Lets talk .38 spc & .22wmr Revolver capacity

[Oninotaki]

So I have a question for all you fine folks.

Why do you think they still make dedicated 5 shot .38 special only revolvers, and 8 shot .22 wmr revolvers when very cheap 6 shot and 9 shot varieties exist in comperable frames?

Is it because the cylinders are just that much thinner? Can the cylinders be made of cheaper materials? Do the companies just have the machining set up for lower capacity and they don't want to change? Is it easier to eject/load 5/8 cases vs 6/9?

What piece of information am I missing?

It just seems odd to me that in revolvers where capacity is frequently listed as a concern for not choosing one that manufacturers would deliberately choose a lower capacity design when proven higher capacity designs exist.

For reference I do not own any .38 spc revolvers, and all the .22 wmr revolvers I own are 9 shot. I don't own any 8, 7, 6 or 5 shot .22 wmr revolvers.

 

[chicharrones]

Speaking of true J-Frame sizes, not the Taurus 856 size . . . The .22 WMR revolvers that have the same cylinder width (diameter) as a 5 shot .38 Special tend to have 6 or 7-shot cylinders. The .22 LR versions will have as many as 8-shots.

Which is why I wish the .32 H&R Mag and .327 Federal Mag were more popular. You can get 6-shots out of the same cylinder size as a 5-shot .38 Special.

 

[chicharrones]

Anyway, for a belt gun a 6-shot .38 Special cylinder width and frame height won't really be noticeable.

In the pocket though, sometimes every little bit matters. Considering the size of my pockets, a 5-shot .38 or 6-shot .32 takes up all the room I have to spare. The S&W J-frame 7-shot .22 WMRs would be the same.

 

[Oninotaki]

Speaking of true J-Frame sizes, not the Taurus 856 size . . . The .22 WMR revolvers that have the same cylinder width (diameter) as a 5 shot .38 Special tend to have 6 or 7-shot cylinders. The .22 LR versions will have as many as 8-shots.

Which is why I wish the .32 H&R Mag and .327 Federal Mag were more popular. You can get 6-shots out of the same cylinder size as a 5-shot .38 Special.

I didn't realize that such differences existed in cylinder diamter size between comparable models. I thought the 856 was just bulkier in grip, barrel, and frame but still the same cylinder size as the j-frames. Now that I know that a quick internet search brings up the following numbers for cylinder diameter.

Ruger LCR = 1.28"
S&w 642 = 1.3"
Taurus 856 =1.41"
CA Professional =1.6" (what I consider the very limit for pocket carry)

With those numbers it is even more wild that ruger fits 6 rounds of .327 into their LCR. I may have to look closer at those then. I didn't realize there was such a difference in cylinder diameter between them and my Taurus 327.

 

[mcb]

To maximize capacity as you go to smaller caliber cartridges for a give cylinder diameter you really need to move the barrel up in the frame and the rounds closer to the OD of the cylinder. Not many manufactures do that. S&W and the N-frame is an example of one of the few that do. The barrel is move up ~.035 for the 8-shot N-frames (38 Super, 357, and 9mm) vs the 6-shot N-frames. That's a fair bit of retooling to squeeze one extra round into the gun (there are a few 7-shot 357 mags built on the original N-frame barrel position), the barrel moving up required the firing pin to be move up too.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

For the .38 J-frame, 5 vs. more comes down to cylinder bulk. Colt used to advertise that their compact revolvers offered six shots instead of just five, but now that I have a 70s Detective Special for comparison it does mean you end up with a cylinder that's a bit wider.

When it comes to rimfires, I don't own a WMR revolver at present but I have a 6-shot K-22 Masterpiece and I owned an 8-shot Taurus 942 in .22 LR with an extended barrel (until the transfer bar broke after about 100 rounds and I sold it.) I honestly never much noticed the difference in capacity between these two rimfire revolvers.

I admit that I may be influenced by aesthetics here. I own a .327 Federal Single Seven and have learned to accept the look of one extra cylinder stop notch, but to my eye the outside surface of the Single Ten cylinder looks ridiculously crowded!



At least it isn't fluted!

I suppose if the most energetic cartridge I could handle was .22 WMR and I carried a revolver in that chambering as a defensive sidearm, the difference in capacity would matter. A 22 WMR bullet is certainly lethal but I can envision a need for follow-up shots.

For myself, I don't have a problem managing .38 Special or 9x19 in a small gun, my Glock holds 10 rounds of 9x19 and I seldom carry that.

I just don't feel the need for more than five in a J-frame. While the idea of running dry in a scrape is terrifying, every bullet I fire comes with a lawyer attached, bystanders matter to me and I still own things I'd rather not lose in court.

Maybe it's a case of S&W not seeing demand for greater capacity in this particular market, regardless of technical feasibility.

 

[chicharrones]

I didn't realize that such differences existed in cylinder diamter size between comparable models. I thought the 856 was just bulkier in grip, barrel, and frame but still the same cylinder size as the j-frames. Now that I know that a quick internet search brings up the following numbers for cylinder diameter.

Ruger LCR = 1.28"
S&w 642 = 1.3"
Taurus 856 =1.41"
CA Professional =1.6" (what I consider the very limit for pocket carry)

With those numbers it is even more wild that ruger fits 6 rounds of .327 into their LCR. I may have to look closer at those then. I didn't realize there was such a difference in cylinder diameter between them and my Taurus 327.

Gun size with 6-shots is why I bought a Charter Arms .32 H&R magnum about a year ago, which has a virtually identical cylinder diameter to the S&W 642.

The C. A. is half the price of the Ruger LCR .327, but you could say that the Ruger is twice the gun when it comes to fit, finish, and probably longevity.

 

[.38 Special]

I expect that quite a few revolver folks (me included) don't care much about capacity and are at least somewhat traditional. For example, S&W makes eight shot .357 revolvers on an N frame, and I have very little interest in them. A six shot Model 27, though, still makes my heart beat a little faster.

And to take it a bit further, I don't see any reason why Colt couldn't fit another hole into a .38 caliber SAA - but reasonable folks would likely view it as a crime against nature.

 

[mcb]

I expect that quite a few revolver folks (me included) don't care much about capacity and are at least somewhat traditional. For example, S&W makes eight shot .357 revolvers on an N frame, and I have very little interest in them. A six shot Model 27, though, still makes my heart beat a little faster.

And to take it a bit further, I don't see any reason why Colt couldn't fit another hole into a .38 caliber SAA - but reasonable folks would likely view it as a crime against nature.

Got to disagree with you here, though I am likely in the minority. If I have a model 27/28 I would sell it to get a 627. If I had a 6-shot 686 I would sell it for the seven shot version. Setting the historical significance of the Model 27 to the side it seems like a silly huge revolver (nearly as silly as a 6-shot 357 magnum Redhawk) to only have 6-shots of 357 Magnum. I love revolvers but it seems silly to carry a revolver with lower capacity if on the same frame that I can have more. ie 686 vs 686+ or Model 27 vs 627.

 

[.38 Special]

Got to disagree with you here, though I am likely in the minority. If I have a model 27/28 I would sell it to get a 627. If I had a 6-shot 686 I would sell it for the seven shot version. Setting the historical significance of the Model 27 to the side it seems like a silly huge revolver (nearly as silly as a 6-shot 357 magnum Redhawk) to only have 6-shots of 357 Magnum. I love revolvers but it seems silly to carry a revolver with lower capacity if on the same frame that I can have more. ie 686 vs 686+ or Model 27 vs 627.

Sure. I have no doubt there are other weirdos - er, eccentrics - like you.

Decades ago I had an eight shot .38 Super on an N frame, and it likely would have been just the ticket for "run and gun" games if hadn't been so dreadfully inaccurate. I certainly recognize the desirability of higher-capacity revolvers for certain applications. I'm just not sure how well they'd sell to the typical revolver nut...

 

[Mark 40]

Although the GP-100 is a bit bigger and would give me an additional round of .38SPL, the SP-101 fits my hand better so that is the deciding factor.

 

[TTv2]

Part of why some companies still continue making the lower capacity revolvers is because they've been making them for decades, they're tooled up for them, they work, and there's not much reason to change.

Charter for years stuck with 6 shot .22's and only recently started doing 8 shot, probably because the competition was all making 8's or 9's.

If .22 Mag starts to gain in popularity then Ruger is going to have to move with the times and take their LCR and pop two more chambers in the cylinder or people will not buy them.

The .38's it has everything to do with size and weight, you can't make a 6 shot .38 as small as a 5 shot.

 

[Oninotaki]

Part of why some companies still continue making the lower capacity revolvers is because they've been making them for decades, they're tooled up for them, they work, and there's not much reason to change.

Charter for years stuck with 6 shot .22's and only recently started doing 8 shot, probably because the competition was all making 8's or 9's.

If .22 Mag starts to gain in popularity then Ruger is going to have to move with the times and take their LCR and pop two more chambers in the cylinder or people will not buy them.

The .38's it has everything to do with size and weight, you can't make a 6 shot .38 as small as a 5 shot.

Finding out that Charter Arms is boring the cylinders for their new .22 mag pathfinders for 8 shots is what got me wondering about this topic. If Diamondback, and Heritage can do 9, why was Charter Arms doing only 8?

 

[TTv2]

Finding out that Charter Arms is boring the cylinders for their new .22 mag pathfinders for 8 shots is what got me wondering about this topic. If Diamondback, and Heritage can do 9, why was Charter Arms doing only 8?

Heritage and Diamonback are big revolvers, Charter can't fit 9 in their current smaller frames.

They probably could do 9 in the Professional frames, but idk who is going to buy a 9 shot .22 Professional over a Taurus or Ruger LCRx for only $100 more.

 

[Oninotaki]

Heritage and Diamonback are big revolvers, Charter can't fit 9 in their current smaller frames.

They probably could do 9 in the Professional frames, but idk who is going to buy a 9 shot .22 Professional over a Taurus or Ruger LCRx for only $100 more.

I most certainly was not going to buy a 6 shot CA DA revolver in .22 wmr when the Taurus 8 shot, and S&W 7 shot options existed. That is why the upgrade that CA is doing to their pathfinder in .22 wmr from a 6 shooter to an 8 caught my eye. I then wondered however why not go 9 like diamondback and Heritage. At the time the question occurred to me I didn't realize how much difference there was in these cylinder diameters.

There has been lots of interesting information in this thread for me. Such as having to move the barrel up in a frame that has a higher capacity cylinder. I also didn't fully get how much tradional revolver nuts cared about a revolver being a 6 shooter over having a higher capacity.

Now I am curious what's gonna happen if henry releases a 10 shot .22 wmr cylinder for their new revolver frame.

 

[Pistolay]

My S&W 351PD holds 7 rounds, and because of its rounded edges, is just about as concealable as my LCP MAXs. If it held 8 or 9, it wouldn't be nearly as concealable. I've never really been a revolver guy, but I like it and I'm getting fairly good with it, and I can see occasionally carrying it in the future.

 

[Jonesy814]

I am happy with my 5 shot J frames. I have 4, 686’s. One is a 7 shot. I don’t notice the difference. I love my 10 shot model 617 and wouldn’t trade it for a 6 shooter

 

[chaim]

I like capacity. I usually carry a semi-auto, and for my smallest carry gun I went with the SIG P365 so I can have at least 10 rounds and usually carry it with a 12 round mag (I have my SIG P290 on consignment, I have an LCP and Pf9 but never carry either). I sometimes carry a Glock 19 or CZ PCR with 15+1 capacities.

I also love revolvers, but still want to maximize capacity as much as practical. So, some years ago I bought a 6 round Taurus 856UL, planning to have it replace my 5 shot S&W 442, and I got a 6 round new model Colt King Cobra (3") to effectively replace my 5 shot Taurus 85CH. For years, when I could only carry when out of state (MD made it nearly impossible to get a permit unless you are LEO or a business owner until Bruen forced their hand... now they are simply changing their CCW permit laws to make most locations "sensitive places" to effectively ban carry effective in September, but I digress)... for years, when I could only carry out of state, it would be for an afternoon once or twice a month, or a few days at a time when on vacation or on a long weekend a few times a year. So, it worked that way. However, for the past 7 or 8 months that I've been carrying nearly daily, I've seen my carry decisions change a bit.

When my 856 had to go to a smith (squib load stuck in the forcing cone, not a reliability issue) I started carrying my 442 in my pocket and occasionally IWB. I was very impressed and when I got the 856 back, I did some back to back comparison, carrying one for a few hours and then switching off. What seems like very marginal differences on paper, become much more pronounced when pocket carrying. Even IWB, the narrower 5 shot cylinder is more comfortable (though I have no trouble with my larger 856 or Colt King Cobra). A S&W Model 60 or 442 has a 1.3" cylinder, the 856 is 1.41", the Colt King Cobra or a current production S&W K-frame is 1.45". In other measurements, the 442 cuts a bit off the 856 as well: 1/2" shorter in height (granted, a lot of that would likely change with different grips), 1/4" shorter in length, and 1.3oz lighter. It all adds up, especially in pocket carry.

Sure, most of the time, I'd rather have a little extra size and weight and go with a 6 round revolver instead of a 5 round revolver. I'm likely to replace my 856UL with a heavier steel 856, and probably a 3" 856 Defender since I will likely never pocket carry it again (opting for the 442 when pocket carrying). I find a steel 20-24oz revolver quite easy to carry IWB or OWB so the aluminum frame offers no practical advantage in that sized gun carried on the belt, while making for stouter recoil and thus, more time between follow up shots. However, for applications where slicing a little off the measurements matters (pocket, ankle) it makes a difference, and while marginal, my 85CH and 442 are even a bit more comfortable IWB. If you will have only one, both will work, and a person would have to decide for themselves if the extra round or slightly easier concealment matter more. Most here on THR own multiple guns, so why not have both for when the circumstances dictate one or the other is the better option? Heck, as of this afternoon when I pick up my new 2.75" S&W 66, my carry revolvers allow considerable choice depending upon circumstances: a Taurus 85CH, a Taurus 856UL, a S&W 442, a Taurus 431 (.44spl), a 3" new model Colt King Cobra, and a S&W 66 Combat Magnum and I still plan to add more.

 

[SteadyD]

Got to disagree with you here, though I am likely in the minority. If I have a model 27/28 I would sell it to get a 627. If I had a 6-shot 686 I would sell it for the seven shot version. Setting the historical significance of the Model 27 to the side it seems like a silly huge revolver (nearly as silly as a 6-shot 357 magnum Redhawk) to only have 6-shots of 357 Magnum. I love revolvers but it seems silly to carry a revolver with lower capacity if on the same frame that I can have more. ie 686 vs 686+ or Model 27 vs 627.

Agreed. I want as many holes in the cylinder as you can fit. I love 8 shot and 7 shot 357s and 6 shot LCR and J frame 32s.

 

[SteadyD]

Although the GP-100 is a bit bigger and would give me an additional round of .38SPL, the SP-101 fits my hand better so that is the deciding factor.

The GP can give you two more rounds of 38, not just one.

 

[JERRY]

The biggest concern for me with this type of caliber war is reliable ignition (center fire vs. rimfire). Next would be recoil (percieved or otherwise).

 

[jstert]

as much as i appreciate rimfire firearms, when it comes to 22wmr the shortest barrel that i believe takes full advantage of its power versus off-putting flashbang is my 5.5” ruger single-eight (aftermarket 22wmr cylinder from http://rugercyl.com/ruger-cylinders/). in fact my single-eight is the sidearm that i would carry if i were hiking home. otherwise my rimfire handguns are 22lr. if i am carrying a rimfire handgun for protection higher capacity is the charm.

if talking 38sp then chaim’s analysis is highly informative, as always. a favorite ccw is now a s&w 642 airweight, which i recently brought up to speed with 500 rounds over a month. it used to be a steel taurus 85, which was my sole firearm for 25 years, now retired for sentimental reasons as much as greater weight.

 

[jstert]

The biggest concern for me with this type of caliber war is reliable ignition (center fire vs. rimfire). Next would be recoil (percieved or otherwise).

22wmr fired out of a revolver, especially from a single-action, should be quite reliable, eh? at least my experience is fine. flashbang versus effective result, especially from a short barrel, is another matter.

 

[Riomouse911]

22wmr fired out of a revolver, especially from a single-action, should be quite reliable, eh? at least my experience is fine. flashbang versus effective result, especially from a short barrel, is another matter.

Yes, the .22 WMR out of a short barrel can certainly cause a ruckus. Ear protection is always a good idea, and it should be mandatory with the .22 WMR.

This is from my 4” S&W Model 48.



Stay safe.

 

[JCooperfan1911]

Because you can fit a 5-shot .357 Magnum into a truly pocket size gun that way.

The wimpy .32s don’t hold a candle to a properly loaded full bore .357 Magnum. It’s very reassuring to pack “the king of the streets” in a gun that fits into any pocket. The one shot stopping power of .357 has to be seen to be believed.