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

[Whiterabbit]

Hi guys,

I've seen some S&W defense revolvers that looked really nifty. But it seems to me space can be saved if the gun is specially made to shoot 38 special wadcutters. The throats could be sized maybe .3 inches max. The gun could be VERY short in this case. Compact, no wasted space.

But then again, it becomes a very specialized tool. That doesn't mean something like it doesnt exist.

So I'm curious, are there any PARTICULARLY short cylinder centerfire revolvers out there? I'm just not aware of the products out there.

Thanks!

[Piedmont]

S&W just keeps making cylinders longer. J frames all are long enough now to accomodate the .357 cartridge. They have standardized on the one cylinder length. You have a valid point but the market doesn't appear to be there. Go look at some I frame Smiths in .38 S&W. They are smaller in every dimension. There were short cylinder Colts back in the day, too. I remember a Banker's model with a very short cylinder in .38 S&W.

[gunfan]

S&W just keeps making cylinders longer. J frames all are long enough now to accomodate the .357 cartridge. They have standardized on the one cylinder length. You have a valid point but the market doesn't appear to be there. Go look at some I frame Smiths in .38 S&W. They are smaller in every dimension. There were short cylinder Colts back in the day, too. I remember a Banker's model with a very short cylinder in .38 S&W.

Bingo! These are the older (and smaller) revolvers had their place. The "Bankers Special" in .38 Colt New Police (a.k.a..38 S&W) were great "close quarters" revolvers. So many shooters think that "the more powerful the cartridge, the better." There are times when a small handgun fits, where a larger revolver just won't serve as well.

Scott

[John Allen]

I have 32sw and it is even smaller than the 38sw. It is a real shame that no one makes a super small light weight 38 or even better a 9mm with moon clips. I would buy one in a heart beat

[jmort]

22 ounces is not "super small" but I like the Charter Arms Pitbulls 9mm and .40 S&W
http://charterarms.com/products/Charter_Pitbull_79920.asp

[gunfan]

I have 32sw and it is even smaller than the 38sw. It is a real shame that no one makes a super small light weight 38 or even better a 9mm with moon clips. I would buy one in a heart beat

People seem to sell the little revolvers short. I have a couple of revolvers in .32 S&W Long. A nice little H&R 732 (blued steel) or 733 (nickel-plated) 2 1/2" barreled revolvers are slowly fading away. I also have a neat little "square butt" Taurus Model 74 (nickel plated) 3" barreled revolver, the Model 73 was manufactured from blued steel. These were manufactured of tooling that had been purchased from Smith & Wesson during the 1970's. (I know this because I spoke with one of the individuals at S&W that remembers the sale of the tooling to Taurus.) It was a knock-off of the "I" frame S&W Regulation Police.

These small revolvers fill a real "niche." Obviously you feel that the "little revolver" has a place in your life. If S&W would finally realize that the "Improved" I frame holds a proper place in the grand scheme of things, it might behoove them to look at reviving the frame to house the .32 H&R Magnum (once again.) When they built their last .32 Magnum, it was on their "J" frame. While it was a move in their economic interests to discontinue their "Improved" I frame in 1961, I happen to know that the frame was strong enough to handle the .38 Special. (One of the local men converted his .38 S&W to .38 S&W Special through a cylinder and barrel change.) A nice "Improved" I frame of modern manufacture would make a fine "pocket revolver" suitable for close-quarter personal protection work.

We can dream, can't we?

Scott

[dudits]

I WANT ONE
never thought of it, but now that you mention it....

[gunfan]

You can call me silly, nuts, eccentric, etc... but when it comes down to the bottom line, everyone wants a "handful of dynamite" that you can carry in the palm of your hand. "Stopping power" in a "palm-sized package." Reviving the "improved" I frame with a Scandium alloy, chambered in .32 H&R Magnum is just about as close as you are going to get to this ideal. A 2" or 3" barrel would be just about perfect.

"All that meat and no potatoes."

Scott

[35remington]

I'm not sure shortening the cylinder is the right way to go with wadcutters, as it lowers the gun's velocity potential by reducing the powder space.

It would be more productive to seat the wadcutter to a similar or slightly shallower seating depth as a SWC to obtain higher velocity at the same pressure. In this way more power can be had from the same gun. Longer overall length here would be a benefit; shorter overall length and a shorter cylinder a drawback. Power is not high to begin with nearly flush seated wadcutters and even Plus P pressure levels when staying within 38 Special limits, and intentionally chaining oneself to lower velocities to save a mere fraction of an inch in overall length seems unwise.

Take advantage of your cylinder length by seating your wadcutters out of the case, and boost velocity while lowering pressure if you wish. Fret not over a fraction of an inch in length. The tradeoff is worthwhile if you take advantage of what you have already.

[BCRider]

If we're going to move towards shorter cylinders then I say forget about the idea of wadcutters buried in the cases of .38Spl and go with a gun chambered in 9mm that either uses full or half moon clips or headspaces on the rim and uses the funky rim springs to spit the empties out.

The 9mm option means that ammo is far more available and the recoil would be on par with stout .38Spl to somewhere in the +P range. Which is likely as much as the average buyer would want from a small and light revolver.

Can you imagine a 2 to 2.5 inch revolver where the cylinder is about 1.2 inch long? Now THAT would be a compact revolver! ! ! !

[gunfan]

I'm not sure shortening the cylinder is the right way to go with wadcutters, as it lowers the gun's velocity potential by reducing the powder space.

It would be more productive to seat the wadcutter to a similar or slightly shallower seating depth as a SWC to obtain higher velocity at the same pressure. In this way more power can be had from the same gun. Longer overall length here would be a benefit; shorter overall length and a shorter cylinder a drawback. Power is not high to begin with nearly flush seated wadcutters and even Plus P pressure levels when staying within 38 Special limits, and intentionally chaining oneself to lower velocities to save a mere fraction of an inch in overall length seems unwise.

Take advantage of your cylinder length by seating your wadcutters out of the case, and boost velocity while lowering pressure if you wish. Fret not over a fraction of an inch in length. The tradeoff is worthwhile if you take advantage of what you have already.

Rem: We all know that shorter cases fire and function better in shorter barrels. I believe that whiterabbit is seeking what I proposed; a moderately powerful shell with reduced recoil. (Reduced weight being the key concept.)

Scott

[texassako]

It may not be modern or a short cylinder because of the cartridge length, but those whacky Belgians made at least one pocket revolver in 7.62 Nagant that has a cylinder like you suggest. Case goes to within about 1/10" of the cylinder mouth with the cylinder cut so that the case acts as the mouth of the cylinder. The loaded round in the pic is not a wadcutter(no mold), but is a 115gr .308" FN with 2 empties flanking it. I guess someone could make something similar if they had a gun in a cartridge family with short and long case lengths, and ream the short cylinder for the longer brass and seat the bullet inside.

64554

[Piedmont]

The 9mm Luger has its own problems when chambered in a revolver. The tapered case causes most of the trouble and moon clips offer an advantage but also a disadvantage (not as reliable).

Something I was thinking about a couple of weeks ago was the idea of someone making a 5 shot .32 H&R Mag. Make the cylinder short, put a 2" barrel on it, make it hammerless with a smooth DA pull. You would have .380 ballistics but the ability to handle any bullet form, revolver reliability, and a smaller pocket presence than a J frame. Make it all steel and it will kick less than a .38. I can never get myself to buy a .32 J frame because I would rather 5 .38s than an extra shot with less power. But if I got a smaller gun, I might go for it.

[blackbike]

Why not just get a biger pocket?:kidding:

[gunfan]

The 9mm Luger has its own problems when chambered in a revolver. The tapered case causes most of the trouble and moon clips offer an advantage but also a disadvantage (not as reliable).

Something I was thinking about a couple of weeks ago was the idea of someone making a 5 shot .32 H&R Mag. Make the cylinder short, put a 2" barrel on it, make it hammerless with a smooth DA pull. You would have .380 ballistics but the ability to handle any bullet form, revolver reliability, and a smaller pocket presence than a J frame. Make it all steel and it will kick less than a .38. I can never get myself to buy a .32 J frame because I would rather 5 .38s than an extra shot with less power. But if I got a smaller gun, I might go for it.

This it where the modern iteration of the .32 H&R Magnum comes in. While the .38 may use a slightly larger (and heavier) slug, the .32 has an extra round in the cylinder. A Scandium .32 H&R Magnum with the .3" barrel:

a) tames the recoil,

b) provides the sixth round, and

c) has the power to get the job done with the 100 grain bullet.

An "improved" I frame will carry the day while doing it in a smaller frame.

Scott

[Piedmont]

This it where the modern iteration of the .32 H&R Magnum comes in. While the .38 may use a slightly larger (and heavier) slug, the .32 has an extra round in the cylinder. A Scandium .32 H&R Magnum with the .3" barrel:

a) tames the recoil,

b) provides the sixth round, and

c) has the power to get the job done with the 100 grain bullet.

An "improved" I frame will carry the day while doing it in a smaller frame.

Scott

Well, to each their own but from my perspective, the 3" barrel means it is no longer pocketable. The Scandium means it is so light recoil will be severe even in .32. The 'extra shot' means I am carrying a 1.30" diameter cylinder (my proposed .32 revolver will be smaller). And the "power to get the job done with the 100 grain bullet" is debatable since I am not even sure .38 special from a 2" has that power.

But it is a fun discussion, especially so since so many of us carry the pocket guns.

I must admit if I see another I frame .38 S&W 2" at a decent price I may jump on it even though I don't load that round and have a no-new-calibers policy. I almost jumped on a 3" .32 Long J frame last year but the square butt just felt all wrong to me on a J frame.

Louisianna Man on this forum is all over the little I and J frame .38 S&Ws. The 2" version (all steel) I frame weighs 17 ounces, compared to 19 ounces for a Chief's Special .38 Special of the pre-lock, shorter cylinder (shorter than .357 length) configuration. That might be the smartest way to get a little smaller gun, or the .32 Long version if you have confidence in that chambering.

[gunfan]

Well, to each their own but from my perspective, the 3" barrel means it is no longer pocketable. The Scandium means it is so light recoil will be severe even in .32. The 'extra shot' means I am carrying a 1.30" diameter cylinder (my proposed .32 revolver will be smaller). And the "power to get the job done with the 100 grain bullet" is debatable since I am not even sure .38 special from a 2" has that power.

But it is a fun discussion, especially so since so many of us carry the pocket guns.

I must admit if I see another I frame .38 S&W 2" at a decent price I may jump on it even though I don't load that round and have a no-new-calibers policy. I almost jumped on a 3" .32 Long J frame last year but the square butt just felt all wrong to me on a J frame.

Louisianna Man on this forum is all over the little I and J frame .38 S&Ws. The 2" version (all steel) I frame weighs 17 ounces, compared to 19 ounces for a Chief's Special .38 Special of the pre-lock, shorter cylinder (shorter than .357 length) configuration. That might be the smartest way to get a little smaller gun, or the .32 Long version if you have confidence in that chambering.

The .32 H&R Magnum has the same case length as the .38 Special. It can be made to fit in the "improved" I frame revolver. This is why the .32 Magnum, with either the 2" or 3" barrel will work, deliver the power, and still be controllable (even with the Scandium frame.) If you do your part, shot placement is a virtual certainty. Rest assured that quite a few .32 Hand Ejectors are still available with their all-steel frames if you feel the need for the extra weight. These J frames can be modified to take the .32 H&R Magnum.

Scott

[35remington]

Actually, if you're tied to a particular cylinder length, I do not agree that shorter cases "fire and function" better in shorter barrels. More case space and a bullet closer to the barrel/cylinder gap allow higher velocity for the same pressure, or the same velocity for lower pressure. Wadcutters are very case space challenged already, and get low velocities for the pressures they obtain in short barrels. Seating them out is a better way than shortening the cylinder when speaking of possibilities of power improvement versus size.

Since powder charges in pistol escalate pressures quickly, the reduction in pressure in seating the bullet out compensates, and then some, for the shorter bullet travel in terms of velocity.

Best to optimize what you have rather than wish for something that isn't going to happen, which is case length cylinders for a 38. The inability to chamber anything other than wadcutters is a drawback manufacturers won't sign up for. So it's another way to skin the cat and maximize power in what may be the hardest hitting bullet shape of the nonexpanding types.

[Lloyd Smale]

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.
The 9mm Luger has its own problems when chambered in a revolver. The tapered case causes most of the trouble and moon clips offer an advantage but also a disadvantage (not as reliable).

Something I was thinking about a couple of weeks ago was the idea of someone making a 5 shot .32 H&R Mag. Make the cylinder short, put a 2" barrel on it, make it hammerless with a smooth DA pull. You would have .380 ballistics but the ability to handle any bullet form, revolver reliability, and a smaller pocket presence than a J frame. Make it all steel and it will kick less than a .38. I can never get myself to buy a .32 J frame because I would rather 5 .38s than an extra shot with less power. But if I got a smaller gun, I might go for it.

[Ed K]

Is there a wadcutter design that permits the throats to be filled as much as possible while only seated deep enough to achieve sufficient weight and of course a crimp groove? Not what the OP was asking about but given all the years of J-frame production such a boolit could prove useful...

64797

160gr; 80% meplat

[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/ViewItem.aspx?Item=333601506

A Police Positive in 32 Colt.

Probably something that would fit the bill.

[gunfan]

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?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.

[9.3X62AL]

Oh, BC......now you've done it. LA Man and I together could burn up all sorts of bandwidth on this subject matter, and then Buckshot could pile on as well. Those 200 grain RN slap the livin' daylights outta steel targets, and more often than not do cartwheels through small game and varmints. My usual loads seat the NEI #169A atop 3.0 grains of Unique or 3.3 grains of Herco, and give about 700 FPS from a 5" S&W or Webley-Enfield barrel.

[gunfan]

I can "feel the love" all the way over here! This is why S&W should never have stopped manufacturing the "I" and "J" frames. (I know that they couldn't afford it, but it's a nice thought.)

I was over in Portland Speaking with John Semm At Shooter's Service center. He said the cure to the "vicious revolver syndrome" was to have two revolvers one with a steel frame (for the range) and one in Scandium (for carry.)

Scott

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

barrel?

[LouisianaMan]

I used to have one. Like all Ruger revolvers, it was a tank, solid, dependable etc. But the 3" bbl, combined with high pressure, high velocity loads, made it extremely unpleasant to shoot, IMO. Kinda like holding a firecracker in your hand, next to your ear. Personally, I'd prefer to load it with, say, a 125-130g LHP @ 900. I realize that's not sexy or modern enough to sell, regardless of its controllability and effectiveness.

[gunfan]

I used to have one. Like all Ruger revolvers, it was a tank, solid, dependable etc. But the 3" bbl, combined with high pressure, high velocity loads, made it extremely unpleasant to shoot, IMO. Kinda like holding a firecracker in your hand, next to your ear. Personally, I'd prefer to load it with, say, a 125-130g LHP @ 900. I realize that's not sexy or modern enough to sell, regardless of its controllability and effectiveness.

Don't sweat the small stuff Louisiana man. I think the heavier bullets are always better. Not much for hollow points at those velocities, but if it works, don't attempt to "fix" it.

scott

[LouisianaMan]

It's all fun to play with!

[9.3X62AL]

It's all fun to play with!

Roger THAT, for darn sure!

[gunfan]

I think that the 100-grain RNFP is one of the best bullets you can use. Blowing one of these out the barrel at 1100 fps, generating 268+ fpe will penetrate enough to accomplish most shooting tasks, including self defense. Remember, the .32 Magnum often is loaded to the power levels of the .38 S&W Special.

Louisiana: Loading the .32 Magnum to lower levels is easy on the revolver and makes for a great deal of fun shooting. That's what makes the .32 Mag a versatile and easy to load cartridge. I'll grant you that the 115-130 grain slugs are fun, but I'm not sure what kind of applications you had in mind for the load you had mentioned.

Scott

[LouisianaMan]

GF,
I was thinking about SD purposes, were one to use a .32. Although I never tested such a LHP as mentioned above, I think it might combine manageability, penetration, and expansion in a pretty nice package. Of course all that isn't necessary for plinking, which is a lot of fun with low-pressure rounds of whatever caliber.
What I was originally trying to point out was that the old .38 S&W was actually a solution to the original question of a 38 SPL made for wadcutters. Factory power levels are quite similar, and the cylinder and/or frame of the old I frame Smiths and D frame Colts were shorter than 38 SPL's, esp those made to .357 Mag dimensions in recent years.

[gunfan]

I believe that you're right. On the S&W Forum someone had a custom revolver smith build a Model 614 with a 4" barrel. You're on the right track. A Scandium "I" frame .38 S&W would provide a robust platform for a 146 grain wadcutter loaded to maximum levels (Perhaps we could see velocities as high as 850 fps!)

Scott

[9.3X62AL]

I have *zero* time-in-grade with the 327 Federal, though I've run a few loads approaching its ability in my K-frame 32 Magnum. These were as accurate as the 32 S&W Long and the 32 Magnum have been at all their performance levels I've attempted. These calibers just plain SHOOT. Some element(s) of their make-up just conjure up superb accuracy intrinsically.

[gunfan]

I have *zero* time-in-grade with the 327 Federal, though I've run a few loads approaching its ability in my K-frame 32 Magnum. These were as accurate as the 32 S&W Long and the 32 Magnum have been at all their performance levels I've attempted. These calibers just plain SHOOT. Some element(s) of their make-up just conjure up superb accuracy intrinsically.

Yes sir, I agree that the .32 caliber pistol/revolver is so darned accurate that it's downright scary. Too bad Americans have "mad bore disease" believing that you need a big bullet to do the job. A well-placed hotly loaded small bore will do the job as well with less recoil and better accuracy.

Scott

[9.3X62AL]

Oh, the big bores have their place in The Big Picture, too. The 32s have a lot of allure for me at times like this due to their smaller diet of powders and lead, and most of my varminting can be handled with smaller-bore revolvers and rifles. Plain fact here--I can get four RCBS 32-98-SWCs for the same metal amount found in one 45-70 bullet, and close to a dozen charges for the 32 S&W Long from the same weight of powder that it takes to make one 45-70 round. Perhaps not the same make/grade of powder, but you get the drift. Dollars go a whole lot farther with the 32s, for darn sure.

[FergusonTO35]

I too love the .32 revolvers but the manufacturers refuse to support them anymore. Last summer I really wanted a .32 H&R snubnose. Taurus, Ruger, and S&W have all discontinued theirs and used ones are pricey. I ended up with a Charter Arms Undercoverette which is a five shot. Its a nice gun for the price and still less than a used name brand one.

[Piedmont]

Yes sir, I agree that the .32 caliber pistol/revolver is so darned accurate that it's downright scary. Too bad Americans have "mad bore disease" believing that you need a big bullet to do the job. A well-placed hotly loaded small bore will do the job as well with less recoil and better accuracy.

Scott

Isn't there a 10mm thread on this board where you say you have five 10mm handguns? I'm just having trouble figuring you out. Wouldn't the tens make you guilty of 'mad bore disease' too?

[gunfan]

Isn't there a 10mm thread on this board where you say you have five 10mm handguns? I'm just having trouble figuring you out. Wouldn't the tens make you guilty of 'mad bore disease' too?

Ah, but I have 2 .32 autos (an M70 and a Tanfoglio Titan II.) I also have a H&R 733 2 1/2" barreled .32 Long as well as a S&W Model 632 Airweight Centennial and a 1903 .32 S&W Hand Ejector.

I also have two .357 Magnums, two .41 Magnums and a Charter Arms .44 Special. (Heck I have an H&R 922 and two FIE Titan B27's in .25 ACP!)

Does that satisfy your curiosity?

[LouisianaMan]

If I'm counting right, that's eight different calibers, quite enough to merit your screen name. :-)

[gunfan]

If I'm counting right, that's eight different calibers, quite enough to merit your screen name. :-)

I forgot to mention my M57 Zastava "Tokarev" in 7.62 x 25 (how could I forget!) ;)

Scott