S&W Model 58

[JonB]

And here, I thought my gun buying days were over. I mentioned a few days ago,
in the "what are ya doin today" thread, about my friend offering to sell me a minty, early 58.
Well, my friend decided he wanted to do the deal yesterday. After a quick inspection, I bought it.
I sure did shell out more Bengies for this, than any other gun I ever bought. It is difficult for
me to say no to a 41 mag, especially one that is somewhat collectable.

After closer examination, I am almost wondering if this gun is original or maybe reworked/reblued?
It just seems the bluing is too rich and polished shiney?
Also has a different number on the crane...5 digit...maybe it's not a serial number?
The 6 digit SN's on the Frame and the Cylinder do match each other.
but the wood grips have a non-matching 6 digit SN.
According to S&W forum, the first year of the 58 was 1964 and those serials
numbers are S256500-S258499, so I figure this one was made in early 1965,
well the frame and cylinder anyway?

My friend did have the action polished by a gunsmith (Palmer in St. Boni. He had done S&W
work for me also, always great work, he has since passed away.)
Anyway, the action is sweeter than sweet.
Also, during the action work, my buddy had Palmer install a Bill Jordan wide target
trigger and Hammer. While they are nice, I'd prefer this to be original, but luckily
I did get the original parts.

I hope the weather gets a bit warmer soon, and I'll post a range report.

 

[Ben]

I always said that the Model 58 would have made a great police revolver loaded to 900 fps with a SWC bullet. I think before it could get a " toe - hold ", the semi auto wave came onto the scene.

Enjoy your new revolver.
I'm looking forward to your range report.

Ben

 

[david s]

Model 58's a bit of a grail gun for me. I used to have a 6-inch model 57 serial number S319255 and currently have one of the model 657 mountain guns. The model 58 is basically an "N" frame model 10. I would agree about the 41/210/900 SWC being a pretty good load. But most cops don't want the N frame weight. Maybe if the police officer was a gun type person but for most lighter is better. This gun weight factor is also prevalent in the concealed carry market. JonB you can officially mark me down as jealous.

 

[Bret4207]

Nice! I like the clean lines. For a rural road Trooper type LEO that would be just fine with me. The idea of a "mid range magnum" load was pushed by St Elmer IIRC. Yeah, maybe full bore magnums are a little overkill in the apt. complex, but out in the sticks where I worked they would have been just fine. The difference in weight between a belt with an N frame and 18 rounds (cylinder and spares) vs a Glock or whatever with 40 some rounds has got be about a wash. IIRC we carried an entire box of 50 between the gun and spare mags. Can't be a whole world of difference.

 

[Wiresguy]

That's a nice Model 58, Jon, I'm sure you will enjoy it. The ones I owned were accurate, fun shooters.

Palmer did some work on a Heavy Duty for me. Going into his shop reminded me of being in a cigarette test facility He was quite the character.

 

[CZ93X62]

Seeing SFPD in the current era, it is hard to imagine that city underwriting the development and purchase of the Model 58 revolvers in the mid-1960s. But the city fathers were addressing a perceived need for more decisive stopping power far sooner than did much of American law enforcement. After all, if a lot of your targets are running away, the need to decisively stop them is far less critical than in the modern scheme of things, in which the only time lethal force is justified is in a pending or in-progress exchange of finality. The 41 Magnum "police load" (210 LSWC/HP @ 900-950 FPS) checks all of my boxes for a good round to ride the river with--controllable in rapid fire, 0.4" minimum diameter, and sufficient mass to rivet a goblin's attention (and Brain Housing Group). I would add the 44 Special/Skeeter's Load and the 45 Colt to that list.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

The "S" prefix serial number puts it between 1964 and 1969. I would agree that the serial number makes it far more likely to be closer to 1965 than 1969, so your estimation of circa 1965 is right where I would expect it to be.
The number on the crane (yoke) is not a serial number.
The bluing on the major parts looks plausible to be original bluing. I can't say for certain, but if it was re-blued, it was done very well.
The wear that is visible in the photos looks to be honest wear in all the right places and amounts. That gun was either: A. well cared for.
OR
B. expertly refinished many years ago and used sparingly after that.
Either way - you have a great gun.

I have an attraction to fixed sights on DA revolvers. On a "working gun" that is always fed the same load, fixed sights just make sense to me. They never get "out of adjustment", they don't hang on gear or clothing, and they never get loose.

You can put me in the "envious" category - That is a fine revolver.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

........The model 58 is basically an "N" frame model 10. .....

That is an excellent, concise, description.
Carbon steel frame, Square butt, Fixed sights, No ejector rod shroud.

 

[hporter]

That is one beautiful revolver. I would be proud it have one like it in my safe.

 

[Missionary]

Very handsome revolver!
I am another 41 mag fan. Never have owed a 58, but have several 57's.
To bad SW never made a 5 shot!

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I always said that the Model 58 would have made a great police revolver loaded to 900 fps with a SWC bullet. I think before it could get a " toe - hold ", the semi auto wave came onto the scene..............

Ben

To hi-jack this thread in a good way, I wish to expand on this sentiment.
YES - The Model 58 combined with the correct load, would likely have made an excellent LE revolver.
I don't think any DA revolvers would have held off the semi-auto pistol tidal wave that occurred in the 1980's and early 1990's but the Model 58 never achieved widespread LE acceptance prior to that transition to pistols.
The original model 58 was produced from 1964 to 1977. That is a decent run, but the total numbers made during that 13 year span were only a little over 20,000 units. It just never caught on in LE circles, despite all of the great attributes. If you add the adjustable sight model 57, the numbers get better but the fixed sight model 58 was clearly the gun marketed towards LE.

In my opinion there were 3 factors that prevented the model 58 from getting that "Toe Hold" that Ben mentions.
1. The cartridge name included the word, "Magnum". This may seem odd to some people, but the designation of magnum was seen in some settings as a negative. I will not go into the politics of that insanity, but I will say that a slightly different cartridge name may have been beneficial.
2. It was built on the N-frame. S&W had few other choices available to them. Even if S&W had attempted to develop a cartridge specific frame for the 41 magnum, it wouldn't have been significantly smaller than the N-frame and likely would have been a costly endeavor.

3. The existence of the full power magnum loadings detracted attention from the far better "police load". The roughly 210 grain, 900-1000 fps LSWC loading was ideal. Had the milder load been the only loading available, perhaps opinions would have been shaped differently. We will never know but we can wonder.

It is always a very competitive and tough market.

 

[CZ93X62]

Looking a little further ahead in history......S&W brought out their L-frame series in 1980, which was designed around the 357 Magnum caliber. This series began with 4 models, two of which had fixed sights and 4" barrels. Perfect LE 357 Magnum service arm that could take on any sane factory load without a bobble. Market reality.......fixed-sight guns aren't as popular as the gussied-up variants with adjustable sights. The Models 581 and 681 went out of print years ago, as have the K-framed Models 13 and 65. It didn't matter that those fixed-sight models laid 158 grain Magnum loads right where the sights looked at 25 yards. You can't expect a manufacturer to continue building items that don't sell well. P&P's last sentence in his post just above mine is quite correct.

 

[Bret4207]

My first gun on the job was a 681. My first one wasn't bad, but the one I got back after the recoil shield recall was a tack driver! Shot to point of aim waaaaaay out there. Nice DA trigger and superb SA. I should have bought that one when we went to the Glocks but I just never liked stainless that much. Nothing new there really, my list of "shoulda boughts" is extremely looooooooooooooooooooong!!!!!!!

 

[Petrol & Powder]

When American LE went from DA revolvers to pistols, a large portion of the market for DA revolvers with fixed sights went away.

Of the 4 original L-frames (581, 681, 586 & 686) the only one left in production is the 686. The fixed sight models (581, 681) were the first to go. It is a shame because they are both great guns. However, in the real world, market forces trump emotion.
The L-frames were (and still are) fantastic guns.

 

[JustJim]

In an incident I'm blaming on JonB, I bought a Model 58 today. Or maybe his post last spring just pushed me over the edge.

Seller had it as a "Model 58-3" and priced at 250% of what I gave for my last one (in 1990, IIRC). Talked him down a bit but still more than I wanted to pay, gave it some thought, went ahead. Turned out to be an S-numbered gun (from 1969 I think) rather than a -3. Even came dressed in Pach Grippers, with a lousy holster and 6 rounds of someone else's handloads . . . .

I think this is 58 #5 for me (or maybe #8, if you count conversions). If it shoots OK this one will probably stick around for a while. First though I need to scrounge some supplies, speed strips, and a decent holster.

 

[Bret4207]

Speed strips! I thought I was the only one left that still had a soft spot for them. I do need to hunt up a couple more now that I think on it.

 

[hporter]

What brand of speed strips do you gentlemen recommend?

My last ones (I can't remember what brand they were) gave up the ghost and crumbled to pieces.

 

[david s]

My "TUFF" brand speed strips crumbled away into rubber sand. Bianchi still makes them but only in 38-357 and 44 -45 Colt. Model 58's tend to be pretty rare in my parts. A model 58 is still on the wish list.

 

[Rushcreek]

It probably already happened, but I always anticipated the Amarillo PD selling off their m58 revolvers to fund more autos. I had one for a while, but older Bubba talked me out of it and it ended up in Indiana. Doh!

 

[JustJim]

There are at least 4 current makers of speed strips. I've had the most cracking/crumbling problems with Tuff brand. They also offer the widest selection. For the 41, I'll probably have to go with them.

Bianchi and Safariland are still around, with limited offerings. They hold up fairly well, and have been unchanged since Bianchi dropped the metal strip. Between the two you can get 45 acp, 44 mag, 38/357/9mm, and 380 IIRC.

Desantis and Galco both offer them, at least for the 357. I'm not sure if these are re-branded Bianchi or Safariland, or if they have another source. I've got two variations of the Galco (urethane and one that is almost like rubber); don't know if different production runs/contractors/ or what.

In general, speedloaders for the 41 are hard to find. Speed strips offer an easily-available option to HKS, which seems to be the last 41 speeder standing. Once in a while you run across others, but darn rare. I can understand this, what with market demand and all, but it does get frustrating at times.

OTOH, I'm grateful the manufacturers have held on to the options they do make. Given the market dominance of autos, there can't be a great demand for speedloaders in general. How many people wear them out these days, or drop them in competition?

Most folks seem to get one and that's it, forever. Without checking, I know I've got at least a dozen for the 357 K frame, probably a half dozen each for N frame 357/N frame 44/K frame 22 (no guns to use them in currently, but I probably will again someday).