Completely new design

[Bill DeShivs]

To my knowledge, Taurus did not make such a gun, but I have not researched it.
There would be no need to use this concept in a semi auto. I don't think it would take a major manufacturer "schmoozing" to get coverage.
There seem to be a lot of naysayers on these forums. The idea certainly has merit, but perhaps it is above many people's heads. What is not to like about the design concept? Unless you are one of the people who thinks anything less than a .45 would just make someone mad.....
Bill

 

[croyance]

It isn't a semi-auto and since a 9x19 already has a shorter OAL than the .38 Special and has lighter & faster bullets, it already fits what you are looking for. The pressures are higher, but a shorter framed revolver can be made for it. For a five shot, the cylinder wouldn't have to be that big. It would reload with moonclips too, which is faster. You don't even need that much barrel to get it up to speed. Combine that with light weight materials and you are set.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Croyance
I agree with you. If the frame were made shorter this would be a good compromise. The cylinder would still be as big in diameter as a .38. And there are inherent problems with the rimless 9mm. Maybe the 9mm Federal would work better. I'm thinking a slightly smaller gun though.
Bill

 

[Axion]

A mid sized defense round could be developed that would approach 9mm power in a shorter bullet

Dumb question perhaps, but why do we need a round that is smaller and weaker then a 9mm? There are some pretty darn small carry 9mm's. Just how small do you want a gun to be?

 

[BlueTrain]

There are some interesting ideas here, though I think some of them miss the point. As usual, some of the things people would like to see or the manufacturers try to make are contradictory. For instance, in the case of a revolver, you want a smaller cylinder that holds more cartridges. Alternately, you have a larger revolver because it is stronger but then you end up putting more chambers in the cylinder, thereby offsetting the reason you have a larger revolver.

Something original is hard to comeby. Not only have there been all sorts of cartridges introduced but there have been all sorts of designs since metallic cartridges have been around, some of which were really unique and have no equivalent today. Ever heard of the Chicago Palm Pistol, which I believe could be described as a revolver.

I think the idea of a breaktop is nice. How about one in .22 magnum? Not a short cartridge and certainly not a quiet one to shoot but it is a starting point. Still, there have been some very good quality pocket revolvers in the past chambered in cartridges weaker than .38 Special, usually considered the bottom line in a defense. Of those, the .38 S&W was probably the best but all of them were capable of killing people and they all did.

There is also the question of what to call it. Sometimes I think that attaching the wrong name will ruin the cartridge for what it might be best at, though there are certainly other factors, since none of this happens in a vacuum. Of this, the .41 Magnum is a good example. It was really magnumized out of existance as a police handgun, if I can put it that way. There are still people who like the round and I guess that makes it a niche market cartridge. It could have been called a .41 Special, though I think that name had already been used. Besides, the ones that wanted it at the time believed that a 200-grain bullet at about 1200 f.p.s. was what you really needed for police use. On top of that, the revolver was heavier than a .44 magnum.

But getting back to the main topic, of all the interesting designs of the past 130 years or so, there might be some worth trying out with a new cartridge and contemporary materials. After all, the .32 ACP is still going strong, in a manner of speaking.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Axion
It is. We are talking revolvers here. Revolvers small enough to carry comfortably in a pocket.
Bill

 

[Axion]

Ok I just skimed the thread and didn't catch that.

...so do they not make 9mm revolvers?

 

[lee n. field]

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.

.32 H&R?

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Lee- Keyword "short."
.32 H&R is too long.
Bill

 

[JIH]

...so do they not make 9mm revolvers?

Ruger apparently currently makes a .357/.38 <-> 9 mm convertible for their New Model Blackhawk. I assume they run well, just like any Blackhawk.

Ruger SP-101s used to come in 9mm. It's been a few years since they made them, though. My sister owns one, and it's nice. I don't know what their presence is on the used market, but everyone I've known that has one has held on to it.

Taurus has a few 9mms, but their pages say they're all discontinued. No experience whatsoever with them, nor have I even seen one.

I do not know if S&W or Colt ever made 9mm revolvers. I've never seen one. Then again, I've never seen a baby sea gull, but I'm pretty sure they exist somewhere.

9mm revolvers were/are kind of a strange animal. People either loved them, hated them, or ignored them.

Because you have to use moon clips, unless you liked the idea of the clips as a de facto speedloader, people felt it was taking away some of the simplicity of using a revolver out of the equation. Also, once you bent a clip because you Baby-Huey'ed a shell or two in or out, it's really hard to bend it back. After awhile, you'd run out of non-mangled clips, and they weren't easy to find outside of a gunshow or gun catalog. (This was before the internet made getting gun parts so easy.) You could load without moon clips, but sometimes you'd have to use a punch of some kind to get the bullets out... which is ok at the range, but it sucks anywhere else.

Additionally, for the same sized gun and the same number of shots (they were usually 5 shots) you could use .357 Mag or hot .38s, which people in the revolver world always seemed to respect more.

Moreover, if you really wanted to use 9mm, by the time 1994 came around, they started to make autoloaders smaller and smaller, so you could have more than 5 shots of 9mm in a gun that was the same size or smaller (given the cylinder) than a .38 or .357 snubbie.

They just didn't have a market any more. .45 ACP is still popular for revolvers, despite the moon clips, because they're good for pin shooting and because S&W found a hell of a spokesperson in Jerry Miculek. It also helps that the 625 is a hell of a gun.

 

[kozak6]

I think the Russians made some revolvers in 9x18.

That's pretty close to what you are asking for, right Bill?

 

[azredhawk44]

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.

Socrates makes a VERY GOOD POINT here.

Look at the Magnum Research BFR chambered in .45/70 as evidence.

At first glance, somebody might say "are you crazy?!?" if you hand them a .45/70 handgun and run the other way when you ask them to pull the trigger and feel the recoil.

But, since the .45/70 and .454 are ballistically very similar when coming out of a 10-12" barrel but the .45/70 has a much larger case volume, the .45/70 actually has less recoil to the end user but the same effect on target with equivalent weight bullets.

Shortening a 38special case and then applying modern propellant and metallurgy to the brass and cylinder will result in increased pressure. This will give you the short cylinder and modern cartridge that you want, but won't give you many buyers when the gun they shoot has even more recoil than a .357mag snubby. It weighs less, lobs a bullet with roughly the same diameter and weight at the same or greater speed, but recoils less? Not without a gas or recoil system a la Mateba. But that increases the size and weight of your gun again.

I might consider such a revolver in a full-sized offering, L or N frame, GP100, etc. But not a snub. My sp101 is a heavy snub, and I don't think I want one any lighter than that if I am going to shoot near .357 levels of power. I definitely don't load my sp101 with Win296/H110/2400 loads... I stick with Unique/Titegroup loads. The recoil from the pressure is abominable otherwise.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

I'm not an ammunition designer, but I would think a reasonable defense round could be made that is around the length of a .22 lr. It would not have to be a "super magnum." More power than a .380 auto, though. The round would need to be exclusive, so that no other ammo would fit. The round would need to be rimmed, for ease of use in a small revolver. The .38 Special Short, with expanding bullet might be a good idea, but I'm thinking smaller diameter, to reduce the width of the cylinder. Then build a new pocket revolver around it.
If it were necessary to use an existing round, the .32 ACP might work (semi-rimmed), or the Special short-loaded differently.
I know this idea will not be popular with the "over .40" crowd but they don't like mini-revolvers, either. Look at how many mini-revolvers NAA has sold.
I think (make that "know') there is a market with the people who don't like automatics for something smaller than the .38 Special frames currently available. Whether you think all guns should be .44 Magnums is irrelevant. People BUY small guns. People LIKE small guns. Rossi made a copy of the old S&W original "Ladysmith" revolver in .22lr. The Ladysmith was a miniature of the large framed guns, scaled to the .22 cartridge. The gun was tiny, but early Rossi quality was not good, and the GCA '68 banned it's importation.
Bill

 

[Socrates]

Bill:
The OAL for .32 ACP and .380 Auto is the same, at .984".
The OAL for 22lr is the same, or slightly longer.
The cylinder on a 360 PD 38/357 is 1 9/16".
The cylinder on a 22lr Colt Trooper is 1 10/16".
The cylinder diameter on a 360 PD is 1 5/16" in diameter.
The cylinder diameter on a Colt trooper is 1 1/2".

So your round is going to shave maybe a 1/16 or 1/8 inch off the cylinder diameter?

How are you going to get better ballistics? Higher pressure is about the only way to go. So, a rimmed 380 is still a 380. So a 95 grain bullet, at max 1000 fps is very hot 380.
a .32 acp goes puts a 65 grain bullet, at 1050 fps.
The 9mm Makrarov is the same OAL as the .32 and 380, in 9mm, and will also put a 95 grain bullet, at 1050 fps.

If you add a hair of cylinder and cartridge length, you can go faster then the .380. It's called 9mm luger. 1.168" OAL, up two tenths of OAL, and now you can move a 9mm bullet, 115 grains, at near 1275 fps.

Point is, if you want a ten oz revolver, as you said, put a rim on the .32 ACP, and, jack the pressure up to 357 mag, or more, pressures. You'll need to use light bullets, and, you won't get great velocity out of a snubby.

So, how do we get over a 85 grain bullet, in .38, at 1000fps? Go to 9mm is one way, but, it's too long. However, even taking the .380 case to 9mm pressures, we still aren't going to get much over 1100 fps, with the 85 grain bullet.

It might be possible to use something like the 9mm necked down to say, .308, like the 7.62X25mm Tokarev.
That would give you a longer cylinder then you would like, since OAL is 1.35, but, you'd get a .30 caliber bullet, at about 85 grains, going 1400 fps, or more. Cost? PRESSURE and recoil. This round snaps a 32 oz pistol hard. Imagine what it would be like in a 10 oz revolver.

I guess the best bet would be a necked down .380 ACP, to say, .308, and, using a 65 grain bullet, or slightly more, you could push around 1200 fps. But, you want to exceed the 380, so, you have to use a bigger case, and neck it down to the .308 size, using the same weight bullet, 95 grains, and, getting it moving say 1200-1300 fps, to make this even worth considering. That would be the 9mm, since the success of neckdowns is usually to start with a common round, for easy brass avaliability, and gun machining.
Actually, this is WAY to much wasted energy, for WAY too little benefit. The 12 oz snubbies are about as light as anyone can shoot, and, if you want a 10 Oz. snubby, then you need to chamber for one of the lighter rounds, with a rim. You aren't going to fool physics, and, if you start loading the 380 hot enough to exceed it's current ballistics, it's going to recoil like crazy, and have very high pressures.

The shorter cylinder you ask for just isn't there, as far as 22lr length, vs. 38/357.
What you are really talking about is a 32 H&R. 100 grain bullet, at 1150, max, designed for a revolver.OAL is 1.350, but, as we've shown, the difference between that and the 'shorter' rounds you describe is basicly non-existent in cylinder length. SAAMI is 21K, higher the 38 Plus P, and, about the same as the 380 you want to exceed.

Not much to be gained, since the 38 is very close to these specs, and very close to the same pressure, 17k vs 21k.
To get better ballistics, just chamber for 9mm, in a scandium revolver, with a rim on the cartridge, or clips like they use for 45 ACP, so you can speed load.

I think others have been there, done that, and, found the .38/357 is a superior package.

S

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Socrates
Thanks for your reply. The 9mm rimmed round would do nicely. By my rough calculations, the cylinder and frame could be at least 1/4" shorter. I never said anything about a 10 oz. revolver, just a light revolver. I am looking at an old Charter Arms Pathfinder .22 right now. The cylinder is 1/4" too long for a .22 lr, and there is a 1/4" gap between the cylinder and frame. That equals 1/2" shorter OAL, plus the attendant weight reduction. The .32 ACP is, for it's size a hot little round. Let's say we chamber a modern 5 shot revolver for .32 ACP. This would fill the bill nicely if the cylinder diameter and cylinder/frame length were appropriate. The problem is that since so many older/junk guns are chambered so, no company in their right mind would load the ammunition to it's full potential. The old S&W Terrier in .38 S&W would be nice, but the same ammuniton problem arises.
The gun/ammo does not have to be a giant killer, just decent ballistics. I think this would be best served by a new cartridge, larger than .32, smaller than .38. No, it wouldn't be better than a .38 Special or 9mm, but it would SELL.
Bill

 

[Socrates]

Bill
I agree, but, I'd rather go with a .308 caliber bullet, and similar ballistics to the 7.62 X 25. This would be different enough to make it worth doing. Plus, my concern with the .32 and .380 is inadequate penetration to vitals, and, that is NOT a problem with the Tokarev.
You'd have a light weight, armour piercing pistol round, far exceeding the penetration of the .32, 380, or, for that matter, the 357, or, 9mm. Having a slightly longer cylinder, to provide such awesome preformance would be worth doing. The recoil might be an entirely different matter, but, with a 65-85 grain bullet, it might be liveable. 1400 fps would be nice...

S

 

[Jim Watson]

It's been done, guys.
The "ideal" hideout should be small enough to fit a pocket but big enough to get a firing grip on. It should be double action for speed and hammerless to prevent snagging coming out of the pocket. Am I right? We are not talking about a centerfire version of the NAA Mini-Revolver, are we?

Consider the S&W Safety Hammerless of 1888. It has everything you could want... except power. In pre-antibiotic days, anything that would deliver a penetrating wound was a deterrent; it was a deadly weapon even though it lacked "stopping power."

OK, reissue the "lemon squeezer" in modern materials. Maybe ultra-modern materials, those things are small and their cylinders small even in proportion. The .38 S&W size could then handle 9mm P in moon clips. No sense in going on the new cartridge wild goose chase of the 9mm Federal rimmed, clips work.

If you want something even smaller, the .32 is a distinctly smaller gun, not just a smallbore version of the .38. That probably would require the leap of faith into a new round. The .32 S&W ain't much, the .32ACP is not a whole lot better, and the .32 H&R is too long for the cylinder. So have the rocket scientists design a new cartridge not longer than .32 S&W long, operating at high pressure in an Unobtanium cylinder, and enough larger in diameter to not go in a .32 chamber. Call it the .33 Defense. But you will run the risk of other niche cartridges like 10mm, and .41 Mag which appeal to a small minority of enthusiasts. Or even the fate of the 9mm Federal and .35 S&W. Never hear of a .35 S&W? Well, there was one, and that is my point.

I still don't think it will fly, but the hard work has been done, the design exists.

 

[Socrates]

Jim
Bill might have a point. A smaller revolver, competing with the 10 oz Berettas, would be a nice thing, if done in the right caliber.
With the changes in carry laws, it might sell better then you think. Change in climate and timing is everything.

S

 

[Bill DeShivs]

AHA- Converts!
Bill