Frame size smaller than a J.

[Andy Griffith]

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.

 

[Super38]

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

 

[therevjay]

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.

 

[HeyJoe]

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

 

[H Richard]

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.

 

[therevjay]

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")

 

[mtheo]

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.

 

[HAWKEYE10]

Do you think it would need a lock.
Don

 

[The Last Standing Knight]

That is...."different"

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.

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

 

[gregintenn]

Someone is goooood with photoshop! I want one.

 

[mtheo]

"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.

 

[Knightrider03m]

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

 

[mtheo]

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.

 

[rather-b-huntin]

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!!

 

[mtheo]

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.

 

[cal_gunner]

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

 

[shawn mccarver]

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.

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!

 

[mtheo]

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

 

[Stefano]

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.

 

[HeyJoe]

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.