from buying a firearm without passing an unspecified safety test.
Prohibited from buying a self-defense handgun that did not meet arbitrary accuracy standards.
Prohibited, if under age 18, from even walking into the firearms section of a sporting goods store unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.
DEALER IMPACT
Prohibited from selling legal semi-automatic rifles, commonplace ammunition magazines and firearms that do not meet the difficult standards established in the agreement.
Prohibited from selling firearms at any gun show where any legal private sale is conducted.
Required to include with every firearm sold, a false written statement in large bold-face type that hundreds of children die each year from firearm accidents.
Required to carry $1 million in liability insurance and perform tasks properly handled by law enforcement to comply with the edicts of a new “Oversight Commission.”
MANUFACTURER IMPACT
Prohibited from marketing any firearm in a way that appeals to young shooters and hunters.
Required to dedicate 1% of revenues to a propaganda campaign promoting the dangers of gun ownership.
Required to support legislative efforts to reduce firearms misuse and development of “smart” gun technology.
Required to “ballistically fingerprint” every firearm, thus setting up backdoor national firearms registration.
Required to meet certain unproven design standards for handguns sold only to civilians–guns sold to military and police would be exempted, thereby showing the intent is not to make guns safer or better, but to impose standards that will ultimately eliminate sales, to private citizens.
Required to manufacture pistol with positive, manually-operated safety devices as determined by BATF standards applying to imported handguns. BATF has repeatedly handed down politically-driven misinterpretations of the “sporting purposes” importation
law, to prohibit many semi-auto rifles and handguns.
I haven’t seen any proof that the agreement has been rescinded. Until that happens, it doesn’t matter to me (and many others) if S&W has new owners.
Can other gun manufacturers make a handgun chambered for the S&W cartridge, for folks who share John Harrison’s views?
Bah, www.birdman.org has more powerful hand guns than this.
mangeorge: sure, other makers will probably make handguns for this round. I would guess we’ll see a Raging Bull from Taurus for this cartridge pretty soon. A lot will depend on how the well the cartridge is received and reviewed by the handgun writers. A few makers have revolvers that might be able to handle this round - with modifications, of course. The Ruger Super Redhawk and the Freedom Arms BFR immediately come to mind, but even those models might need to be upscaled to handle this new round. I would think that Thompson/Center would be interested in making the Contender and the Encore available in this chambering, also.
Oh, and I forgot to add this in my last post… I think we are really talking about “the most powerful revolver in the world.” The most powerful handgun surely must be one of the various .50 BMG beasts. That topic was covered in a previous thread.
What does this new .50 offer that the .454 Cassull (is that spelled right?) and some of the other big bores don’t? Looks like a cartridge w/o a purpose. But cool, none the less.
From the site in the op;
I’m not real sure what that means, but it sounds pretty freakin’ impressive.
Sounds like a broken wrist to me.
That reminds me to lift weights so I can shoot my S%W .44 magnum pistol. Geeze, what a bear gun.
From a financial site
A guns and ammo interview with Bob Scott.
mangeorge wrote:
Sure do, I’ve got a Browning Hi-power chambered for S&W’s .40 cal.
I think he was referring to the new .500 S&W.
The S&W may be the most powerful revolver that doesn’t fire “rifle ammunition”, but I’m still eyeing Magnum Research’s BFR that comes in such things as .444 Marlin, .450 Marlin and 45/70. More power, you can get ammo anywhere, and if the S&W is built like most of their guns, IMO the BFR is a much better made gun. I can’t think of a better deer and boar pistol than a .444 or 45/70.
I’ve never liked S&W for various reasons. I had a S&W model 57 once. Loved the cartridge, hated the gun. It never quite felt right, same as all S&W’s I’ve tried.
Sounds like a whoosh to me. Show me a .50BMG handgun that has actually been fired with standard miltary ball ammo and that the shooter was able to fire a second round rather than being taken to the ER and I’ll eat my hat.
It’s a really big hat.
I’ll stick with the most powerful revolver in the world from another century, the 1847 Colt’s Walker pistol. With a full charge it was more powerful than anything else commonly available until the .357 magnum came out in the mid thirties. I’ve got an Uberti made reproduction that’s a blast to shoot. At close range it won’t just kill an enemy but leave the body burnt beyond recognition.
Barrett M82B1-P .50 BMG Pistol for one. There is/was a Maadi-Griffin pistol, too. And a couple more… I’ll have to think about it a bit before I remember the names.
you want fries with that hat?