How Small Can I Make a J-Frame...

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

...without it becoming impractical?

This was the question that spurred me to attack my Rossi M68 and do bad things to it. I've had this gun for several years and it has become my 'bench gun,' a gun that play with and experiment on. It's been through several incarnations but this is probably the last one- there's not much room left for further changes.

I modified the grip-frame (twice,) modified the mainspring system and fitted a cut-down grip I had leftover from another project. I also shortened the barrel to 1-3/4" by re-cutting the threads and the forcing cone, shortened the ejector to fit, and beveled the chamber lips. I also bobbed the hammer and serrated the top so that the gun can still be thumb-cocked (if you start it moving with the trigger) though frankly I can't imagine wanting to.

I still need to mount a front sight, but just pointing it at a target at five yards and blazing away still kept all the rounds in a 5" group. The handle actually provides a surprisingly good grip and manages the recoil of standard-pressure loads fine; even rapid-fire is quite manageable.

Here's a picture of the result-

Here it is with a grip-panel removed so you can see the frame and modifications

Next I need to mount a new front-sight, make a dedicated custom grip and refinish the gun. I'm pretty happy with how this has come out.

It is possible to make a J-frame smaller, but only at the cost of practicality; Taurus makes a variant of their model 85 with a 1" barrel and tiny grip but the ejector is too short, the grip (in my hand at least) is not comfortable even with standard pressure loads and makes for slow follow-up shots. For me at least this Rossi is as small as it can get.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I also bobbed the hammer and serrated the top so that the gun can still be thumb-cocked (if you start it moving with the trigger) though frankly I can't imagine wanting to.

Very cool mods, but be careful with that hammer if you aren't going to truly convert it to DAO. A cocked hammer, and then an unexpected need to uncock it with a live round in the chamber can be a very dangerous situation if you have no spur to hold onto.

I actually really like the looks of the gun. I love watching your tinkering man. The results are always 4 degrees from normal. I bet you eat your corn on the cob by rotating it rather than eating it in rows too, don't you?

 

[xXxplosive]

Why a front sight.......point shoot it.

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

Wait- people eat corn on the cob in rows? Weird!

As to why not point-shoot it- because hit location is important. If you don't break something they can't live without they might not stop.

 

[Blkhrt13]

You always do the neatest things. I thought the same thing about the Taurus view. Too small is possible. This actually seems like a very practical project. Thanks for sharing. I wanted to do similar to a Taurus 85 In stainless. I will if I find a used one. Can’t bring myself to tinkering with a brand new one.

 

[redbullitt]

Very cool. I like the little J frame bobber!

 

[WestKentucky]

I like the slab side barrel. Might as well port it too and try to eliminate a little muzzle flip.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Wait- people eat corn on the cob in rows? Weird!

As to why not point-shoot it- because hit location is important. If you don't break something they can't live without they might not stop.

My dad has actually carried one of these from time to time; a Harrington and Richardson Vest Pocket .32 circa 1900. 5 shots and no front sight, though there is a shallow sighting groove along the top of the frame. The hammer can be cocked manually, but it takes some finger dexterity to accomplish....

 

[bannockburn]

Tinker

Nice work with the ongoing miniaturization of your Rossi! I think you have literally trimmed all the excess off that gun and still have something left to hold onto!

 

[Panzerschwein]

Wait- people eat corn on the cob in rows? Weird!

As to why not point-shoot it- because hit location is important. If you don't break something they can't live without they might not stop.

Ever heard of a Seecamp?

They don't have sights at all, because they don't need them. Neither does a J-frame.

PERIOD.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Ever heard of a Seecamp?

They don't have sights at all, because they don't need them. Neither does a J-frame.

PERIOD.

I don't understand the motivation behind your statement. Your opinion may be that they don't need sights, but putting "PERIOD" at the end of your statement doesn't make it a fact, it's still just your opinion. J frames have sights on them typically, and I'm guessing the thousands of law enforcement officers out there who currently or formerly carried a J frame as backup weapons are happy about that.

Many of us like to aim, and don't believe any gun's effectiveness should be limited by a manufacturer's decision to not put sights on a gun, or to ignore the quality of the sights. Hell, even my Bond Arms Snake Slayer had rudimentary sights on it, and if you expected to hit anything beyond 5 yards with it, you absolutely needed to use them.

When I owned a J Frame (S&W 642) I regularly shot it at 15 yards or more, and to hit the target, I used the sights. The same is true of my XDs, which is J frame sized. If I'm going to carry a gun, I want one that I can hit with beyond "belly gun" distances. That means having sights, and to say a J frame sized revolver doesn't need them, well a person would be severely limiting the capability of the weapon.

If you are saying you can point shoot a J frame at any reasonable self defense distance where a perpetrator is shooting back at you, say beyond 10 yards, while that target is moving, that's quite impressive. In that case, I can see why you wouldn't feel sights are needed on a J frame, but most of us aren't able to do that. We aim.

Could you clarify your reasoning behind this statement?

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

Ever heard of a Seecamp?

They don't have sights at all, because they don't need them. Neither does a J-frame.

PERIOD.

You are correct; a J-frame doesn't need sights. Nor does any other firearm; they are inanimate objects. They don't need anything.

I, on the other hand, am not an inanimate object. I want sights because I am aware of my capabilities and limitations. Rapid-fire point-shooting this gun at five yards produced a large, off-center group. When firing a .38 snubby with sights I can produce a 1.5-2" rapid fire group at seven yards, and it will be right where I want it. I prefer that. Yes, most self-defense shootings happen at 3-5 feet, and I don't need sights for that. But if the action happens any further away I want those bullets to go where I intend them to, and a few decades of experience has shown that's more likely if I have- and use- sights.

 

[BSA1]

Could you clarify your reasoning behind this statement?

If you understand the reason why the Seecamp does not put sights on their gun then you will understand Cooldill's statement.

 

[mcb]

You are correct; a J-frame doesn't need sights. Nor does any other firearm; they are inanimate objects. They don't need anything.

I, on the other hand, am not an inanimate object. I want sights because I am aware of my capabilities and limitations. Rapid-fire point-shooting this gun at five yards produced a large, off-center group. When firing a .38 snubby with sights I can produce a 1.5-2" rapid fire group at seven yards, and it will be right where I want it. I prefer that. Yes, most self-defense shootings happen at 3-5 feet, and I don't need sights for that. But if the action happens any further away I want those bullets to go where I intend them to, and a few decades of experience has shown that's more likely if I have- and use- sights.

I agree, I want sights on my J-frame. To have and not need is better than to need and not have...

 

[Zaydok Allen]

If you understand the reason why the Seecamp does not put sights on their gun then you will understand Cooldill's statement.

Fair enough. I looked at their explanation on their FAQ page, and honestly I believe it is based on flawed logic and one sided assumptions. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." This is just my opinion, and I know you are trying to clarify where the logic comes from, not necessarily advocate for its value. I have no intention of shooting the messenger.

I'm not saying that point shooting is nonsense or not a skill to be developed. In fact I believe it absolutely should be part of a training regime for self defense, and in a short distance attack, you will likely only get one aimed shot off before the target is close enough that point shooting takes over. You may not even get the one shot in. The presence of sites does not negate the need to train for point shooting.

However, that doesn't change the fact that if the gun had real sites, it would likely be more effective at distances greater than it is without sights, as the shooter could more accurately aim if need be, or the attacker is shooting at you from distances where point shooting becomes impractical.

I think Seecamp's logic about sights being a problem at short distances is complete and total hogwash. If you can't aim a gun at short distances and keep a clear picture of what is going on, then you should be learning to point shoot and it's a training problem, not an equipment problem.

End user preference in this case is what matters, and criticism isn't really warranted. The logic used in the aforementioned post, and in Seecamp's logic would advocate for the removal of sights from all self defense handguns meant for civilian personal protection.

Like I said, this is just my opinion and no one is obliged to agree with me, but I find the logic behind not needing sights on a defense gun to be dubious.

 

[chicharrones]

That looks like a very interesting revolver you have there, MTP. I'm looking forward to see what kind of front sight you mount on it. Bead or blade?

 

[buck460XVR]

Fair enough. I looked at their explanation on their FAQ page, and honestly I believe it is based on flawed logic and one sided assumptions. This is just my opinion, and I know you are trying to clarify where the logic comes from, not necessarily advocate for its value.

^^^This. While I understand the validity of Seecamp's argument of not using sights @ 6 feet or less, or when it's too dark to see your sights, there is always going to be that possibility of that scenario, where we need to defend ourselves in the daylight at distances of more than 6 feet. While in the heat of battle, we may not use those sights or remember using them, having them there while we practice with the firearm, gives a pointing reference to use when we do not. Get a new deer rifle and put a scope on it and for a while one really struggles to instantly to pull the gun up to the right position to look thru the scope and be on target. A few years down the road and it's automatic.

I got a kick outta Seecamp's explanation of how to qualify with their weapons without sights.....

If you hold the LWS pistol at a 45-degree angle semi-gangsta style there is a groove formed that can be used as a sighting tool.

....kinda makes you wonder who their target customer base is.

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

That looks like a very interesting revolver you have there, MTP. I'm looking forward to see what kind of front sight you mount on it. Bead or blade?

Haven't decided.

 

[bannockburn]

All I know is that if two versions of the same gun are being offered, like the semi-auto Colt Agent; one with sights, the other without, I'm always going to buy the one with sights.

 

[Jim K]

It needs to be noted that the grip of a handgun is not just something by which a gun is held for firing, it is also something by which a gun is held when drawing. The example shown might be reasonable for firing as long as the loads are light, but for me there is too good a chance of reaching for the gun and grasping a handful of air. I think I will stick to the factory grip, or at least have one a bit longer.

Jim

 

[hemiram]

Eating corn in a row? The horror!

 

[Riomouse911]

I wonder if you could fit or build an extension of the sight channel down the barrel to the muzzle in a Guttersnipe (ASP) style?
It would probably involve adding metal to the top of the barrel, but if it could be matched to the profile of the existing sight channel in the top strap it could work out well.

 

[Browning]

So do you have a picture of you gripping the revolver so we can see what you actually have to hang onto?

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Nice work
I've got a real beater of a Taurus 82 I'd love to shrink and not a clue where to start. Now I've got some thinking to do.

 

[ThomasT]

My bud and I were shooting at a friends land with two snubbies. Mine was a model 30 32 long and he was shooting a 2” model 10. We were shooting across the pond at fist sized rocks on the dam and without sights we could not have made the shots we made.

If we didn’t hit the rocks then we landed right beside them. We could not have done that with a sightless gun. Saying sights aren’t needed is a statement made by someone with no real experience shooting guns.