A concept for a new .22 revolver

[BCRider]

After reading a number of threads about "which .22 revolver" I've come to my own conclusion that what the world needs is a better .22 revolver that is not cheap but is at least affordable and a good performer.

Before I go further let me list the .22 revolvers that I've owned or gotten to shoot so you know where I'm coming from.

S&W 617 10 shot, S&W 17 and S&W 63
H&R Sportsman 9 shot top break
Hi Standard Double Nine
3 screw Ruger Single Six

Out of this list I own or owned them all except the 610 and 63 which belonged to different buddy's that let me try them out.

Things I've found;

• The top break and swing out cylinders are the nicest method for reloading. The top break is nice but I suspect that it's fairly fragile and likely would cost more to produce these days than a swing out cylinder setup.
• When shooting .22LR six shots is just not enough. The nod of approval goes to those guns with 8 or more shots.
• Typical single action ejecting and loading one at a time gets old really fast. It's bad enough with 6 rounds but would likely drive me to drink if there were 9 or 10 rounds in there.
• All the guns had nice or at least acceptable triggers in SA.
• The DA triggers on all but my 17 and the buddy's 610 are/were horrible to the point where they might as well only be SA guns since that's how I shoot them all the time.
• Some of us like the higher grip of a DA revolver while others like the traditional "plow handle" feel of the classic SA guns as found with the Ruger Single Six.

So this brings me to my feature list for my concept of the Ideal .22 Revolver;

• Swing out "hand ejector" cylinder with 9 rounds. Staying with 8 or 9 vs 10 allows the gun to be a little smaller than the rather bulky, for a .22 gun, K frame S&W's.
• Switchable grips that give the option of a plow handle SA grip or a filled in upper backstrap area DA style grip. The hammer being shaped to work acceptably with either grip style.
• Single action only since it seems to be the best way to achieve a nice trigger pull with the least cost courtesy of the simplicity of the insides and the need for a firm hammer strike for reliable ignition.
• Size wise it should be around the same size and weight as the Ruger Single Six and come in a few barrel lengths ranging from 4.2 inch to 7 or 8 inch. The 4.2 inch option is a nod towards us folks here in Canada and a couple of the US states that can't own the "evil" 4 inch barrel revolvers...
• Provisions should be made at the factory for dovetail or screw holes on the frame to allow easy fitting of a sight rail or direct scope mounting for hunting or longer range precision shooting.
• Adjustable sights of course. Perhaps a spring blade style of rear sight where the sight is removed to expose the recess and the holes for mounting a rail that snugs down in this recess groove for positive position locking.

What have I missed or what don't you folks like about this dream .22 wheelgun concept?

 

[bergmen]

Your list is exactly what I've been thinking about for years.

I just cannot figure out why any of the manufacturers have not come out with something like this.

I have been shooting Single Sixes since the early 60's and have owned one since 1976 and I've always wished they held more rounds and had a swing-out cylinder. The heck with "tradition" on this, make it more convenient.

As for my personal preference, I think the shape, size, weight and balance of the Single Six is the absolute best of all .22 revolvers, period. Single action only for me, just like you say.

"Build it and they will come."

JMHO

Dan

 

[MrBorland]

what the world needs is a better .22 revolver that is not cheap but is at least affordable and a good performer.

I agree there's room for one, and yours is an interesting concept, but what about it makes it inherently more affordable to build & sell?

Seems the crux of your design your design comes down to the absence of a DA sear, the logic being "the Single Six is a good performer, affordable and SAO, ergo removal of DA sear is all that's needed to satisfy the other 2 criteria." Even if this were true, you're also adding a swing-out cylinder and 2-3 more chambers that need to line up & time correctly with the barrel, so such a revolver might only be affordable with additional simplification or design innovation.

BTW, if you do come up with a truly novel design innovation, it may be patentable. If so, document it by describing, dating and signing it. Importantly, do not post or discuss it on the internet. Keep it private! Any "prior art", including your own in the form of a THR thread, can easily make the innovation non-patentable, since it's clear it's not novel. As strange as it sounds, the moderators might be doing you a favor if they locked this thread: If anyone in this thread offers a really good innovative idea, it's now it's own prior art. And even if it's not, it's been made clear someone else had the idea. That would really bite if it's an idea you already had and were working on, but didn't document it yet.

 

[BCRider]

I don't see that there's anything at all patentable in this concept. I also did not expect it to be bargain basement priced. If such a gun could be done for around the same or only a little more money than a Ruger Single Six that should be more than acceptable. The only point was to get a good, useable and above all practical plinker or hunter out of the idea. One that doesn't need to be priced up to the same lofty level as the S&W offerings.

Another interesting concept might be to go super simple and use a roll out cylinder similar to the idea seen in some of the H&R revolvers of yesteryear and as used in the NAA small pocket revolvers. THis would make it more practical to include a WMR cylinder in much the same way that NAA and Ruger supply such dual cartridge guns already. A nice 9 pin ejector tool could be supplied to make cleaning out the empties with one stab easy to do. But would this make the gun seem TOO simple and somehow cheap?

And how's this for an idea? If the gun was made with a removable cylinder for loading instead of a hinged crane the cylinder pin could be in two parts. The forward part could be attached to a hinged crank much like that found on black powder Remington 1858's so it pushes only a little way into the front of the cylinder. The pin going in would push on a spring loaded pin inside the cylinder that pushes out the rear and into the recoil cover. So no long pin to extract and drop and a slick and easy way to swap the cylinder in and out. I suspect this would work so well and neatly that it would not be seen as a "cheap" way to do the job. Yet it would/should involve fewer parts than a typical crane and catch with all the shaft in a shaft stuff needed for a typical hand ejector style gun. Hmmmm... perhaps it IS patentable. But frankly I'm happy to toss this out there if some maker will pick it up so I could buy such a gun.

 

[MrBorland]

Hmmmm... perhaps it IS patentable.

Sigh...not anymore.

But frankly I'm happy to toss this out there if some maker will pick it up so I could buy such a gun.

And without patent protection, why would any maker bother? They'd do all the hard work and spend the big money developing and marketing such a gun while everyone else is then free to jump on the bandwagon once it's popular.

 

[WNC Seabee]

I love internet lawyers. If ideas and innovation were so easily protected by simply making a forum post, how could S&W and Ruger steal so many of Kel-Tec's or Taurus's ideas?

I think the OP's idea has merit, I really like the idea of a radically changeable grip.

 

[22-rimfire]

Colt made a few of its double action Officers Model Match revolver in single action. It was intended as a "better" target revolver. It did not sell.

I mostly shoot my 22's single action even though they are all double action revolvers. I am not concerned so much about practice for a center fire revolver. But they are certainly good practice for shooting the more expensive caliber.

Would I buy your revolver and I love 22 revolvers? Probably not unless it was real inexpensive which it likely would not be.

 

[SGTB802]

i did not see that the one i have a smith and wesson model 18 4 inch yes it is 6 shot but is the most accurate handgun i own it is a 5 screw and i love it this is my opion and i know everyones got one but if i cant hit with 6 i better get a rifle my 18 i have made witnessed shots on armadillos at 125 yards and im comfident with it hit a pie plate at 50 yards offhand i also have a ruger target bull and a colt huntsman while the are accurate i will pick my 18 before any of the others

 

[VA27]

Look for a High Standard 'Sentinel'. 'Bout as close as you're gonna get.

 

[SGW42]

Ruger GP-100 with a 9 or 10 round .22LR cylinder would pretty much do it for me.

I keep writing them letters.

 

[SleazyRider]

Presenting the High Standard Sentinel, .22 caliber:

 

[oldfool]

seems to me you just described the Hi-Std Double Nine you already mentioned in your posts

shoot it in SA only for the obvious stated reasons (tough DA trigger)
find some grip options and sight options, and there you are - and you could do all that if really wanted to, pretty minor sight mods, and handmade/home made grips
(and you can have the dual cylinders for 22/22WMR, if wanted, mine does)

all steel
swing out cylinder (easily swapped duals)
9 shots
shoot it SA
size of Ruger Single six, pert-near clone in fact
very good accuracy

replaced the front sight with a uni-ramp dovetail on mine, easy done at home
rear is a dovetail already
would be dead simple to tap and drill top strap for a rail, if wanted to

off the shelf sights & grips readily available NOT, but you could do it anyway
pretty much what SR said about the Sentinel

but me, I am sticking with my favorite woobie k-17, k-48, J-63 six shooters
nine does nothing special for me; want one to go bang, got to put one in anyway
lots of grip and sight options for the Ks, and I like 'em to match size/style with my 357s
scope mounts readily available, I have some, though rarely ever used, no tapping required (just like you described)
but longer than 6" barrels just never especially appealed to me, an extra inch of sight radius doesn't matter to me

can't own the "evil" 4 inch barrel revolvers.
now that's something I never was aware of, that just plain sucks
talk about flimsy made up irrational excuses to ban something

but look again at that H/S D-9, and think more about what you could do with it

 

[oldfool]

whoops, duh duh DT

 

[BCRider]

Old fool, you may be right and I may well have made a bad boo-boo when I sold my Double Nine to my buddy. I made sure I told him that I get right of first notice if he decides to sell it in the future. So it may come back to me.

I only sold it because I got the Single Six and felt that I didn't need two cowboy style plowhandle guns. That and the Double Nine just didn't really do it for me with the look of the flat black anodized main frame. I guess I should add a point about all steel construction.

Besides, these are old guns. So they only come up used.

 

[oldfool]

Hi-std made those D-9s in more than one version
some with the aluminum frame, but others (notably the dual cylinder models) with steel frames
keep an eye out for the steel frames, generally not real pricey if/when found
I think Ruger is missing a good bet by not offering a swing out cylinder option myself

 

[22-rimfire]

I also believe Ruger is missing a good bet with a double action 22 revolver if they stick with their market niche. If Ruger can accomplish it, the market for a medium priced DA 22 revolver is wide open, but it needs to be better than their retired 6-shot SP-101 in 22. Many would take the SP-101 with a 8 or 10-shot cylinder, but Ruger can do better.

 

[Irish Bird Dog]

I second the vote for the High Standard Double-Nine.as the gun being dreamed of...best gun handle out there bar none...I have both the aluminum frame and steel frame versions. One has the hammer mtd firing "pin" in .22LR only w/aluminum frame and the other is frame mtd. in .22LR/.22M and steel frame. Both 5.5" bbls. I have many thousands of rds thru the .22LR gun since 1962 when I bought the gun for $49.95, no tax back then either.....so they are affordable..I only recently acquired the combo steel framed version, so less experience with it...heavy trigger pull (never used much I'd guess)...the Sentinal version is neat also if you want that look, basically same action.

 

[BCRider]

I guess the question becomes is there enough old guns out there to satisfy the demand? And there's always going to be those that would rather buy new than accept the risks of buying a used gun not knowing its history.

The other point is that the Double Nine and the H&R both have abysmal triggers. Even the SA pull is quite harsh. And this same trigger pull issue seems to come up in connection with all the current offerings other than the K frame S&W's. A new .22 should be able to answer this issue by providing a decently light trigger pull like the Ruger Single Six manages with regularity. And it should be able to provide such performance for a price that is about the same as a Single Six.

By the way it's nice to see so many fans of the old Double Nine. BUt for those of you with them is there nothing you'd change on them? The idea of this thread was more about a dream gun than finding something old that fits some of the parameters.

What about the idea of a removable cylinder such as found in the old H&R's? Would that be a deal killer for folks these days if removing the cylinder was made easy to do and there was no cylinder pin to drop into the grass?

 

[USAF_Vet]

The only thing I'd consider as an additional option is making a southpaw version. I love wheelguns, but they are a pain for me as a lefty to unload/ reload a swing out cylinder. Charter Arms offers a .38 revolver with a left handed swing out cylinder, it is nice, but not what i'm looking for in a SD revolver. Now if they ever decide to make one in .357, then we're talkin.

As far as SA .22 revolvers, I like shooting my moms single six. Don't like the single load/ unload. Last labor day, I got the chance to shoot a 9 round .22 (might have been a Heritage) which I liked. It was a DA, but the trigger pull was VERY heavy in DA. Fired smooth as silk in SA. Would have gone out and bought one if they had it in a left handed model. No such luck.

So I'm relegated to shootin revolvers off hand. Which is why I don't own one.

The world needs more left handed revolvers. And if there was a nice .22LR/ .22 mag SA left handed revolver, I'd own one, hands down.

 

[BADUNAME37]

If it must be a revolver, why not have two barrels -- one directly over the other, and have a bit of a larger diameter cylinder to accomodate the inner and outer holes that could be made in the cylinder.

The gun could shoot top, then bottom, then top, then bottom, etc - alternating between inner and outer cartridges and between the top and bottom barrels.

Since the gun is for such a light load, the distance between holes in the cylinder could most likely be very close as could the upper and lower barrels with respect to one another (for accuracy)!

 

[BCRider]

Vet, if you had the option of a drop out cylinder that was easy to disengage and fall out in your hand how would that strike you? Run this through your mind with me....

Left hand shooting either two handed or single handed. You finish with a "click". The gun comes down to a working level at your waist, you go to half cock using your left thumb and your right hand hinges down the cylinder locking lever much like that of an 1858 Remington but without the pin, just the lever. This releases the cylinder which then falls out or is lightly pushed out into your right palm with a tip of the gun to one side. You lay down or holster the frame and then use a 9 pin ejector punch tool to push out all the empties in one go. Refill the cylinder, draw or pick up the frame and put the loaded cylinder back into place and secure it by hinging the locking lever back up and latching it. I see this as being as easily done regardless of right or left hand operation.

In effect it's the same as loading an NAA mini revolver but with 9 rounds and no center pin since on my "dream gun" the center pin is a two part spring loaded setup with part in the frame and part in the cylinder. So nothing to drop into the tall grass. And because you're not loading the cylinder while it's attached to the gun it is as handy for lefties as for righties. The only difference for lefties to righties is which direction the shooting hand has to rotate the gun to let the cylinder fall out into the waiting off hand's palm.

Here's a vid of an 1858 rapid cylinder change. It would take some practice to get THIS fast unless you don't mind the odd scratch but this is how simple it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3rj89cqQQ8

And the same sort of thing being done on an NAA gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVKlH5DAS7k

And again on my dream gun there is no free pin to drop. And since there's no crane or hand ejector it becomes super easy to swap from a .22LR to .22Mag cylinder.

How's that sound to you?