Posted: 1/2/2016 4:06:34 AM EDT
|
So I am considering a 2in S&W Model 10 and a Colt Agent/Cobra 2in with 6 shots in .38.
But it got me thinking - Why hasn't anyone made a comparably sized .32 cal revolver with 7-8 shot cylinders? - Snub nose of course, CCW being the purpose. Seems like it would sell well. In the 9 vs 45 debate I am of the mindset of capacity being most important, obviously many disagree, but its a two sided coin. So why no 7-8 shot .32 revolvers? If you know of any, please correct me. Im very interested (Snub nose) |
|
.32 doesn't have alot of omph in the self defense dept.
Taurus makes a .380 revolver. But it's a five shot. http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=856&category=Revolver&toggle=&breadcrumbseries= Smith and Wesson make .357 revolvers in seven round and I think they make a 8 round. But the dynamics and feel of the trigger doesn't feel right when the cylinder holds more than 6. |
|
Quoted:
.32 doesn't have alot of omph in the self defense dept. Taurus makes a .380 revolver. But it's a five shot. http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=856&category=Revolver&toggle=&breadcrumbseries= Smith and Wesson make .357 revolvers in seven round and I think they make a 8 round. But the dynamics and feel of the trigger doesn't feel right when the cylinder holds more than 6. Yea Ive seen a few of the 686/327 size revolvers, but Im thinking like J-frame pocket size, slightly larger. It seems like you could easily take the M10 (K-frame), size it down slightly, and fit 8 .32 rounds in the cylinder. I mean, I get that .32 S&W doesn't have a lot of oomph, but think about it. Theres plenty of .32 cal autos for self defense, and they're about the same capacity given their size - 6-8 rounds max. So why not make a revolver to compete? I'd love to have a small BUG/CCW thats 8 rounds of .32. And as a revolver, there far more reliability. I can't see myself trusting most .32 cals. |
|
Quoted:
.32 doesn't have alot of omph in the self defense dept. Taurus makes a .380 revolver. But it's a five shot. http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=856&category=Revolver&toggle=&breadcrumbseries= Smith and Wesson make .357 revolvers in seven round and I think they make a 8 round. But the dynamics and feel of the trigger doesn't feel right when the cylinder holds more than 6. Smith & Wesson makes a 8 round 357 called model R8. |
|
32 revolver can be effective. The 327 Federal Magnum is a relatively new cartridge (that can also shoot 32 S&W, 32 S&W Long, 32 H&R Mag) and thus not very popular but is pretty effective from a short barrel for self defense. I know Ruger makes an LCR, SP 101 and even a few single action revolvers in the 327 Fed Mag chambering and you get 6 rds instead of 5 round when chambered in 38/357 in the LCR or SP101. The single actions gets 7 instead of 6. I think S&W also made a 638 that was a 6-shot J-frame but it is not currently in production. |
|
Quoted: .32 doesn't have alot of omph in the self defense dept. Taurus makes a .380 revolver. But it's a five shot. http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=856&category=Revolver&toggle=&breadcrumbseries= Smith and Wesson make .357 revolvers in seven round and I think they make a 8 round. But the dynamics and feel of the trigger doesn't feel right when the cylinder holds more than 6. What   I don't think if you where blind folded you could tell the difference between my 625 6-shot N-frame and 627 8-shot N-frame just from pulling the the trigger. The dynamics just are not that different and I have shot both a lot in competition. |
|
Quoted:
So I am considering a 2in S&W Model 10 and a Colt Agent/Cobra 2in with 6 shots in .38. But it got me thinking - Why hasn't anyone made a comparably sized .32 cal revolver with 7-8 shot cylinders? - Snub nose of course, CCW being the purpose. Seems like it would sell well. In the 9 vs 45 debate I am of the mindset of capacity being most important, obviously many disagree, but its a two sided coin. So why no 7-8 shot .32 revolvers? If you know of any, please correct me. Im very interested (Snub nose) A J-Frame won't fit 7-8 rounds of .32. It fits 6. S&W has made several .32 revolvers, the model 16, 331, 332, 431, 432 and 632, just some off the top of my head. The 16 is the only K-frame they made, everything else, to my knowledge, is built on a J-Frame. The appeal of a .32 caliber J-Frame is that you get 1 more shot, and in the case of the .32 H&R as well as the .327 Fed Mag, you are getting the same/more power than you would out of a .38 Spl. In order to fit 7-8 rounds of .32 into a revolver, you'd need to use a K or N frame cylinder. The K-frame cylinder was actually put into a J-frame once upon a time, but those are almost non-existant, and weren't chambered in .32 as far as I know. If you want a J-frame, try and track down a 432 or 332, bring your wallet. |
|
Quoted:
Smith & Wesson makes a 8 round 357 called model R8. https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTu1ISXYSUB8vyP65GawXFIdFQ6iVmsVLtnOzaNdVyrhf-hrvyS Quoted:
Quoted:
.32 doesn't have alot of omph in the self defense dept. Taurus makes a .380 revolver. But it's a five shot. http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=856&category=Revolver&toggle=&breadcrumbseries= Smith and Wesson make .357 revolvers in seven round and I think they make a 8 round. But the dynamics and feel of the trigger doesn't feel right when the cylinder holds more than 6. Smith & Wesson makes a 8 round 357 called model R8. https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTu1ISXYSUB8vyP65GawXFIdFQ6iVmsVLtnOzaNdVyrhf-hrvyS Huh, for some reason I thought the R8 was 9mm all this time. I must be getting senile 
|
|
Quoted:
32 revolvers don't sell. That market has been dead for 75 years. H&R and Federal both tried to reinvent the 32 market and nobody paid any attention. Ask any gun shop how many 32 wheel guns they've sold in the last five years. In the last 2 years I've bought over 10 
|
|
Quoted:
32 revolvers don't sell. That market has been dead for 75 years. H&R and Federal both tried to reinvent the 32 market and nobody paid any attention. Ask any gun shop how many 32 wheel guns they've sold in the last five years. I disagree. They have failed because the products are roughly the same size as a J frame, but less powerful. Why would I get six shots of .32 when I can have 5 of .38+P? But when you talk about 7-8 rounds of .32 in a K frame cylinder on a J frame, now you're talking turkey. The idea that someone would even invent a 6 shot .32, to me, is silly. The J Frame is small enough- Revolvers have little-to no need to reduce size and mass of the firearm. But a .327 Magnum with comparable ballistics to a .38 special in a like size firearm to a S&W 36 J frame, you could easily make that aluminum and have 7-8 shots versus 5 shots. I think the .32 market hasn't really been tapped into properly. Especially when you're talking about competing with 6-8 round .32/.380ACP Semi Auto firearms for pocket carry. |
|
Quoted:
In the last 2 years I've bought over 10 Quoted:
Quoted:
32 revolvers don't sell. That market has been dead for 75 years. H&R and Federal both tried to reinvent the 32 market and nobody paid any attention. Ask any gun shop how many 32 wheel guns they've sold in the last five years. In the last 2 years I've bought over 10 You and maybe six other people. If people bought 32's in sufficient numbers companies would make them. |
|
Quoted:
I disagree. They have failed because the products are roughly the same size as a J frame, but less powerful. Why would I get six shots of .32 when I can have 5 of .38+P? But when you talk about 7-8 rounds of .32 in a K frame cylinder on a J frame, now you're talking turkey. The idea that someone would even invent a 6 shot .32, to me, is silly. The J Frame is small enough- Revolvers have little-to no need to reduce size and mass of the firearm. But a .327 Magnum with comparable ballistics to a .38 special in a like size firearm to a S&W 36 J frame, you could easily make that aluminum and have 7-8 shots versus 5 shots. I think the .32 market hasn't really been tapped into properly. Especially when you're talking about competing with 6-8 round .32/.380ACP Semi Auto firearms for pocket carry. Quoted:
Quoted:
32 revolvers don't sell. That market has been dead for 75 years. H&R and Federal both tried to reinvent the 32 market and nobody paid any attention. Ask any gun shop how many 32 wheel guns they've sold in the last five years. I disagree. They have failed because the products are roughly the same size as a J frame, but less powerful. Why would I get six shots of .32 when I can have 5 of .38+P? But when you talk about 7-8 rounds of .32 in a K frame cylinder on a J frame, now you're talking turkey. The idea that someone would even invent a 6 shot .32, to me, is silly. The J Frame is small enough- Revolvers have little-to no need to reduce size and mass of the firearm. But a .327 Magnum with comparable ballistics to a .38 special in a like size firearm to a S&W 36 J frame, you could easily make that aluminum and have 7-8 shots versus 5 shots. I think the .32 market hasn't really been tapped into properly. Especially when you're talking about competing with 6-8 round .32/.380ACP Semi Auto firearms for pocket carry. The .32 H&R is as powerful/more powerful than a .38 Spl, the .327 Fed Mag is considerably more powerful than a .38 Spl, and even goes toe to toe with some .357 loads. The J-frame in .32 H&R is, in my opinion, the perfect J-frame. The gun isn't sized down, so you aren't gaining anything in reduced size or mass, but you gain equal or better ballistic than that of a .38 Spl, and you get 1 additional shot, what isn't to like about that? S&W, and multiple other companies, made a .327 in the J-frame or like size. Making it aluminum isn't an option, not in a J-Frame. For me, the J-frame (in .327) I have, is just too heavy for how I use my revolvers. I lusted after a 632-2 (centennial, 1-7/8") for a long time, until I found a 432pd, and then a 332ti. In such a small gun, the .327 is unwieldly, the .32 H&R has enough of an oomph to get the job done. ETA: The .32 revolver market has been attempted to be capitalized on, but has largely failed for multiple reasons. The .32 H&R failed primarily because the original guns they were chambered in (from Harrington and Richardson) couldn't handle the pressure of full tilt loads. This caused the original .32 H&R ammo that came out to be seriously underpowered, which turned people off. By the time stronger firearms came out that could handle the proper loads, no one wanted to touch it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Snubbie S&W 686+ with 7 rounds of .357 or a S&W 327 variant with 8 rounds of .357 on tap would be a better choice. But thats not pocket carry size. Im talking about something to compete with J frames True, but even in the smaller .32 caliber I think it'd be a stretch to stuff 7-8 rounds in a J frame sized revolver that would work for pocket carry. The 10 shot S&W 617 is a tight fit in 22LR in a K frame. I'm not saying it is impossible but it would probably require a radical redesign to make it work. And as others said, the .32 revolver caliber is a kind of a dead market too. You'd be limited in ammo choices at a minimum. |
|
Quoted: But thats not pocket carry size. Im talking about something to compete with J frames Quoted: Quoted: Snubbie S&W 686+ with 7 rounds of .357 or a S&W 327 variant with 8 rounds of .357 on tap would be a better choice. But thats not pocket carry size. Im talking about something to compete with J frames |
|
A J-Frame cylinder has a diameter of 1.306".
A .32 caliber has a body diameter of .337" and a rim diameter of .375". Therefore, it is possible to fit 7 rounds of .32 into a J-Frame cylinder without altering it. If you did put 7 rounds into a J-Frame, your cylinder walls would come out to .11638" thick. Now in a .32 H&R you're dealing with 21,000 CUP, the .327 Fed Mag is putting out 45,000 PSI. Just to put that into perspective, the .357 Maximum is running at 40,000 PSI, 44 Magnum at 36,000 PSI, and .480 Ruger is at 48,000 PSI. The 686+ has wall thickness of .18548" and the smaller J-frame .357 Magnums have wall thickness of .20894". , and keep in mind, that is a caliber that is rated at 20% less PSI. So would you really want to trust something with 20% more PSI, in a revolver that has 62+% thinner walls? Putting 8 rounds in a J-Frame, the limiting factor is the rims, which would require a cylinder of 1.355" and even then, your rims would essentially be touching. Eight would be viable in a K-Frame, but again leaves you with very thin walls at .12642". Nine in a K-Frame is not possible, again due to the rims. In order for what you're asking, you're looking at some severe problems. You could have a 7-shot .32 caliber J-Frame, with walls thinner than 2 pennies or S&W would have to manufacture a completely new frame. A seven shot J-Frame in .32 S&W Long is of considerable less interest than a six shot in .32 H&R Magnum. |
|
Quoted:
Out of a 2" bbl, it would seem like a really expensive big bang. Out of a 4-6" bbl, it starts making sense, but then it's not small anymore. Sorta like the .32" NAA Magnum. Quoted:
Quoted:
I had no idea the .327 was that hot.  Out of a 2" bbl, it would seem like a really expensive big bang. Out of a 4-6" bbl, it starts making sense, but then it's not small anymore. Sorta like the .32" NAA Magnum. Out of my 1-7/8" barrel, .32 H&R magnum clocks in at right under 1150fps with a 100gr bullet. I don't have a 2" .327 to test, but my 3-1/16" clocks a 115gr bullet at well over 1350fps. Both loads I wouldn't call expensive, and both are substantially less of a "big bang" than .357 out of similar barrels. Now granted, the .327 was originally made to be fired out a 3" barrel, and powders were specifically mixed for that purpose. That is why when the original .327s came out, you didn't find shorter barreled ones, other than the extremely limited 632 Pro. Then Charter Arms and Taurus jumped on the boat and came out with shorter barrels. |
|
Quoted: Out of my 1-7/8" barrel, .32 H&R magnum clocks in at right under 1150fps with a 100gr bullet. I don't have a 2" .327 to test, but my 3-1/16" clocks a 115gr bullet at well over 1350fps.
Both loads I wouldn't call expensive, and both are substantially less of a "big bang" than .357 out of similar barrels. Now granted, the .327 was originally made to be fired out a 3" barrel, and powders were specifically mixed for that purpose. That is why when the original .327s came out, you didn't find shorter barreled ones, other than the extremely limited 632 Pro. Then Charter Arms and Taurus jumped on the boat and came out with shorter barrels. Yeah, .357" out of the short bbls seems ridiculous. Didn't realize H&R was that good. Any lever actions in it or the .327"? |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, .357" out of the short bbls seems ridiculous. Didn't realize H&R was that good. Any lever actions in it or the .327"? Quoted:
Quoted: Out of my 1-7/8" barrel, .32 H&R magnum clocks in at right under 1150fps with a 100gr bullet. I don't have a 2" .327 to test, but my 3-1/16" clocks a 115gr bullet at well over 1350fps.
Both loads I wouldn't call expensive, and both are substantially less of a "big bang" than .357 out of similar barrels. Now granted, the .327 was originally made to be fired out a 3" barrel, and powders were specifically mixed for that purpose. That is why when the original .327s came out, you didn't find shorter barreled ones, other than the extremely limited 632 Pro. Then Charter Arms and Taurus jumped on the boat and came out with shorter barrels. Yeah, .357" out of the short bbls seems ridiculous. Didn't realize H&R was that good. Any lever actions in it or the .327"? Marlin made some, EXTREMELY rare, they often catch $2000+ in auction. I think they made around 600 or so. People have reported taking them and reaming them for .327. |
|
Quoted:
Marlin made some, EXTREMELY rare, they often catch $2000+ in auction. I think they made around 600 or so. People have reported taking them and reaming them for .327. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Out of my 1-7/8" barrel, .32 H&R magnum clocks in at right under 1150fps with a 100gr bullet. I don't have a 2" .327 to test, but my 3-1/16" clocks a 115gr bullet at well over 1350fps.
Both loads I wouldn't call expensive, and both are substantially less of a "big bang" than .357 out of similar barrels. Now granted, the .327 was originally made to be fired out a 3" barrel, and powders were specifically mixed for that purpose. That is why when the original .327s came out, you didn't find shorter barreled ones, other than the extremely limited 632 Pro. Then Charter Arms and Taurus jumped on the boat and came out with shorter barrels. Yeah, .357" out of the short bbls seems ridiculous. Didn't realize H&R was that good. Any lever actions in it or the .327"? Marlin made some, EXTREMELY rare, they often catch $2000+ in auction. I think they made around 600 or so. People have reported taking them and reaming them for .327. I have one of those.
|
|
Quoted:
I have one of those. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Out of my 1-7/8" barrel, .32 H&R magnum clocks in at right under 1150fps with a 100gr bullet. I don't have a 2" .327 to test, but my 3-1/16" clocks a 115gr bullet at well over 1350fps.
Both loads I wouldn't call expensive, and both are substantially less of a "big bang" than .357 out of similar barrels. Now granted, the .327 was originally made to be fired out a 3" barrel, and powders were specifically mixed for that purpose. That is why when the original .327s came out, you didn't find shorter barreled ones, other than the extremely limited 632 Pro. Then Charter Arms and Taurus jumped on the boat and came out with shorter barrels. Yeah, .357" out of the short bbls seems ridiculous. Didn't realize H&R was that good. Any lever actions in it or the .327"? Marlin made some, EXTREMELY rare, they often catch $2000+ in auction. I think they made around 600 or so. People have reported taking them and reaming them for .327. I have one of those. You sir, are one lucky duck. I always look on gunbroker, but just can't afford one now. I also also look on the used shelves of smaller shops, hoping to get lucky. I've looked briefly into rechambering a 32-20, or possibly 30-30, but it seems to be more of a hassle than it's worth. |
|
Quoted:
A J-Frame cylinder has a diameter of 1.306". A .32 caliber has a body diameter of .337" and a rim diameter of .375". Therefore, it is possible to fit 7 rounds of .32 into a J-Frame cylinder without altering it. If you did put 7 rounds into a J-Frame, your cylinder walls would come out to .11638" thick. Now in a .32 H&R you're dealing with 21,000 CUP, the .327 Fed Mag is putting out 45,000 PSI. Just to put that into perspective, the .357 Maximum is running at 40,000 PSI, 44 Magnum at 36,000 PSI, and .480 Ruger is at 48,000 PSI. The 686+ has wall thickness of .18548" and the smaller J-frame .357 Magnums have wall thickness of .20894". , and keep in mind, that is a caliber that is rated at 20% less PSI. So would you really want to trust something with 20% more PSI, in a revolver that has 62+% thinner walls? Putting 8 rounds in a J-Frame, the limiting factor is the rims, which would require a cylinder of 1.355" and even then, your rims would essentially be touching. Eight would be viable in a K-Frame, but again leaves you with very thin walls at .12642". Nine in a K-Frame is not possible, again due to the rims. In order for what you're asking, you're looking at some severe problems. You could have a 7-shot .32 caliber J-Frame, with walls thinner than 2 pennies or S&W would have to manufacture a completely new frame. A seven shot J-Frame in .32 S&W Long is of considerable less interest than a six shot in .32 H&R Magnum. Why couldnt they make the gun on a J-Frame, but use a cylinder from a K-Frame? Or something in between, that is proprietary? Slightly wider cylinder, same frame? |
|
Quoted:
A J-Frame cylinder has a diameter of 1.306". A .32 caliber has a body diameter of .337" and a rim diameter of .375". Therefore, it is possible to fit 7 rounds of .32 into a J-Frame cylinder without altering it. If you did put 7 rounds into a J-Frame, your cylinder walls would come out to .11638" thick. Now in a .32 H&R you're dealing with 21,000 CUP, the .327 Fed Mag is putting out 45,000 PSI. Just to put that into perspective, the .357 Maximum is running at 40,000 PSI, 44 Magnum at 36,000 PSI, and .480 Ruger is at 48,000 PSI. The 686+ has wall thickness of .18548" and the smaller J-frame .357 Magnums have wall thickness of .20894". , and keep in mind, that is a caliber that is rated at 20% less PSI. So would you really want to trust something with 20% more PSI, in a revolver that has 62+% thinner walls? Putting 8 rounds in a J-Frame, the limiting factor is the rims, which would require a cylinder of 1.355" and even then, your rims would essentially be touching. Eight would be viable in a K-Frame, but again leaves you with very thin walls at .12642". Nine in a K-Frame is not possible, again due to the rims. In order for what you're asking, you're looking at some severe problems. You could have a 7-shot .32 caliber J-Frame, with walls thinner than 2 pennies or S&W would have to manufacture a completely new frame. A seven shot J-Frame in .32 S&W Long is of considerable less interest than a six shot in .32 H&R Magnum. See, this guy's got a handle on the math. I'm like, "durrrr, shit probably won't fit yo. Even if it did, shit might blow up yo."
|
|
Quoted:
Why couldnt they make the gun on a J-Frame, but use a cylinder from a K-Frame? Or something in between, that is proprietary? Slightly wider cylinder, same frame? Quoted:
Quoted:
A J-Frame cylinder has a diameter of 1.306". A .32 caliber has a body diameter of .337" and a rim diameter of .375". (snip) A seven shot J-Frame in .32 S&W Long is of considerable less interest than a six shot in .32 H&R Magnum. Why couldnt they make the gun on a J-Frame, but use a cylinder from a K-Frame? Or something in between, that is proprietary? Slightly wider cylinder, same frame? I think the only way this would be possible would be to modify a K-Frame cylinder by turning it down, grinding away the top strap, and bottom strap, and fitting the cylinder. After all this work, you'd only be able to safely (due to thin walls) fit 7 in. That is a lot of work, on S&W or an individual/gunsmith, for the pay off of 1 additional round. ETA: This also doesn't even mention how the thinning of the frame would handle it. |
|
Quoted:
I think the only way this would be possible would be to modify a K-Frame cylinder by turning it down, grinding away the top strap, and bottom strap, and fitting the cylinder. After all this work, you'd only be able to safely (due to thin walls) fit 7 in. That is a lot of work, on S&W or an individual/gunsmith, for the pay off of 1 additional round. ETA: This also doesn't even mention how the thinning of the frame would handle it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A J-Frame cylinder has a diameter of 1.306". A .32 caliber has a body diameter of .337" and a rim diameter of .375". (snip) A seven shot J-Frame in .32 S&W Long is of considerable less interest than a six shot in .32 H&R Magnum. Why couldnt they make the gun on a J-Frame, but use a cylinder from a K-Frame? Or something in between, that is proprietary? Slightly wider cylinder, same frame? I think the only way this would be possible would be to modify a K-Frame cylinder by turning it down, grinding away the top strap, and bottom strap, and fitting the cylinder. After all this work, you'd only be able to safely (due to thin walls) fit 7 in. That is a lot of work, on S&W or an individual/gunsmith, for the pay off of 1 additional round. ETA: This also doesn't even mention how the thinning of the frame would handle it. So make a new frame. I don't see why they wouldn't design a Frame between J and K sizes with 8 .32 rounds. Its not a lot of work for "Just one round", its a lot of work for 2 rounds of .327 Magnum, which is comparable to .357 Magnum, making 8 rounds of .327 in a pocket carry revolver the *BEST* Pocket carry option on the market. Few pocket carry options have more than 8 rounds, any that do are in MUCH weaker calibers, and finally, the revolver will ALWAYS beat out the semi auto for pocket carry because without a hammer it can be fired from inside the jacket, its more reliable, pocket lint won't clog it up, and lots of tiny pocket pistols are marginal in reliability. Im not saying its an easy "Just make a new cylinder" but if I could choose between .38 Special and .327 I'd pick .327. And if I could pick 8 rounds of .327 pocket carry vs 5 rounds of .357, I'd pick the .327 with 8 rounds. And if I had to pick between 8-10 rounds of anything pocket carry size in 32ACP, .380 ACP, or 9mm, or .327 with 8 rounds, I'd pick the .327. Ballistically, it has the pocket. With its size, it could be done to have 7-8 rounds in a cylinder. It would take a whole new frame, but it could be a whole new line. |
|
Quoted: So make a new frame. I don't see why they wouldn't design a Frame between J and K sizes with 8 .32 rounds. Its not a lot of work for "Just one round", its a lot of work for 2 rounds of .327 Magnum, which is comparable to .357 Magnum, making 8 rounds of .327 in a pocket carry revolver the *BEST* Pocket carry option on the market. Few pocket carry options have more than 8 rounds, any that do are in MUCH weaker calibers, and finally, the revolver will ALWAYS beat out the semi auto for pocket carry because without a hammer it can be fired from inside the jacket, its more reliable, pocket lint won't clog it up, and lots of tiny pocket pistols are marginal in reliability. Im not saying its an easy "Just make a new cylinder" but if I could choose between .38 Special and .327 I'd pick .327. And if I could pick 8 rounds of .327 pocket carry vs 5 rounds of .357, I'd pick the .327 with 8 rounds. And if I had to pick between 8-10 rounds of anything pocket carry size in 32ACP, .380 ACP, or 9mm, or .327 with 8 rounds, I'd pick the .327. Ballistically, it has the pocket. With its size, it could be done to have 7-8 rounds in a cylinder. It would take a whole new frame, but it could be a whole new line. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A J-Frame cylinder has a diameter of 1.306". A .32 caliber has a body diameter of .337" and a rim diameter of .375". (snip) A seven shot J-Frame in .32 S&W Long is of considerable less interest than a six shot in .32 H&R Magnum. Why couldnt they make the gun on a J-Frame, but use a cylinder from a K-Frame? Or something in between, that is proprietary? Slightly wider cylinder, same frame? I think the only way this would be possible would be to modify a K-Frame cylinder by turning it down, grinding away the top strap, and bottom strap, and fitting the cylinder. After all this work, you'd only be able to safely (due to thin walls) fit 7 in. That is a lot of work, on S&W or an individual/gunsmith, for the pay off of 1 additional round. ETA: This also doesn't even mention how the thinning of the frame would handle it. So make a new frame. I don't see why they wouldn't design a Frame between J and K sizes with 8 .32 rounds. Its not a lot of work for "Just one round", its a lot of work for 2 rounds of .327 Magnum, which is comparable to .357 Magnum, making 8 rounds of .327 in a pocket carry revolver the *BEST* Pocket carry option on the market. Few pocket carry options have more than 8 rounds, any that do are in MUCH weaker calibers, and finally, the revolver will ALWAYS beat out the semi auto for pocket carry because without a hammer it can be fired from inside the jacket, its more reliable, pocket lint won't clog it up, and lots of tiny pocket pistols are marginal in reliability. Im not saying its an easy "Just make a new cylinder" but if I could choose between .38 Special and .327 I'd pick .327. And if I could pick 8 rounds of .327 pocket carry vs 5 rounds of .357, I'd pick the .327 with 8 rounds. And if I had to pick between 8-10 rounds of anything pocket carry size in 32ACP, .380 ACP, or 9mm, or .327 with 8 rounds, I'd pick the .327. Ballistically, it has the pocket. With its size, it could be done to have 7-8 rounds in a cylinder. It would take a whole new frame, but it could be a whole new line. I don't think you appreciate how small that particular niche market is and how much engineering, tooling, fixturing and testing would have to go into creating and manufacturing a new revolver frame size. The investment would not make money at S&W's and Ruger's price points. As a case in point: When S&W and Ruger released their most recent batch of 9mm revolvers you'll notice none of them were newly designed frame/cylinders to fit the 9mm. The 9mm revolvers where just 357 magnum frames with cylinders chambered for 9mm. (there is speculation that some models might be using .357 barrels and not .355 barrels on the 9mm revolvers) Even though a 9mm revolver, in theory, could have a frame and cylinder that was roughly 3/8 inch shorter than a 357. A proper 9mm J-frame could have a 2.25 inch barrel (rather than a 1-7/8 of a 38/357) while being the same overall length but lighter and with less bulk. But they dont bother making such special version and we thus get 9mm stuffed into 357 Mag revolvers. I doubt we will ever see a frame between the sizes, or shortened of any of the existing J, K, L, N, X frames, similar for Ruger. TL;DR The NRE costs far out weigh the profit potentials of such a niche products. |
|
Quoted: I think a 7-shot N-frame .327 would be the heat. |
|
Quoted:
They already have 8-shot N-frames in 357 Mag (627/327/R8) and 9mm (929). You might be able to get 9 shots of 327 in an N-frame but it might require moving the barrel up a little bit more than they already did in the frame to get it all to fit. They had to move the barrel up to get 8-shot of 357 when compared to the barrel location of the 6-shot N-frames like the 625 and 629. Quoted:
Quoted:
I think a 7-shot N-frame .327 would be the heat. In an N-Frame you could fit 9 rounds in, and still maintain a wall thickness of right under .2", which is similar to other .357/.327 revolvers. You COULD fit 10 in, but you'd have a wall thickness of only .13336", which is substantially thinner than other revolvers. |
|
Quoted:
In an N-Frame you could fit 9 rounds in, and still maintain a wall thickness of right under .2", which is similar to other .357/.327 revolvers. You COULD fit 10 in, but you'd have a wall thickness of only .13336", which is substantially thinner than other revolvers. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think a 7-shot N-frame .327 would be the heat. In an N-Frame you could fit 9 rounds in, and still maintain a wall thickness of right under .2", which is similar to other .357/.327 revolvers. You COULD fit 10 in, but you'd have a wall thickness of only .13336", which is substantially thinner than other revolvers. I prefer an uneven number so the cylinder notches don't end up over the chamber. |
|
Based on some quick googling - the current revolver frame options date to:
M&P Bodyguard - 2014 J- 1950 (Model 36) - 66 years ago K- 1899 (Well before it was named the Model 10) - 117 years ago L- 1980 (The 686) - 36 years ago N- 1935 (for the .357, the .44 was produced in 55, Model 29 designation added in 57) - 81 years ago So the S&W revolver line has grown like this - since 1899 there has been a new addition (on average) every 28.75 years - when looking at frame size. Based on the most recent addition, and the average elapsed time between adding to the line, we should expect a new revolver frame from S&W in about 2043, give or take. -shooter ETA: If you change the date on the N frame to 1917, for the model so-named (which is historically more accurate) it doesn't change the average time between models because it extends the interval in one place (between the K and the N) and shortens it between the N frame and the J frame. |
|
Quoted:
Based on some quick googling - the current revolver frame options date to: M&P Bodyguard - 2014 J- 1950 (Model 36) - 66 years ago K- 1899 (Well before it was named the Model 10) - 117 years ago L- 1980 (The 686) - 36 years ago N- 1935 (for the .357, the .44 was produced in 55, Model 29 designation added in 57) - 81 years ago So the S&W revolver line has grown like this - since 1899 there has been a new addition (on average) every 28.75 years - when looking at frame size. Based on the most recent addition, and the average elapsed time between adding to the line, we should expect a new revolver frame from S&W in about 2043, give or take. -shooter ETA: If you change the date on the N frame to 1917, for the model so-named (which is historically more accurate) it doesn't change the average time between models because it extends the interval in one place (between the K and the N) and shortens it between the N frame and the J frame. The X-Frame was introduced in 2003. |
|
Quoted:
The X-Frame was introduced in 2003. Quoted:
Quoted:
Based on some quick googling - the current revolver frame options date to: M&P Bodyguard - 2014 J- 1950 (Model 36) - 66 years ago K- 1899 (Well before it was named the Model 10) - 117 years ago L- 1980 (The 686) - 36 years ago N- 1935 (for the .357, the .44 was produced in 55, Model 29 designation added in 57) - 81 years ago So the S&W revolver line has grown like this - since 1899 there has been a new addition (on average) every 28.75 years - when looking at frame size. Based on the most recent addition, and the average elapsed time between adding to the line, we should expect a new revolver frame from S&W in about 2043, give or take. -shooter ETA: If you change the date on the N frame to 1917, for the model so-named (which is historically more accurate) it doesn't change the average time between models because it extends the interval in one place (between the K and the N) and shortens it between the N frame and the J frame. The X-Frame was introduced in 2003. You're also missing the I and M frame. The C Frame is also technically in there, but it was never mass produced, so I guess you could nix that one. |
|
Good catches - so with those updates (still left out the C frame), and the Z-frame for the Governor, it looks like:
Frame...Debut......Age M&P......2014........2 I............1896.......120 J...........1950.......66 K..........1899.......117 L..........1980.......36 M..........1902.......114 N...........1908.......108 X...........2003.......13 Z...........2011.......5 When we sort by age we get: Year...........Lag...........Average Lag 2014...........3..............14.75 2011...........8 2003...........23 1980...........30 1950...........42 1908...........6 1902...........3 1899...........3 1896 So I was wrong - we should expect a new S&W frame in about 2028/2029. -shooter ETA to make the table vaguely legible. |