Completely new design

[Bill DeShivs]

Thinking about carry guns has brought me to conclude that there needs to be an entirely new cartridge developed and marketed. This would take the cooperation of a major gun manufacturer. We all know that almost all current cartridges could be loaded to higher pressures, but are not because they could be fired in older, weaker guns.
The "38 Special Short" thread got me thinking- this round could be loaded as hot as a normal .38 Special.
If one were to develop a revolver with a short frame and cylinder to accomodate a new, short, .37 (or .34, .30, etc.) round that was loaded to it's fullest potential, the gun would be more compact, lighter, and possibly even thinner. A new top break made from modern materials in .37? caliber would sell well.
Most modern guns are built on frames/cylinders that are too long anyway. Even the .22 snubs could be built on the new frame. The new .22s are built on .38 Special frames, which are entirely too long.
Bill

 

[Chaingunner]

The problem that gun/ammo manufacturers would face is marketing. There's a whole cornicopaeia of ammunition available, so why bother? Finding marketing room against the big four (.357mag, 9mm, .40, and .45) would be difficult and costly. Remember the .357 SIG? how bout the 10mm?

On top of that, not everyone can afford to just go drop a few hundred dollars on a handgun because a new wonder-cartridge has been invented. I know I sure as heck don't.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

The .357 SIG and 10MM were answers to questions that were not asked. A new, purpose-designed, mid size defense round would sell. Notice that all the new cartridges are bigger-longer, diameter. A mid sized defense round could be developed that would approach 9mm power in a shorter bullet. Maybe smaller diameter, too.
The gunmakers try to squeeze all they can out of existing models, but they are always bigger. The old S&W "I" frame size would be great. The .38 Special is mostly empty case. There is no real need for the length.
Marketing would be no problem. A small revolver with a powerful round, well made of modern materials, and accurate would sell itself.
Bill

 

[oldbillthundercheif]

As far as I know the .357 SIG is still alive and kicking. I think the question that one answered was: "I like the .357, but why can't I have at least a dozen shots between reloads?"

I think the major factor holding back the mid-size wheelgun developments you suggest is the nature of the average revolver shooter. They tend to want something they are familiar with (.38spl), or they are shooting bean-wheels because they are the only pistols available in .500, .454 casull, and all the Linebaugh loadings. The middle ground between the .38 snubby and the .850 Fireball has been totally taken over by autos. I suspect this is not going to change anytime soon.

 

[chris in va]

If the 38 is partly empty, why did they lengthen the case to make a 357?

 

[croyance]

The did and they didn't.
The original loading was in a .38 Special case and the platform was what would become the N-frame. So you had the .38-44. I think even that cylinder needed heat treatment.
This became popular, but the danger was that people might put the new cartridge in a .38 Special. Can you imagine a gun with uncertain metalurgy (it wasn't just Colt and S&W that was making revolvers then) and poor/no heat treatment with a 158 grain bullet loaded to 1500 fps?
So they lengthened the case by .1" to keep it from fitting into a .38 Special cylinder.

The question is why they lengthened the .38 S&W case to begin with. Wasn't the original .38 Special loaded to the same weight/velocity combination?

 

[croyance]

With the 10mm, the FBI was asking. Then a lot of other people jumped on the bandwagon and the weight & velocity kept getting upped.

I think a better example of a catridge that is doomed for extinction is the .45 GAP, which is the semi-auto version of the proposed .38 Short that Bill DeShivs contemplates.

 

[skeeter1]

Because the .38Spl was originally developed back in the black powder era. It was probably full of FFFg. back then.

It amazes me how little smokeless powder goes into my .38Spl cases when I reload them, but they work. I think even the .22 Magnum contains more power.

There are still some older .38Spl handguns out there, that were designed for 17000 PSI, and even newer ones (using +Ps) are for 19000 PSI. The .357 Magnum runs 40000 PSI. Wouldn't want to use one of those in you grandpa's old .38.

 

[saspic]

originally posted by Bill DeShivsThe .357 SIG and 10MM were answers to questions that were not asked.

You're kidding, right?

The 10mm was an answer to the question, "Why do I have to choose between small and fast (9mm) or big and slow (.45 ACP)? Why doesn't someone make a mid size caliber bigger and heavier than 9 mil and faster than the .45?" Its diminutive descendant, the .40 S&W has become the round of choice in law enforcement, proving a mid-sized caliber was lacking.

The .357 Sig was for those who wondered, "With .45 ACP now coming in a +P version and these new .40 rounds, is the 9x19 caliber becoming outdated? How can we get more performance out of a .355 pill?" Obviously, many people still think the 9 is fine, but the Secret Service, Texas State Troopers, and Federal Air Marshals prefer the .357 Sig.

As for your original question, I think manufacturers have been applying new technologies by shrinking guns for old calibers, like the Kahr, Rohrbaugh, Skyy, and Kel-Tecs. Also they have developed some new ammo to take advantage of modern brass and powders, like the .450 SMC and .45 Super, 9x23 Winchester, +P versions of older calibers. Sometimes they preserve the performance of the round while shrinking the case, like the .40 S&W or .45 GAP.

They do make these teensy revolvers for .22 short, long rifle, and magnum. So what you'd like to see is something a similar approach built around a slightly bigger caliber?

 

[918v]

How about a top-break revolver with disposable plastic cylinders?

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Saspic
Thanks for staying on topic!
My vision would be the revolver equivalent to the Keltec series. You could not use an existing cartridge, because it could be chambered in older guns. If it were not for this, a very hot .32 or .38 S&W would work. So design a ".35 Carry" round and build a very small revolver around it, not using a .38 Special frame. The gun could be a modern topbreak or a swing out. NAA is currently designing a .32 H&R magnum topbreak, but the round is too long and the gun is single action. It will go over like the proverbial **** in the punch bowl. The S&W "J" frame has been lengthened even more to accomodate the .357 mag., whish is about 1/3 full of powder. A revolver with a cylinder and frame built to accomodate a new .30-.36 cal. load would actually be tiny by today's standards, and the round could be loaded very hot. The frame and cylinder would be just long enough to accomodate a .22 LR version also. Has anyone ever looked at a .22 "J" frame or Charter arms and seen how much extra cylinder and barrel there is?
Bill

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Sorry for my cocky answer about .357 SIG and 10mm, but I feel there is definitely room for a new cartridge that is short, and simply will not fit in existing guns. The .45 GAP is sort of what I envision, except it could be fired in .45 ACP guns. This would be a mid sized defense round. I would think that it could get 1100 FPS out of a 2" bbl., if the guns were designed around the cartridge. Today, we tend to think of existing ammunition and guns. Think outside of that. A very small, 5 shot revolver with a lot of power. Much smaller than a "J" frame, with a .22 LR version to use as a plinking, practice, or "Kit" gun. Look at a Rossi "Princess" .22 revolver, and you will see what I mean about size.
Bill

 

[44 AMP]

Interesting idea

Small is nice to carry, but at the power levels you envision, how do you hold on to it? Really small guns in standard calibers are difficult to shoot well (for most of us), and are brutal with heavier loads. Moreso than large heavy magnum pistols.

If it is hard to shoot, people won't practice, and if they don't practice, they won't get hits when it is important.

A tiny powerful gun that can't be used with any current ammo, I would think it would be doomed to be a niche market, but I could be wrong.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Grip frame could be "J" frame sized. Frame and cylinder would simply be shorter.
Niche market? Forget current thinking about calibers and guns and look at it like this:
A well made, small revolver-chambered for a reasonably powerful round. Light bullet weight would make recoil less than a Scandium . 38 Special. Properly designed ammunition would make expansion very probable.
Comprehension of this idea requires "thinking out of the box" (I really hate that term!)
Think of a .32 S&W top break, made of modern materials that shoots a round that would be good for defense. I know the "Over .40" crowd would not buy it, but a lot of others would. Look at this- .32 ACP is very close to .32 H&R magnum velocity from a short barrel. I'm sure that .32 ACP could be loaded much hotter than it is currently, but it isn't because it could be fired in older, weak guns. So a new cartridge is developed, specifically for this project. I know that the NAA .25 and NAA .32 produce high velocities, but they are bottlenecked modifications of existing rounds. I don't think the recoil of a hot-loaded .32 ACP-type cartridge would be bad at all in a revolver.
The .22 lr version could introduce people to the gun.
Bill

 

[Socrates]

44AMP has a point.

Looking at my 360PD I don't see a lot of cylinder wall to play with. I've already had to go to bigger grips, since 357 with the tiny stock grips, and large hands, was out of the question. People have already had nerve damage, tingling for over a week, from firing these guns with 357 in them, and, most use 38 Plus P. I consider that minimum for defense, and, the gun already weighs 12 oz, how much lighter do you want to go?
You are right, that the frame could be shorter, but, at the expense of going from cheap ammunition sources.

I see your idea being viable with a couple ideas. First, go with something short, like the 9mm. That could shorten the gun and cylinder a bit, but, would still give you excellent ballistics. I'd increase the barrel a little, to make up for what you gained in a shorter cylinder, and, it would lighten the gun just a hair. Likewise that sub machine gun round they chambered the CZ 52 for, 7.62 X 25 with hollow points, and high velocity, might get you near 357 ballistics, with less recoil. Plus, it's a tapered case, so you could head space on the mouth, and crimp. A 90 grain bullet, HP, going 1400 fps, in .308, might be a really viable self-defense round, or, a Barnes monometal XTP, for better penetration, and opening up.

Of course you have the top strap cutting problem, when going with high pressure, light bullet rounds. The 360 PD already has a cheap metal piece in place to prevent that, with 357.

So, considering the top strap problem, the way to address that is usually to increase bullet weight, which gives you more recoil. Perhaps a 125 grain, or more, hollowpoint, in .308, at between 1100-1200 fps?

Plus, I'm not sure I agree with the initial premise. The advantage of large cases for bore, is being able to generate adequate, or good, ballistics, with low pressure, and less recoil. If you use a smaller case, you have to go up in pressure to generate the same ballistics, which means more recoil. As stated prior, with the current 12 oz weight in the Scandium lines, recoil is already at near max with .38 Plus P's. Yes, there is a LOT of room between 18K Plus P .38s, and 40 K 357 loads. Perhaps the answer is a load somewhere inbetween?

That said, a 10 oz, shorter cylinder revolver does have a place, because in Kali, we can't even get Keltecs. Result is the under 12 0z guns are Beretta 22lr, and 22 short, Tomcats, or 950s. So yes, it would have a market, because it would also move into the mouse gun category, with a legit round, rather then 380, or 22. Also the little Beretta is nearly 2" shorter, and, 2 inches smaller in grip, then the 360 PD, so that is an area that could be addressed with a shorter revolver, in a legit round.

Comments?

S

 

[Bill DeShivs]

To fully grasp the concept, you have to forget about current production guns-or to realize any shortcomings they have.
Cylinder would be no longer than necessary for the .22LR, as a LR version would be available.
Frame would be no longer than necessary to house the cylinder.
Caliber would be mid sized, with fairly light bullet weight. This reduces cyl. diameter, and pressure.
A decent bullet would need to be developed to insure adequate penetration and expansion.
Gun could be an approximation of: the Colt Police Positive in .32 New Police, or the S&W "I" frame in .32 S&W long, or the old S&W top breaks in .32 S&W. Made from modern materials, on modern machinery.
We spend entirely too much time trying to improve existing ammunition and guns. Doing so is the cheap way out and there is only so much that can be done. A new design for defense carry is way past overdue. It has been done with auto pistols and existing cartridges, but not with revolvers.
Bill

 

[Jim Watson]

Federal and Charter Arms tried something like that a number of years ago.
The 9mm Federal was a rimmed version of 9mm P, loaded to the same or better ballistics. Unfortunately they did not take it far enough to build short cylinder/topstrap revolvers but just put it out in Special size guns. I doubt Charter could have afforded to tool up for a completely new model anyhow.
Then there was the risk of getting the hot new cartridge in a .38 S&W.

I doubt there is the market for a noveau pocket revolver, but you could reserch it.
Why don't you buy a sound Terrier or Hand Ejector and have a new barrel and cylinder made of higher strength steel and chambered in a cartridge to approximate your concept? It would likely last long enough to test the concept. There is probably some brass that could be adapted if you wanted to use a new caliber to avoid overloading old guns.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Thanks, Jim. The 9mm Federal was again, an adaptation of an existing cartridge. Charter was just trying to increase sales with the then "hot" 9mm adapted for use in an existing gun.
The Hand ejector or Terrier could be handloaded in their existing calibers to approximate my idea, but I have no need to prototype a gun.
If S&W came out with a new tiny revolver in ".33 S&W Magnum" I can promise you the media would be all over it and it would sell. The NAA offerings in .25 NAA and .32 NAA were a neat idea, but the guns are too heavy and too large (in the case of the .32NAA). Perhaps these cartridges could be chambered in a new revolver-but it strays from the concept of a totally new gun/ammunition concept.
Bill

 

[croyance]

Didn't Taurus make a short framed version of their snubbies to take advantage of the shorter 9x19?

 

[Jim Watson]

Well, Bill, I guess the factories see it the same way you do... no need to prototype. Maybe they figure their ability to schmooze the gunwriters into advertising stuff has a limit. That's what will keep it an interesting internet discussion, no guns in sight.

There was a guy on THR who thought the makers should research his similar bright idea for a HV smallbore small frame high capacity auto. Maybe you could get together.