are there any pocket pistol revolvers? snub designed to shoot ONLY wadcutters?

[Whiterabbit]

in what way are moon clipped guns less reliable?

I think he is referencing stories of people who say some revolvers can't tolerate bent moon clips, where the case backpressure on the frame results in high friction that increases pull weight and decreases smoothness.

[Piedmont]

in what way are moon clipped guns less reliable? Ive been using 45acp, 10mm and 40sw moon clip guns for many years and find them just as reliable as any other revolver. Personaly if i was wanting something like the original poster was looking for I couldnt think of a better round to chamber it in then the 9mm. With plus p ammo its more powerful then the 38, theres tons of good ammo made for it, the ammo is reasonably priced and being a moon clip gun it would be very fast to reload especaily compared to trying to load wad cutters into a cylinder with a speed loader. I havent carried a revolver for a ccw gun in a few years but if someone came out with a 9mm short cyl compact little gun that used moon clips id probably be all over one.

I've just scratched the surface with my medium frame Ruger, but without the clips using factory ammo and presumably factory pressure handloads you get pierced primers. S&W figured this out which is why they made the M547 with a gizmo that blocked the case head that was used in addition to the firing pin. There wasn't much incentive to test various loads that pierced primers since I didn't want to damage the discontinued revolver that you might not be able to get parts for.

The moon clips cured the primer piercing, so being tied to the round on each side must limit back thrust. However, the 9mm clips are smaller and much harder to get rounds in and out of than the .45 clips, plus there aren't any tools made to help that I could find. This makes it more likely clips will be bent and I bent two in very little use. If you bend one slightly you may or may not realize it. If you don't notice, it can either freeze the gun entirely while you are shooting or completely mess up the DA pull when you get around to the affected area.

I came to the conclusion there is a good reason revolver rounds have rims. After this I happened to run across something Jan Libourel wrote after using a M25-2 extensively. He said clips gave him enough trouble that he would never seriously consider them on a defense gun.

The clips are like auto pistols, when everything is working right, they are great. When everything isn't, they suck. Plus they are a pain to one degree or another loading and unloading into the clips.

[Awsar]

my S&W mod 442 airweight .38 spl is light and small no exposed hammer i carry it in my pocket all the time.

[Whiterabbit]

seems like the closest candidate that I can find. Id like to try that sometime side by side with the ultra small pocket pistol semi autos. see how they compare.

[gunfan]

Don't overlook the limited production S&W Model 632 Airweight Centennial revolvers. I happened upon mine when I was in an LGS. since I knew what it was, snatching it up was done without a second thought! It is a neat little revolver that was manufactured to be carried a lot, yet shot little. It carries quite nicely and shoots VERY well! It has enough power to accomplished it's assigned task. You can shoot the revolver easily, and with 6 rounds of .32 Magnum, it's a safe bet that you will have a decent ally in the pursuit of personal protection.

Scott

[bruce drake]

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=333601506

A Police Positive in 32 Colt.

Probably something that would fit the bill.

[gunfan]

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=333601506

A Police Positive in 32 Colt.

Probably something that would fit the bill.

Bruce: The ".32 Colt" actually is the .32 Colt New Police cartridge (.32 S&W Long) This is one of those revolvers that could have it's forcing cone abbreviated, and a longer cylinder (That has had a modern heat treatment performed) in .32 H&R Magnum. That would make it a 3 1/4" barreled, all steel .32 H&R Magnum revolver.

Yep, that would "fill the bill" quite well!

Scott

[9.3X62AL]

Yessir, a 32 SWL. Mighty tempting, that.

I scored a Police Positive x 4" in 38 S&W a few years ago, and it's a little jewel. Shorter frame window, compact even with the 4" barrel, and a delight to shoot. 150 grain SWCs at 700-725 FPS should provide the correct guidance if called upon, though I don't carry it routinely.

[429421Cowboy]

Another angle for this, if you wanted to make this a project (a BIG project) and might be more than it is worth, is the Taurus Mini-revolver in .380. I think their 9mm revolvers are built on the same length cyl as the .38's, but i believe (but won't claim to know for sure) that the frame and cyl on the .380 revolver are shorter. Horrible reviews on this gun, mostly surrounding the trigger pull and use of moon clips, i am not sure what it would take to get a .38 cyl in it, i wonder if you could just size boolits to fit the exisiting bbl? Just an idea that popped up, i know alot of us wouldn't use a Taurus on a bet, but it was a gun that i thought might have a shorter frame to give you a place to work from.

[gunfan]

If I could obtain a Taurus in .380, I'd like to see what could be accomplished by exchanging the cylinder, shortening the forcing cone and re-cutting the barrel's bore. Voila! You have a 9x18 Makarov revolver!

(That's a new wrinkle I hadn't considered until today.)

Scott

[35remington]

In regards to moon clips, anything that makes headspacing depend upon a loose object as a headspacing intermediary and adding the increased drag potential of the adjoining rounds to the one you are trying to fire potentially decreases revolver reliability.....and I've personally had issues with misfires a number of times when moon clips are used. And the moon clips were not bent, either, nor was the revolver's spring altered to make it lighter.

Keep in mind that rounds are not always fully seated when a revolver has its trigger pulled and if they are not the firing pin not only has to fully seat the round it strikes, but potentially also the adjacent rounds in the cylinder. Thus the firing pin may have to drag the rounds on either side forward before the moon clip is stopped by the back of the cylinder and provides the headspacing resistance to allow the round to fire. This reduces firing pin blow and velocity and potential for misfire goes up.

This is exacerbated if the clips or the cylinders are dirty and drag is increased. Soft crud on the back of the clips, like bullet lube, also softens the firing pin blow. Pointing or shooting the revolver at an upward angle increases the odds that several cartridges are not fully forward in the cylinder when the hammer is dropped, and increase the odds of a misfire. A bent clip guarantees it.

Again, adding a loose piece of metal that complicates positive headspacing and links potentially drag inducing adjacent cartridges to the one being struck by the firing pin does nothing to increase revolver reliability.......it actually decreases it. This should not be surprising to anyone.

Want the cartridge to have the best chance of going bang? Load rimmed cartridges in the cylinder. I would not consider a revolver to be fully reliable as it could be with clips either. Once must weigh the speed of reloading of clipped revolver rounds against their increased misfire potential. The rounds carried ready in the cylinder, since speed wasn't needed to get them there, should always be rimmed rounds (45 Auto Rim much preferred over moon clipped 45 ACP rounds, for example) if such is available.

A revolver has that has clips mandated for cylinder loaded carry because rimmed substitutes are not available is a step backward. But it's your life and your choice. Not on my watch.

[pipehand]

35 Remington- I shoot revolver class in USPSA competition using a S&W 625 Model of 1988 that I have been shooting since 1988. In 1988 it got a Wolf mainspring, a Houge Pau Ferro monogrip, and 2 dozen Ranch products full-moon clips. Nothing since then has been replaced or changed.

I bought the revolver because a friend was an afficionado of the 1917 and Webley revolvers using moon clips. He told me about the bent clip problem, and many times I thought mine were bent. The problem turned out not to be bent clips, but dinged up rims on the pickup 45's I was reloading. Before a match, I load all my moonclips, and check them for drag in the revolver. If a clip drags, I unload it and set the rounds aside for use in my 1911, and reload the clip. And recheck for function.

The last several matches I've gone to, there were a whole lot of firearms/ammo malfunctions with the guys shooting the autoloaders. Generally due to poor reloading practices, quality control, magazine seating, russian ammo. I may shoot slow, but my wheelgun is reliable and accurate with its moonclips. Everybody thinks its so neat that they follow me shooting to pick up the sixpacks to give me when I'm done. Never lose any brass that way!

If I remember correctly, wasn't there a NAA firearms 32ACP revolver announced, but never actually produced? Small wheelguns using the shorter ACP cartridges with proportional cylinders would really be neat. Wouldn't a 5 shot moonclipped 32 ACP revolver with a 3 to 4 inch barrel and good sights be the best cast boolit kit gun? If the cylinder is the same diameter and length as a .357's, then the concept loses a lot of appeal.

[gunfan]

A dear friend of mine (Erich Martel, of Albuquerque, NM) has loaded his H&R 732 2.5" barreled, blue steel revolver, with some 100 grain semi-wadcutters and has them reaching velocities of 1000 fps from this little snub-nosed gem. (This produces about 220 fpe at 15' from the muzzle.) There's enough power in the little .32 Long to meet the need.

I bet that'll leave a mark!

Scott

[9.3X62AL]

A more modern 32 S&W Long revolver can safely run 100 grain SWCs to 900-1000 FPS, even with shorter barrels. E.g., I once had a S&W Model 31-1 x 3" for which I got into boolit casting in 1981 to feed. I ran Lyman #313492 button-nose wadcutters with as much as 4.0 grains of Unique, per data in an older version of "Cartridges of the World" by Frank Barnes. I don't know how fast they were leaving that 3" barrel, but they later went 1150 FPS from my 6" Model 16-4. HEALTHY, and LOUD.

I wish like h--l S&W would make some of their J- and K-frame revolvers in the 32 calibers again. Not in CCW lengths, either--4" and 6". I don't pocket carry, but do waistband-carry and shoulder-holster carry (esp. in vehicles). In those manners, the 4" barrel is a BENEFIT, stabilizing the arm in place far better than the shorter barrel does. A 4" Kit Gun or Diamondback in 32 Mag or 327 Federal would prompt some cash outta me in one fast hurry. The GP-100 is took much of a good thing, though--thick and heavy is good for hamburgers, not so much for field & carry guns.

[gunfan]

A more modern 32 S&W Long revolver can safely run 100 grain SWCs to 900-1000 FPS, even with shorter barrels. E.g., I once had a S&W Model 31-1 x 3" for which I got into boolit casting in 1981 to feed. I ran Lyman #313492 button-nose wadcutters with as much as 4.0 grains of Unique, per data in an older version of "Cartridges of the World" by Frank Barnes. I don't know how fast they were leaving that 3" barrel, but they later went 1150 FPS from my 6" Model 16-4. HEALTHY, and LOUD.

I wish like h--l S&W would make some of their J- and K-frame revolvers in the 32 calibers again. Not in CCW lengths, either--4" and 6". I don't pocket carry, but do waistband-carry and shoulder-holster carry (esp. in vehicles). In those manners, the 4" barrel is a BENEFIT, stabilizing the arm in place far better than the shorter barrel does. A 4" Kit Gun or Diamondback in 32 Mag or 327 Federal would prompt some cash outta me in one fast hurry. The GP-100 is took much of a good thing, though--thick and heavy is good for hamburgers, not so much for field & carry guns.

Talk about "on the money!" I couldn't have said it any better myself. A 4" "J" frame in .32 Magnum would be "he!! on wheels." Load that 100 grain RNFP up to punch out 1200 fps/319 fpe and I would defy anyone to arrange to find a more formidable, yet controllable "belt gun" anywhere! Seeing as the penetration of this bullet is the prime directive, a 100-grain slug running along at this speed will likely "dampen a malefactor's spirits"... permanently! Will it stop a fight? Undoubtedly. Will it kill someone quickly? I'd place a substantial wager on it!

All you need is the Scandium frame, to contribute to the revolver's "packability."

Scott

[LouisianaMan]

More .38 S&W propaganda here, as anticipated above . . .

A long-loaded 148g LWC gives me slightly over 900 fps from my 4" S&W 33-1, and about 820 from a 2" 32-1. Probably a bit hotter than it should be, but comforting as a carry load. Used TiteGroup and a COL just a tad shorter than a .38 SPL load in Lee 2nd, which quoted a low pressure level--IIRC, it was about 11,000 CUP or PSI. My shorter load was close enough to the book COL that I believe I was getting pressures no hotter than a couple thousand PSI higher than book, but that's admittedly unverified.

Recently tried some 125g RNFP with a charge of Unique that was halfway between the min and max listed in a Lyman manual--forget which one off the top of my head. First four shots were 1025 +/- about 3 fps (100fps faster than the listed max load). The 5th round was ridiculously higher--pretty sure it was a chrony malfunction, as the lighting conditions that day were giving me some weirdness!

Within the next week or so, I'm going to try those RNFP's again, plus some long-loaded 125g LWC's based on those recipes, to see what vels and recoil levels I'll get with these light bullets. I'll also see how they treat water jugs Will try to provide a range report.

I baby my I frame much more than the J's, although Ken Waters believed his souped-up loads were suitable for use in them. Various .38 S&W recipes in Lyman 44th and later, Speer 13, Lee 2nd, and in Ken Waters's 1979 (IIRC) Pet Loads article form the basis for my handloads. These references generally agree or specify that such loads are usable in modern era solid frame S&W, Colt, and the rare Indian Rugers. Some also include British Webleys and Enfields. NOBODY recommends such loads in the break-tops of yore.

I've tried some 110g and 135g JHP's with outstanding results in nickel cases, which provide neck tension adequate for .357 diameter bullets. In general, however, I stick to cast bullets. In the eyes of many, that alone disqualifies the cartridge for SD/HD purposes. A great compromise would be the 125g Nyclad LHP, with which a handloader could easily replicate the famous .38 Special load; published data would actually allow you to use a 38 S&W to propel a Nyclad up to 100 fps faster than the factory 38 Special load!

[LouisianaMan]

So my vote would be for Smith & Wesson to give us a 3" or 4" J frame, in steel and/or Scandium, chambered in ".38 S&W +P." Join with an ammo maker to provide some effective ammo as outlined above, and mark the boxes with appropriate warnings against use in break-tops. Maybe even use some of the powders that Buffalo Bore uses to provide hi-vel, low pressure.

Oh well, it's fun to dream!

[9.3X62AL]

L-Man......

People Like Us likely give liability lawyers apoplexy.

[BCRider]

What about the idea that the Brits used in their .38 Enfield revolvers? A short .38casing pushing a big heavy 200gn bullet at slower 650 to 700 fps sort of speed? But instead of using the round nose set it up with a wide flat meplate to produce the results wanted in a self defense round?

[LouisianaMan]

BC, the others may warn you not to get me started! Just so happens I load that very recipe with a 200g SWC from an earlier Group Buy.