Anyone else wish they made a smaller Revolver??
- Thread starter Bob79
- Start date
- Status
WY - That small revolver of yours is probably much heavier than the 317, but they could make it out of modern material like scandium and make it much lighter.
Re .22 magnum mentioned above. What's the poop on this? Anyone know of any good tests? My impression is the magnum is hardly any more powerful than the LR in a tiny barrel, just makes a bigger flash and bang and costs more, but I don't really know.
Re .22 magnum mentioned above. What's the poop on this? Anyone know of any good tests? My impression is the magnum is hardly any more powerful than the LR in a tiny barrel, just makes a bigger flash and bang and costs more, but I don't really know.
John Wayne
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,133
F1, check out NAA's website for comparisons of S, LR, and Magnum rounds from their micro-revolvers. IIRC, the magnum still managed to get an extra 200 fps or so over the LR, and shoots a bullet with a real jacket. Doesn't sound like much but in that small a caliber it can make all the difference.
RidgwayCO
Member
It's interesting, I sometimes carry an NAA mini revolver in .22 WMR (it simply disappears in my front pocket), and I've had no problem hitting the vitals of a "bad guy" target at 7 feet. Plus, I've never had anyone volunteer to get shot by it... It may not be my first choice for a CCW weapon, but it beats the heck out of throwing rocks.
But back to the original question...
I've often asked why one of the manufacturers doesn't make a very small revolver in .380 Auto. The cylinder could be one inch or less in length, and the entire revolver would save weight by being shorter. As a relatively high pressure cartridge, the .380 Auto wouldn't lose much with a shorter barrel (3" or less).
My experience indicates that when you compare the energy of a .380 Auto round out of a short barreled semi-auto, it compares favorably to a .38 Special round out of a snub nose revolver. Not popular to say, but there it is...
But back to the original question...
I've often asked why one of the manufacturers doesn't make a very small revolver in .380 Auto. The cylinder could be one inch or less in length, and the entire revolver would save weight by being shorter. As a relatively high pressure cartridge, the .380 Auto wouldn't lose much with a shorter barrel (3" or less).
My experience indicates that when you compare the energy of a .380 Auto round out of a short barreled semi-auto, it compares favorably to a .38 Special round out of a snub nose revolver. Not popular to say, but there it is...
oldfool
Member
as to the 380 acp revolver, I think poster answered his own question.. higher pressure.. others here already questioning if the smaller frame could handle "hot" stuff
count me in for one of the several examples as pictured in above above, 5 shots of 32 H&R mag good enuff for me, in that smaller package, and I want not less than 3" of barrel on mine, maybe just a tad more, and make mine SA/DA
and make mine all steel, please
I think the weight of that small a package in all steel just doesn't matter
my Colt 380 weighs near double what my LCP does, and still carries like a dream
I wish they made the LCP in all steel, myself (but guessing they would mark the price up a couple hundred)
ay, there's the rub
even getting most of us on this one forum to agree just what it should be is an exercise in futility... so what is the marketing manager going to choose ?
answer... they much prefer to imitate vs. innovate, far less risk
re: the explosion of "me too" pocket 380s
even the Ruger LCR is pretty much just another extra lightweight J-frame flavor, nothing real new about it except more plastic (pretty decent trigger though, for a DAO)
so... are we going to have to wait on the Chinese to put a smaller 32 H&R mag 5 shooter into the marketplace ??
in the meantime I will just have to settle for fondling that old INA 6 -shot snubbie, just very slightly smaller than J... but S&W 32/long just ain't quite enough boost for me to carry it CCW
yet I could live with a "right sized" 22 WMR SA/DA revolver, maybe
(yeah, yeah, I know, I know)
IF it had a really good SA/DA trigger
count me in for one of the several examples as pictured in above above, 5 shots of 32 H&R mag good enuff for me, in that smaller package, and I want not less than 3" of barrel on mine, maybe just a tad more, and make mine SA/DA
and make mine all steel, please
I think the weight of that small a package in all steel just doesn't matter
my Colt 380 weighs near double what my LCP does, and still carries like a dream
I wish they made the LCP in all steel, myself (but guessing they would mark the price up a couple hundred)
ay, there's the rub
even getting most of us on this one forum to agree just what it should be is an exercise in futility... so what is the marketing manager going to choose ?
answer... they much prefer to imitate vs. innovate, far less risk
re: the explosion of "me too" pocket 380s
even the Ruger LCR is pretty much just another extra lightweight J-frame flavor, nothing real new about it except more plastic (pretty decent trigger though, for a DAO)
so... are we going to have to wait on the Chinese to put a smaller 32 H&R mag 5 shooter into the marketplace ??
in the meantime I will just have to settle for fondling that old INA 6 -shot snubbie, just very slightly smaller than J... but S&W 32/long just ain't quite enough boost for me to carry it CCW
yet I could live with a "right sized" 22 WMR SA/DA revolver, maybe
(yeah, yeah, I know, I know)
IF it had a really good SA/DA trigger
RidgwayCO
Member
But the .380 Auto only has a max average pressure of 21,500 psi according to SAAMI. That's a little less than the .32 H&R Magnum and nowhere near the .327 Federal Magnum. And the .380 Auto is much shorter than either. My original question still stands... (and this short round in a five-round moon clip would rock as far as quick reloads).
woad_yurt
Member
BTW:
When they were new, the topbreak .32 was $2.30 and the .22 was all of $1.90.
When they were new, the topbreak .32 was $2.30 and the .22 was all of $1.90.
oldfool
Member
ah so...
ok, I like it, would save me having to stock up on yet one more caliber
me, I got nothing at all against moon clips either
(but I still want all steel and 3" of barrel... and a decent trigger, even if it's DAO)
maybe KelTec will wake up and put Ruger to copying again and somebody will finally do something... druther S&W would jump on it, but I ain't holding my breath
engineer88
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 147
I have been itching for something larger than my NAA .22mag for a while now. I love the little top breaks and have been tempted for a while now to buy one even in .32short. I like being able to get two fingers (I know they make grips but they are not exactly what I am looking for, I want the gun itself to be a bit larger too) on and have a little more cross section on the round coming out of it.
I hear NAA is coming out with a top break mini. I am kind of hoping it will be a little larger frame (top breaks need to be a bit thicker) and that it will maybe be a six shooter. That would take my BUG slot just for cool factor. However if I had it my way:
- .32 H&R capable (that way you get the other .32 flavors if you so desire).
- Stainless, with possible aluminum housing for grip and what not so weight is 12-15ish oz. unloaded.
- 1.5-2ish inch barrel (remember it is a pocket gun).
- Top break would be nice for cool factor but I would have no beef with side break.
- I could care less if it even had sites tbh.
- 5 rounds is perfect.
Thanks for starting this thread, I have felt this way for a long time and it is nice to hear someone else that thinks the same way. My brother and I have often said we wish S&W (or anyone) would start reproducing a bike gun (what they used to call the little .32's back in the day if I recall correctly). I think they are good lookin, but also this would probably knock my keltecs out of the saddle for small BUG carry during the week for me (when concealment is much more of a nail biter due to work).
I hear NAA is coming out with a top break mini. I am kind of hoping it will be a little larger frame (top breaks need to be a bit thicker) and that it will maybe be a six shooter. That would take my BUG slot just for cool factor. However if I had it my way:
- .32 H&R capable (that way you get the other .32 flavors if you so desire).
- Stainless, with possible aluminum housing for grip and what not so weight is 12-15ish oz. unloaded.
- 1.5-2ish inch barrel (remember it is a pocket gun).
- Top break would be nice for cool factor but I would have no beef with side break.
- I could care less if it even had sites tbh.
- 5 rounds is perfect.
Thanks for starting this thread, I have felt this way for a long time and it is nice to hear someone else that thinks the same way. My brother and I have often said we wish S&W (or anyone) would start reproducing a bike gun (what they used to call the little .32's back in the day if I recall correctly). I think they are good lookin, but also this would probably knock my keltecs out of the saddle for small BUG carry during the week for me (when concealment is much more of a nail biter due to work).
Probably because a .380 really wouldn't be any thinner across the cylider than a .38 special. I think being FAT is a bigger issue than length.
To make the revolver skinnier, which would reduce the print more than being short, you really need to jump down to a .32 caliber platform.
As stated before, a 5 shot Lemon Squeezer in .32 is a fair amount skinnier than a J frame, and disapears in a pocket better than a J . This even with a 3 1/2" barrel.
For pocket carry , I believe skinny/slim is more important than short.
RidgwayCO
Member
Sorry, but doing the math, the .380 Auto case is all of .0369" wider than the .32 H&R Magnum case (.3739" - .337"). So if you had a six-shooter, the extra diameter of the cylinder would be all of .0738" (less than 3/4 of a tenth of an inch), while a five-shot would be even less. But the length of the cylinder could be .366" less with the .380 Auto (1.350" - .984"), which combined with the shorter frame and shorter top strap would be noticeably lighter. Make it out of unobtainium and it may not weigh anything! (But make it out of scandium and it would still be extremely light).
And while skinny/slim is nice, it's the weight that pulls your pants down...
Plus, with the .32 H&R Magnum (not to mention the .327 Federal Magnum), you're still trying to stick long narrow rounds into small narrow chambers... not the best situation for fast reloads with either speedloaders or moonclips. But the .380 Auto is a short/stubby round, perfect for quick use with moonclips (like the.45 Auto).
And don't even get me started on the .380 Auto Rim...
And while skinny/slim is nice, it's the weight that pulls your pants down...
Plus, with the .32 H&R Magnum (not to mention the .327 Federal Magnum), you're still trying to stick long narrow rounds into small narrow chambers... not the best situation for fast reloads with either speedloaders or moonclips. But the .380 Auto is a short/stubby round, perfect for quick use with moonclips (like the.45 Auto).
And don't even get me started on the .380 Auto Rim...
Sorry, try the math again, because I'm sitting here with a .32 New Departure Lemon Squeezer in my hand. (5 shot .32 S&W) which is just a short version of the .32 H&R Mag.
The cylinder walls would have to be paper thin (i.e. ain't gonna happen thin) to stuff 5 .380's in the same size package. .
I'm sure it could be done, and the moon clipped quick reload idea is a good one, but you'd have to make the cylinder wider than the .32's.
A 14 oz gun isn't going to pull your pants down is it? Maybe .32 acp would be the way to go for ultimate in compact with quick reloads?
The cylinder walls would have to be paper thin (i.e. ain't gonna happen thin) to stuff 5 .380's in the same size package. .
I'm sure it could be done, and the moon clipped quick reload idea is a good one, but you'd have to make the cylinder wider than the .32's.
A 14 oz gun isn't going to pull your pants down is it? Maybe .32 acp would be the way to go for ultimate in compact with quick reloads?
How about a short cylinder/frame J in 9mm? A lemon squeezer chambered in a 5 shot 32 Auto in a little top break with full moon clips? Part of the compactness of the little autos is the short cartridge so why can't a short frame/cylinder little wheelgun be produced? Ideally a top break but a swing out would do the job.
I just picked up a S&W 632 in 327 Mag, I like the 6 shots but a smaller 5 shot would really made for a better pocket gun IMHO. A modern New Departure Hammerless Safety scaled to a 5 shot .32 & a larger in .380 or 9mm would float my boat.
I just picked up a S&W 632 in 327 Mag, I like the 6 shots but a smaller 5 shot would really made for a better pocket gun IMHO. A modern New Departure Hammerless Safety scaled to a 5 shot .32 & a larger in .380 or 9mm would float my boat.
RidgwayCO
Member
Yep, as I said, the cylinder would have to be .0738" wider (less than 3/4 of a tenth of an inch) for a six-shot cylinder, and less for a five-shot cylinder... and the cylinder could still be .366" shorter.
If my math is wrong, show me where, but
isn't very helpful.
I'm trying to conceive of a revolver to replace a .38 Special with significantly lighter weight and equal or greater power. A .32 Auto isn't even going to be close.
What is helpfull, is having the revolver and ammo in hand.
I'm sitting here with the actual revolver and ammo in my hand. Sorry I don't have a set of calipers on me, but it would have to be NOTICIBLY wider to acomodate the .380. The .32 Mag would fit in the same width , and the cylinder width is where all the bulk in a revolver is.
Not saying a .380 is a bad plan, just that it's going to be noticeably wider. Probalby closer to a J frame than the New Departure Lemon Squeezer. Don't know if you have to factor in any extra width to deal with the moon clips either. Not that familiar with moon clipped revolvers.
The .32 mag would give the best combination of power and slimness IMO.
I'm sitting here with the actual revolver and ammo in my hand. Sorry I don't have a set of calipers on me, but it would have to be NOTICIBLY wider to acomodate the .380. The .32 Mag would fit in the same width , and the cylinder width is where all the bulk in a revolver is.
Not saying a .380 is a bad plan, just that it's going to be noticeably wider. Probalby closer to a J frame than the New Departure Lemon Squeezer. Don't know if you have to factor in any extra width to deal with the moon clips either. Not that familiar with moon clipped revolvers.
The .32 mag would give the best combination of power and slimness IMO.
Looking at pictures of Moon Clips (yeah, I know these are for .45's but the idea is the same) you are going to need room on either side of the ratchet/star to clear the clips. This will move the chambers even farther out.
Not sure how much thickness you would need to keep them from folding in half, or breaking but I'm going to take a shot in the dark, and figure it's going to add even more girth than your math is accounting for.
Not sure how much thickness you would need to keep them from folding in half, or breaking but I'm going to take a shot in the dark, and figure it's going to add even more girth than your math is accounting for.
woad_yurt
Member
The .380 has a case and rim diameter of .374" while all of the rimmed .32s have a case diameter of .335" and a rim diameter of .375". With the .32s, the case rims could even be touching and there'd still be metal in between the cases. The same size cylinder bored for .380 would have no space between the cases (well, there would be 2/1000" of metal, to be precise.) Thus, the .380 would need a noticeably wider cylinder. It'd probably be similar to a J-frame 5 shot .38 cylinder, and they're a lot wider than my little 32s.
Last edited:
Low Budget Shooter
Member
.32 ACP are semi-rimmed, aren't they? Can they be used in a revolver without moon clips? Personally, although bigger is always better, I would love a revolver built to be as small as possible around the .32 ACP cartridge.
LBS
LBS
whitecoyote
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 151
NAA Pug .22 mag.
oldfool
Member
the NAA 22WMR Pug
now, if they would make the barrel as long as the cylinder
and put a "real" trigger with a trigger guard on it
and make it SA/DA
and put enough grip on it to match all above
that might just get real interesting
somebody oughta' "photoshop" up all of that, give us a look
how much smaller, while still being practical, than current version S&W PD model ???
PS
by the way, anybody here got that S&W (317PD, I think ??), and is it, as appears to be, same-as-J-frame size ?
now, if they would make the barrel as long as the cylinder
and put a "real" trigger with a trigger guard on it
and make it SA/DA
and put enough grip on it to match all above
that might just get real interesting
somebody oughta' "photoshop" up all of that, give us a look
how much smaller, while still being practical, than current version S&W PD model ???
PS
by the way, anybody here got that S&W (317PD, I think ??), and is it, as appears to be, same-as-J-frame size ?
"F1, check out NAA's website for comparisons of S, LR, and Magnum rounds from their micro-revolvers. IIRC, the magnum still managed to get an extra 200 fps or so over the LR, and shoots a bullet with a real jacket. Doesn't sound like much but in that small a caliber it can make all the difference."
Thanks, John Wayne. So there is a big difference.
Thanks, John Wayne. So there is a big difference.
snooperman
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,143
I like old fools idea about the 22 mag...
Double action mini revolver with a 1 1/2" barrel and a little larger grip would be an ideal pocket gun that is light enough and small enough. The 22 magnum 50gr hollowpoint Winchester bullet would be my choice. As Bill Jordan once said, " it is a wicked little cartridge". I would imagin they would sell like hotcakes.
Double action mini revolver with a 1 1/2" barrel and a little larger grip would be an ideal pocket gun that is light enough and small enough. The 22 magnum 50gr hollowpoint Winchester bullet would be my choice. As Bill Jordan once said, " it is a wicked little cartridge". I would imagin they would sell like hotcakes.
snooperman
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,143
I shot a friends S&W 351 PD in 22 mag...
I liked it a lot, but the price is a little steep. It is a hot little revolver weighing about 10.5 ounces. It is a little large and would be better if they would put 5 shots instead of 7 in the cylinder and then shrink the whole size down a bit. Like we have been discussing to get rid of the J-frame size for pocket carry. I am not a firearms engineer but I think it could be done.
I liked it a lot, but the price is a little steep. It is a hot little revolver weighing about 10.5 ounces. It is a little large and would be better if they would put 5 shots instead of 7 in the cylinder and then shrink the whole size down a bit. Like we have been discussing to get rid of the J-frame size for pocket carry. I am not a firearms engineer but I think it could be done.
- Status
