Years ago, I started searching for the ultimate town and country handgun. I wanted a pistol that could handle wild pigs, errant coyotes, and the occasional white tail deer if the opportunity presented itself. The same gun needed to perform double duty for personal defense and be small enough to reasonably conceal under an untucked shirt. At the time, the 4″ Smith & Wesson Model 610 was high on my list of candidates, but I could just never find one available.
The good Lord provides. I finally scored a new 610 and put it through its paces.
The 10mm is a respectable cartridge in terms of power, but it’s a bit of a compromise round. More than enough for most civilian self-defense encounters, it’s a just adequate cartridge for handgun hunting.
The opposite is also true. The 10mm is plenty for any self-defense encounter against bipedal antagonists. In the hands of a competent hunter, it’s enough to take deer, black bear, and pigs at short ranges.
With fewer rounds on tap and slower reloads than the semi-autos the cartridge was originally made for, the benefits of a 10mm revolver are few. One, revolvers will cycle anything you can fit in the chamber. From the most anemic 120gr custom .40S&W plinker to the stoutest 220gr 10mm bear load, the weight and charge just don’t matter, at least when it comes to cycling the gun.
The other advantage may be more important. The revolver still fires, and cycles, with the muzzle pressed hard against an object, and it’s more likely than a semi-auto to work with hair and dirt in the action. For those concerned with defense against furry foes, that should remain a significant concern.
As the 10mm isn’t rimmed for use in revolvers, the cartridges are held in place using tried and true moon clips. Two are supplied by S&W with the Model 610.
The factory moon clips are overly loose making storage impossible and loading overly difficult, as rounds keep falling out of the clip. There was some benefit to this, as removing spent casings was easy even without a tool.
Invest in a set of quality TK moon clips. You’ll need a tool to remove the empties with TK clips, but you’ll find the tighter hold allows you to store multiple moon clips fully loaded, and they don’t move around as much while inserting the rounds into the cylinder.
Of course, since it’s a revolver using moon clips, that also means that .40S&W cartridges will load and fire just fine, making practice time easier on your wallet and wrist.
Almost the diametric opposite of the (exceptional) pre-war Smiths, the full underlug and DX sight base give the new N-Frames a tough, bulldog look, with any barrel length. With the 4″ barrel of this Model 610 (it also comes in 6.5″) that’s especially the case.
Even with that shorter barrel, the N-Frame Model 610 is no lightweight, tipping the scales at just over 2½ pounds. That said, with a quality Bianchi OWB holster and a Simply Rugged gun belt, I found carrying this revolver on several hunts no issue at all.
The finish is Smith & Wesson’s standard stainless. It’s okay. Wipe it down good and you’ll see a bit of a reflection, but it’s by no means a high polish. The hardened steel hammer and trigger shoe make nice accents to the otherwise uniform finish.
The standard grip on the Model 610 is the molded rubber style with finger grooves. These grips do a fine job a mitigating recoil for most shooters. If you’ve got size large hands, they’re likely to put the ol’ “power crease” of you index finger in a perfect position. What’s really great about them is their ability to provide a solid grip even when your hands are dirty, wet, or sweaty. No small consideration.
That said, I still don’t like them. Not S&Ws in particular, but any of the stock rubber grips any manufacturer uses. A set of quality custom grips that take into account the shape of the individual shooter’s hands will outperform any set of rubberized grips on the market.
The Model 610 includes Smith & Wesson’s basic target sights. As I said in my review of Dave Lauck’s exceptional sights, the S&W stock sights are just fine for a target revolver, but not ideal for “serious work”, as Mr. Lauck puts it.
They DX style interchangeable front sight comes from the factory with a serrated black ramp. The rear is windage and elevation adjustable and includes a white outline around the rear notch.
On the range, the sights stayed in place and never moved with recoil, and they worked just fine on lighter colored targets.
The front sight disappears on dark targets (like bear fur and pig hair), and the rear sight just isn’t durable enough. I swapped them out as soon as I could.
For those concerned with critical dimensions of the revolver, the cylinder throats all measured .400”, the minor bore diameter was .389, and the cylinder gap measured .0055.”
That gap is a little more than I was hoping for. To get the most out of the 4” barrel, a tighter seal is necessary. The upside is that even with long strings of fire, it’s unlikely that powder buildup will disrupt the cylinder turn.
It’s probably just personal preference, but I’ve always felt like the N-Frames cycle better than any of the other smaller-framed revolvers. It’s like that big cylinder just wants to turn. Of all the constant complaining about how things were better in the old days, S&W’s double action cycle feels better than ever.
This Model 610 is on par with the other modern big Smiths I’ve tried. There’s a bit of stack near the back of the pull, but it’s easily overcome with a straight pull to the rear. Although I love my old snake guns, I’ve always found staging their triggers to be impossible, and I welcomed the feel of the more modern Colts, because they feel more like Smiths.
The trigger is S&W’s standard stock, and there’s no version offered that doesn’t include the cylinder lock. The double action trigger weight averaged 11 lbs 5.8 oz over five pulls on my Lyman digital trigger scale. The single action pull measured 4 lbs 6 oz.
For the most part, the 610 performed exactly as I hoped it would. No cartridge failed to load or fire in single or double action. If I worked the trigger, the trigger worked.
However, there was one consistent problem with this Model 610, and that was difficult extraction. After having trouble getting the plunger down on my first few clips of empties, I fully cleaned the cylinder inside and out. This did not improve the situation.
Empties were always challenging to release from the cylinder, and often required that the plunger be tapped on the shooting bench in order to get the empties to let go of the cylinder. This occurred with any manufacturer, but was much less troublesome when shooting .40 S&W, presumably because of less surface area from the shorter cases.
The most common cause for this problem is rough cylinder walls, but I’ve never experienced this with a modern S&W revolver. As I’m already having some custom work done to this gun, the gunsmith will see to it, but otherwise I would have returned it to Smith & Wesson for repair.
Depending on the round used, the Model 610’s accuracy went from poor to pretty good. Armscor’s 180gr FMJ printed disappointing 3.6” average five-round groups over four shot strings at 25 yards when shot from a bag. The 180gr FMJ offerings from Remington and Winchester produced similar results. None of those commercial rounds were good representations of what the 10mm can do, either in terms of precision or energy delivered on target.
Fortunately, the groups tightened up quite a bit with heavier bullets pushed at faster velocities. Buffalo Bore’s Heavy Outdoorsman hardcast 220gr 1200fps (as advertised) round printed a full inch smaller, averaging 2.6”. My own reloads with a similar 220gr flat nosed wide-meplat hardcast round, although moving 150fps slower than Buffalo Bore’s advertised velocity, eeked out a barely better group at 2.5” on average.
None of those are particularly outstanding in terms of accuracy, but they mean that a solid marksman should be able to place rounds inside the vitals of medium-sized game at up to 50 yards. Any of the 200gr+ rounds pushed at or near their pressure limit would be certain to drop any of the deer we have around Texas Hill County at that range, and they’d do a number on any of the black bears, too. And yes, you can kill a brown bear with a 10mm, but you’d better be real good, or real lucky.
Other than the issue with extraction, the Model 610 was a joy to shoot. Loaded up with most of the common 10mm rounds, the N-Frame soaked up every bit of recoil, allowing for fast follow-up shots and cylinders that were quickly emptied. Armed with a dozen moon clips, I cycled through several hundred factory 180gr rounds moving about 1,100fps. Buffalo Bore’s 220gr hardcast round at 1,200fps was a step up in recoil, but still very manageable.
Assuming the extraction issue can be fixed, the Model 610 would make a pretty good all-around handgun. The ability to shoot more than one round, both of which fairly widely available, is a big plus. It’s probably the most powerful revolver cartridge that’s still controllable single-handed in very rapid fire.
But the best thing this N-Frame 10mm revolver has going for it is that it’s kinda middle-of-the-road at everything, and sometimes that’s exactly what you need.
SPECIFICATIONS Smith & Wesson Model 610 4″
CALIBER: 10MM
FRAME SIZE: Large
CAPACITY: 6
ACTION: SINGLE/DOUBLE ACTION
GRIP: SYNTHETIC
SIGHTS: INTERCHANGEABLE
BARREL MATERIAL: STAINLESS STEEL
BARREL LENGTH: 4.125″
OVERALL LENGTH: 9.5″
FRAME: STAINLESS STEEL
WEIGHT: 42.6oz
MSRP: $1,139.00
Ratings (out of five stars)
Style and Appearance * * *
A foggy mirror stainless finish and rubber-type grips say “standard” all over it.
Customization * * * *
The DX style front sight makes swapping out your front sight for style or height easy. There are also aftermarket options. Same for the grips. There are still more than a couple real gunsmiths out there who know how and care to work on these guns, making anything possible.
Accuracy * * *
With the right round, 2.5″ 25 yards groups, but most commercial rounds averaged significantly wider. Select your ammo carefully.
Reliability * *
It fires and cycles just fine, but if you need more than six rounds in a hurry, you’re in big trouble. The good news is that it’s an easy fix.
Overall * *
The Smith & Wesson Model 610 is a solid gun, but this one’s extraction problem is a concern. Without that, the Model 610 becomes a powerful, versatile revolver that’s fun to shoot, carries well, and has enough bullet to get you out of any jam. With one issue, and a lot of promise, this gun’s earned a spot in my “project” gun lineup. New sights, grips, an action job, addressing the extraction, and a change in finish are all on the list for this gun, and hopefully we’ll all see it again soon.
For the non reloader, especially one with a few pistols in the safe (plus some gamers I understand) this seems a pretty logical choice. As a reloader, it doesn’t offer enough benefit to me over my old .41 to justify the investment most likely, especially since I don’t own another 10mm/.40 cal. Plus, I can’t afford to get a custom 10mm levergun from the folks at Grizzly.
Couldn’t agree more. The only advantage a 10mm N Frame revolver has over a 41Mag is ammunition availability.
If there was one true “do it all” revolver cartridge it’s the 41Magnum. I don’t understand why it didn’t catch fire like it should have. Bad timing I guess.
I love .41. When I found out Starline makes properly headstamped .41 Special brass I was unreasonably happy about it, even though there’s no need for the short case if you’re reloading.
$1139 sounds pretty enticing. But I have a $150 Rohm 88, 357 mag. It’s solid steel and zero pot metal. I’m not sure if this can compete with my Rohm for bang/buck.
The 10mm makes a ton of sense in a pistol. In a revolver? I’ll just stick with .357 which gives me just as much power in a smaller and lighter gun (Ruger Security Six in my case). If I want more power in a revolver I’ll go 44mag (though 41mag is probably best). I am craving a Glock 29 or 20.
Even as a die hard .41 guy, if you buy ammo off the shelf .44 is a much better choice. If you find .41 on the shelf it’s usually green box Remington which is fine, but nothing special.
+1
If you want .357mag power (more or less) in a semi-auto pistol the 10 is your huckleberry. But I don’t get the 10mm revolver unless you’re already heavily invested in the cartridge and don’t want to add a new caliber to your collection.
FWIW, I love the heck out of my 9mm revolvers (929, SGP100) in large part because they fit nicely into my existing reloading cycle – just have to make sure I’m using Fed small pistol primers
Yes, my 627 pro 4″ has the same dimensions as this gun, while my Ruger Redhawk 5.5″ is much larger. The difference of both guns offering 8 rounds instead of 6 seems a better trade off than the slightly larger overall size/power potential. Not only that but .357 (and .38 special) are cheaper and more plentiful.
Chainsaw, a 9mm revolver makes more sense to me than a 10mm because it fills the gap between
.38 special and .357 magnum, although there’s no shortage of light .357 loads. .327 Federal would also be a good option with the added benefit of holding an extra round.
Congratulations, you finally reviewed a revolver I don’t covet. No use for 10 mm, my .44s fill the role you describe.
.41, that’d be nice, the firearm of choice for Sheriff Buford Pusser.
I Did pick up that Highway Patrolman, though.
Partly timing, partly the fact that the S&W put the .41 into a N-frame. A N-frame revolver, despite the movie ideas pitched by Dirty Harry, is a bear to carry around all day. Unloaded, the 57 with six-inch barrel is nearly 48 ounces. That’s a lot to carry on your hip.
And, if you’re going to pack that much weight around, why not finish the job and carry a .44?
If the .41 Mag had been set up in a L-frame, then the history might have been very different.
Got a .41 back in 1984, don’t really recall why I insisted on the 8 3/8″ barrel but it sure limits the usefulness today, plus the only one my dealer could find was nickle finish (altogether gaudy, as well as huge!!), and it’s STILL a nice gun, just not good for anything, a 4″ or 6″ would be much better.
Meh. Blah. Why?
I love 10mm. LOVE IT. My favorite caliber, it can do anything. And I love revolvers. But 10mm in a revolver? Why? Just get a 44 Magnum. Way more power, no need to deal with moon clips, no problems extracting, and you can use .44 Specials for low-power rounds.
For the same size gun, you could have a semi-auto 10mm with 15 rounds on tap. Or get a Glock 29 or Springfield 3.8″ compact, it’ll have twice the capacity of the revolver and in a much smaller and lighter overall package.
Decades ago, when I was just a kid, my uncle demonstrated that a 1911 out of battery would not fire. He said that if anybody ever pressed such a gun against me, I should lean into it and try to disarm the perp.
I don’t think I’ll ever take that advice. If my social skills and situational awareness ever degrade enough to put me in a position where someone has a gun pressed against me, I think I would be inclined to do as the perp suggests and hope for the best.
On the other paw, pressing a revolver into a bear might just save a life someday. But I agree with Texted on this: I’ve never seen the point of auto rounds in a revolver, other than ammo compatibility with a PCC.
This seems like a niche gun, and that’s cool. Were I in bear country, I’d like a stout .44mag in a chest rig, probably Ruger…
This reminds me of another story. My friends father had also heard this tale about pushing a 1911 out of battery, and one day curiosity got the best of him. His particular 1911 would in fact drop the hammer with the muzzle pressed firmly against his palm.
Seems like he could have tested this theory with an unloaded specimen, but instead he took a trip to the ER to have his hand put back together…..
I love 10mm in a semiauto, where it delivers .357ish power x 15+
In a revolver, what does it offer vs. .357 except fewer rounds, less availability, and the possibility of crimp jump?
Pretty much what I scrolled down here to write. Why offer a 10mm wheelgun when there is already a plethora of .357 Mag models offering superior performance in the same size package? 10mm is optimized for a semi-auto platform with mag capacities at least double a revolver’s cylinder.
This 610 isn’t innovative. It just seems like someone in S&W’s Marketing Dept trying to prove their job is worth something to the company to keep his/her paycheck. Kinda like my own employer’s Marketing Team, throwing spaghetti against the wall because it’s a new fiscal year and the next trade show’s coming up soon, so we need to have *something* for the booth…
Very well said!
I think most revolver guys either have negative views of semiauto reliability, or want to shoot / carry cartridges that don’t fit well into semiauto grips. Neither points to a really big crossover market, unless it’s just guys who have a lot of toy-money to throw around (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
Umm… Why do we have to be revolver or semi-pistol guys? I’m watching one of the killing channels now. Got a Smith 442 in my pocket. A Sig P-220 .45 ACP w/two extra mags. 442 has a reload also. And a knife. And a light. There’s also a rifle laying around here somewhere. I like them all. Even a shotgun. If I’m shooting quail.
“Why do we have to be revolver or semi-pistol guys?”
We don’t, but we should certainly be thinking and factual guys. I own, and have owned, revolvers because they serve different purposes. What possible use could I have for a revolver that holds less than half as many rounds as my Witness Hunter, less velocity, more recoil, and a worse trigger pull, when .44 and .357 models are objectively superior? To avoid a few mouseclicks when I place an ammo order?
Speaking as a semi-auto guy who started shooting revolvers competitively in the past year, here’s a hot take: the problem is that most revolver guys have never tried to run a revolver in an IDPA or USPSA match. If they did, they’d realize how far behind the power curve revolvers are, especially with speed loaders. I am 100% convinced that the “revolvers are the bestest” crowd shoots them in SA exclusively and/or shoots a couple cylinders of ammo at whatever pace they feel like.
This isn’t to say revolvers lack utility for concealed carry and the like in some situations, but the performance differential is pretty striking side-by-side.
I also find the “revolvers are more reliable than semi-autos” blather to be hilarious. Maybe like the first 50 rounds. But after that, color me skeptical. This is also not to mention that revolver failures tend to be non-field-repairable.
Chainsaw,
I agree completely. Revolvers serve certain purposes, but I prefer semis in most cases (especially for 10mm). I especially find the notion that your life is more likely to depend on being at contact distance andunable to jerk your hand back a small fraction of an inch, than needing a seventh round, absurd.
More mass and a wider meplat, that’s it. Crimp jump in an N Frame is a non issue.
OK, it has those vs. the cartridge that offers greater capacity, but nothing over the cartridges (.41 and .44) of equal capacity.
Why is crimp jump a non-issue (curious, not arguing)? Just the greater mass / inertia of the heavy frame?
That’s it, just not enough umph to overcome the mass.
The only thing the 10 mm has over the 41 and 44 is availability.
Thanks!
Bigger bore, lower velocities, lower sectional densities. Technically the .357 has an edge in pure power potential, but I would concede that the 10mm probably has an edge on two legged critters but inferior on the 4 legged ones. Still, I have never heard of a bad guy laughing off a center mass hit with a .357.
Apples-apples (breechface to muzzle) 10mm can make up the powder / power difference in a semi with no cylinder gap, but put both in a revolver and .357 wins.
The velocity loss in a revolver depends wholly on the size of the cylinder gap.
Semi-auto barrels are measured from the muzzle to the back of the chambered cartridge as opposed to revolver barrels which are measured from ~1.6 inches in front of the back of the cartridge. Add to that there’s a velocity advantage in the long jump into the forcing cone like a long leade in a rifle. In rifles that comes with an accuracy penalty, but revolvers make up for that with sights fitted directly to the frame and barrel. I’ve found that a revolver carries comparable to a semi-auto with a barrel 1 inch longer. The longer the barrels the more velocity lost to the cylinder gap. In a 3-4″ or 4-5″ comparison the revolver will have an edge.
The real advantage to a .357 over the 10 as a woods gun is that a 200gr 10mm slug has about the same SD as a 158gr .357, and a 180 or 200gr .357 slug is much higher and will penetrate deeper.
That was my point. A “4”bbl” revolver is 5.6″ breechface to muzzle and will outshoot a comparable 4″bbl semiauto, but never a 5.6″bbl with no leaks. I agree about SD.
Good review. Glad to know I’m not the only one left that thinks a big bore revolver is the thing to carry when the bad guys are as likely to have four feet instead of only two. I’ve used a 4″ S&W 629 Mountain Gun in .44 magnum in this role for years. Replaced the Houge soft rubber grips with Pachmayer round butt Professionals. In the field it rides in an El Paso Saddlery Tom Threepersons w/appropriate belt and six spare rounds in a belt slide. In town it’s in a Milt Sparks tunnel loop design. Again, appropriate belt, (Notice a pattern there?) and speed loader pouch. I load .44 Spl. for social work. Anyway, the 610. Looks like a good revolver. If I owned a 10mm auto, this would be a no brainer. The only thing is that damned hole they drilled in it. And the firing pin. A Smith’s firing pin is supposed to be on the hammer.
Thanks but no thanks do this do that 10mm wheel gun.
After 40 years of shooting, I still don’t get the logic of semiauto calibers in a revolver. Each platform has its advantages/disadvantages, but rimless through a wheelgun seems to be the “worst of both worlds.”
I’ve got a CA Pitbull that begs to differ. 5 rounds of 45ACP in a package just a tad bigger than a J frame. I considered the 45 Colt version but 45ACP has way cheaper and more available ammo with tons of modern hollow point options. Also mine doesn’t need moon clips so I can carry a reload flat in a speed strip. I bought it on a curiosity but it’s become my go-to warm weather and convenience option.
There’s also a case for 40 and 9mm in a snubby, the compact case length lends to more velocity out of shorter barrels.
9mm would make sense in a purpose-designed revolver, and even more so in a pepperbox, but makes little sense when shoehorned into a cylinder meant for half-inch-longer cartridges.
This revolver was originally designed around some competition or another, where the power factor, moon clips and shorter OAL were competitive advantages. That’s what I’ve been told anyway.
In 9mm, 380, or whatever carry gun you favor it may be a way to own a revolver and not need to buy more than one kind of ammo than you already use. Aside from logistics I guess because it’s neat?
I’d still lean toward the J frame stainless SW model 60, 5 rounds of 125 grain JHP .357.
Agreed with 357mag making more sense in a small revolver. Would probably lean more towards something around 3in of barrel but either will ruin someone’s day at contact distance.
Good review.
I’ve got a couple of auto loading 10s, including a Colt Gold Cup Delta Elite and like the round to both reload and shoot.
However, if I’m going to carry an N Frame, it’ll be one of my 29s or my 57 if I think .44 mag is too much gun. My first deer years ago was taken with a Model 29 and it’s been my go-to deer gun since provided we’re talking woods range shots.
IMO-10mm was intended as an auto round and is best left there due to lack of a cartridge rim. 44 Mag has already more than proven itself as a magnificent, all-around revolver choice.
I don’t know why but I am fascinated by reports of bear attacks. I live in the heart of the bay area. I have a better chance of winning big on the lottery than getting jumped by a bear.
But in a large number of the cases I see the victim is either caught completely off guard by the attack or he becomes aware too late for a meaningful reaction.
Then he winds up under the bear. His best hope then is a short revolver in magnum caliber.
Heh heh, the reason I bought a .44 is because of a dream I had about a bear getting me, and Ks. is just full of bears, right.
Best dream I’ve ever had, that .44 has got me deer and a lot of good shuting fun. As a matter of fact it helped me quit my cocaine addiction, no kidding. I’d get to juking I’d load up and go shuting instead 👍
I’ve spent a good amount of time in Bear territory. They are sneaky as hell and they often are drawn to your activity, and often when you are focused on something else, like gutting an animal. If you are in an area with a lot of bears, someone’s job needs to be to watch for bears, and nothing else.
Bears in regularly hunted areas have been known to run “towards” the sound of gunfire, having learned to associate the sound with a fresh carcass and a potential easy meal.
Cocaine Bear, in theaters next month!🐻
Thanks for the reminder. 🙂
I’m in the camp with the other people here of “why?” I mean, I’d much rather have an N-frame with 8 shots of .357 mag like a 627, or a .41 or .44 mag. If I wanted moon clips after that I’d just have the cylinder cut for em.
Here’s your opportunity, JWT! Invent the 10mm AutoRim and ditch the moon clips. Of course, the .41 Mag already fills that space, but some ammo manufacturer is always looking for a new niche caliber!
10mm is nowhere close to .41.
Someone already did a rimmed 10mm to fit in revolvers.
I forgot the name of the manufacturer but the brass is something like $4 apiece.
not understanding two stars for reliability. did it ever malfunction? if not, then it’s reliable. as one would expect of quality revolver.
even reliably difficult extraction is still reliable.
Not a mechanical malfunction necessarily, but not being able to dump the empties from the cylinder without beating on gun seems worthy of a couple of malfunction demerits.
Not just difficult extraction, extraction requiring the use of something other than just the user’s hands. When you have to hammer the plunger on a solid object to dump the rounds out, you have a problem.
The only time I’ve had the problem you described is when using inexpensive steel cartridges. (in a 686+ .357 – I ended up giving the rest of the boxes away) It’d be interesting to hear what the verdict is as I never had the problem with any other ammo.
10mm ammo
is getting awfully cheap
compared to what 9mm .40 and .45 are
and especially compared to what it has been historically
i never needed one
but i always wanted one
the cost of ammo always kept me away
im seriously eyeing the 4.6 s&w m&p 2.0 10mm
as a tax return present for myself
seriously guys
if we dont keep buying these guns theyre making
theyll stop
and then where will we be…
Noticed 9, 10, 380, and 22lr come down in price over the last 6 months while most everything else is about the same or slightly lower. I would imagine they are selling.
“Reliability * *
It fires and cycles just fine, but if you need more than six rounds in a hurry, you’re in big trouble.”
Two stars for reliability even though it was reliable? LOL
It’s absurd to rate all revolvers as two stars for reliability just because they only hold six rounds (in other words, just because they’re not semiautomatic pistols)!
That’s like rating all pistols as two stars for reliability just because they won’t fire and cycle with the muzzle pressed hard against an object (in other words, just because they’re not revolvers).
I think maybe you missed this part:
“Empties were always challenging to release from the cylinder, and often required that the plunger be tapped on the shooting bench in order to get the empties to let go of the cylinder.”
Love my 10mm. Do not love a buck twenty a round. Makes it very difficult to target practice at the range. 10 mil was about half that price when I bought the firearm. Now, it just sits…..
Things have come down a bit. I got the armscor 10 mm for this review at about $0.70 a round.
Wow. I could live with that. I keep looking, but it is costly here in AZ where I live.. Thanks !!!
Ammoseek is showing some deals that made my head spin. May be time to renew your acquaintance with the lonely old 10.
Oh, and am I missing something ??? The pic showing the moonclip partially extracted is loaded with .40 SW.
“Of course, since it’s a revolver using moon clips, that also means that .40S&W cartridges will load and fire just fine, making practice time easier on your wallet and wrist.”
I love my G40. I like revolvers but this isn’t that one I’d want at that price. I’ve zero issue carrying a 10 in any kind of bear country with Steinel hardcast. Mine didn’t care for Underwood hard cast in terms of accuracy.
I love old Smith and Wessons. I just bought a Sig X-ten and frankly this review makes me glad I bought the Sig.
Choices are always good. But for me, I’d probably pass. 8 rounds of .357 in an N-frame (with no moon clips) vs 6 rounds of 10mm makes more sense to me.
‘That said, I still don’t like… any of the stock rubber grips any manufacturer uses.’
One of the reasons I’m a big fan of the GP100 is the sometimes stock Altamont wood insert rubber grips (especially w/ checkered inserts). They just feel better than any other handgun I’ve ever wrapped my knuckles around. And everyone who picks up one of mine seems to agree regardless of glove size. The stock Hogues on the other hand, pure garbage.
Ditto. The original GP100 Altamont grip is the best ever for a DA revolver.
i love my 610. 6.5 inch barrel, aftermarket firing pin, main spring, and trigger return spring. the trigger is very nice. at 100 yards, one handed, double action, it’s about a 6 inch group(or i should say i am). i also run edc an ria 1911a2 10mm with 16 round mags. i’m fond of the caliber. 🙂
P.S. i forgot to mention, mine ejects anything run through it without a problem. even 10x reloads. and moonclips make for very speedy reloading once you get the hang of it.
I’ve never quite understood why people would go through the bother of moon clips/etc to put rimless ammo into a revolver, or put rimmed ammo into a semi-auto. Sure, sometimes it works in both cases, such as 9×19 in a revolver, or .38 Special in the S&W Model 52, but in general it seems like the hard way to get to where you want to go.
I can only imagine a combination of “because we can” and engineering puzzles that may have involved a dare/booze/cocaine. With that said would love to see a 460 Rowland/45super/acp revolver just for the sake of fun but no idea how oddball that design would get.
The only reason to do it is of you have a lot of, or cheap access to, that particular round, or for some reason need to be shooting only that round for compatability with another platform.
For instance, I have a near inexhaustible amount of 40SW.
Worth it re fixing the cylinder walls and picking up the revolver in the first place then. Is the recoil much different than typical to warm 357 magnum with the 10?
The 610 is more of a niche kinda thing. Much like 10ga shotguns. But with guns, if they make it then someone will buy it. I like 10mm and really like the fact that the makers are doing more with it. There are many things that make little to no sense though. Like 22lr carbine revolvers with a safety or a regular revolver that fires .410 shot shells. With all the government craziness going on, we could easily find ourselves in a place where this is the only way to have something in 10. It’s hard to see this one being made for decades though. It might end up being one of those rarities for collectors in the coming years. I was told the Lady Smith was no longer produced and then I see them everywhere. I would consider the 610 something to complete a well rounded wheel gun collection. Particularly for the Smith fans.
The ejection malfunctions are only more of the same quality control failures associated with Smith & Wesson firearms over the last decade or more. So now we know that custom shop priced revolvers leave the S&W factory with interior surfaces so poorly finished that the ejector rod must be pounded to eject spent brass, which of course will result in a bent ejector rod. Who in their right mind would buy a poorly constructed inferior quality $1100 malfunctioning revolver with a ridiculously heavy 11 1/2 lb double action, 4 1/2 lb single action trigger weight? If you’re in the market for a revolver that needs to be returned for warranty repair due to out of tolerance quality control issues, why not buy a Taurus for half the money? Apparently Ruger is the last manufacturer standing capable of producing a quality, reliable, made in USA revolver.
“ridiculously heavy 11 1/2 lb double action, 4 1/2 lb single action trigger weight?”
This is the same as weight range as the Taurus, Ruger, and Kimbers reviewed on this site. It’s a bit less than my pre-war Smiths.
S&W needs to get rid of the stupid Hillary Hole lock. Pointless to even have one and ruins the aesthetics.
If I’m going to tote around an N frame revolver, it may as well be .44 Magnum. 10mm offers no advantage over .44 Magnum. Recoil is still going to be stout, muzzle flash will be massive.
.44 Magnum allows the ability to carry speedloaders or even speed strips instead of fragile moon clips.
To be honest, a 686 with stout .357 Magnum loads makes more sense.
Comments are closed.