My new dream CCW revolver that does not exist yet.

The thought flitted through my mind when I wrote .38 S&W +P to say 9mm parabellum or 9mm Federal but I let it flit on by. Of course those are the real answers to a higher pressure short "38".

I'll wait for the development of the
.25 SSD (Super Sonic Devastator)
for revolvers and autos.

mcb said:

If I am going to have to buy a Ruger I think I would rather have it on an SP101, but I guess I could live with an LCR.

Click to expand...

Ruger just seems more responsive to the market (especially with their revolvers) and more inclined to go into a new caliber. The SP101 is strong, but pretty heavy. LCR's are light and smooth, and good shooters. Much closer to what you want from S&W.

30 Super isn't a bad idea. 32 and 30 caliber bullets are quite capable if and only if they have sufficient sectional density. The problem with 32ACP is the light weight bullets, typically 60 grains, with low sectional density don't both expand and penetrate. 30 Super's 100 grain bullets have greater sectional density. Looking at common 32 revolver cartridges, we see the issue with 32 H&R -- typical 85 grain bullets. They need to be about 110 or 125 grains instead - at a minimum. 327 Magnum, again fails with only 100 grain bullets being typical.

30 Super was done very well by allowing at least 100 grain bullets. It should allow good capacity in a magazine and in a medium-frame revolver it might allow eight chambers, maybe ten in a large cylinder. Personally, I don't have any use for little revolvers and increasing capacity has diminishing benefits for my purposes.

So I don't want one, but 30 Super could have 327 and the other 32 revolver cartridges beat easily as long as there is a good selection of 100 or more grain bullets. If it fails to catch on, bullet selection will be weak and then it will become just as obscure and lame. To make it work well in revolvers, I'd want to see up to 125 grain jacketed bullets of modern design (HST, Tac-XP, Critical Duty, etc.)

.32 Federal magnum bests the ‘30 in revolvers any which way. To shame it give up one round and step up to .357.
The .30 is designed to provide 2 additional rounds over the 9mm. There are numerous options to solve this problem.

mcb said:

I suffer from an sever moonclip addiction. Moonclips are the fastest way to reload a revolver. The best cartridges for fast moonclip enabled reloads are short cartridges. The best moonclips are moonclips for rimless cartridges. This is due to hte moonclip for a rimless cartridge being typically thicker and and thus more robust. So if you want the best small frame, 32-cal, 6-shot, moonclip-feed, revolver; 30 Super Carry is your cartridge.

Click to expand...

Moonclips are fine by me. My only note on your post is that if you make your proposed revolver big enough to be a 5 shot 38 Special (and why not if you are going to make it a 6 shot 30?) then everyone will buy it in 38 Special because it is a known quantity, available everywhere fine cartridges are sold, and probably significantly cheaper than 30 Super in the bargain. The 30 Super version will die on the vine. That is (sort of) exactly what happened to 32 H&R Magnum, which has been a niche cartridge ever since.

On the other hand, it means we would get at least some revolvers in Super 30, because converting an existing gun is much cheaper than tooling up to make a new design. At least we got a bunch of 32 Magnum revolvers back when the cartridge was new, even if they faded away as time went on (and cost big bucks today).

I once bought a Blackhawk in .30 Carbine. The gunsmith at the shop - who was a good guy and a good friend - said "Congratulations. Now you've got a useless handgun to go with your useless rifle". I gave him the finger, but he ended up being right, and I'd soon traded off both guns.

So the memo I got said that a useless cartridge at half the factory velocity is useless squared. But hey, you do you.

Mcb, I too would like a very small revolver with a short cylinder for a savings in weight and bulk. However, I would like to point out that while "longer" barrel for the same overall length is technically true and a shorter cylinder throat run has some theoretical advantages, ballistically it is pretty much a wash. The 'overlength' cylinder is still combustion and acceleration space. Part of the reason that the 9×19 makes such a good showing in 2" revolver barrels aside from being a very efficient cartridge is that a 2" revolver plus standard cylinder length winds up being a bit over 3.5 inches....very little different from a "normal" 4inch autoloader barrel n length.

Tallball said:

There's another thread with pictures of the LCR in 327 federal magnum.

Click to expand...

I'd love to get a 327 Magnum revolver if it has more capacity, say 8 holes or more? They can get 7 holes in a 357 (S&W) so I would think a 9 or even 10 hole 327 is feasible, though for a carry revolver you want to keep the cylinder down to a reasonable diameter.

The 327 have a lip so you don't need moon clips to run it in a revolver?

S&W 69, no lock, square butt so I can put my Pachmayr Bill Jordan grips on it.

-Stan

mcb said:

I suffer from an sever moonclip addiction. Moonclips are the fastest way to reload a revolver. The best cartridges for fast moonclip enabled reloads are short cartridges. The best moonclips are moonclips for rimless cartridges. This is due to hte moonclip for a rimless cartridge being typically thicker and and thus more robust. So if you want the best small frame, 32-cal, 6-shot, moonclip-feed, revolver; 30 Super Carry is your cartridge.

Click to expand...

I don't like the idea of moon clips. They seem like an extra hassle vs just stuffing the cylinder with rounds, but you make a great point in that they result in fast reloads, especially with shorter ammo.

mcb said:

I want a 6-shot short-frame/cylinder J-frame chambered in the new 30 Super Carry. Cut for moonclips of course! Now that would be a handy if noisy little revolver. Something akin to the old S&W Terrier (an I-frame) in 32 S&W Long but in the new 30 Super Carry. But instead of steel I want a scandium-aluminum frame and titanium cylinder, it has got to weigh less than 12 oz unloaded, closer to 10 oz would be nice. It should be the same overall size of a 642/442 but with the shorter frame/cylinder it would have a ~2-3/8 inch barrel rather than a 1-7/8 inch barrel. Hammerless, double action only configuration is all I need. All black/gray finish like the 340 PD but with a pencil-thin barrel. Super low profile fixed sights.

Click to expand...

Since 30 Super Carry is actually the same as 32 caliber, you could just find a nice S&W 31 in 32 S&W Long and hop up the loads a bit. I wonder about the pressure level of 30 Super Carry in the gun configuration that you describe. Lastly, I think you need some weight in a gun, or the felt recoil could be stunning, maybe only good for one shot.

mcb said:

View attachment 1053205

My current snubby is a S&W 442. 14.7 oz unloaded, even with +P loads I find it very manageable. I do think 30 SC in a similar or slighter lighter weight revolver is going to be more snappy but not 357 Mag snappy. I am interested enough to buy one and try it but I am not going to hold my breath waiting for S&W to make it.

Click to expand...

Care to explain grips and “speed loader” ?

mcb said:

First up I am not sure an old 32 S&W long if rechambered to 30SC is going to take the bump up in pressure form 15 ksi to 50 ksi. And just loading 32 S&W a little hotter even if I got the ballistics I want would then forgo the thick robust moonclips associated with a rimless cartridge like 30SC A 327 Magnum Revolver could take the pressure but then we have a long cylinder and I want the short cylinder of the old 38 S&W/32 S&W guns but made to take the very higher pressure of 30SC.

As for recoil I have shot 357 Magnum in 12 oz 340 PD, it was brutal and unpleasant. That said I believe 30SC in a 15-17 oz revolver (like a shortened frame S&W 642/442) it would be only marginally worst than 38 Special +P but I have not run the numbers yet since we don't have a good muzzle velocity of 30SC from a 2-2.5 inch revolver barrel.

Click to expand...

I did not mean shooting a semiauto round, 30SC, in a revolver. I meant settling for 32 S&W Long, maybe a stout load.

mcb said:

But this thread is about a dream revolver, you don't settle for less than the full dream.

I want a 6-shot chambered in the new 30 Super Carry with a frame/cylinder shortened to match the shorter cartridge. Cut for moonclips of course! Instead of steel I want a scandium-aluminum frame and titanium cylinder, it has got to weigh less than 12 oz unloaded, closer to 10 oz would be nice. It should be the same overall size of a 642/442 but with the shorter frame/cylinder it would have a ~2-3/8 inch barrel rather than a 1-7/8 inch barrel. Hammerless, double action only configuration is all I need. All black/gray finish like the 340 PD but with a pencil-thin barrel and super low profile fixed sights.

Click to expand...

I thought you intended to be realistic. Go for it!

I’ll take a 4” sp101 with adjustable sights in 30sc

mcb said:

But this thread is about a dream revolver, you don't settle for less than the full dream.

I want a 6-shot chambered in the new 30 Super Carry with a frame/cylinder shortened to match the shorter cartridge. Cut for moonclips of course! Instead of steel I want a scandium-aluminum frame and titanium cylinder, it has got to weigh less than 12 oz unloaded, closer to 10 oz would be nice. It should be the same overall size of a 642/442 but with the shorter frame/cylinder it would have a ~2-3/8 inch barrel rather than a 1-7/8 inch barrel. Hammerless, double action only configuration is all I need. All black/gray finish like the 340 PD but with a pencil-thin barrel and super low profile fixed sights.

Click to expand...

I like that idea too. But I've been waiting for 30+ years for someone to design a revolver similar to that for 9mm Parabellum, or a least a steel and aluminum alloy gun with a cylinder and frame sized for a 5-shot 9mm. No such luck, and 9mm is one of the most popular pistol cartridges on the face of the earth. The time for it is past, now, with the compact lightweight polymer framed automatics in 9mm all over the place.

Dreams are nice, though, aren't they? I tend to dream about top-break revolvers myself, which is even less likely to happen.

I would make a distinction between "dream" and "fantasy". My dream would be revolvers designed around the size and power of the cartridge, not just a couple basic platforms, and something nicer than Charter Arms efforts. Top of my list would be 41 Special in coordination with an ammunition company. I have one, but it cost $1350 or so to build it with a cylinder longer than needed. I load my own ammo. All the Specials are in magnum cylinders and frames and heavier and bulkier than ideal for a carry gun.

My fantasy gun would be eye implants and a chip that provide mind-controlled stun ray strikes within assault distance, kind of a Flash Gordon, ray gun thing.