MachIVshooter
Member
Hmmm.....
Looks just as long as an M&P340/340PD, and heavier. Ugly, too
They could have thought that one through a little better.
.380 rumor true?
- Thread starter TheProf
- Start date
- Status
Hmmm.....
Looks just as long as an M&P340/340PD, and heavier. Ugly, too
They could have thought that one through a little better.
sidheshooter
Member
I dunno... look at the fluting that goes back all the way to the cylinder notches on the archduke Ferdinand special; that, and the cylinder latch-which looks a tad over size to me. I'm hoping that's an indication of a slightly smaller frame all around, in which case I might be in, just to have it.
I agree that, if it is just a re-cylindered j-frame/85ch, it won't do anything that an air weight centennial with 125-gr Nyclads won't do as well or better.
We shall have to wait and see-unless the aforementioned-mention Taurus vaporware tradition rears its head yet again.
I agree that, if it is just a re-cylindered j-frame/85ch, it won't do anything that an air weight centennial with 125-gr Nyclads won't do as well or better.
We shall have to wait and see-unless the aforementioned-mention Taurus vaporware tradition rears its head yet again.
Last edited:
Overkilll0084
Member
I'm sorry, exactly how is a 5 shot .380 revolver a step forward in comfort over the plethora of .380 semi autos out there? The only advantage I can see for arthritic hands is not having to operate a slide. I can't see recoil being "pleasant" in comparison. With SD loads that little thing is going to be a handful, at least as bad as any semi of similar dimensions & weight. Then factor in the lost capacity and the fact that Taurus is the one making it. Sorry I don't see it.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Overkill...Arthritic hands...diminutive slides...blowback actions with stiff springs.
And face it. Some people just don't like bottom feeders.
And face it. Some people just don't like bottom feeders.
Taurus already tried the short frame/cylinder combination with their 905 Instant Backup in 9mm and they discontinued it years ago. Now the only 9mm revolver they offer has the same length frame and cylinder as their .38/,357 line. The cylinder diameter won't be changed since you still need to fit 5 .355 caliber rounds in it at the same pressure as a .38spl +P, so the width of the gun will be the same as the more substantial calibers, and the weight (15.5oz) doesn't lend itself to pocket or ankle carry when compared to other small revolvers. Also, it will use moonclips or "stellar clips" as Taurus calls them (which has to be a joke, they're anything but), so buyers will still have that issue to contend with and I'm sure folks that have trouble with loading mags and racking slides are going to have trouble loading and unloaded moonclips as well.
Of course, there is also the question of Taurus's hit and miss quality control and less than "stellar" customer service. IMO, this one can be filed as another answer looking for a question.
I tend to agree with MachIVshooter. Why not instead bring back five shot 32 H&R magnums? They seem to have similar ballistics and, wouldn't 32 H&R mag be able to be thinner as opposed to shorter? I would think that would be a larger appeal to most people for pocket or ankle carry. I can fit my 3" barreled S&W 36 in some of my pants pockets without the grips being exposed, let alone a 2", but the cylinder is a little too thick for me to comfortably carry in a pocket, on the ankle, or even in certain positions IWB (like in the 3 o'clock or 9 o'clock positions).
I have no problems with people wanting a shorter revolver or even just thinking these would be cool as a fun gun, but I personally would prefer a thinner revolver over a shorter one and think that would have a good market too.
I have no problems with people wanting a shorter revolver or even just thinking these would be cool as a fun gun, but I personally would prefer a thinner revolver over a shorter one and think that would have a good market too.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Quote:
>Sometimes I wish the 20th century cartridge inventors had got together and had a conference before coming up with new stuff, because of all the wierd little incompatibilities like this.<
Two different inventors on opposite sides of the Atlantic designing cartridges and guns for two different applications. The 9mm was made with a little taper to expedite extraction due to the high pressures that it operated with. The .380 was essentially a scaled-down .45 ACP that...like its larger cousin...operated with similar pressures. The Luger cartridge was essentially designed "For War" while the .380's intent was largely for use in small, easily concealed pistols for the civilian market. Because it could also be used in a straight blowback design, it was simpler and less expensive to produce. Essentially, a step up in power and effectiveness from the .32 caliber pistols. In that niche, it was very good. Of course, these days the .380 is considered by many to be an anemic round, barely able to stop a charging bunny rabbit...but that comes mainly from people who haven't been shot with one.
And this:
>Why not instead bring back five shot 32 H&R magnums? They seem to have similar ballistics and, wouldn't 32 H&R mag be able to be thinner as opposed to shorter?<
You've still got a pretty high pressures to contend with. A thinner cylinder means thinner sidewalls. Pressure is pressure, and the cylinder can't tell whether that comes from a .32 or a .44 magnum. If the stress exceeds the yield strength of the steel, it can be dangerous.
>Sometimes I wish the 20th century cartridge inventors had got together and had a conference before coming up with new stuff, because of all the wierd little incompatibilities like this.<
Two different inventors on opposite sides of the Atlantic designing cartridges and guns for two different applications. The 9mm was made with a little taper to expedite extraction due to the high pressures that it operated with. The .380 was essentially a scaled-down .45 ACP that...like its larger cousin...operated with similar pressures. The Luger cartridge was essentially designed "For War" while the .380's intent was largely for use in small, easily concealed pistols for the civilian market. Because it could also be used in a straight blowback design, it was simpler and less expensive to produce. Essentially, a step up in power and effectiveness from the .32 caliber pistols. In that niche, it was very good. Of course, these days the .380 is considered by many to be an anemic round, barely able to stop a charging bunny rabbit...but that comes mainly from people who haven't been shot with one.
And this:
>Why not instead bring back five shot 32 H&R magnums? They seem to have similar ballistics and, wouldn't 32 H&R mag be able to be thinner as opposed to shorter?<
You've still got a pretty high pressures to contend with. A thinner cylinder means thinner sidewalls. Pressure is pressure, and the cylinder can't tell whether that comes from a .32 or a .44 magnum. If the stress exceeds the yield strength of the steel, it can be dangerous.
stiletto raggio
Member
It seems like the requirement of using moon clips undermines utility for the whole "small, weak, inexperienced" market.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
The requirement for moon clips is about extraction with rimless cases. While it's possible to design a revolver extractor to work with rimless cases, it tends to be pretty complicated to machine and keep within tolerances that will allow it to work reliably with rim diameter variations...which would sorta defeat the purpose of manufacturing an inexpensive pocket-carry revolver. The moon or half-moon clip is a simpler, less expensive means of accomplishing that.
You also have to keep in mind that the "small, weak, inexperienced" theoretical owner of this gun probably is going to load it and put it in her nightstand and leave it there for years, not perform stressfire reloads while taking cover during a firefight.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
napjerk...Bingo.
There are probably a shocking number of unfired Model 10s and Model 36/37 Smith & Wessons lounging the decades away in the top drawers of nightstands or dressers...awaiting the call to duty that may never come. I recently bought an early pinned and recessed Model 13 that didn't even have a drag mark on the cylinder. The original owner who sold it to the guy who sold it to me said that the gun had been fired 12 times, and I tend to believe it. My first estimates on the round count was 50-60. Further investigation revealed the answer. By the way...I practically stole it.
There are probably a shocking number of unfired Model 10s and Model 36/37 Smith & Wessons lounging the decades away in the top drawers of nightstands or dressers...awaiting the call to duty that may never come. I recently bought an early pinned and recessed Model 13 that didn't even have a drag mark on the cylinder. The original owner who sold it to the guy who sold it to me said that the gun had been fired 12 times, and I tend to believe it. My first estimates on the round count was 50-60. Further investigation revealed the answer. By the way...I practically stole it.
I don't load ammo, but I was under the impression from some articles and forum posts that I read that 32 H&R mag was only very slightly higher pressure than 380 acp. That would make it seem like you would still be able to shave a little diameter off of the cylinder even if the walls would have to be a little thicker proportional to the size of the case. The case diameter of 380 is nearly .4" thicker than the case of 32 H&R, so unless the pressure is considerably higher, it seems to me the cylinder still might be able to be .1 or .2 inches smaller in diameter, which is a pretty decent amount for a small pocket gun.
Please correct me if I am wrong, I enjoy learning new things.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
mj...mybad, and you're correct. I was locked onto the new Ruger .327 round for some reason.
Advantage still goes to the .380 because of ammunition cost and availability. I can't remember the last time I saw a box of .32 H&R Magnum on a shelf. That may be more of a geography thing, though...but it's still pretty expensive compared to .380 Auto.
Advantage still goes to the .380 because of ammunition cost and availability. I can't remember the last time I saw a box of .32 H&R Magnum on a shelf. That may be more of a geography thing, though...but it's still pretty expensive compared to .380 Auto.
zxcvbob
Member
A short-cylinder .38 Special chambered for wadcutters would make a good belly-gun. You'd save about a half an inch off the cylinder and the frame and a good bit of weight.
(.32 ACP or .38 Super would not need moon clip, although extraction might be a bit unreliable)
(.32 ACP or .38 Super would not need moon clip, although extraction might be a bit unreliable)
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
bob just touched on a good point in mentioning reliable extraction.
Since the concept is an emergency tool to use for stopping a personal attack at contact distances...it's not likely that a quick reload would be in the offing. They could simply cut the chambers to headspace the case on the mouth and extract the empties with a pencil.
Since the concept is an emergency tool to use for stopping a personal attack at contact distances...it's not likely that a quick reload would be in the offing. They could simply cut the chambers to headspace the case on the mouth and extract the empties with a pencil.
I don't really think a six or 5 shot .380 is all that great for me. Now, if they were to come out with a five shot .327Federal Magnum, that would get me excited.
MachIVShooter - thats a nice Iver Johnson. Now I want one. Off to Gunbroker!
Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson
MachIVShooter - thats a nice Iver Johnson. Now I want one. Off to Gunbroker!
Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson
tinygnat219
Member
Why doesn't Taurus simply go with the .38 S&W cartridge? It has practically the same ballistics as .380 ACP and has a heavier bullet (146 grains typically to 90-95 grains). The round works and is a straight-walled rimmed cartridge. No silly "stellar" clips necessary.
harmon rabb
Member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 2,699
taurus also announced a 40s&w revolver. lol.
you have go to give this to taurus -- they are NOT afraid to bring weird **** to market and see if it sells.
you have go to give this to taurus -- they are NOT afraid to bring weird **** to market and see if it sells.
1911Tuner,
You are absolutely right about 380 being way cheaper and easier to find than 32 H&R. I was thinking more to the effect of that if there is a strong market for it than the ammo manufacturers might just start making enough 32 mag to be more affordable and easier to find. It would take more time to catch on than 380 though, and the revolver might get dropped in the meantime if sales aren't enough to make it worthwhile to Taurus while the ammo availability catches up. I feel like this is one of the reasons that the 327 federal mag hasn't taken off very quickly either. Still, a thinner revolver than a j-frame without being a tiny 22 like the NAA minis would be cool IMO.
Broker,
One of the other reasons companies come out with revolvers chambered for semi-auto-calibers is that many people would like to carry a small and lightweight BUG in the same caliber that they use in their regular carry or duty weapon. This doesn't really apply to 380 since the semi-autos are often even smaller than the revolver would be, but a 5 shot small frame 9mm and 5 shot medium frame 40S&W are desirable to many for this reason. I personally also don't have a use for this since I only own revolvers right now (although one is chambered for 45acp but too large for anything except open carry), but some might.
You are absolutely right about 380 being way cheaper and easier to find than 32 H&R. I was thinking more to the effect of that if there is a strong market for it than the ammo manufacturers might just start making enough 32 mag to be more affordable and easier to find. It would take more time to catch on than 380 though, and the revolver might get dropped in the meantime if sales aren't enough to make it worthwhile to Taurus while the ammo availability catches up. I feel like this is one of the reasons that the 327 federal mag hasn't taken off very quickly either. Still, a thinner revolver than a j-frame without being a tiny 22 like the NAA minis would be cool IMO.
Broker,
One of the other reasons companies come out with revolvers chambered for semi-auto-calibers is that many people would like to carry a small and lightweight BUG in the same caliber that they use in their regular carry or duty weapon. This doesn't really apply to 380 since the semi-autos are often even smaller than the revolver would be, but a 5 shot small frame 9mm and 5 shot medium frame 40S&W are desirable to many for this reason. I personally also don't have a use for this since I only own revolvers right now (although one is chambered for 45acp but too large for anything except open carry), but some might.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Quote:
>Why doesn't Taurus simply go with the .38 S&W cartridge? <
Good idea in theory, but it won't happen. The problem would come when trying to convince the ammo makers to start loading it again for just one model. A hundred years ago, there were many small revolvers chambered for the cartridge. No more, though. The .380 and the pistols chambered for it are everywhere. To produce what is essentially its ballistic twin in order to serve such a small market would be a losing proposition financially.
>Why doesn't Taurus simply go with the .38 S&W cartridge? <
Good idea in theory, but it won't happen. The problem would come when trying to convince the ammo makers to start loading it again for just one model. A hundred years ago, there were many small revolvers chambered for the cartridge. No more, though. The .380 and the pistols chambered for it are everywhere. To produce what is essentially its ballistic twin in order to serve such a small market would be a losing proposition financially.
MachIVshooter
Member
Maybe I'm mistaken, but it was my understanding that the 9x19 was developed by necking up the .30 Luger at the request of the German Military, and that the taper simply resulted from using a nice round number instead of creating a 9.18mm bullet (or whaever it would have been for a truly straight case). Kind of similar to how the .50 AE ended up being so tapered; Had nothing to do with aiding extraction.
The .380 and .32 H&R have almost identical SAAMI ratings (21,500 and 22,000, respectively). It's pretty low for a "magnum" cartridge.
Thanks
You should be able to find one pretty cheap (I paid $70 for that one), but may have a time investment, like I did. It was sloppy as he!!, the timing was way off and the ejector wasn't working. Took quite awhile to clean it up and get the action working right again with a welder, a dremel and a bunch of other assorted hand tools. Notice how long the cylinder notch tapers are? But I tell you what, this thing locks up like a Python now! Lol.1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
MachIV...Yep. I addressed the pressure thing earlier. I had my mind on either the .327 Ruger or the Federal magnum round.
MachIVshooter
Member
Sorry, missed that. I should've looked harder.
If it were the other, yeah....I wouldn't want wafer-thin cylinder walls containing a 45,000 PSI cartridge in a gun I was firing
- Status
