A new carry revolver design!

[Bill DeShivs]

I presented this on another forum recently, but the moderator just didn't understand-so I gave up. Perhaps my idea will be better understood here-
The idea is for a manufacturer to make a small revolver for a new, proprietary cartridge.
First, the new cartridge: a short, high pressure round similar to the 9mm auto, but rimmed, and in an odd caliber to preclude it being used in other arms. Perhaps a ".37 or .34" caliber 5 shot revolver.
Second, the gun: either a swing out or top break D/A revolver with a lightweight frame and a cylinder length no longer than necessary to accomodate the new round. This would make the gun smaller and lighter than a "J" frame S&W. This could be the ideal carry gun for those who prefer a revolver over an auto.
Charter Arms tried this with the 9MM Federal cartridge, but left the cylinder/frame .38 special length. Taurus tried it with a 9mm revolver with a short cylinder/frame combination, but the gun needed moon clips to work.
I know some will speak of the .32 H&R magnum, but it's too long for the concept.
Let's hear your thoughts.
Bill

 

[James K]

So, can you explain just why your idea is so great, and so superior to current guns, that a manufacturer should buy the rights and spend a couple of million tooling up to make the gun, and why an ammo maker should spend another million or so tooling up to make the ammo. As a potential buyer, I want to know what is the advantage of your gun over those already on the market? Is it more powerful? Is it lighter? Is it easy to carry? Does it work better?

(Short cylinders are no novelty - take a look at an S&W Terrier.)

As to ammo that won't work in any other gun, why? Most makers go with established cartridges so customers will be able to buy ammo easily, not have to hunt around for it. And why should stores stock the new ammo if there are few or no guns that can use it, or stock the guns if there is no ammo? (Some chicken and egg here, but that is always the problem with a new product.) As with the gun, persuade me that your ammo is so superior that I will be willing to pay more for it when I can buy 9x19 or .38 Special dirt cheap.

Have you developed a model gun? (No a CAD program is not good enough; I can't wrap my grubby hands around a screen image.) Have you built a prototype and fired it? Does it work as it should? If not, are you going to work the bugs out or do you expect the customer to pay to have that done after he shells out money for the gun?

Jim

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Well, Jim-thanks for the support! Having a bad day?
Let's see: my idea is not necessarily great, but it has merit. The "J" frame S&W is actually a little large to be comfortably pocket carried for most people.
A smaller, lighter, more manageable gun would be welcomed by the general public, in my opinion.
I understand that short cylinders are no novelty, but that seems to be lost on current makers. S&W has LENGTHENED the cylinders and frames on the "J" frame to accommodate the . 357 magnum. All to sell guns to people who want a small .357. It would be no more expensive to shorten them back to Terrier specs.
I understand why makers use existing cartridges, but do any of them offer any advantage? A Terrier in .38 S&W is a fairly puny combination, but an alloy or Scandium Terrier in 9mm Federal would be a damned fine little carry gun. Lighter, less recoil, shorter than a standard "J" frame. This combination is as close as I can get to using "factory" gun/ammo combinations. There would be few, if any bugs to work out. No, I haven't developed a prototype-nor would one be necessary for this combination.
Bill

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Jim-
As far as proprietary ammunition:
The .38 Special round was developed as a black powder cartridge. There is excess space in the casing that is not necessary for smokeless powder. The 38 S&W could be loaded much hotter, but the hotter round could be fired in older, weaker guns.
The .32 S&W long is too long for a short cylinder, and is underpowered.
A ".34" (for example) would allow for a smaller cylinder diameter.
Perhaps a redesign of the old top-break revolvers, made on modern precision machinery, of modern materials-chambered in a short, high(er) pressure cartridge would sell well.
I don't design guns. I design knives and have been very sucessful at that. I also have a good feel for what the public wants and needs.
S&W has taken the same idea and gone the other direction with it with the .357 "J" frames. Not everyone wants what is akin to touching off a stick of dynamite in their hand. A mild-recoiling, reasonably powerful, lightweight, small revolver would be like a breath of fresh air. Everyone buys .38 special pocket guns because that is very nearly all that is available. The same level of power would be available in the new gun/ammo combination with increased ease of carry and handling.
Bill

 

[JohnKSa]

I think that a modern top-break could be made in a useful defensive caliber. Would it be as strong & durable as a solid frame gun? Nope. Would it be strong and durable enough to serve the needs of 99% of shooters? Yes!

It would definitely be faster to reload than a typical revolver and with your ideas I think it would be a very useful carry gun.

I'd modify the design to allow moon clips for faster reloading.

But I doubt we'll see anything like that anytime soon.

 

[James K]

Nope, not having a bad day, just trying to point out that an idea is not a "new design." It is an idea, a concept. If you only want "support", I can support you by saying, "Great idea, you are a true genius" and make you feel good. But unless an idea has enough merit to interest those who might invest in it, it will remain an idea.

OK, a Terrier in 9mm Federal would probably be fine, though I don't see much hope for S&W to backtrack 60+ years to bring it back. You are right, in that they were nice little guns and, in reality, powerful enough for the job. But when street cops went to .38 Special, the Terrier's main customer base, plain clothes cops, dried up. The Chiefs Special (Model 36) was S&W's replacement for the Terrier and used then common ammo with the uniforms.

For carry, weight aside, neither cylinder length or barrel length is especially important. What is important is cylinder diameter, and that involves two factors - caliber and number of shots. The Terrier cylinder is basically the same diameter as that of the J frame, and the frame is nearly identical except for length. If you went to a smaller caliber, .32 or .34 caliber, you could make a smaller cylinder and, of course, going to .22 would allow either a smaller cylinder or a larger capacity. You ruled out .32 H&R, but it would be hard to get enough powder in a shorter .32 to compete with .38 Special, let alone .357. .22 WMR is too long (and has problems in small revolvers) and .22 LR is just not powerful enough.

The other approach is fewer shots, perhaps a four shot cylinder. In all honesty, with the trend to auto pistols and hi-cap magazines, I don't see much appeal in that direction. I think five shots is and will remain, the practical downward limit.

Keep on thinking; and when you come up with something that looks good, think about the possibility of having a prototype, even a wood or plastic model, made. That is the only way you can get a feel for what you have in mind.

Edited to add: A topbreak is not a viable idea for cartridges with any real power. No matter what you do, the latch has to have enough play to work, and that allows pounding and eventually the latch loosens up. Period. No way around it. Which is why there are no modern topbreaks. (Yes, I know all about Webley and Enfield - those were low pressure loads and even then the guns loosen up after a while.)

Jim

 

[High Planes Drifter]

I'd say design it to launch a 125gr. projectile at 1000- 1100 fps, increase capacity to 7 or 8 rounds, either break-open design or fast replace cylinder, and you may have something.

 

[Huchahucha]

It isn't a totally crazy idea. I think it would be a good project for North American Arms. They are already chambering Guardian pistols in unconventional calibers of their own design and they are already well known for their compact revolver designs.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Jim
There has been manufacturer interest in this concept recently. I don't want to prototype a gun. I don't want to be a firearms designer.
Prior to 1968, Beretta made a small, folding trigger revolver in .22 short, called the "Sable." Guns like this sold well-not because they are powerful, but because they are guns, and they are "cute." Rossi made an updated copy of the original S&W "Ladysmith" in .22 LR. There was the Kolb "Baby Hammerless" and countless other designs. All these were in ineffective calibers but, if reintroduced and quality-made, would sell well. Why not design a small, reasonably powerful revolver? I agree that they are already made in .38 special-but they are too large and heavy. If a major manufacturer produced one, even in a proprietary caliber, they would sell, in my opinion. Cylinder length and accompanying weight/overall length are a factor in a pocket gun. Certainly, diameter is important. That is why I suggested a . "34" cal. The gun would be sized to the cartridge. For manufacturing ease and cost most revolver makers stay with the same, tired platforms. Autopistol makers are constantly trying to push the envelope with new designs.
Bill

 

[Gbro]

Maybe a cylinder insert, 9 rounds of 9mm, flip it out quieter than the M1 and in with a fresh cyl insert. I can picture it, maybe just maybe with all the throw away stuff today it just might sell.

 

[James K]

Ok, Bill, you don't want to design a gun, you don't want to prototype, so I am not sure what you do want to do. It seems that you just want a manufacturer to make something - you are not sure quite what - sort of along some lines that you are not sure of either.

I am sure knife design requires a lot of intelligence and work, but not many knives have moving parts and those are pretty simple. (OK, some of those "Swiss Army" knives with 127 gadgets...) Gun design is not that easy. You say "why not" design such and such. I have tried to tell you why not. S&W is selling all the guns they can make. Other makers are doing about the same. No way are they going to spend megabucks to make a new design unless it is markedly superior to what they make now.

No, "they" aren't going to make anything to your concepts. If you want to see your ideas realized, you will have to do the dog work yourself. After all, Sam Colt had an idea, a concept. If he had waited until "they" made a revolver, we would not be having this discussion on the Revolver Forum.

Jim

 

[wdelack]

Metalstorm

Shrink an over-under shotgun down to pistol size (I guess it would be a Derringer) and have it fire this ammo -> http://www.metalstorm.com/

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Jim
What I want to do is foster intelligent discussion with people who are like-minded. Perhaps if we could look at this objectively and constructively we could come up with a "better idea." Perhaps then a manufacturer would pick up on the idea.
BTW- the knives that I design have more moving parts than most, and my designs sell very well. You can Google my name. I have worked on guns for many years, so I have more than a basic knowledge of what is practical and possible.
Bill

 

[DeathRodent]

Bill;

Love the idea!

What about a .380 revolver using moon clips - they reload fast - the .380 is already out there - and its the same diameter as the 9mm isn't it? So you could make shorter cylinder and maybe smaller frames for ONLY the .380 but people with 9mm revolvers could also shoot it couldn't they?

It would be like .38 special/.357 magnum but in .380/9mm.

Of course the smaller revolver maybe in an H or I frame would be only in the .380.

OR, talk to NAA about a small revolver for their proprietary cartridges - a small double action BUG to accompnay their small auto pistols.

I can't remember offhand but they have 2 necked down cartidges don' t they?

Heck, I'm surprised they aren't thinking of this already...there are plenty of people that are recoil sensitive and would like the smaller gun...thats why .32's were so popular in the lat 1800's & early 1900's.

 

[BillCA]

Since we're talking about experimental wheelgun ideas....

Let's experiment.

The .38 S&W cartridge is .775" L by .440" at the base & .380" at the mouth.
The 9mm cartridge is .754" L by .394" at the base &.380" at the mouth.

Let's suppose we take the standard .38 S&W cylinder dimensions of 1.25" found on the Terrier. In a 5-shot 9mm cylinder made to .357 specs (both are 35,000 psi rounds) we haven't reduced the width at all from the .38 round. But we can now shrink the frame length back to the improved I-Frame size. This means a shorter gun from grip to forcing cone.

But what have we really gained? A small amount of weight and size reduction and the use of a cartridge who's performance, out of a snubbie, is arguably on a par with .38 +P ammo. I like the idea, but I doubt the difference would be significant enough to sell a lot of guns.

Can we go the other way perhaps? I've seen a few customized K-Frame .44 Special 5-shot conversions that work because the .44 Special is only a 15,500 psi round. What about standardizing on a lower-pressured .41 "Special" load at this level or at .38 +P pressures (20,000 psi)?

Would you buy a 3" barreled K-frame 5-shooter chambered for a .41 Special launching a 175-225 grain slug around 800-900 fps?

All that would be necessary would be to shorten the .41 Magnum case and create the proper loadings for the pressure spec and fabricate the barrel & cylinder assemblies. There are plenty of folks already experimenting with a .41 Special load now. Hamilton Bowen has made up a number of .41 Specials on different platforms.

This is certainly do-able on the "L" frame and by keeping the pressures to the same as .38 +P it should be workable on the K-Frame. Think of a big-bore, bull-barreled Model 64!

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Deathrodent
If you have to use moon clips, the simplicity of the revolver goes out the window. If clips were optional, it might be OK.
NAA was looking into this concept, but they were intent on making a modern top-break .32 magnum. The prototype was ill-received. It was ugly, large, and still single action. The project has been scrapped. NAA does (did) make guns for the .25 NAA and .32 NAA cartridges, which are bottleneck rounds that make little more sense for defense than .32 and .380 auto. Even a small, lightweight revolver in .32 ACP or .380 would be popular, though. The .380 is problematic, as it is rimless. The .32 is semi-rimmed and would allow easy extraction and a small cylinder.
Thanks for your ideas.
Bill

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Bill
I like your idea. A "K" frame is a little large for comfortable civilian carry. A .41special would be an excellent shooter, and about right for the medium frame guns.
What I am envisioning is a very small, pocket revolver though.
Bill

 

[BillCA]

How about a J-Frame 6-shooter?

The .32 H&R Magnum was kept at 21,000 cup to allow for it to be used in H&R breaktop designs. In a modern swing-out revolver, it can be developed into something a little more potent without exceeding pressures too much.

I imagine that it could drive a 100gr JHP to some good velocities if the cartridges were designated for swing-out cylinder guns only. I've heard of a few people pushing 1400 fps in Rugers with the 85gr JHPs.

 

[Huchahucha]

NAA was looking into this concept, but they were intent on making a modern top-break .32 magnum. The prototype was ill-received. It was ugly, large, and still single action. The project has been scrapped. NAA does (did) make guns for the .25 NAA and .32 NAA cartridges, which are bottleneck rounds that make little more sense for defense than .32 and .380 auto. Even a small, lightweight revolver in .32 ACP or .380 would be popular, though. The .380 is problematic, as it is rimless. The .32 is semi-rimmed and would allow easy extraction and a small cylinder.

I am probably wrong, but now that I think of it, Smith and Wesson might be playing with the idea of a .32 caliber concealed carry revolver. I bought a S&W and sent the warranty card in, and thus I got placed on their mailing list. One time they sent me a survey asking questions about the types of products I'd be interested in and one of the things mentioned was some sort of special .32 caliber defensive revolver. The question was kind of vague, but it didn't seem like they were talking about a J-frame.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Nah... no go

all that just to save the lenth of the gun by the difference between .38 ad 9mm? what is that ? like 1/2 inch ? 1/4 inch ? and how many millions to be invested ?

and how small of a person are you if you cant pocket a J frame ? midgets. So you figure millions of dollars to make guns for midgets, meanwhile prob 90 % of midgets open carry anyway.

like Gary Coleman.