After having trouble with their 38 and 357 Air-weight revolvers Smith has introduced a 44 Magnum 25 ounce revolver. Has anyone looked at them yet?

It has the Scandium frame.

I shot the M&P R8 .357 mag Performance Center revolver and it was brutal on recoil (I'm not recoil shy) so why would I want to shoot this.

To be considered a scandium alloy only 2% of the rare earth is combined with 98% aluminum. This is the most often used alloy but Smith and Wesson doesn't say what their alloy is. Scandium is combined to aluminum to limit grain structure growth in welds and to add strength. I don't believe the addition affects the load cycle life so it is still limited by its fatigue.

I'm with you RePete, I don't care for a light revolver with magnum calibers. I have used and carried a Ruger 357 for around 50 years and have no problem with the recoil from my 6 inch revolvers. There is a big difference going from a 33 ounce gun with a 6 inch barrel to a 25 ounce gun with a short barrel.

S&W Model 329PD, 4.1" barrel, .44 Magnum, would have recoil energy of about 26.5 ftlbs. A regular Model 29 would be about 16.6.

I guess the hardest kicking handgun I've shot was a Ruger Super Redhawk in .480 Ruger. About 29 ftlbs of recoil energy. It was manageable in the short term, but my hands were shaking after a couple cylinder fulls.

Of all the handguns I have fired I believe the 357 was the hardest hitting. I have fired the 44 Mag, the 357 Maximum (super magnum), the 454 Casull, and a number of others from 45 colt to 22 short. While some have heavier and faster bullets the 357 magnum is a 'sharper' recoil and the muzzle blast has a 'shock value' that I didn't experience with any other gun. I was most let down by the 454 Casull. It was blustery and big but the recoil was tame compared to what I expected.