Smith & Wesson Brings Back the 10mm Model 610 Revolver

Smith & Wesson Model 610

Courtesy Smith & Wesson

With spring in the air, the weather warming and everything turning green, a gun lover’s thoughts turn to…automatic cartridge chambered revolvers. Well, some of us think that way. If you’re one of us, you’ll be pleased to know that Smith & Wesson has announced that they’re bringing back the Model 610.

The N frame 610 is chambered in 10mm and will be available in 4- and 6-inch versions. Here’s their press release . . .

Smith & Wesson Model 610 Reintroduced for Spring 2019

Powerful 10mm Auto revolver available with 4-inch, 6.5-inch barrel

SPRINGFIELD, Mass., (March 26, 2019) – Smith & Wesson Corp. today announced that it has reintroduced its Model 610 revolver, chambered in the powerful 10mm Auto cartridge.  Well suited for handgun hunting and protection in the backcountry, the Model 610 is built on the large Smith & Wesson N-frame and is available with either a 4-inch or 6.5-inch barrel.

Jan Mladek, General Manager of Smith & Wesson and M&P brands, said, “With the recent increase in popularity of the 10mm Auto cartridge, we felt it important to offer a 10mm revolver for personal protection and handgun hunting.  The N-frame revolver has long been a staple in big-bore revolvers, and the 10mm is a natural caliber addition to the line.”

The Model 610 revolver features a six-round capacity is available with an MSRP of $ 969.00.  Designed for use with the included six-shot moon clips, the Smith & Wesson M610 is also capable of firing the 40 S&W cartridge.  The Model 610 revolver features a stainless steel frame, barrel and cylinder,  black synthetic finger groove grips, black blade interchangeable front sight with an adjustable white outline rear sight.

To learn more about the new Model 610 revolver and the complete line of  Smith & Wesson firearms, including spec sheets and images, please click here.

To stay up to date on all of the latest news and events, be sure to follow Smith & Wesson Corp. on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

comments

  1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

    It’s about time S&W! These will go nicely with my M&P’s and 69 Combat Magnums. Christmas just came early!

    1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

      It’s unfortunate that the article or S&W’s press release doesn’t indicate even what quarter these will be available.

  2. avatar pwrserge says:

    Automatic cartridge chambered revolvers are silly. The main advantage of a wheel gun is not having to fit your cartridges into the grip of the firearm. In almost every other way revolvers are an inferior substitute for a comparably sized automatic. 10mm is the best mm, but only in a semi-auto. In a revolver, you have essentially a weaker version of .40 Magnum. Just step up to a .44 if you’re insistent on carrying an antique.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      While I’d agree that not feeding rounds through the grip is a big advantage for revolvers, they’re superior in just about every other way except capacity as well. Reliability, contact shots, the ability to feed any type of ammunition, power, accuracy, etc. Obviously for some the capacity is a deal breaker, but help me out on another advantage to semi-autos, I’m coming up blank.

      1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        Maybe I’m just too old or old fashion but I don’t feel under gunned with a model 69 Combat Magnum with 5 rounds of 44 Spl in it. In fact some of the smaller 45 ACP hold about that or a round more and both rounds are comparable ballistically. Yet the revolver has all the attributes you have already mentioned.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          It’s extremely rare for a civilian to find himself in a situation where 5 or 6 round of whatever won’t get you out of trouble.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          It’s extremely rare for a civilian to get into a situation where walking away won’t get you out of trouble. We don’t carry guns because the situations where we would need them are particularly likely.

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          What if you get into a situation where you need more penetration?

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          For 2 legged animals? 9mm +P will handle any penetration issues you might have. Out of my 34, it basically clocks .357 muzzle energies.

        5. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          I get 1325+ fps with 158gr non +p loads with my 3″ GP100. You’re not going to get that kind of power out a 16″ carbine in 9mm +p.

          Anyway, the fact that your target walks on 2 legs doesn’t prevent them from shooting at you from behind barriers.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          You’d be surprised. Not with a 155gr pill, sure, but there are plenty of factory ~120gr loadings that can break 1300 fps out of a 5″ barrel.

          http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html

          That’s not even counting some of federal’s “LEO-only” +p+ white box loadings. I have a couple of boxes of 9BPLE stashed way that have broken 1350 easily and put 115gr pills down range.

          There are plenty of 9mm loadings that out of a dull sized automatic will have the same barrier penetration properties as common .357 loads. Sure they can’t compete with “OMG this thing is about to blow up” loads, but that’s not really necessary.

        7. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          A 115 gr 9mm at 1350 fps has 465 ft lbs of energy. A 357 with 158 gr bullet at 1350 fps has 639 ft lbs of energy. I can’t see any 9mm keeping pace with true 357 magnum loads. 9mm bullet weight goes up and velocity goes down exponentially. 357 magnum bullet weight goes down and velocity goes up exponentially. This like people saying the 10mm is an auto answer to the 44 magnum, it’s laughable. A 200 gr 10mm can’t come close to 200 gr 44 magnum. Put a boutique heavy for caliber in a 10mm and the 44 magnum still puts it to shame. The 10mm has its place to be sure but it will never even nip at the heels of the 44 mag.

        8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Just as a point of reference serge, both 9mm and .357 operate at the same max pressure but the .357 literally has twice the case capacity. Even more than twice when you account for the seat depth of the bullet. Those super hot .357 loads aren’t even +p let alone +p+, they’re not going to blow up your gun.

        9. avatar Gadsden says:

          It’s a common theme on gun blogs these days where people declare 9+p is now equivalent to .357 and 10+p is equivalent to .44 mag. Neither are. It’s a complete load of horseshit from people who are trying to justify their favorite fanboi caliber. I’m an admitted .44 fanboy, but I’d never lay around on my fat ass while coveted in wing sauce and beer, and loudly declare a hot .44 is the equivalent of a .50. But that’s the way of the world these days so…

        10. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          However, let’s be clear – there’s no shame in laying around on your fat ass covered in wing sauce and beer in of itself…

          One thing about the .44 that I’ve never seen in a .357, Buffalo Bore makes +p and +p+ loads for .44 magnum (aka ‘Ruger* only’ loads). I’ve never seen a .357 load that claimed to be loaded to higher than standard pressure.

          *and a few others.

        11. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          The sad thing about the Buffalo Bore +p 44 magnum loads is people are stupid and try them in guns that are not built to handle them. IIRC Buffalo Bore now has as part of their disclaimer for these rounds that if people do not stop using them in substandard guns they may have to quit offering them. I would like to try them but there’s no way I consider trying them in my S&W model 69’s. Guess if I really get the itch it’ll give me the excuse to buy a suitable Ruger.

        12. avatar AD says:

          I also don’t feel defenseless with six .357. First three are .38+p, actually, for home and vehicle purposes which I consider most likely. Then again I probably don’t look like the easiest of targets in the first place.

      2. avatar Jon in CO says:

        $20 says I pour sand over your revolver and the cylinder locks up. I pour sand on almost any decently made modern auto, it runs. It doesn’t take much to make revolvers stall out.

        The only advantage is muzzle contact shots, and shooting through a coat pocket or such. As you said, capacity alone is reason enough not to carry one as a primary. I wouldn’t be opposed to throwing one in an ankle rig, but I’m so invested in autos, adding another caliber doesn’t have a nice ring to it.

        With all of that said, it’s America. You have choices, you have your own reality and preferences. Do you. (None of this was meant as an attack or in any way negative. Just throwing my 2¢ in, for what it’s worth)

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Have you tested this ‘sand’ hypothesis?

        2. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          I can pour sand in just about any AR and watch it be taken apart and cleaned before it’ll run again. Doesn’t stop me and 10’s of thousands of other people from owning them. With the right combination anything can be stopped from working. That’s not really an argument. With a revolver I can most likely shake the sand out of it and keep going. Auto’s are not always that simple to be reliable again. I’m waiting for the anti 10mm folks to show up now. The anti revolver folks must have ESP and knew this article was coming.

        3. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          I wouldn’t bet against you while also being unwilling to test it myself with my revolver. The only mud or sand test I found with a quick search on youtube was by a guy called Chris Penta on a 686. It did much better that I feared.

        4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Actually it’s kind of funny you brought up sand because it was the fine sand in Iraq and Afghanistan that caused the infamous problems with the army’s M9s. Get sand in your mags and they’re going to choke up.

        5. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Confirmed! That is why the Marine Corp adopted the M9A1 and its sand resistant magazines. The sand over there isn’t all like what people think of sand (think beach sand). Some of it is like powder and gets into everything causing a constant battle to keep weapon systems running like they should. Using lubricant only adds to the cleaning and function nightmare. Use CLP to clean and then try as hard as possible to wipe it all off when finished.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          I’m not “anti-revolver” except in the sense that they are laughably obsolete antiques on the same level as “tactical” wheel locks. I would love to see your theory tested on a modern AR. The mud and dust tests that InRange has done for generic M4geries seem to call bullshit. It makes sense why as well. There’s no place on a readied AR that dust / mud / sand can get into the action. The magwell is sealed by the magazine. The dust cover closes the bolt and the bolt itself blocks access to the action.

        7. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Ok fair enough as long as you never open the dust cover or remove the magazine. How is that supposed to work in use in an environment that is nothing but sand, powder, and dust? Come in from going outside the wire both things happen until you go back out again. You can shut the dust cover but you still have the gapping mag well. Yeah you could put something in there as long as it’s not a magazine regardless if it’s empty. Raises too many questions. Then what happens if you need to put a mag in quickly? I’m not going fumble around with something that isn’t suppose to be there. Far too many people in war theaters have had issues with both the M16 and M4 to disprove a YouTube video under controlled conditions. In fact all YouTube test videos I take with a grain of salt.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          Gov… That was because the US Army was using hilariously old 1980s design magazines. Modern magazines don’t have this problem.

        9. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          serge, as I recall it was the army mandated parkerizing that was largely to blame. A slicker finish and frequent cleanings took care of that. However deliberately dumping sand into the action or magazines of any weapon is likely going create some issues.

          BTW, you haven’t mentioned anything that semi-autos do better than obsolete antiques except hold more ammo…

        10. avatar pwrserge says:

          As I said, hilariously old. Those magazines were designed to be hauled around the Fulda Gap, not Bumfukistan. But here’s the thing, we’re not talking about dumping it into the action. We’re talking about taking your gun, and dumping it in a pile of mud / sand / dust / etc… Modern semi-autos are fairly well sealed and don’t have a problem there. Revolvers are not and do.

        11. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          ‘$20 says I pour sand over your revolver…’

        12. avatar pwrserge says:

          Same difference. You can pour sand over my glock all day. It will still fire.

        13. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Well just dumping a handful of sand isn’t likely to lock up a revolver either, however I’ve never met anyone who would trust either type of weapon in a gunfight without a thorough cleaning first. Where sand becomes a problem is in environments like Iraq and Afghanistan where it gets everywhere. A good rule of thumb is if you need to clean the sand out of your ass crack you should probably clean it out of your weapons too.

        14. avatar pwrserge says:

          @Iraqvet2003

          Um… ok… normally when we carried our rifles they were in condition 3 or condition 1. Neither option leaves a lot of room for dust to get in. YMMV.

          I’ve had an M16A4 jam up pretty badly but that was operator error.
          1. I left the dust cover open for several hours.
          2. I severely over-lubed my rifle.

        15. avatar pwrserge says:

          @ Iraqvet2003

          Sorry, I misread your post… Just how much dust were you getting in your chow hall? If all this fouling happened inside the wire, I’m actually rather impressed.

        16. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          When we first arrived in country we were in tents. Then in a FOB that was only slightly better. Just before coming home we spent only a little time in the new barracks that was built. Then we were moved back into circus tents like we stayed in in Kuwait so the new rotation could move into the barracks. Everywhere we went there was a clearing barrel that was required to come inside the wire. Kosovo was the same way just easier to keep weapons clean there. Kosovo had nicer living conditions too.

          OH and we didn’t have chow halls for quite some time IIRC. We had an MKT, T-rations, and cooks that did the best they could with what they had. When we got a chance to go to BIAP and Burger King was there, that became our source of edible chow.

        17. avatar Nickel plated says:

          They weren’t even old so much as poorly made due to DOD trying to pinch pennies. In short, DOD wanted to save a buck on mags. So instead of buying from Beretta, they contracted another manufacturer, Checkmate. And instead of having the mags finished in polished bluing like Beretta did, they told Checkmate to just parkerize them to save costs. Checkmate insisted this was a bad idea, but in the end, the customer is always right.
          The polished bluing was slick enough that dirt and sand don’t tend to stick to it. You can imagine the issues with a parkerized mag in a sandy enviroment

      3. avatar JW says:

        For cartridges of equivalent power, people of almost every skill level can put more bullets on target faster with a semi. That, together with capacity for a given level of concealability, are IMHO, the two largest advantages of the semi, tho as you say, revolvers have their points as well.

        1. avatar Derringer Dave says:

          “people of almost every skill level can put more bullets on target faster with a semi.”

          Two words: moon clips. The S&W Model 10 uses moon clips. Moon clips are the reason that Jerry Mikulec is able to fire 12 shots in less than three seconds with a revolver. Granted, not everyone is Jerry Mikulek, but moon clips make it possible to shoot and reload just as fast with a revolver as with a pistol.
          Moon clips make speed of reloading a non-issue for revolvers.

          Moon clips are so much cheaper than magazines that you could even treat them as disposable (I wouldn’t, as that’s a waste, but at 50 cents each in bulk, you could). They’re also so compact that if you wanted to, you could carry 100 moon clips in one pants pocket (you can’t carry 100 semiauto magazines in your pocket). Of course when I say 100, I’m talking about unloaded moon clips, but there are belt holders that let you carry 16 loaded moon clips on your belt, which is 96 rounds, enough for any gunfight imaginable outside of a war.

        2. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Agreed. When I carry my M&P Shield I put 7+1 in the gun and carry the 8 round magazine as a spare for a total of 16 rounds. For a 6 shot revolver I could carry 2 extra loaded moon clips and have 2 more rounds of a more powerful caliber for a total of 18 rounds. I can already here someone saying but that’s 2 reloads instead of one or 2 loaded moon clips are bulkier than a magazine. My answer to that is 1) if you carry a gun every day like I do then you wardrobe is tailored to that task and adapting it to carrying loaded moon clips shouldn’t be that hard 2) I would wager that stack two loaded moon clips of in this case 10mm next to a mid size (think Glock 19) or full size (think Glock 17) magazine and they are not a much if at all taller and maybe only slightly bigger in circumference 3) I would also wager that when most started shooting a semiautomatic that they wasn’t the fastest at reloads with a magazine but over time with practice got faster. The same would apply with a revolver. Jerry Miculek wasn’t born a world champion record holder he got there with practice that I believe honed his innate talent. No we all can’t be Jerry Miculek, Bob Munden, or Ed Mcgivern but with practice and dedication we can certainly be good enough to hold our own.

          As a side note I’m considering sending my model 69’s off to be milled for moon clips. It would make them that much better for carry guns.

    2. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

      I have 2 S&W 44 magnums that I do indeed carry and once I buy these two they will be added to my carry rotation that includes autos. When S&W finally releases an M&P 10mm I’ll buy those too.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        That’s the thing. I’m not going to win a “semi-autos are better” argument with diehard revolver guys. I just don’t see anything that a 10mm revolver does that a .44 revolver doesn’t do better.

        1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          For me it’s not about the 10mm replacing something else. Well actually…..the 10mm does put 44 spl to shame for performance. 44 Magnums from a 32 oz revolver with a 2 3/4 inch barrel can be done but it’s not something you want to spend a lot of time practicing to master, trust me. All of that aside, I just like the 10mm and the 44 Spl/magnum. Of course obviously I like both revolvers and autos. Some ask why a 10mm revolver? I ask why not one?

        2. avatar Art out West says:

          Even a .41 mag will do it all better. The .41 blows away 10mm. Frankly even a .357 mag would be preferable.

          The 10mm makes a lot of sense as an autoloading outdoor gun.

        3. avatar JoshtheBruce says:

          I love and own revolvers because they are cool as hell and dont need magazines. That said, I still prefer semis for all but woods carry. My kahr cm9 holds two more rounds than my smith 442 and is easier to carry. Revolvers are for showing to your friends, semi autos are for showing to your enemies (unless your enemy is a large Ursine)

    3. avatar Mike says:

      Because I want it.

      And because “Screw you!”. That’s why.

      1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        Because you want it is as good a reason as any. 👍

    4. avatar SoCalJack says:

      What 10mm Auto do you or anyone recommend? My interest for 10mm is for range and Self defense against 4 legged animals. Thanks in advance!

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        If you can find a holster for it, the Glock 40 MOS is a very nice gun. For any serious 4 legged critter defense, I would START at 10mm. It’s a good round, but depending on what you’re worried about, it could be a very anemic round.

      2. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        Personal opinion but I would probably buy a Sig Sauer P220 in 10mm. If you are dead set on a Glock I would say G20 Gen 3 SF. The G40 is a good gun but same grip as the G20 and longer slide. I actually like the G29 but most people don’t because of its size. Put true 10mm in a G29 and most don’t enjoy shooting it. Which don’t get me wrong it is snappy and can be a hand full but it doesn’t bother me that much. Personally I’m hoping S&W will now bring out a 10mm in their M&P line of autos. If they do that’s the route I’ll go most likely. I 4 9mm M&P’s and like them quite a bit. I don’t think I own anything other than S&W’s right now. Just my $0.02 worth.

    5. avatar Kyle says:

      funny, I’ve always found that revolvers in all ways are superior to automatics with the exception of ammo capacity and easy of reload.

    6. avatar JR says:

      Which is why many who own the Ruger Super Redhawk 10mm have their cylinder modified to accept the 10 mm magnum cartridge.

    7. avatar Rad Man says:

      I agree with Pwrserge, that auto cartridge chambered revolvers are kinda pointless. That said, revolvers are awesome, allowing one to shoot cartridges much too large to conveniently feed through a pistol grip. You sacrifice capacity and reload speed for the ability to shoot monster rounds.

      With an auto cartridge revolver you sacrifice capacity and reload speed for nothing. Of course if you just love revolvers buy whatever you want.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        If I had the disposable cash to burn, I’d consider a stainless 9mm revolver, simply because it’s the most plentiful ammo out there, and likely easiest to source in times of ‘difficulty’…

        1. avatar Rad Man says:

          Smith makes a JM signature .45 but I could never bring myself to buy one when my Glock 30S holds eleven rounds.

    8. avatar TruthTellers says:

      Good points, but I’ll remind you that any 10mm Auto revolver can have the chambers reamed out to use 10mm Magnum, which is as powerful, in some cases more powerful, than .41 Magnum. Biggest benefit is it’s capable of shooting 10mm Auto and .40 S&W with moon clips.

      Biggest downside is all the bullets are meant for .40 S&W velocities and it’s still uses taper crimp, not the more typical revolver roll crimp.

  3. avatar M10 says:

    Didn’t they make the original in a 5 inch version instead of 4? I hate the idea of paying $800+ for a revolver with a Hillary hole. Come on S&W, get with the program.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Removing the internal lock is a five minute job and does not leave a hole in the frame. Check youtube.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Not a Smith guy so forgive my ignorance, but I thought the lock was accessed through a hole in the frame. Remove the lock and the hole is still there, isn’t it?

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          Not exactly.

          There is the hole, there is the ‘arrow’, there is the lock cam (the thing that fills the hole) and then there are the internal naughty bits that actually bind up the mechanism (sometimes intentionally, sometimes by accident).

          One can disassemble the revolver, remove the internal naughty bits while leaving the visible black cam in the hole to plug it, and leave it at that. One can also remove the naughty bits AND the cam plug, and either leave the hole open for small nesting birds to occupy, or purchase an aftermarket plug that fills in the hole. But you still have the little arrow, a giant gap on the left side of the hammer that will also allow small birds to nest in the gun’s innards, and the nagging knowledge in the back of your mind that you have paid good money for a gun with a feature that you didn’t want in the first place, and have then removed expensive-but-useless and redundant and unnecessary and redundant, not to mention useless, parts from it to make it reliable because a Liberal insisted on it 24 years ago and S&W refuses to stop installing it because they know better than you.

          Piece of cake.

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Maybe Dyspeptic Gunsmith could fill the hole and arrow with some weld and sand it down to look like it was never there?

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          Yeah, he could, and lighten your wallet by “X” per hour. The number of hours required might dissuade you from contracting his services in the first place…

        4. avatar John in AK says:

          Yes, a quality gunsmith good with a torch could easily fill in the hole and the slot, and polish away both the arrow and the weld–while setting himself up for a life-altering lawsuit at the same time.
          Reputable smiths do NOT remove ‘safety devices’ if they value their future and career. The standard for a smith is to reinstall and repair any removed or defeated safety devices on guns that come into the shop as a matter of course, and to ensure that all safety devices are working properly before letting the gun out of the shop. To do anything else is to risk everything on the gamble that the gun will never be misused or involved in a serious incident wherein some slimy tort lawyer (but I am being redundant again) will be able to elicit testimony that a ‘safety’ had been altered or removed or left malfunctioning, something at odds with best practices and industry norms, no matter that the owner WANTED it that way.
          Yes, I KNOW that the Hillary Hole is NOT a ‘safety’ in the usual sense; I wouldn’t try to convince a judge, or an ignorant jury, of that fact.
          You can, of course, do whatever you want to your own gun, because YOU run the risk.

        5. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Honestly if it is really something someone just can’t live with learn how to TIG weld and get some stainless welding rod and go to town. File the weld off flush, buff and polish. Just like that no more key lock. Don’t ever get rid of it and don’t expect S&W to honor their lifetime warranty for the original purchaser. Personally only a select 1 or 2 of S&W’s revolvers have the issue of the lock engaging due to recoil. I know 44 magnum scandium frame will do it a d I think a snub nose 357 scandium will do it with heavy loads. Regardless of looks and politics the internal lock doesn’t bother me. I don’t use it and just act like it isn’t there. I will say it’s a shame they can offer their semiautomatics with and without internal locks but they can’t do the same with their revolvers. None of my M&P’s have internal locks or external safeties.

        6. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Yep. Best just to stick with Ruger.

      2. avatar Erotic Vulture says:

        I curse the sorry bastard that coined “Hilary hole”. Don’t get me wrong, I hate that stupid feature that I don’t want. But making me think of that wretched creature every time I’m looking at an otherwise beautiful revolver really ruins it for me.

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          You SHOULD be reminded, every time that you look at such a gun, that its manufacturer is laughing at you, gleefully telling you that you are a sucker who will buy anything that they make, gladly, even though it has a feature you find despicable, a feature that Hillary Rodham Clinton thought was a grand idea to force upon you.

          Would you feel better if we called the ‘Nancy Pelosi Hole,’ or the ‘Alexandra Occasional-Cotex Hole’?

        2. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

          Thinking of HRC has killed the mood for generations of men. Guns or women. She has that affect..

  4. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    Antique? There is nothing new under the sun. Autos, including most of the Tubberware pistols, are based on technology approaching 100 years old. Of course, there are exceptions. A well rounded battery of handguns will include revolvers and autos.

    1. avatar GH says:

      So in your mind, an even OLDER technology is better than an auto, because the tech behind the auto is also old?
      Unless you’re Jerry Miculek, an auto is better in almost every situation where a handgun is needed.
      Stop being a fudd, and learn to embrace better technology.

      1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        Since when does having both autos and revolvers make a person a Fudd? He even said a good collection of handguns would include both? That may mean he has an open mind, or sees benefit in both, or just plain likes guns, but it doesn’t make him a Fudd.

        1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          Thanks Iraqvet2003. If you knew me calling me a Fudd would be the most stupid thing you ever said. Many, many years ago when I went through the academy my classmates called me “Anti-Government Man.” True story. It started when I started calling a classmate “Fed Man.” He worked for the U.S. Marshals Service. Ironically, I became dual sworn as a Deputy U.S. Marshal.

        2. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          I made the mistake of calling someone a Fudd because I took something they said wrong. In this case you were a clear proponent of both revolvers and autos. Couldn’t figure out how that made you a Fudd. Seems to me you like both types of firearms. In my opinion if someone said we should only be able to own revolvers, now that would make them a Fudd. I also like both revolvers and autos. They both have their place in my opinion. We also need as many active and previous law enforcement on the side of freedom as we can get. So I for one thank you.

      2. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        GH, you misunderstand. I have plenty of new technology. (It’s not really new, but you seem to think it is.) The newest is a P7M8, but even that dates back to the ’70s. And I have my fair share plastic, too. My point is that revolvers are not out dated. I spend a lot of time in the woods. Year round. Wild hogs are common. I feel better having one of my 629s on my hip. Diamondbacks and water moccasins aren’t hard to find either. The biggest rattlesnake I killed was 7’7″ long. Her head was as big as the palm of my hand. I don’t know of an auto that will cycle shot loads. And besides, even if one would; you ever handled a .44 magnum auto? Way bigger and heavier than an N frame. On the lighter side, during deer season I don’t even notice my stainless J frame kit gun in my hunt pack. Not so with my .22 LR autos. Now if spend all your time standing on concrete (my sympathies) I suppose you can muddle through life owning nothing but a good medium bore auto. Although, a revolver will serve you well there also.

        1. avatar GH says:

          Like I said before, an auto is better in *almost* every situation.
          Revolvers still have their place. Looking cool is one of those places.

          When I go innawoods, I take a rifle and my 10mm P220. Is the P220 heavier than a scandium framed .44 mag S&W? Absolutely. Unlike a magnum wheelgun, I can crank all 8+1 out incredibly quickly and accurately, and not have minor nerve damage in my hands.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          GH,

          … and not have minor nerve damage in my hands.

          (snicker)

      3. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        GH, go back to the books. DA revolvers and semi-auto pistols were both developed around the same time. Pre 1900. Wait, just so you know, books are those things made out of paper. They have what they call a cover. In between there are pages. With words printed on them. They’re, you know, antiquated.

        1. avatar Specialist38 says:

          Made me chuckle.

        2. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          To add to what you said, my bet would be most people’s phones and computers are antiquated. My phone is the Samsung Galaxy Note 8 and has already been replaced by the better S10/S10+ and when the new Note X is released my Note 8 can’t hold a candle to it. Even new technology is replaced rather quickly these days. None of that means my phone doesn’t still work as good as it did the day it was released. The same holds true for guns. They still work as intended. Actually I would say auto pistols have improved over the years. They have gotten smaller, lighter, tighter, and more reliable. While revolvers have done the same their reliability was always there.

        3. avatar GH says:

          The revolver predates the semi-auto pistol by about 60 years.
          You’re correct in that they’re both pre 1900 in origination. Although the Browning action isn’t.

        4. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          I said DA revolver and semi auto. SA revolvers are a few decades older. They’re not outdated either. Though, mostly relegated to hunting, I have a couple of Colt SAAs in .45 Colt and .44 Spl that I bet you don’t want to center punched with.

        5. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          The way people are now days you never know. Someone might say try just to prove you wrong. Kind of reminds me of the two St Louis Police officers that thought it would be a good idea to play Russian roulette with a revolver. Female officer empties the revolver putting one round back in spinning the cylinder while closing which makes me cringe. She then points it at the male officer and pulls the trigger with a click. The male officer can’t be out done for stupidity and takes the revolver opens the cylinder gives it a spin while closing. Points it at the female officers chest pulls the trigger and just like that point blank range she’s DRT. People think I’m crazy when I ask what the hell is the world coming to like the crap that happens now days is normal and not completely crazy.

        6. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          And you’re right. The basic Browning design is post 1900. By a whopping three years. John Browning did keep improving the design until that last ultra modern design in 1935. You know, the one that made revolvers obsolete. Or, was that Gaston Glock and the design he borrowed back in the ’80s? Maybe it was HK with that new fangled polymer VP70 in the 70s. Damn! There’s just so much of that super modern stuff out there a dinosaur can’t keep up with it.

  5. avatar Michael says:

    Lose the hillary hole and I might be interested. ‘Til then, I’ll just have to muddle through with my GP100’s and Red Hawks. -30-

    1. avatar bill says:

      Same with me.

  6. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Unfortunately they come complete with Hillary hole,when S&W removes the unnecessary hole,I may once again be interested in their products.

  7. avatar DrewN says:

    And this is better than .41 Magnum how exactly? I’m not even sure it’s particularly superior to hot .357. And if you’re worried about ammo availability with the .41 get a .44 mag which is on more shelves than 10mm and comes in a bazillion loadings.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      DrewN,

      I came here to post pretty much the exact same thoughts. If we are talking about revolvers, I’ll take .44 Magnum over 10mm EVERY time.

      And if someone is sensitive to recoil and figures that 10mm recoil would be acceptable when .44 Magnum recoil is not, I will direct that person to “light” .44 Magnum loads whose recoil should be pretty much identical to stout 10mm loads.

      I cannot say enough good things about revolvers chambered in .44 Magnum. You can shoot:

      — light .44 Special loads
      — (200 grain bullet, muzzle velocity 900 feet-per-second)

      — light .44 Magnum loads
      — (240 grain bullet, muzzle velocity 1,100 feet-per-second)

      — medium .44 Magnum loads
      — (240 grain bullet, muzzle velocity 1,250 feet-per-second)

      — stout .44 Magnum loads
      — (180 grain bullets with muzzle velocities of 1,600 feet-per-second)
      — (240 grain bullets with muzzle velocities of 1,400 feet-per-second)
      — (300 grain bullets with muzzle velocities of 1,250 feet-per second)

      This is the beauty of .44 Magnum revolvers — you can scale up or down depending on your sensitivity to recoil and your application.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Fun fact comparing stout loads in 10mm Auto versus .44 Magnum:

        10mm Auto
        694 foot-pounds energy (200 gr. bullet, muzzle velocity 1,250 fps)
        2,082 foot-pounds energy dump from THREE bullets.

        .44 Magnum
        1,044 foot-pounds energy (240 gr. bullet, muzzle velocity 1,400 fps)
        2,088 foot-pounds energy dump from TWO bullets.

        A full cylinder (6 cartridges) of stout .44 Magnum has a total muzzle energy of 6,264 foot-pounds. That is equivalent to 9 cartridges of stout 10mm Auto.

        Since the primary carry scenario for 10mm Auto versus .44 Magnum is self-defense against BIG animals, I do not see any advantage of popular 10mm Auto pistol platforms over .44 Magnum revolvers unless you plan to miss a lot.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          Well, that’s just it – A *BIG* animal expressing interest in you will likely cause a *massive* adrenaline dump that will throw your fine motor skills in the trash.

          That can cause one to miss a lot. It sure would me.

          I have owned and *loved* a big-bore magnum, the Super Redhawk. If I were to spend much time in the brush, I think I’d want a 10mm auto and an extra mag or 2…

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Full power .357 is actually slightly more powerful than 10mm if you’re comparing the hottest (non +p) loads available. 10mm runs at a slightly higher pressure but the .357 has a little more case capacity. Of course most loads for both rounds are watered down.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Yeah, the only two advantages that I see for 10mm Auto over .357 Magnum are:
        (1) 10mm Auto bullets are slightly larger diameter and therefore make slightly larger diameter wound channels (in theory anyway).
        (2) 10mm Auto enables faster follow-up shots for most people (in theory assuming a quality semi-auto pistol shooting 10mm Auto versus a quality revolver shooting .357 Magnum).

        As others noted, if your desire is a larger diameter hole, then just step up to .44 Magnum. And the other beauty of stepping up to .44 Magnum: you probably don’t need fast follow-up shots. In fact you probably don’t need follow-up shots at all! (A single .44 Magnum bullet should solve most problems with decent shot placement and the right bullet/load for the job.)

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          I’ve considered your first consideration before and on human targets I think the difference is a wash. The 10 has a bigger diameter but the .357 is moving faster so in theory those two should somewhat cancel each other out when it comes to penetration. All else being equal of course, which it never is. However a 200gr 10mm bullet has an almost identical sectional density to a 158gr .357 slug, so for 4 legged critters the .357 loaded with 180 or 200gr pills should provide much deeper penetration than anything available in 10mm.

          It would seem to me that the only difference in the speed of a revolver vs semi-auto would be the long DA trigger reset on the revolver which is dwarfed by the time it takes to realign the sights from the recoil. Unless you’re in a bad breath distance defensive use, in which case I can’t imaging it being a significant factor.

    3. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Indeed. S&W made/makes a revolver in .41 Mag – the 657. Get one of those, stoke up the .41’s case, and go to town.

      I wish S&W would bring back the 657 for a couple of years.

      1. avatar DrewN says:

        At least there’s a 57 in 4 and 6. Alot of folks hate the “new classics”, but I think there as nice as anything currently on the market in the price range.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Dyseptic Gunsmith,

        What is the advantage of .41 Magnum over .44 Magnum?

        As far as I am concerned, I would take .44 Magnum over .41 Magnum all day, every day. As I mentioned in my other post, the available loadings are so versatile (when you include .44 Special for .44 Magnum) that I just cannot see any reason to go with .41 Magnum.

        About the only advantage I could see for .41 Magnum is if you wanted to carry the maximum possible round count. If you had a load/weight limit of 40 pounds for ammunition, that would enable something like 10% more cartridges for a given amount of weight without really giving up any significant “stopping power”. But who cares about whether or not they have 700 cartridges versus 770 cartridges???

        1. avatar Specialist38 says:

          I kept the model 57 since it was different and fun. The only “advantage” I saw over the 44 mag was in loads.

          The 41 magnum Silvertip was pretty good with a 170 grain at around 1200fps out of 4 inch. The 44 mag Silvertip and Remington 180 grain hp were a little tougher to tame.

          This was for 2 legged varmints. For 4 legged, I like a 240 grain SWC in 44 mag at around 1350.

        2. avatar DrewN says:

          Marginally less recoil than .44. Honestly, .44 is really .429, so you’re only looking at .019 difference. I’m a smaller guy, .41 just hits the sweet spot for me. But .44 has clearly won the war and every store will have at least one kind on the shelf. .41 not so much. And I’m not sure anyone loads .41 Special. It’s still a bad ass round for the guy who wants something different.

      3. avatar John in AK says:

        Perhaps if S&W renamed the .41 Remington Magnum cartridge to something more ‘avant garde,’ it could be given a new lease on life.
        I suggest calling this new/old ‘miracle’ cartridge the ‘10.4x33Rmm Creedmoor.’ It’s even got a RIM at the back, and therefore works properly in REVOLVERS without the need for fiddly bits such as clips to make it function.
        I’m sure, though, that there is a HUGE market for revolvers that take auto-pistol cartridges! I seem to recall that S&W couldn’t produce nearly enough 9mm Parabellum revolvers to fill the demand a few years back. EVERYONE wanted one; It was SO popular, people were lining up in front of gun stores demanding to be allowed to purchase one at any price.
        /sarc.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          I can actually see the appeal of a 9mm revolver since it fills the gap between .38 special and .357 power (although there’s no shortage of light .357 loads) and the ammo is cheaper than anything not named .22LR. Throw in half moon clips and you’ve got a better quick reload / carry option over revolver rounds since speed loaders are too bulky and speed strips are too slow. Personally I like my fire breathing .357 though.

  8. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Interesting to see the smug shitass comments against revolvers. Seems like like some think that liking or God-forbid, carrying a revolver makes someone a Fudd. They have become the antifa of the gun world.

    The “use an auto for everything or you’re an idiot” crowd knows little about ballistics and have forgotten that guns are fun …. if they ever knew.

    But I do realize that revolvers negate the ability to do mag dumps at the range to impress the other mall ninjas.

    1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

      What is that saying……? Something about variety being the spice of life…. Or something like that. Different makes, models, varieties, calibers, that’s what makes a free market great, options. Kind of like women in that way. Without variety we’d all be married to the exact same woman and own the exact same guns. Where’s the fun in that?

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        And she’d be tired…..😉

        I certainly agree and dont feel unarmed with a revolver….even a single action.

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Eh, I try to give the semi-auto-uber-alles guys a free pass. Most of them have never handled a quality revolver, they’ve never seen someone reload with a speed loader, they don’t know how to handle a revolver, nor how accurate a well balanced revolver can be, especially with a set of grips customized for a particular shooter. They have no idea what a full-house .357, .44 Mag or .41 Mag can do. Many of them think the .45 Colt is a long-obsolete round that can’t get out of its own way.

      This is why I usually have at least one wheelgun in my range bag when I go to the range. I can listen to the semi-auto (or Glock) uber-alles pontification, then I pull out a quality revolver and ask “Would you like to try it?”

      Then I stand back and watch the seed take root; especially when these whelps feel the 2.75 lbs. single action trigger on a S&W. Then I point out that some revolvers hurl rounds downrange that make a 10mm look like a pea shooter, and I just let that sit out there…

      S&W and Ruger should be paying me a commission.

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        Several of the 20 and 30 somethings I know have now been bitten by the S&W bug.
        Decommissioned LEO model 10s and 64s hit a nerve and opened up a whole new world.
        These have also been very popular with spouses who were not in love with the auto.
        I usually carry an auto nowadays because the size has shrunk and they are light.
        But I carried a revolver for a lot of years and do about 30% of the time now.
        A model 10 with “the load” is still a useful tool for defense.
        And my model 57 is a great way to learn to deal with recoil. Shoot a few cylinders of moderate loads and then switch to Kframe. Feels like shooting a 22.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Specialist38,

      I have both semi-autos and revolvers — and I really like both of them.

      I carry a semi-auto pistol everyday as my primary self-defense handgun. I carry it because it is supremely reliable, has more than adequate combat accuracy, I can shoot it fast, and it is a better platform if I ever encounter multiple terrorists since I have 15 shots before needing to reload. (Of course the probability that I encounter one or more terrorists is statistically zero: nevertheless I would rather have and not need than need and not have.)

      And when I am hiking, camping, or hunting, I carry a big .44 Magnum revolver with stout loads in case I cross paths with an angry bear, cougar, feral hog, wild boar, buck (in rut), elk, or moose. I know I can count on accurate shots with that revolver. And I while I cannot shoot my revolver as fast as my semi-auto pistol, I know that I should not need to send a bazillion rounds down range. Perhaps more importantly, I don’t have to worry about a defective magazine and I can make multiple contact shots if necessary with that revolver.

      In other words different firearm platforms have different advantages and drawbacks depending on the threat scenario that someone expects. Apparently the smug semi-auto-uber-alles folks have not discovered that yet.

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        After Elmer Keith had done his load work with the 44 mag, he normally shot about 30 rounds through it a year.

        Funny when you shoot a lot of different guns, they seem easier to hit with.

  9. avatar Texican says:

    Another advantage to revolvers chambered in semi-auto cartridges is reloading with moon clips. As Jerry Miculek has shown us. And it’s easy to shoot 40 S&W out of the 610. That said, I’d still go with a Glock.

  10. avatar John says:

    Maybe they should think about bringing back the quality they lost in the late 80s? Probably would be better for the bottom line.

    1. avatar Johnin AK says:

      No, sadly. To revert to S&W’s former level of quality would necessitate a return to extensive hand fitting of not-so-interchangeable parts; That would mean an increase in cost, as labor is the most expensive part of building a firearm (just after product-liability insurance and attorney retainers, of course). Higher cost in today’s market would result in loss of sales, as there are fewer people today interested in heirloom-quality products as opposed to ‘consumer quality’ goods that are designed to be used and then thrown away, guns built down to a price instead of up to a standard.
      If S&W can sell as many dummy-barreled, MIM-internal’d, Hillary-Hole-Equipped replicas of former high-quality models as they can produce, why do anything differently?

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      They could try, but… I keep harping that the high-end quality of the past requires more hand-fitting, polishing and finishing than most anyone is willing to pay for today.

      The American gun-buying public has been peddled these myths that a CNC machine is the only thing necessary for a quality firearm. This is such nonsense and twaddle – We had plenty of quality firearms before “NC” machines were even invented in the 1950’s (before they became Computer Numerical Control machines). It just that at today’s labor costs, no one wants to pay for a firearm that has had an experienced human involved in the production.

    3. avatar DaveP. says:

      There’s a lovely anecdote in the Paul M. Barrett book “GLOCK: The Rise of America’s Gun”. In the chapter explaining how Glock 17’s got so popular with police departments, the author quotes a man who was an armorer for (IIRC) the Miami PD in the ’80s. Dude said that whenever Smith shipped a crate of revolvers to the department, he’d have to send back at least four or five right out of the crate for being totally inoperable. He didn’t say, but if they were shipping out that kind of failure rate there probably were at least that many that would run and then need fixing, or would run but then have other problems.
      Moral: Like the song says, “The ‘good old days’ weren’t always good…”

      1. avatar john says:

        JohnP…..1000s of sigs recalled for drop safety issue after being issued at PDs. The new days arent as good as all would like to make them out to be. Just a single example in a room full of horrid QC these days.

      2. avatar John in AK says:

        That’s a valid point about there being periods in S&W’s history where their products left something to be desired, but the corollary to that is that there have been periods in S&W’s history where their quality was rarely exceeded except by bespoke custom guns, the absolute state of the art in high-volume gunmaking.
        During the times when S&W ceased to BE ‘S&W,’ such as the ‘Bangor Punta’ era, the ‘Tompkins Plc.’ era, the ‘angry union worker’ era, and the ridiculous ‘Saf-T-Hammer’ Dark Ages, their quality suffered right along with their reputation.
        On the other hand, many of their guns built before, and in spots after, these periods are gems of quality, made with care and built to last several lifetimes. I have some that exceed a century in age that are precision-machined-and-fitted masterpieces, as tight, crisp and functional as any precision modern firearm.
        Sadly, I think that S&W is currently in another of those ‘bad times,’ now a tiny cog in a vast conglomerate machine called ‘AmericanOutdoorProductsCorporation’ that is demanding that they make ‘consumer-grade’ guns built down to a price, not up to a standard. Knowing what I know about S&W’s history and what they CAN do when they try, it’s very sad for me to see just how far they’ve fallen.
        And, of course, there’s the Pelosi Hole.

  11. avatar Hannibal says:

    10mm is good if you want about the most power you can get out of a semi-auto without going to great lengths. With that platform you can get good capacity and reload speed as well.

    But we’ve already got .357 and .44 magnums that revolvers are purpose-built to shoot. If you go with a revolver you’re compromising in both directions… less capacity than a 10mm auto, less power than a .44 magnum. Not sure I see the point, other than it being different.

    1. avatar DrewN says:

      If you already had a 10mm Auto you were loading for and didn’t want to add a caliber for some reason? I love adding calibers myself, I have a stupid number of dies in stuff I’ve never even owned. And a long throw press for really big stuff I’ve never used I don’t think. I might have a problem.

      1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        I have the same problem. It’s a good problem to have in my opinion.

  12. avatar GS650G says:

    Too much revolver hate. A quality revolver is a joy to hold, a pleasure to shoot and a gun to be proud of.

  13. avatar GH says:

    I’m mostly commenting to piss off revolver-supremacists, who are unable to accept that technology is moving on, and that revolvers are *obsolescent*. Not entirely obsolete, as they do still serve a purpose. But they’re on their way.
    Guns are fun. That’s why one of my favorites to shoot is my M1917. But it’s obsolete.

    Calm your butthurt.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      GH,

      Here are the most pressing drawbacks with the most recent designs of semi-auto pistols:
      (1) You are limited to one contact shot.
      (2) You are limited to one shot if you have weak wrists.
      (3) You are limited to zero shots if you lack the strength to initially cycle the slide.
      (4) You can never clean your pistol if you lack mechanical aptitude.

      For these reasons semi-auto pistols are NOT a viable self-defense solution for certain people and certain situations. As it turns out, revolvers ARE a dependable self-defense solution for those people. By definition that means revolvers are NOT obsolete. In some scenarios, semi-auto pistols are certainly superior. In other scenarios, revolvers are certainly superior.

      1. avatar GH says:

        I said obsolescent, not obsolete.

        (1) You are limited to one contact shot.
        Point to the revolver.
        (2) You are limited to one shot if you have weak wrists.
        If your wrists are that weak, I doubt you could handle most revolvers well enough to get off more than one shot. Still, partial point to the revolver.
        (3) You are limited to zero shots if you lack the strength to initially cycle the slide.
        My 5’1″ Fiancee can rack the slide on everything but my 10mm. And if you can’t do that, there are things like the .380 EZ
        (4) You can never clean your pistol if you lack mechanical aptitude.
        Lock slide open, run boresnake through.
        Besides, unless its a 1911 or something similar, most modern autos are very easy to field strip.

        Like I said, revolvers still have their place. But they are not the best option for most uses anymore.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          GH,

          Like I said, revolvers still have their place. But they are not the best option for most uses anymore.

          I agree.

          Note about limp-wristing on semi-auto handguns: I recently took a young lady to a shooting range. She did fine with a snubnose revolver. She did fine with a full-size Glock chambered in 9mm. She limp-wristed a compact semi-auto chambered in 9mm every single shot. She is about 5 feet 6 inches tall, weighs about 125 pounds, and appears to be in good physical condition. Nevertheless, she could not get past limp-wrist with that compact semi-auto even after I instructed her to grip hard with proper technique. So, that really is a thing for some people.

          As for cycling the action on a semi-auto, I have seen women and an older gentleman with a hand injury be unable to pull the slide back. I was able to show two women a better technique which enabled them to finally pull the slide back. In the case of the older gentleman who had a hand injury, we could not find a technique that enabled him to pull the slide back. And there have been other women who could not pull the slide back (either because there was no one to teach them a better method or the better method did not work). And yet in all cases, they were able to point and shoot revolvers with acceptable combat accuracy.

          There are definitely a non-trivial number of people who do not have the hand strength to operate semi-auto handguns, and yet have plenty of hand strength to operate revolvers. While that is not a surprise, the number of people who fall into that category might surprise you. I can easily imagine that encompasses over 25% of the population. Why such a high number? Aside from the many young/healthy women who cannot operate semi-auto pistols, there are many people with disabilities — especially senior citizens with diminished strength and/or arthritis — who cannot operate semi-auto pistols.

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      I agree. If you have the strength to pull back the slide of an auto pistol you have the superior fighting tool. It holds more ammo and it is lightening fast to reload as opposed to the archaic and suicidal procure of trying to reload a low capacity revolver under stress. Revolvers jam up too and are notorious in the lighter weight models for pulling bullets which jams up the rotation of the cylinder. An Auto pistol jam can be cleared in a nano second but not in a revolver. Dirt and powder contamination can do the same thing to a revolver and a high primer can also jam up a revolver. A remember that back in the Pleistocene age when most cops carried revolvers many were found dead as a mackerel with their service revolver empty in their cold dead hands. Few people run out of ammo when they have 17 or more shots in the mag of an auto pistol.

  14. avatar squiggy81 says:

    Love revolvers, but don’t see the point. Especially in an N frame. IMHO the point of a revolver is to be able utilize a larger case, as another poster pointed out. They’re fun, but why not just get a Glock 20 or other semi auto? If a revolver is a must, just get a .357 or .44 mag. and be able to deliver some additional punch. It’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

    1. avatar Southerner says:

      Spoil all the fun, will you!

  15. avatar MAGA says:

    It also costs about 3 times as much as my Taurus 66 that has thousands of rounds through it.

    However, if you’re into auto-caliber revolvers, a 10mm revolver will also chamber and fire 40 smith and wesson with moon clips.

  16. avatar Southerner says:

    Ok RemFedChester, how about introducing a 10mm Auto Rim, 40 S&W Auto Rim and 9mm Auto Rim. Then we would all have a choice in new compact short cylinder revolvers properly faced off to use thick rimmed cartridges or moon clipped auto pistol cartridges. These would be efficient smokeless powder capacity to bore size rounds. And the thick rim would prevent firing in old low pressure revolvers like the 9mm Federal Rimmed cartridge debacle of 1989!

  17. avatar Sean G./The Rookie says:

    Eh, probably not my thing. Nothing against a 10mm revolver, but I’d just as soon have a .357 or .44. Of course, if I owned any 10mm autos or carbines, it would be great to have a revolver that fires the same ammo.

  18. avatar DaveP. says:

    That moment when Smith management realizes it no longer has a single production gun chambered for 10mm SMITH and WESSON.
    Ill agree with the guy up the thread who said he’d hold out for a 10mm M&P, though.

  19. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    I love the high quality MIM cast parts that require no polishing or machining. I love the two piece barrels that are not pinned or the cylinder recessed. I love the fact that their are no extractor alignment pins anymore. I love the fact that they have black rubbery grips and not the old ugly highly figured wood stocks. I love the EDM torch burned in rifling. I think it “seasons” the barrel steel. I am intrigued by the torq tool they insert into the muzzle to crank in the barrel against the receiver frame, it does wonders for accuracy at the muzzle end of the barrel. I wrote Smith a letter telling them I would take two if they paid me to take them, as they would make good book ends or boat anchors. Not bashing revolvers because their auto pistols make good door stops too.

    1. avatar John in AK says:

      Your bitter sarcasm, Sir, mirrors mine. Nicely done.

    2. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

      Sounds like someone that buys $5,000 1911’s and has to have that hand fitting in everything else. I currently own nothing but S&W handguns and don’t have a problem with any of them. I’ve owned many of the beloved by so many Glocks, while a very functional pistol they have all the charm and appeal of a boat anchor. I’ve owned FN that so many think is the holy grail of combat weapons. Springfield 1911’s that are ok but I made mine better, don’t get me started on the XD’s. Kahr is ok but not without their problems but good customer support. Sig Sauer I have actually had good luck with but others haven’t. Ruger can also have problems in every line they have except for the 22’s, I’ve never had a problem with any Ruger 22 I’ve owned. Ruger is also the industry leader in cast and mim parts. Which is probably why their revolvers are built like tanks instead of refined like others. Am I saying that the manufacturers I’ve named and owned can’t make a good product? Nope that’s not what I’m saying. I am saying that they can’t put together a product with the quality of of an Ed Brown, Wilson Combat, or Nighthawk Custom just to name a few. Most people are not going go buy a bunch of those high end pistols either. Maybe a revolver from Standard manufacturing would be a better option. Comparable in price to the custom 1911 manufacturers I listed.

  20. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    Speaking of the 10 mm cartridge. A week or so ago on cable TV the comical and portly Michael Bane on the “Shooting Gallery” ventured out into the wilds of the lower back 40 cow pasture and had a bunch of condemned hogs driven past him. This time the “Shooting Gallery” was aptly named. The hapless porkers were subjected to his 10 mm revolver and only one fell down to one shot. The rest were hit several times and kept on running before finally realizing they were seriously hurt. Most of the hogs had time enough to write their last requests before finally expiring proving how anemic pistol and revolver cartridges really are, even the so called “big bore” blasters which in the case of the 10 mm failed miserably.

    1. avatar Bob the Gun guy says:

      You must have never seen Razor Dobbs. Power is no substitute for poor shot placement and bullet selection. I have killed deer with 1 shot from a .223 ( Which is Legal in my state) walked 15-20yrds fell dead and seen a deer shot with a 30-06 or .300 win mag run 200 yards.

    2. avatar Bob the Gun guy says:

      You do realize that when the .357mag came out that every Large game animal in North America was hunted and killed with it. Brown bear, Black bear, Elk, Moose, White tail deer, mule deer, even a polar bear.

  21. avatar raptor jesus says:

    So they’re copying Ruger, who released a 10mm a while ago, WITHOUT a stupid internal lock.

    1. avatar Bob the Gun guy says:

      Smith and Wesson did it before Ruger! The 610 came out the first time in the early 90s. Ruger copied S&W.

  22. avatar Bob the Gun guy says:

    I feel like most of the Tacticool guys on here are missing the point. Your average 10mm hunting load is very close to average .357mag. Hot 10mm loades are knocking at the door of the law enforcment load for the 41mag. The 41mag is flatter shooting that .44mag they are some what comparable for the most part until you get on the extreme end of the .44mag power scale. Revolvers vs. Simi autos well….. I grew up shooting revolvers im not that old at 35. I carry a simi auto because I have too at this point. I would not feel under gunned with either. I have carried a S&W 642 in .38spl. for many years. NEVER did Feel under gunned. Now I carry a G 34. Why because I want to. The best thing about a revolver is if you pull the trigger and the round doesn’t go off just pull the trigger again and it will fire. That is All!

  23. avatar T Evans says:

    Just finished reading this entire thread. What a bunch of motor mouths. Specialist38 your right on the money. Here’s the thing, I will buy this 10mm 610 from Smith & Wesson, as a matter of fact, I might buy 2. It’s beautiful, it’s gonna be fun to shoot. Ill load the moon clips with different ammo and just enjoy owning and shooting this beauty. Is it my only gun? Hell no. Will I carry it concealed, hell no. Do I care about semi auto vs revolver and all the fps specs and opinions, and debate? hell no. I’m buying this for fun. Pouring sand in a revolver and it will jam comment? stupid. Hillary hole topic, whatever… it is what it is. The bottom line, this gun is a piece of art made by one of the best gun manufacturers in America and on the planet. I will back them up and own this. It will defend me and my family just fine. After all, in a true life and death situation, all those specs and bullet weights and semi vs revolver don’t matter. It’s the shooters nerves of steel and steady hand that will take down a wild perp.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email