Would it be possible…..???

[Model29-26.5]

Pretty newbie here so there may be obvs answers here that I ought to know, but..

A revolver with interchangeable cylinders and barrel converters that will fire 22 up through 45’s including magnum rounds??

Why would this not be possible?

I realize that cylinder lengths change, Particularly with magnums.
Would there be too much distance inside the cylinder for a 22 long rifle round to have to travel inside a cylinder before it gets to the forcing cone?
I realize that a frame capable of handling a 44 mag round would be way bigger and overkill for something that fires a 22, But I wondered if something like this would be possible?
Would have to change rim fire fir center fire hammers…

 

[Rat458]

Sounds like what Dan Wesson was onto with their revolvers could be re engineered to handle different calibers on the same frame..
Of course the RF is a sticking issue due to the firing pin difference.

 

[robertrwalsh]

As noted above the firing pin positioning would tend to argue against. As far as center fire goes it would be workable if you didn't mind spending the money on a bunch of different barrels and cylinders, or perhaps even cylinder inserts. But you would end up with an excessively big, heavy revolver for most uses. The Dan Wesson did work OK but they were all for the same basic cartridge.

 

[Model29-26.5]

I have a Model 53. Switchable rim and center fire. They did this in the 60’s.
I’d rather have easily switchable barrels and cylinders.
Few extra $$ is fine for a “universal” revolver.

 

[OKFC05]

Your example of the Model 53 from the 60s takes me back to when bought my first revolver with what little money I could spare, and why I had no interest in buying a Model 53. You couldn't get it "for a few extra" dollars" and my rich friends denigrated it for being "cranky and fiddly" in use, rather than "easily switchable."
While technically possible, the "universal revolver" idea strikes me as expensive, with a very limited customer base, and even less financially sound in 2024 with the automated, low skill assembly production in use.
In short, I would neither invest in nor buy a $5000, heavy, low volume range toy. YMMV.

 

[steelslaver]

While it would be very possible, the liability would be huge. The majority of people can't change a tire. Mistake putting in cylinder, mistake installing barrel. 44 mag cylinder used with 357 barrel. Etc

If you took and N frame, and used shrouded barrels with liners and a nut at muzzle it would't be that hard. Install cylinder, thread liner into frame with a gauge on face of cylinder, drop shroud over liner. Shroud keys to frame, tighten nut on muzzle to xx# torque.

That is how I take my 500 apart and install a 460 cylinder and barrel

Also you would not need another firing pin for rim fire. Just use a cylinder with a different radius for the chambers so edge of chamber is where firing pin strikes, then have a keyed barrel that is offset to match the cylinder.

But, I don't care how idiot proof they managed to make it, an "advanced idiot" would screw it up and hire a lawyer. It wouldn't matter if they hung big red warning signs all over the pieces and wrote the instructions using big letters and simple words with lots of pictures. Trust me on the fact that some people would mess it up with potentially deadly results.

Lots of people can't even get the right ammo for their gun.

 

[rct269]

This really has naught to do with the question at hand, but it's old news in S&W's history!

These sneaky guys used a center fire frame/action for the 1st Model Single Shot---which was offered in .22 (rim fire), or .32, or .38 (both center fire). You could buy three guns if price was no object---or you could buy just one----and two extra barrels.

So how'd that work? Back to those sneaky guys who bored the .22 barrel on a bias, such that the cenferfire hammer/firing pin struck the rim of the .22--and it was business as usual with the center fire calibers---all this sneaky stuff in the 1890's

Ralph Tremaine

Edited to add: Now, as to how far a .22 bullet (or any other bullet) travels in the cylinder before it gets to the barrel, we're talking about throat length. A little bit is okay, more is worse, and too much is devastating when it comes to accuracy --------and accuracy is all about a bullet emerging from the muzzle in as pristine condition as possible.

So, the further a bullet travels in the throat the faster it's going when it reaches the barrel---and the faster it's going the more it skids and slides in the barrel before the rifling gets a hold on things----and this skidding and sliding damages the bullet---which we want to be as pristine as possible.

Back to the history books, the New Model #3 Target (late 1880's), in 38-44 S&W caliber used a cartridge designed by Ira Paine----a shooter of some renown---and a fairly hip dude!

The cartridge case was the same length as the cylinder, with the bullet seated entirely within the case-----when fired, the bullet emerged from the case, and immediately entered the barrel---as in ZERO throat length. Ira set accuracy records with this combination which have yet to be broken.

Another little tid-bit from the same church, but a different pew, is S&W's 3rd Model Single Shot with the Olympic barrel-----circa 1920's. The cartridge wasn't seated until it had been forced in such that the bullet was in the rifling ---call it negative throat length ------and call it even more accurate!!

I think the bottom line of all this is do you want to create a gun that you can hit something with---or is it okay if it just goes bang?

 

[steelslaver]

Ralph, if you used the multi piece barrel with a sleeve each round and its cylinder could be what ever length needed. Say you wanted to install a 22 cylinder. It would only need to be slightly longer than the round and have a long gas ring, then the barrel would have a long shank so that it gaped correctly to that cylinder. A a rim fire cylinder could be made with a chamber radius such that the same firing pin as a center fire struck rim fires correctly, then the rim fire barrel with offset bore, could have a short key way on top of it and a short matching key slot in frame face and sleeve so everything lined up correctly. In fact all the barrels could could have an identical key way to assure line up and gap. The key would only go 1/2 way in the frame so when the sleeve was place on it was also located by 1/2 the key and then a nut at the muzzle tightened everything up.

A 22 cylinder could have 12 rounds and a 44 6 and use the same hand IF the ratchet teeth were adjusted to it. I have fit 6 round cylinders in 5 round frame with no problems as the had only uses the one face of the ratchet tooth to turn an carry up the cylinder and all hands travel the same amount up and down in the frame slot.

It could be made, But, like I said earlier, a whole lot of people couldn't be trusted to make the swaps correctly. I bet 1/2 of the people who own revolvers can't take the cylinder, side plate, main spring, rebound slide hammer and trigger out correctly. Selling them a frame that had 5 cylinders, 5 or more barrels and associated parts would be a liability lawyer's worst nightmare and we know they are now part of the equation. Then there is the fact that the factory seems to be having problems making guns where just one cylinder and barrel function correctly

An L frame 44 mag, could become a 5 shot 44 mag, or a 7 shot 357, IF one wanted to spend more money than a model 69 and a model 686 cost to buy the parts and set it all up

 

[gwpercle]

The easy answer is Cost ...
It can be done ... but it would be expensive ...
Notice Dan Wesson doesn't make revolver sets with different length barrels anymore ...
... the interchangeable barrel sets were an interesting idea and they worked pretty well but they are no more ...
there is a good reason ... Cost .
Gary

 

[silicosys4]

It could fairly easily be done, I think.
But the incentive from both consumers and manufacturers would be low.
I can't think of a single person who would buy a $$$$ revolver and $$$$ multiple barrels/cylinders when you can just buy three or four revolvers for the same money or less.
A Dan Wesson pistol pack with what, three barrels is well over $1500. Add an extra cylinder for each barrel and you are talking well over $2k. Personally I'd just rather have three different revolvers.

 

[505Gibbs]

It could fairly easily be done, I think.
But the incentive from both consumers and manufacturers would be low.
I can't think of a single person who would buy a $$$$ revolver and $$$$ multiple barrels/cylinders when you can just buy three or four revolvers for the same money or less.
A Dan Wesson pistol pack with what, three barrels is well over $1500. Add an extra cylinder for each barrel and you are talking well over $2k. Personally I'd just rather have three different revolvers.

You've hit the proverbial nail square on its head! Time & money vs. sales.

 

[Rubone]

I'm a firm believer in dedicated firearms for caliber. If I want a different caliber I acquire a firearm in that caliber and use it as such. Swapping bits around has no appeal to me and I cannot see any advantage to it, rather more disadvantages.

 

[Sgt. Buzzard]

Academy FA instructor and armourer for 18 years. RSO on a club range ever since. The stupidity I've seen could fill a thread forever.

This would be multiple lawsuits waiting to happen.

 

[steelslaver]

I'm a firm believer in dedicated firearms for caliber. If I want a different caliber I acquire a firearm in that caliber and use it as such. Swapping bits around has no appeal to me and I cannot see any advantage to it, rather more disadvantages.

I can pretty much make whatever I want in my shop. I have messed with convertibles a bit. While it isn't hard to swap out just a cylinder it is better to just get another gun

I have done dual cylinder 45s, 22s, have a 22lr for my 22 Jet, a 22TCM cylinder for my 22 Harvey Kay Chuck, a 22 mag cylinder for my 18-4, and a 32 cylinder for my 32-20 and a 327 mag cylinder for my 16-4 32 H&R. Mostly the extra cylinders just take up space in the drawers.

 

[silicosys4]

Not to mention, I can't think of a more annoying way to spend a range session, than spending half an hour swapping barrels, cylinders, headspacing, and adjusting...just to go from one caliber to another. That was my understanding with the DW's, the owners tended to pick a favorite barrel and just stick with it.

Also,
Part of the joy of smaller calibers like the .38, .32, .22lr, etc...is the size of the guns that fire the smaller cartridges are pleasingly petite, easier to carry, balance better, etc...
Who wants to shoot .22lr or .32 out of a revolver big enough to handle a .44 magnum?