To some this might sound stupid but to me it would have a useful place. I am thinking either a K,L or N frame chambered in this hot little round, I imagine you could get maybe 8 possibly 9 shots in an L frame.....10 or 11 in a N frame. This round has a lot of characteristics that would be hard to beat, and for its relatively small size I think it would be a great idea. I realize moon clips would be needed but I prefer them anyway.

You might look around for a Model 48. The .22 mag ballistics are surprisingly similar to the 5.7.

What A-10 says. Not to mention the fact that revolvers have not had great success with bottlenecked cartridges.

I REALLY get tired of the 5.7x28 being compared to a .22magnum.It is like comparing .38spl to .357 magnum. Two very different rounds. Unless you've never fired them.

Shot lots of the .22 mag, and none of the 5.7. I have heard reports from the sandbox of the Brits, using the 5.7 whith AP rounds, firing through a ceiling and taking out a bunch of bad guys. I kind of liked the round until I started comparing ballistics, particularly with the civilian rounds that are available on the market. To each their own, but for my money I'd stick with the .22 mag.

Smith and Wesson tried that concept years ago with their then new model 53 in 22 Jet and it did not turn out very well. The 5.7 is a very high pressure round and the fired cases that come out of the gun are impossible to re-chamber because it actually bulges the case neck while also shortening it. Case life is also short because the brass gets work hardened very quickly due the movement of so much material when resizing. There is no comparison between the 5.7 and the 22 mag unless 500 feet per second doesn't mean anything to you.

Ron

Bottlenecked cartridges are tough in revolvers. Besides the trouble with the brass, the chambers MUST be free of any material like oil or powder or the cartridges back out of the chambers and tie up the cylinder. That is what killed the Model 53 (22 Jet).