I'd love to have a little smaller "pocket gun" than a J-frame.

A 5-shot .32 Magnum or .32ACP revolver with a smaller diameter cylinder and smaller and shorter action would be fine with me.

I have an old Iver Johnson "owl head" hammerless 5-shot .32 S&W that is just perfect for the purpose, but I never carry it because the round is too weak and it is nearly worn out.

Yes, I think this would be ideal.

__________________
Lost it all in a boat accident

How about something in a .327 Federal magnum? With the slightly smaller frame and a 4 shot cylinder to keep overall diameter down.

__________________
Dum spiramus tuebimur

I'm with "Andy Griffith. I also want a pocket rev. smaller then a J frame.

.32ACP is the best idea for cal. for a SMALL pocket rev. If you want a more powerful cartridge i.e. .327, your gonna hafta have a bigger gun. Even a .32 H&R would have a cyl. slightly longer then a .32 long I frame H.E.

i like the 32 acp idea or maybe even a 380 acp revolver....something smaller and lightweight

S&W made the I Frame for a number of years, but it morphed into the J Frame. I have several I Frame revolvers, and they are very small and compact. With the new Steel, a 5 round .327 Magnum, would make a compact carry piece.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

A I frame .32H&R would be feasable. The cyl wouldn't have to be that much longer then a .32 S&W Long. A.327 mag. however, would have a cyl. quite long for a I frame. I think recoil might also be a problem for a .327 Mag I frame, (not only for sissies like me, but for the gun itself) modern steel or not.

In any case what I (and I think Andy Griffith) want is a pocket rev. smaller then a I frame. (think .32 "new departure")

6 shot .32 ACP, full moon clips for speed loading. "J" frame with shortened cylinder. Force cone extended towards the cylinder effectively lengthens barrel. Gutter sight with fiber optic insert. Titanium and aluminum appropriately applied. A 5 shot with a smaller diameter cylinder would be nice. Ugly and more expensive than a plastic auto but I'd buy it.

Do you think it would need a lock.
Don

__________________
"Don't worry be happy"

This might be a stupid question, but is this for real?

__________________
The Last Standing Knight

Someone is goooood with photoshop! I want one.

"The Last Standing Knight"

Your question is taken as a compliment......."I'd buy it" was hint that the image was a Photo Shop reconstruction of one of my "J" frames.

If you want the whole frame to be smaller then count me out. My fat fingers/hand is almost too big for a J frame lol.

Now if your looking for something like the gun that is pictured above then your in luck because Smith and Wesson makes one almost like that in a .357 mag. Cost a lot and I wouldn't put .357s in it but here it is.

Smith & Wesson 327 Performance Center .357 Magnum for Sale at Buds Gun Shop $976.00

__________________
Don't look, reload and shoot!

marcus88'

I've seen that revolver before and really like it.

I was attempting to reduce the size and weight of the "J" frame by making only the "works" ahead of the grip and trigger smaller. This would allow the use of the plethora of grips and laser sights available for the "J" frame.

I have a very tiny single action stainless .22 revolver that is very cute and goes bang but for personal protection it is just too small to point accurately and hang onto after discharge. I agree that there is such a thing as too small.

While I like the revolver you pointed out I want something smaller and lighter and even more pocketable than the current crop of "J" frames. I also am interested in the .32ACP and the .380ACP because of the fast loading moon clips. These wimpy calibers would allow the reduced fore end "works." They also are easier on those of us w/ carpal tunnel syndrome, arthritis and peripheral neuropathy.

To this end I do have tiny a "plastic" .380 that is very pocketable and so far has been reliable at least during "play." It is just not a "6 or 5" for sure like my 642.

If you want something so small, why settle for fewer rounds when you can just get a Ruger LCP or any of the new breed of pocket .380's???
I REALLY want a 632 six shot chambered in .327 FM!!

rather-be-huntin,

My first centerfire anything was a model 38 purchased in 1972. Since then I have owned a slew of revolvers and automatics in most all of the popular calibers. I did go through a phase in which I considered the revolver old fashioned. For all the modern weapons of significant caliber I owned as well as being a Jeff Cooper fan it was always an alloy "J" frame I slipped in my pocket when I left the house.

I do have two of the tiny automatics to which you refer. I have a Keltec P3AT which runs very nicely right out of the box. I also have a Beretta Bobcat which was very picky about ammunition and not reliable with anything until I learned how to adjust the feed lips on the magazines. Now it shoots any quality ammunition reliably. My favorite being Stingers.

Why a revolver smaller than a "J" frame? I guess I'm old fashioned, I still slip an alloy "J" frame in my pocket when I leave the house.

Something in this size range would be nice from S&W....

This is why I like to occasionally read the "wish list." Some of the ideas are so far out there, you don't need to go to the comedy club to laugh out loud!

Instead of a 4 shot 25 caliber revolver smaller than a J frame for pocket carry (some of you must have some really small pockets), how about a three shot 44 magnum on the old I frame, made of scandium with a titanium cylinder? Ridiculous!

Dear "shawn mccarver,"

Before you paint "Andy Griffith" the other contributors and myself with your brush of "ridiculous!" please read the entire thread. In "Andy Griffith's" thread "Frame size smaller than a J" no contributor has written anything about a 4 shot .25 ACP or a 3 shot .44 magnum on an "I" frame.

You are ignoring the point of this discussion. For varied reasons there is a demographic that has interest in "Frame size smaller than a J."

I am part of this demographic. I do not purposely go where I think I need to be armed. If I had to, it would be with my shotgun not a handgun. I want a small revolver I can virtually forget I have on my person, potent enough to allow me to extricate myself from the "fear for my life event" that hopefully will be never.

Another part of this demographic are those people that are weak handed. Arthritis, peripheral neuropathy, or just an overall frailty. An alloy "J" frame with only wadcutters can be punishing for someone with arthritis. Hence the suggestion of the "mouse gun" calibers .32 ACP and .380 ACP as "soft recoil" calibers. These calibers would also facilitate reducing the overall size and weight of the revolver. Even "Mr. 45" (Jeff Cooper) suggested weak handed individuals carry a .22 and "shoot for the face" (Cooper on Handguns.)

Respectfully,

"small pockets" mtheo

Hi All,
I'm rather on the side of not going to small. The J Frame and especially its airweight/scandium construction is about the best compromise in power and size. And now the new Ruger Tupperware seems to be ok, too. Why go to those little squeezers to just gain a little in size and weight rather than try to properly fit a J-Frame.
Sorry for the squeezers, no offense, but i just happen to know some professionals that never would go less than a .38 or 9mm off-duty, even if the smaller calibers are deadly they really are ineffective when it counts an just add the fuzzle with those small guns, too.
Ok, older people and somehow disabled people should make their decision very carefully and have it as a last ressort, i understand, but if they can, the will pick what is best instead of what is the smallest.
What counts for handys or laptops should not apply for guns, lighter is ok, but smaller than a hand to grab on, hmm? ... it's nice to have and to collect maybe, but not to repell predators.
Well, we have good guns (and if you want to carry), then use 'em, because others will.

I can never understand why someone would take the time to knock what someone else wants in a gun. Arguing your point or stating your belief that anything under a certain caliber isnt effective is ok but just to heap scorn on someone else's choice seems like a waste of time to me.

The .380 acp pistol concealed carry market has exploded in the last few years with the introduction of many very small semi automatics by major gun manufacturers. Small.32acp pistols had been popular before that. Many people, myself included have bought some of these but would still prefer a small revolver over a small semiautomatic. I trust revolvers more especially in a small size. I am surprised that to date no one has addressed this market. It is certainly do able since it was done many years ago before the advent of many improvements in metalurgy. My personal opinion is that whoever comes out with a five shot .32acp or .380 acp revolver that is small and light will sell a lot of guns.

Sorry if it did sound like that, no offense. Of course, i respect everyone's choice, it's just an opinion!
I also know that the market is growing, in either direction, smaller or bigger, and that's a good thing.
But the point here was just to be aware of what you give up in return to going miniaturized. Up to everyone to make his choice, isn't it.
Whatever, i hope there will be more and new handguns coming out every year to read about or shoot with and S&W is always ready to bring out something new as they did for so long.
Remember they started with the model 1, a tiny .22 revolver :-)

I spent years trying to find a small revolver. Have just recently
discovered the 32 DA. It's the perfect size, with a less-than-perfect
choice of caliber.
If/when somebody makes a smaller-than-j frame, I'll take
a couple.
TACC1

Very utilitarian but sorry IMHO possibly the ugliest concept for a revolver I have ever seen.

I haven't shot it in awhile but I have a "I" frame 38 S & W. I think it is a pre-Terrier?? Ammo is a bit pricy, but it is just a bit smaller then a "J". I think it would make a nice pocket gun.
Chop

__________________
MSG US Army

papa34,

I always thought utility was beauty. So here ya go maybe w/ a snout on it you'll warm up to it a bit?

32acp or 380acp with moonclips; I'd be all over that.

I would have a hard time using a revolver smaller than a j or i frame, but I have often wished that S&W would come out with a 3" model 34 with a cylinder that would hold as many rounds as they could pack into it. I don't know how many you could fit, but seven or eight rounds of hyper-velocity 22lr in a steel j-frame with a 3" barrel would be a neat little package. I know Taurus has something similar to this, but I tried one and the trigger pull felt like a Joe Weider Index Finger Exercise device. I don't mind a Taurus firearm, as long as it's in the opponent's hands.

Back to the topic at hand. I think a j-frame Smith is a beautiful little package and have a hard time imagining a smaller revolver being very usable, but I have know some women that thought the j-frame was just a bit to large for them. I guess if you can actually get a decent hold on a Ruger LCP 380 you'd find an "H" frame just about right.

I tried my brother's LCP and it reminded me of a staple-puller with a muzzle. I could only get my middle finger on the grip, so it felt like I was pinching a large bug between my thumb and middle finger rather than gripping a pistol. I must admit, though, that the hard-cast buffalo-bore ammo he had in it sure packed a punch when I pulled the trigger. I think it was buffalo bore, but it could have been cor-bon or some similar manufacturer. The funny thing is my brother carries a BFR 500 S&W Magnum on his hip (he's a big guy) and puts the LCP in his breast pocket for backup. Sorta like carrying an ice pick in case your nuclear warhead isn't enough.

__________________
Hastings

I wrote to BC Engineering (Custom Gun Parts - BC Engineering Company - Z-Pulse Muzzle Break - you can find them for sale on gunbroker.com) about the possibility of producing a .32 H&R Magnum revolver as a scaled-up version of their present gun, knowing I expect something MUCH smaller than a J-frame for CCW. Below is the reply I got. If you would buy such a thing, it couldn't hurt to tell them. It's the first reply of a concrete nature I've received from any firearms manufacturer.

personally i like the second revolver over the first. something about the "window" in the frame window throws me off.

Yahoo! Groups

SUCCESS!!!

.32 Mini Revolver
BC Engineering has plans for a .32 mini revolver. It will be a true "mini" not a 38 Special frame. It will have a swing out cylinder.

Currently they need to keep the BC Special revolvers selling to fund the materials so they can get tooled up for the .32.

BC Engineering anticipates having these available in fall.

Interesting on the update mini revolver.

You could make a 6 shot 32 ACP (7.65x17SR) or 5 shot .380 ACP (9x17) OAL of both cartridges is about the same. Two other real close chamberings would be the 9x18mm Markarov or 9x19mm Parabellum (chamber pressure alot higher here). Make it as a Centennial as Smith makes the 442/642 without the lock.

Smith and Wesson did make them before...
The .32 Smith & Wesson Safety Hammerless of 1888 to 1892 with the 2 inch barrel became known as a “Bicycle” gun at some point, and the First Model Ladysmith (the 1902 M Frame Model .22 Hand Ejector), was often referred to as a “Bicycle” gun.


CD

__________________
De Oppresso Liber

Can't be for real. The crane is missing.

I was wondering when someone would notice. :-)

OK, I'll be satisfied with a .32 H&R in a 'I' frame. I don't have a .32 H&R cartridge to compare with a .32 S&W long right this minute, but I don't think it's much longer.

The 'I' frame size with a 2" Bbl. would be nice. Plain old steel will be fine. No need for 'unobtainium'. Size is the problem, not weight.

I would love a scaled-down DA revolver, I'd be happy with 5 shot .32 or 6 shot .22 magnum, airweight please!

Regarding my post last year about the BC Special .32acp mini-revolver; sadly I noticed today that the page on their site saying "coming soon" is no longer there.

I think that they would find a surprisingly strong market for an i-frame, all steel, 2-2.5" barrel, in .32 acp; managable size for small hands, fairly cheep and readily available ammo, low noise and flash so it is pleasant for new shooter.

Despite what some people want to believe, .38 j-frames can be too much gun for some people. I have been playing around a lot lately with old S&W i-frames and Colt Pocket Positives in .32 long and you would be amazed at the response that they draw from female shooters - "I could shoot this", "This feels good", "Now THIS fits my hand".

Yes, .32 mag and .327 mag are much more powerful, but they also generate a considerable amount more recoil and sometimes a lot of flash and blast. The old steel framed .32 longs with normal factory are like shooting a .22 LR, and even milder with the various wadcutter loads.

Taurus made (makes) the 905c in 9mmp on an almost i-frame size shortened cylinder and frame, but it has a pretty brisk recoil even with standard 115 fmj. I saw that they had released a .380 version this year, which seemed silly at first, but considering how much more plentiful and cheaper .380 ammo is right now than .38 Spl it actually makes sense.

I agree that an I-frame, or a smaller version of the Bodyguard (new version) in .32 would sell. When my mother, who suffers from both arthritis and poly neuropathy, final overcame her fear of guns, the only thing she could handle reliably was an I-frame .32 HE. I suppose I could have searched for an older Terrier, but just getting her to shoot was an accomplishment.

__________________
I need ammo, not a ride.

I would rather see alloy J frames like the 43C start hitting shelves. If the J gets much smaller it will be too small to be practical. I love my little NAA mini but that thing is just a pain to shoot at the range unless I add the bulky rubber grip. Add to that I want them to make a short barrel .22LR that doesn't lose all it's go in the short tube the way Stingers do.

Taurus recently came out with their .380 Revolver...

Then ruined it with that execrable Slab-Sided Barrel.

Slab-Sided Barrels are a deal-breaker for me.

Remember the old story about the Hillbilly boy trying to tell his father what he'd learned at school.

"No son, Pie are not Square. Cornbread are Square. Pie are Round!"

Someone needs to explain to Gun makers everywhere--including S&W's Performance Center:

"Revolver are not Square. Semiautomatic Pistol are Square. Revolver are Round!"

{Jeezee! This choice of effects is a wee-bit Spartan--no colors, no enlarged fonts, no emoticons in text...

Not even Bold-Face or Italics...

It is like...

Really Man! Be for Real !"}

.....RVM45

Well, you could go to User CP and under Options, select the Enhanced User Interface!

__________________
Science plus Art

BTTT

Didn't want this topic to be forgotten. I need a smaller than J-frame revolver DA. Caliber ? Unknown. Hopefully, centerfire, and 5 shots. 32acp is good candidate. Another 32 caliber possible in "true" rimmed, revolver cartridge. 32 H&R mag. ... um... maybe make cylinder too long ? If it could accurately push a 75grn. projectile to 950fps, from a 2 inch barrel, then I would be good to go. ~10oz. is preferred. Use Unobtainium if necessary. Would tolerate a proprietary 25 cal cartridge (the 25 S&W ! ; 50 grn bullet, accurate, at 1000fps from a 2" barrel).

I think about this... a lot. (Just try Googling "smaller than J frame revolver" ).

Elsworth

P.S. The purpose here is for second gun/ pocket gun OR, for those times when you have to be super discreet. And for the man who already has everything (on his Bat Belt !), it needs to be light, please. Get it ? Second gun. Pocket. Discreet. Light, please. And, of course, all the advantages of a revolver (simple manual of arms, goes bang repeatedly, even inside a pocket, can't be driven out of battery).