What Do You Think of Scandium 44 mag?

Would buy one if it holds up to a diet of .44 spl and throw some mags in it once in a while if I wanted to carry it around.

Sounds great to me

>>32302332
Neat pistol. The cylinder is not very lubricious, so really hot stuff might stick cases in the weapon. You definitely want some recoil absorbing grips for it.

Coming from a different industry but why the fuck would you use Scandium in a gun frame, especially a .44? Very lightweight and stiff aluminum alloy, also very brittle. Definitely gonna feel the recoil with that.

>>32307468
It's for people who want to fire magnum loads without having to deal with a magnum-weight gun. I mean, look at the posted weight on the 329 there. It's actually the same weight as a Glock 17 when unloaded and weighs less than a Glock 17 when it is loaded.

That being said, you're right about the use of Scandium being less than desirable for other reasons. It tends to greatly increase the cost of the gun, increases felt recoil, and sometimes limits the kinds of rounds you can safely use in the gun. Like on the scandium .357s from Smith, you are specifically warned to not use any loads lighter than 125 grains because they will cause damage to the gun.

It is a revolver. By definition is outdated.

If you want 44 mag, why not just buying a desert eagle instead of some outdated 19 century museum crap?

They're really nice shooting .44 specials out of.

Full power house 44 mag though is a handful, but fun.

>>32302332
I like mine i love just how light it is and its a pleasure to shoot 44spl. through it. Its not so much fun using 44mag, but with the rubber grips it's fine.

>>32307585
Sup nogunz.

The 329 costs 40% less than the Desert Eagle, can handle a much wider spectrum of ammo than the notoriously picky Desert Eagle, and only holds two fewer rounds than the Desert Eagle does. It is also small and light enough to be easily CC'd and has a much better aftermarket for those who like to customize their guns.

>>32307688
You forgot, it's also a sexy revolver and not an ugly gas blowback brick.

File: smartvac.png (180KB, 700x615px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 700x615px

I've shot one when i visited S&W. It being lightweight is great up until you shoot 44 mag out of it. its a little over half the weight of a 629. Recoil is stout but still aright. It for sure has cool factor.

>>32307585
lol, terrible bait

I like shooting black powder revolvers. The fire and smoke is great

Never shot one, but it is the only 44 that I have ever considered buying. If I could find one in 38/357 I'd buy it

>>32307688
A desert eagle is easily concealable, unless you are a manlet. Also 44 mag in a snubby(for concealment) is a much weaker round than a 10mm in a normal semi auto.

>>32302332
It's perfect on paper. Sucks to shoot, though.

>>32307866
>If I could find one in 38/357 I'd buy it

You actually have a lot of options then. There's the R8, which is a 30 oz. 8 shot .357, or the 7 shot 386, which is currently not in production but can be found fairly easily on the used market. The variants they they made in recent years include the Night Guard and the XL Hunter, both of which pretty cool in their own ways.

>>32307468
It's silly for a .44, I wouldn't want that recoil, but it's a good alternative for firearms that normally use 7075-T6 aluminum

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1936px

I like mine. I'm waiting on the x-500 from SW to get here so I can shoot it more. I only shot 24 rounds of 44mag the first time I took it out; had the wood grips on and it was cold out and I had no gloves. I wasn't flinching at all and was still hitting the steel. It's atleast as snappy as my 6.5" S&W 500 was with the Hornady 2800ftlb ammo, and this is just with the 'cowboy' 44mag HSM loads.

>>32308058
X-500 rubber grips*

The gun easily weighs less than my G20

File: Comparison.png (201KB, 1014x1048px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1014x1048px

>>32307893
>A desert eagle is easily concealable, unless you are a manlet.

The .44 Desert Eagle weighs over 5 lbs loaded and has an overall length of 11 inches.

>Also 44 mag in a snubby(for concealment) is a much weaker round than a 10mm in a normal semi auto.

The Smith and Wesson 329 generates 820 ft lbs. of energy with a 240 grain .44 Federal load when fired out of a 4 inch barrel, compared to the 480 ft lbs of energy generated by a 180 grain 10mm Federal load fired out of a 5 inch barrel.

Source is BallisticsbytheInch

>>32308058
How was the QC on yours? Any cosmetic or mechanical problems out of the box?

>>32308169
Actually....yeah, a few minor dings on it that pissed me off when I first got it. But I've had that with just about every single gun I've bought new. Then I realized it's a gun and I'm not going to bitch about it, especially my backpacking gun that's going to get more scratches on it.

No mechanical issues at all though, timing is great, no hammer push-off, yoke/crane is great, cylinder spins true when out. I'm not a trigger snob, but I do like the trigger.

I reload so I can do trailboss with light loads for fun and make it seem just like any other revolver.

>>32308247
I figured as much. I bought a revolver from them recently too, and mine also had some rough spots in its fit and finish. I sent it to S&W to see what they would say, and they actually fixed everything I asked them to at no charge.

I'm definitely going to just buy from a stocking dealer in the future though, even if it means paying more.

Looks expensive, that's what I think.

File: vulcannig.jpg (19KB, 491x509px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 491x509px

Shot one myself - I'm not recoil adverse but I find them harsh. If I were in the market for a .44 I'd go with a run of the mill model 29.

File: NCM_0029.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

My trr8 love it

>>32302332
i think they're great to carry but suck when shooting full power loads