yes, in .32

I don’t think so. I have 4 five shot J-Frames. I carry Two at a time. I don’t feel a need to put them away or get rid of them to gain the sixth round. I’ve shot the new Kimber. It’s a nice gun. I still don’t feel a need to change. If something big is happening, I have a Glock 26 with a ton of mags.

__________________
Two Handguns every day

an offering of a six shot .32 mag J frame , with a 3" option, is the gaping hole in the current Smith revolver lineup. As mediocre a shot as I am, even a single extra round could matter.

Here's about the best S&W has offered in the more recent past. This is a nickeled Model 10-5, 2" barrel, that shipped in December, 1977. This one is as new in the box with all the goodies. If you absolutely have to have 6 shots of .38 special, you will have to accept a bit more bulk.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

You might need to slow down a bit on this. Some just don't seem to grasp the concept.

Yes, we're basically talking about a S&W Detective Special. Colt brought back the Cobra, but it's significantly bigger than the Dick. The idea is for a minimal size six shot.

And I would think / hope that a company that has been making revolvers for over 160 years could figure out how to make something like this without screwing it up.

I don't know if I consider 1977 recent. But if they brought that back in new production it would be close. I'm thinking more in the enclosed hammer design of the 442. Actually a 6-shot 442 is the exact description of what I'm talking about.

The Taurus 856 6-shot is pretty darn close to a 640 in size.

Really happy with my 8 shot 43c

S&W has no need to design a whole new gun when they're already out there. Lots of folks make a small frame six shot .38. Colt made a whole bunch of 'em.

Agreed! *** S&W?

....so that must mean SOMETHING.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Well, it's after 10 PM and my hip is killing me, so I'll have to wait at least until tomorrow to take a photo of my Rossi 462 with a K-frame. And I already slammed down my thoroughly-vetted and heavily regulated Opioid, so if I fail to hit all points or don't make sense, we know why.
Anyway, I disagree. Even the S&W Model 73 was smaller than a K but larger than a J. Since they are nonexistent for us mere mortals, I can't measure one to see the difference. But as I mentioned, the Rossi an older one from the 1990s, is about as close to identical to a S&W in design and construction as you're likely to see. For one thing, the chambers are not "closer," because it's too big for any molded J holster, meaning the cylinder is definitely larger than a J. But it's also too small for a K holster. And I popped the side plate once to see what the fuss was with the recall, and I'm tellin' ya, it's a CLONE in there. It has all the same parts.
For sake of adding to the measuring conversation, I have a couple of Taurus Model 431s, 5-shot 44 Specials. They are nearly identical to a K-frame! Might be off a millimeter or two, but not enough to matter. They fit in all my K holsters, including my molded Israeli Front Line brand.
As far as messing with the hand-ratchet combo, I'm sorry but I don't buy it. If I remember, I'll just photograph a J, a K, and the Rossi together. Good night, y'all!

I will get some pictures up for comparison, if my absent-mindedness doesn't grab me.

I always wanted Smith to make an alloy framed K-frame with 2" barrel and round butt. Fixed sights would be fine, thought a dovetailed front would be a nice touch.

.38spc would be fine.

I'd be fine with a bobbed hammer though I suspect not everyone would be.

Such a gun would be easy for Smith to produce, at least easier than adding a new frame size.

It would be a modern Model 12.

The 442/642 are great simple, no-frill defensive guns. That's how I'd see this. Just more shootable and with one additional shot.

In real steel versions there is about a 10 ounce or so difference in weight between a 60/640 snub and a snub K 10/66. So S&W would have to put tons of money into tooling up for a new frame size between the two for basically one gun, a 6 shot DS sized revolver. A gun that a number of competitors already produce, so its not like they would be cornering an untapped market either. Split the difference between what exists and you are maybe saving 5-6 ounces over a K. Or adding 5-6 ounces over a J for one more round. Doesn't make sense for them to put that much time and money into it for such a small return.

What would an alloy framed K frame weigh?

A 2" model 12 is listed at 18.5 ounces.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

I already did. It's called a Colt Cobra.

__________________
John 3:16 .

I know that Colt is a nice gun. I had one.

For actually shooting though, especially DA shooting, I strongly prefer the Smith's action.

Might be easier to lobby Smith to expand their offerings in the .32 Mag.,327 Mag. J frame series including an all steel Centennial version.

No internal locks please & Thank you!

Link to Lucky Gunner article on 32 Snubs.

https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/w...caliber-is-32/

__________________
LEX ET ORDO

I am all for it.

Back in the 90s S&W did all that in the Model 315 Night Guard. Its frame was machined for standard adjustable sights but it was supplied with a large fixed rear and dovetailed front. Sales were a dismal failure. It was not priced to compete with J frames but that does not explain why those of us who collect medium priced S&W revolvers would not buy it.

The obvious thing that has not yet been mentioned in this thread is that while automatics are selling like hot cakes new revolvers linger on the shelf. The only revolver I found in the new June/July American Rifleman is one ad for a snub. Other wise, nothing. That's a weak market to engineer a new frame for.

Yep. I almost mentioned the 315. I didn't buy one either to be honest.

They were expensive if I recall correctly. Perhaps if there was a similar model built to the level of a 442/642 it would do better???

I did run into one 315 at an LGS. Dang if it didn't have the worst, most gritty, stagey trigger I'd ever felt on a K frame.

For what they wanted for it, I couldn't bring myself to do it.

If i had known I'd never see another, I probably would have bought it anyway and dealt with whatever issues the gun had.

You've seen one more 315 then I have.

There were a few variations of 7 shot aluminum L frame snub nose .357s. The ones with titanium cylinders would not weigh much more that a Model 12. Considering price and availability one might be the way to go.

I'll leave it to someone else to get the thread back up on the rails.

You know that really hit home during the recent Antifa/BLM induced panic buying.

The local guns store got pretty barren looking. Looked like plagues of locust came through and took off with all the guns.

But they left the revolvers....decent revolvers...586s, 686s, 64s, ... guns that would actually make sense for a first time gun buyer.

I'm sure those revolvers still sell, but it really hit me that they are just not what the masses want these days.

Making one would put it on par with a K frame. But why have they discontinued 2” K frames? I’d like one of those. I know I can get a used Model 64 or 10, but the fact that they are no longer made makes them stupid expensive. Make a new 64 in 2” Without the lock and I’m interested. They can make j frames without the lock. They can make k frames without one too.

Groo here
Hogue has an aftermarket rubber grip for the DASA k6s..
Got one for my K6s DASA 3in.
Covers the backstrap and allows me to shoot mags!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure if it were stainless steel in 327 mag. No space age plastics or pot metal frames for me.

By the way, in reference to the above, I choose to self-mandate that I stick with .38+P for accuracy. Nobody "likes" the recoil of a .357 in a light-weight small-frame revolver. Me neither... I have a couple .357 4in 'rs for that!

Small frame and "accuracy" is the name of the game, and NOT Magnum P.I.... ;-)

Just my 2-cents...

And, no, if the frame were stretched as necessary to support this, it wouldn't be a J frame.

__________________
Formerly Model520Fan

Now, there's a common sense answer for ya!

I have three J's, and I love every one. I also carry two of them from time to time. Great woods guns, or when traveling in places where hazards are low.

For places where the danger is greater, I have a pair of Shield 9's. Like Stalin stated, quantity has a quality all it's own.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/firearm...#post140822301

Interesting question. I just bought a 7 shot Charter Arms 32 Magnum "professional". I don't know about which profession chose it but it is a decent trail gun. 3" bbl, 7 shot almost D frame cylinder. I didn't care for the green tube sight, the hump in the grip for my right thumb worked much better than it looked. It fit my hand fine and I wear a size XL glove that is too long in the fingers. Price out the door was $398.99. There was nothing gritty inside the plate.

DA pull is no K frame but acceptable. I did have to adjust to technique with it. I shot 90 gr swc, 95 gr wc, 98 and 118 gr swc's through it yesterday. With putting a target just atop the front sight I was 5 inches low at 10 yards. Finding an aiming point that worked I had my rear sight even with the bottom of the 1" target dot and the green dot covering it at 15 yards to be hitting the dot.

Best groups were with 118 gr bullets.. Cylinder throats were .314" on the pin gauges for all 7, all my bullets were sized .313 so I hope to see improvement with a new size die.

So I don't see S&W putting out a new revolver with a suggested retail or less than $600 and consider this their competition.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

Are you sure a 38+p is more effective than a 327 Magnum?
I’d have interest in a 442 or 342, 360j in 327

Note, while it has a short barrel, there's nothing particularly small about that gun. It's much bigger than the original Cobra, and is pretty much the same size as a Glock 19. The original Cobra/Detective Special would be the size target for what I'm thinking about.

The only 6 shot J frame I would buy would be 327 magnum with the same diameter cylinder a J frame has now. No bigger.

They've made a few .327s and .32 mags. Surely they remember how.

Well, they still call the J frame that accommodates .357s a "J".
Same with the frame with IL, which also required substantial changes to accomodate the lock, so I think that's been answered already.

I also think this would be a lot easier/cheaper for Smith to do that than develop a new frame size.

The only thing missing, and I might be wrong here, is a real good short barrel load for the .327.

Nope. I own several 5-shot J’s with associated gun specific gear and don’t see any practical advantage in adding an oddball gun just to gain one additional round.

Spot on...and may I add...just bring back the old six shot S&W Model 31 in 32 S&W Long.

No, I wouldn't buy one because it would have to be larger and heavier than the five-shot. I can't see anything wrong with the five-shot models.

With help from steelslaver's replies I've thought this through. BBMW, the O.P., is asking for a smaller K frame. To get there requires abandoning a few features that make K frames superior to Colt D or Dick's Special frames. The K frame would have to lose the under barrel front cylinder latch, center pin and gas ring as was done to get .44 Magnums in L frames. The gas ring extends forward under the BC gap to keep fouling out of the center of the cylinder. Lead fouling in there creates a gritty DA pull. steelslaver pointed out that the cylinder ratchet would have to become a smaller gear which would make the DA pull heavier. The K frame's DA pull is what made it the predominant 20th century revolver. It is not worth giving that up to make it a wee bit smaller. Carrying the K frame in a thinner holster can accomplish the same size reduction without losing a great DA pull. I voted NO.

I have a 357 J - the 60-15. Fired five Remington 158gr 357's from it at the range. That was enough. Glad I have it, though, Very accurate shooting 38 +p's. But it's still a J. Small, light, fits my belt if concealed. I have four others, one 637 rated +p, then a 60, 36, and 38 (which I will never shoot). If five isn't enough, I'm not shooting accurately.

__________________
Heavily armed old man.

I voted no... "J" framed (relative sized) 6 shots are Colt "D-Framed" snubbies... That said, I love my 5 shot compact J's for their... well... compactness...

I'd be very wary of giving my CC number to anyone that was advertising a 6 shot 38 J frame for sale. {even if they are a Nigerian Princess with a large inheritance}

This is and interesting analysis, and I haven't heard about some of this before. My immediate question is how does the J-frame handle these issues? I don't see this as cutting down the K-frame, so much as stretching the J-frame. Basically, make J-frame cylinder big enough to accommodate 6 rounds of, stretch the cylinder gap in the frame to accommodate the bigger cylinder, and may the necessary geometry adjustments to the various mechanisms in gun to accommodate the previously changes. So how the J-frame deals with the issues you talk about would be equivalent on this gun.

Tauruses and CA both run smaller cylinders than S&W. Their chambers are closer to the center. I have a 5 shot 44 specials from all three, plus good sets of calibers and know this is a fact. Alsop both Taurus and CA use a considerable smaller ratchet than any S&W. There hand is therefore closer to the center of the frame. Although they are 5 shot44 and not 6 shot 38s the same principal is at work in order to keep the outside chamber wall thick enough. It is also why CA and Taurus made 5 shot 45 acps and S&W does not. S&W can not and retain their frame and ratchet.

As stated earlier, for S&W to make a 6 shot J frame cylinder (or a 5 shot K frame big bore) they would have to make the ratchet smaller and to operate, it move the hand and its window in on the frame. This also means a skinnier trigger, /hammer as the hand is on the side of the hammer. Then moving the chambers to the center means moving the barrel down in the frame to line up with those chambers, this means a skinnier ejector rod (anyone notice the rod on a CA??) to lower tthe top of the yoke to clear the frame for the lower barrel

IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. no way no how.

I would rather have an alloy 6 shot J frame 327 Federal anyway.

For now I will just keep packing my 325s. Bulkier, but 6 rounds of 45 acp Will get it done for me and it weighs nothing.

So what is the diameter of the cylinder of Taurus and CA 38spl ? I’d think a 5 shot if the cylinder was smaller than a Smith. I haven’t seen a CA in a long time. Never handled a Taurus. I’m suspicious of the quality