.40S&W K-Frame

ContinentalOp

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
6,315
Reaction score
12,813
I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but how about a 5-shot, 3" barrel K-Frame in .40S&W with full-moon clips?

Edit: This would ideally be a no-lock revolver with forged parts (no MIM). The customer could choose fixed or adjustable sights (tritium or plain), standard hammer or spurless, DA/SA or DAO, round or square butt, blue or stainless.
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
I agree that a 40cal revolver would have a market. It just makes sense to have one. My wife would love it for Valentines day.

spricks
 
.40 caliber revolver

This struck a chord with me and I remembered an article in a magazine a few years ago about an L-Frame .40 S@W revolver.
It's a 6-shot stainless model 646. I don't remember the magazine, I've got it somewhere, but I googled .40 S@W revolver and found info.
 
I have owned two of those 40 cal.rev one a performance center with ti.cylinder,I always had trouble getting the empty's out,the other a 4" gun when shooting major loads the recoil was bad so it went to.If I shoot another 40 it will be a 610
 
K Frames

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the K Frame doesn't have enough metal at the front of the frame to allow for a barrel of .40 caliber. At least that's the conclusion I come up with looking at MY K Frames. :( Personally, If it were feasible, I'd take a 3" Round butt 10mm/.40 S&W K Frame, too! :D :D -Ed.
 
I was thinking of something along the lines of the 696, but in a K-Frame package. I figured if a 5-shot L-Frame can handle a .44 then a 5-shot K-Frame could probably handle a .40, but I was thinking more in terms of the cylinder than the barrel. Oh, well. I'm sure with the right metallurgy it could happen. Right?
 
I would prefer the 4-inch 610 myself but, with the Mountain Revolver barrel profile. That heavy barrel on the 610 makes it a poor choice compared to a 629 or 657.
 
Found this...not sure if it's a K frame or not.
nightguard40.jpg
 
I believe the 310 is an L frame, like my 646, which is a 6-shot .40 also.
 
I understand the need to maintain some continuity of components in order to avoid retooling costs and such. That being said, however, perhaps it is time for one of the top revolver manufacturers to step back and design one or two new frame sizes based on current trends and demand. If S&W designed a new frame configuration around a 5-shot 45acp cylinder, keeping the frame size as small as possible to accomodate the cylinder and forcing cone requirements, but keeping the cylinder length required for a 44 special, they could chamber the new revolver in 327 (8 or 9 shot)38special/357(7 or 8 shot), 10mm/40sw(5 or 6 shot), 41mag (5 shot) 44special (5 shot), 45acp (5 shot), and 45colt (5 shot). By altering the frame material they could keep the lower pressure cartridge models light while maintaining reasonable recoil-dampening weight for the more robust models.

While I love all of the current S&W frame sizes and the models that they come in, to continue to be limited by the existing frame sizes seems foolish. One reworked frame could fill a broad number of arrangements. I think something like this would be much more practical than the polymer revolvers S&W and Ruger are coming up with. There are new cartridges, new preferences in concealed carry, and new opinions of what constitues a practical defense handgun. While I may not agree with all of the "new" trends, it seems to me that by sticking to the limitations of the existing frames S&W is doing what amounts to if Chevy or Ford had continued to base all models on a drive train from the 1950's. I love the 57 Chevy, but imagine a current car limited by the suspension and drive train components of one of those classics. We'd all need second jobs to pay for gas and maintenance.
 
I understand the need to maintain some continuity of components in order to avoid retooling costs and such. That being said, however, perhaps it is time for one of the top revolver manufacturers to step back and design one or two new frame sizes based on current trends and demand. If S&W designed a new frame configuration around a 5-shot 45acp cylinder, keeping the frame size as small as possible to accomodate the cylinder and forcing cone requirements, but keeping the cylinder length required for a 44 special, they could chamber the new revolver in 327 (8 or 9 shot)38special/357(7 or 8 shot), 10mm/40sw(5 or 6 shot), 41mag (5 shot) 44special (5 shot), 45acp (5 shot), and 45colt (5 shot). By altering the frame material they could keep the lower pressure cartridge models light while maintaining reasonable recoil-dampening weight for the more robust models.

While I love all of the current S&W frame sizes and the models that they come in, to continue to be limited by the existing frame sizes seems foolish. One reworked frame could fill a broad number of arrangements. I think something like this would be much more practical than the polymer revolvers S&W and Ruger are coming up with. There are new cartridges, new preferences in concealed carry, and new opinions of what constitues a practical defense handgun. While I may not agree with all of the "new" trends, it seems to me that by sticking to the limitations of the existing frames S&W is doing what amounts to if Chevy or Ford had continued to base all models on a drive train from the 1950's. I love the 57 Chevy, but imagine a current car limited by the suspension and drive train components of one of those classics. We'd all need second jobs to pay for gas and maintenance.
Quoted again, for TRUTH. What HE said! Worth reading again.
And emphasis on CCW for me.
Great Post, Hastings.
 
I did some quick cad drawings to determine what might work. It would appear that if the ratchet diameter could be reduced slightly you could get 5 45 colt chambers with a bore of .481 and a rim diameter of .512 in a cylinder with a diameter of 1.641 (which I would assume is close to an L-frame cylinder, but I only have K and N frames on hand at the moment). If the ratchet could be reduced further (below .48" diameter) the cylinder diameter could be even less. With a 1.641 diam cylinder, it appears you could get 6 41mag rounds, 7 40s&w rounds, 7 357mag or 38special rounds, and 8 327 fed mag rounds in the cylinder based on the standard case diameters plus a modest overage. I checked the listed case rims when applicable, and they all seem to work, too. I believe the cylinder stop notches work, as well. I don't know how much meat you need at the minimum locations between cylinders and at the outside of cylinder to outside or bore, but the 45acp and 45colt chambers meet or exceed the amount on my model 25, and 22-4. The 40s&w seems to have the least amount of material, so perhaps it would need to be a 6 round (especially if it were 10mm/40s&w).

I think if S&W would develop a frame around a cylinder similar to this, along with a frame that allowed for the required material where the barrel threads in, they could use it for quite a few arrangements. Two lines could be developed. One would be a fixed-sight version with barrel lengths in 2-1/2", 3", 4", and 5". Two barrel options could be offered. One tapered like the 22-4 or mountain gun, and one heavy like the 58. I'd like to see the 4" and 5' in square-butt, ideally, with round butt 2-1/2" and 3" models.

The other line could be adjustable sights, with similar barrel length and butt arrangements except that 6" and 8-3/8" would be offered as well. 2-1/2" thru 4" models could be offered with full underlug, and 4" thru 6" could be offered in tapered barrel if desired.

They could call the frame size an V-frame (for versatile), and maybe even start a new model naming convention starting with 7, and ending with the caliber, such as a model 738 would be a 38 caliber, and a 741 would be a 41mag. Stainless could be designated by an S at the end of the model number, to reduce model number confusion.

I know this is a lot of wishful thinking, but I was bored at lunch today and wondered if such a thing was possible. I know I have oversimplified things, and retooling and parts would be costly, but a single frame size that was a mix between K/L frame grip size and L frame cylinder size, with adjustments made at questionable locations like the forcing cone area (ala 696) in order to prevent foreseeable issues. They would need to apply some ingenuity to the yoke arrangement to provide more meat below the bore opening in the frame, but with modern materials this should be possible with a redesigned frame. If they could come up with an internal ratchet that rotated the cylinder with similar to their polymer revolver arrangement they could reduce the ratchet diameter and juggle the dimensions between chambers and the center pin to bore dimension until it was opitmum for the broadest range of cartridges. Obviously, this would also affect the yoke, but I think they are up to the challenge. It all seems possible, but not probable.

I guess I need to get a cnc machine and find a friendly forge/foundry in the local area.
 
Last edited:
Hastings,
I was kinda working through the same calculation thing (in .45acp only) here.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/wish-list/126030-jframe-sized-snubby-45acp-p.html

I figured that since the .45acp was a relatively low pressure round (lower than the .357) that it shouldn't require any wall thicknesses any bigger than (the much higher pressure) existing .357's. So, the chambers would increase to .45acp size...but the rest of the cylinder thicknesses should stay the same dimensions as the existing .357 cylinders (with the same metals).

Now, the pressures for .40S&W and .45Long Colt are (I believe) much higher (but still .357like) and would require a larger thickness in relation to those pressures...but not the .45acp. Although, the .40 could make up for the thicker materials required in the fact that it's chamber would be .05smaller (+/-) than the .45...so IT shouldn't have to be much bigger than the existing .357 cylinder either...in anything other than chamber size increase.

I would LOVE to see your CAD drawings...as I was thinking about doing the same in Autocad.

I want a CCW(J-ish) sized 5shot .45acp and/or .40S&W, dammit. :cool: :grin:
Great post Hastings.
 
Last edited:
arizonaguide:

Good read on the thread you referenced. Thanks. I'm currently trying to get the dimensions, and I mean all of the dimensions, for J, K, L, and N frame revolvers so I can draft up something completely and try to resolve the yoke connection dimension issues created by reducing the center of bore to center of cylinder dimension while retaining large caliber chambers. If you, or anyone, knows a good source of dimensioned shop drawings for these revolvers I would greatly appreciate it. I only have K and N frame revolvers, so even if I felt like completely disassembling my own revolvers and measuring everything I could only get half the info I want.

If I can get the info, I will draft up Autocad or Inventor dwg drawings and send you them. I'd also like to get the forum members to take a look at them and maybe pass them on to S&W as a well thought-out suggestion rather than just a random request for a different design.

This will take some time. My current cad stuff is simply the cylinders in section view so I could see if chamber diameters, rim dia., ratchet face, chamber wall thickness, ...etc. would fit. If I can get full shop drawings I can take the tighter cartridge arrangements and compare minimum chamber wall thicknesses to existing models in the same cartridge.

This may be a odd hobby, but it costs less than collecting firearms, and maybe it will be helpful in getting S&W to develop a new frame. Who knows.

Thanks again.
 
AWSOME!

I will look into what I can track down as far as finding some full factory "asbuilts" as well. Excellent.

And, I think it's a GREAT hobby! Maybe we can effect some positive change/new products.

Also, take a look at the Charter Bulldog, in .44special.
It is a smaller sized handgun (not MUCH bigger than a jframe), and is handling the higher pressure .44special cartridge. So, you'd think we could get someting like that in a (higher quality) S&W in a .40 or .45. I KNOW they'd be big sellers for backup/secondary service weapons of similar calibers, as well as folks like me that just want to CCW those calibers in a small reliable J-ish sized weapon.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top