Radicaly bottlenecked cartridges don't work well in a rev.

But a slight bottleneck won't hurt. 32/20, 38/40, & 44/40's worked OK diddn't they?

Also (as mentioned before) the only real reason for a .38 spl to be as long as it is, is so it could hold more BP.

So maybe you can't have a .357 the size of a "Kel- Tec". But it could for sure be made smaller.

No one will EVER likely make a gun in the same caliber (diameter) in a shorter case.

The problem is that there are TOO many existing older low powered guns out there that will blow up.

Remember the 9mm Federal? A rimmed 9mm cartridge for revolvers.

It was pulled from the Market because it fit into OLD 38 S&W special revolvers and likely others.

It would blow some of them up.

Shorter revolver cartridges are VERY unlikely.

Practical;

I suspect that you are right. Too many people out there seem to take the attitude of "if it fits in the chamber I will try firing it" then try to sue when they blow something up and injure themselves.

Any very short 357 Mag equivalent cartridge needs to be enough larger in case diameter, or with a thicker enough rim, that it will not fit in ANY of the older 38 caliber guns or the 357 Mag as the shorter case will need to be loaded to higher than 357 pressures for equivalent ballistics.

I suspect that a 40 S&W equivalent design to the old 45 Auto Rim case might do the job wanted. Also a thicker rimmed version of the old 38 S&W length case, but using very high pressure limits and .357" bullets, might be developed.

The 9mm rimmed might still be with us if it had been designed so that it was not loadable in 38 Special chambered guns. A thicker rim included in the design could have done so.

The question them becomes one of whether there is enough market size to justify the development of the cartridge. Over the last 50 years or so there seem to be more failures than successes in developing truly successful cartridges.

Big successes include the 40 S&W and 44 Magnum. The 500 Mag seems to be joining this group too based on the number of companies loading it. So far Remington seems to be the only holdout.

Marginal introductions seem to be the 10mm, 41 Mag and 32 Mag. Also possibly the 357 Sig and 45 Win Mag. All still loaded and chambered in new guns but not widely heard of or discussed.

Bombs include the 22 Jet, 256 Mag, 9mm Rimmed, 41 AE and 44 Auto Mag.

Not yet clear about the 45 GAP, 480 Ruger, 327 Mag and 460 Mag, at least to me.

A new cartridge needs to fill a apparent need in what is available. It also has to be lucky enough to attract multiple makers to chamber it. The type of publicity that the 40 S&W attracted due to it's adoption by the FBI is a big help too.

Sort of a magnum version of the .38 S&W? .360 Mag maybe?

V/r

chuck

Would trimming back .357 Max brass help? I think I heard that they had thicker case walls, but I'm not sure if that's correct or if it would help in the quest for a faster short .357.

Pure speculation.

There is already a little Taurus out there that is pretty close to what your talking about.Its chambered in 9mm and has a shorter cylinder/frame and is cute as hell. I cant buy one in CA because of the bvllshit drop list and Iam not sure if they are still made but I played with them at SHOT two years ago. It has an alum frame with a steel cylinder and barrel.They might have made one in Ti too? Any Taurus fans out there, Iam not one so I never did follow up on it after I found I could not get one here.

Detonics;

The 357 Maximum is just a lengthened 38 Special/357 Magnum case so trimming it back to the length the originator of the thread wants would still allow it to fit in all 38 Special guns.

I suspect that to get the ballistics wanted we are talking about pressures in the short cartridge of around 45,000 PSI minimum, substantially higher than the 44 Magnum. If you look at the current revolvers and cartridges loaded to this general level or above they all have very thick chamber walls. Examples are the 460 and 500 S&W Magnums along with the 454 Casull, 480 Ruger and 475 Linebaugh as I recall. Also the new 327 Magnum gets close to 45,000 PSI.

Any J frame size cylinder would have to be a five shot, if even possible at that pressure, and the same would almost certainly be true for a K frame. The thread starter is looking for minimum size in a revolver. I suspect that current materials limitations, at reasonable costs, make what he wants unlikely.

Other limitations come into play too such as the strength of the barrel and frame at the forcing cone and threaded area in the frame. Some K frame 357s have had barrel splitting at the forcing cone with current pressure 357 loads. I suspect this would be worse with higher pressure 357 Mag Short cartridges, if developed.

What about a short cylinder revolver in .357 Sig?

Bottlenecked high pressure cartridges do not seem to work well in revolvers due to case setback in the chamber upon firing.

Exceptions are the 32-20, 38-40 and 44-40 which have very slight and gradual tapers and lower pressure than we are talking about. Even the 30 Carbine with it's minimal taper can apparently have setback problems in a revolver cylinder unless the cylinder is absolutely lubricant free.

In the I or J frame the cylinder walls would also be pretty thin as the 357 Sig is a 40 caliber case necked down I believe.

I think the answer would be a Bodyguard or Centennial in .38 super myself,but that's just me.
Equalizer

The old 940 Centennial loaded with Winchester RA9TA will do everything you want except be 'as small as a Keltec'. The long cylinder is actually beneficial in that the flash gap is moved out to a lower pressure area. I chronographed that load at over 1300 fps out of a nominally two inch 940.

The same load did almost 1360 fps out of a 3913, which is just as easy to conceal, is totally reliable (even deliberately limp-wristed in the six samples I have been able to test), has less felt recoil with faster recovery and holds nine rounds as opposed to five in the j-frame. Oh, and the reloads are more robust (moon clips don't like it if you sit or fall on them) and faster under stress. That's why I sold the 940 (for nearly enough to buy two nice 3913s) and put a 3913 under my arm again, despite the fact that I really like revolvers.

I don't really see the need to go much smaller than the J-frame/3913 size envelope, since both can be concealed effectively without need of a jacket (try the Kramer 'Confidante' undershirt 'holster' under a snap-front shirt). I have thus concealed a pair of service-sized pistols (5906) and no-one was able to point out either when asked to spot them, even when I turned slowly for a close inspection. If you remove the velcro strap, the pistol comes out surprisingly quickly with a little practice...

I did some checking and the I frame cylinder window is only about 1/4" shorter (1.5" vs 1.73") than the current J Magnum frame window so the decrease in overall gun length will be about the same with any given barrel length, not much IMO.

Cylinder diameters have remained basically the same from the I frame guns to the current J Magnum. No real decrease in bulk available there if the I frame was reintroduced.

Would the 1/4" decrease in length be any appreciable advantage for concealability? I do not know as I do not do concealed carry.

I do know that with current powder technology a short 357 Magnum is going to have to be loaded to higher pressures than the current 357 and suspect that the I/J size frame is already approaching the pressure limit S&W will accept with current 357 pressures.

Any manufacturer is going to want enough in the way of strength reserves in a revolver so that blowups, even with poor reloads, are rare to nonexistent. This is particularly true in the current legal climate.

Recall that most revolver cartridges started out filled up with black powder. When smokeless came out, the same case was used, but it didn't need to be filled up because smokeless was more powerful per ounce. Then magnums made even longer cartridges, but new slow-burning powders like 2400 filled the cases again.

As far as getting velocities with lower pressures due to longer cartridges or larger calibers, I do not understand how this could work. It is the pressure on the bullet base that translates into velocity. less pressure on the bullet base = lower velocity. I don't see how size, shape, volume of the CASE has anything to do with the bullet-base/pressure relationship.

Can anyone shed some light here?

Seems like this round already exists as the 356 TSW, 357 Sig, 38 Super, 9x23 Win. Could just hotload a 38 Special case to +P+ levels.

How 'bout a new mini-revolver next size down from the J frame? Sized in between the NAA mini-revolver .22 magnum frame and the J-frame.
9mm +P capable, 4 shot cylinder, maybe have to delete the extractor star parts...remove cylinder to load / unload. Alloy frame for light weight. 442 style.
Perfect trail emergency gun, nice, small amd light for last-ditch LE backup in an ankle holster.
Carried a lot, shot a little.