Would you buy a 6-shot .38 J-frame

[Triggernosis]

^^^ And also ask S&W to get rid of that damn ugly lock right where we have to look at it every time we pick up the gun.

 

[Countrycuz]

If it would physically hold 6 rounds of
38 Spl , it wouldn't BE a J Frame .

In this discussion , all the other examples are " sorta kinda like a J Frame , just a little bigger , but still fairly small " .

Nothing wrong with that concept . it's been around long before there were J Frames . Before 1926 even , Colt had offered 2 inch bbls on Police Positive Specials , it was only giving a seperate model name in 1926 .

* Stretching * a frame is simple , that's how the I Frame led into the J Frame
Expanding a frame is more complicated .

* Could * S&W develope a new frame size of a particular size ? Sure . Would it be prudent or economically worthwhile ? Probably not .

More relevant , and more feasable requests to make of Mfgs :

Ask Taraus to have better triggers and Quality Control on 856 , in exchange for $50 higher prices .

Ask Ruger about the feasibility of 6 shot "
38 Only " SP101 .

Ask S&W to bring back / introduce more .32 J Frames .

Ask S&W about modern metallurgy to bring back a M12 , rated for Plus P

Makes sense to me

 

[BBMW]

Where do you see Charter making a six shot .38 snub? All of there's seem to be 5-shot.

This goes to your second point. Charter and Taurus, among others, make 5-shot snubs. Smith does not have that market to themselves. So why shouldn't they make a 6-shot snub, just because other makers do? In point of fact that's a good argument for them to do it. A lot of revolver owners love Smith as a brand, and would very likely buy a 6-shot snub from them, as the poll shows.

To make a six shot S&W would have to do pretty much what they did to create the L frame. Raise the frame, extend the hammer. It would come out smaller than a K.

But with Charter, Colt and Taurus already doing this, seems like the advantage S&W currently has is making the smallest .38 revolver.

 

[BBMW]

I messaged that to them on Facebook. More shooters should be doing that. Maybe they'll get the message.

^^^ And also ask S&W to get rid of that damn ugly lock right where we have to look at it every time we pick up the gun.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

The title is somewhat self explanatory. If Smith started making new 6-shot .38 Spl, or even .357 Magnum, small framed short barreled revolvers, would you buy one? Let's say something as similar as possible to a 442 and/or 642, but with a 6 shot cylinder. And, yes the frame would have to be stretched as necessary to support this.

IF you look back Smith did maker an expiremental 6 shot .38 ON THE M FRAME...........OR just buy a detecive special and be happy.

RE 5 shot vs 6............A better shot needs less ammo.

 

[JWintergreen]

I have really enjoyed reading this discussion. This is a great thread, and I am glad to see the ill-fated Model 73 C frame get mentioned. That is a very interesting, albeit depressing, part of Smith and Wesson history. With that said, I would like to examine some oft repeated concerns.

It would not be a J frame anymore: Yes. This would require a new frame. If Smith can do that to offer a ridiculous Judge competitor, they can certainly do this to offer a very practical carry option for the revolver crowd.

The C frame was attempted in 1973: Yes, S&W threw in the towel on their initial attempt to offer a competitor to Colt's popular D frame lineup. However, I don't think that a failed attempt 49 years ago should stop S&W from ever attempting this again. If Kimber (a company that never made revolvers before), Taurus, and Charter can do this - so can Smith and Wesson.

It is not economically feasible: It was certainly worthwhile for four other revolver makers. However, exstensive market research is a must.

Would this harm the J frame?: I see no reason to fear this. The J frame is a better pocket gun, and the D frame sized revolvers are better belt guns. The Taurus 605 and 856 certainly co-exist peacefully, as do the LCR and the D frame sized SP-101 (which should be a six shooter).

The K frame exists: The K frame is a medium frame revolver. These revolvers (K6S, Cobra/King Cobra, 856, Police Undercover, etc...) are sized between a J and a K. It is also important to note that the K frame is not as svelte as people think. For example, a 620 L frame (half lug bull barrel) weighs in at 37 ounces, and a new 66-8 (same barrel profile) weighs in at 36.9 ounces.

What about a new Model 12?: Why would you want an alloy medium frame revolver when you could do an airweight version of this concept? This would be lighter, dimensionally smaller, and it would still hold six rounds.

Just buy brand XYZ: I have never understood this sentiment. Variety is the spice of life, and competition is a good thing.

Would this harm the .327 Magnum? I really dont see how. The .327's best atrribute, for some, is turning a J frame sized revolver into a six shooter. It might even be possible to do a D frame sized seven shooter (Ruger's Single Seven cylinder dia. is 1.418").

That which shall not be named should be eliminated first: Well, of course...

 

[BBMW]

I had heard about the Model 73. What I'm talking about is modernized version that would be a cross between that and 442 / 642, with an enclose hammer. Another option would be a similar gun with a slightly longer barrel, like a 640.

I have really enjoyed reading this discussion. This is a great thread, and I am glad to see the ill-fated Model 73 C frame get mentioned. That is a very interesting, albeit depressing, part of Smith and Wesson history. With that said, I would like to examine some oft repeated concerns.

It would not be a J frame anymore: Yes. This would require a new frame. If Smith can do that to offer a ridiculous Judge competitor, they can certainly do this to offer a very practical carry option for the revolver crowd.

The C frame was attempted in 1973: Yes, S&W threw in the towel on their initial attempt to offer a competitor to Colt's popular D frame lineup. However, I don't think that a failed attempt 49 years ago should stop S&W from ever attempting this again. If Kimber (a company that never made revolvers before), Taurus, and Charter can do this - so can Smith and Wesson.

It is not economically feasible: It was certainly worthwhile for four other revolver makers. However, exstensive market research is a must.

Would this harm the J frame?: I see no reason to fear this. The J frame is a better pocket gun, and the D frame sized revolvers are better belt guns. The Taurus 605 and 856 certainly co-exist peacefully, as do the LCR and the D frame sized SP-101 (which should be a six shooter).

The K frame exists: The K frame is a medium frame revolver. These revolvers (K6S, Cobra/King Cobra, 856, Police Undercover, etc...) are sized between a J and a K. It is also important to note that the K frame is not as svelte as people think. For example, a 620 L frame (half lug bull barrel) weighs in at 37 ounces, and a new 66-8 (same barrel profile) weighs in at 36.9 ounces.

What about a new Model 12?: Why would you want an alloy medium frame revolver when you could do an airweight version of this concept? This would be lighter, dimensionally smaller, and it would still hold six rounds.

Just buy brand XYZ: I have never understood this sentiment. Variety is the spice of life, and competition is a good thing.

Would this harm the .327 Magnum? I really dont see how. The .327's best atrribute, for some, is turning a J frame sized revolver into a six shooter. It might even be possible to do a D frame sized seven shooter (Ruger's Single Seven cylinder dia. is 1.418").

That which shall not be named should be eliminated first: Well, of course...

 

[JWintergreen]

I had heard about the Model 73. What I'm talking about is modernized version that would be a cross between that and 442 / 642, with an enclose hammer. Another option would be a similar gun with a slightly longer barrel, like a 640.

A Centennial of this size would be really nice.

 

[Telecaster]

Taurus 856, J-frame size, 6 rounds, 2 or 3” barrel, half the price of a S&W. Fun, till your friends see you shooting it.

 

[RoyM52]

Anybody selling a Smith and Wesson , 6 shot J frame 38 is scamming you. Seams some would still send them money. Interesting ... The question should read. If someone offered you a deal on a gun {Smith and Wesson,J frame 38} would you send them money. {after all it is a rare, very rare, collector gun}

 

[rich5674]

Trick question

Everyone knows you can’t fit 6 38s in a J frame. Especially not from stretching the frame. I would buy a 6 shot .327 or 30 if I could get it for a 442 price

 

[BBMW]

Note that the point is that they should make this gun, not that they do already.

Anybody selling a Smith and Wesson , 6 shot J frame 38 is scamming you. Seams some would still send them money. Interesting ... The question should read. If someone offered you a deal on a gun {Smith and Wesson,J frame 38} would you send them money. {after all it is a rare, very rare, collector gun}

 

[RoyM52]

My point is that they CAN'T make that gun.

 

[JWintergreen]

My point is that they CAN'T make that gun.

This has already been covered.

A six shot .38 J frame is impossible.

However, S&W could do a frame size between a J and a K to compete with offerings from Kimber, Colt, Taurus, Charter, etc...

The particular configuration the OP has in mind is a D frame sized Centennial.

 

[Rubone]

No interest. My speedloaders wouldn't fit any more! And I have plenty of 6 shot revolvers.

 

[race14race]

I would like the 6 shot 32 federal magnum. I also have the kimber K6s that is quite nice for 6 shot 357.

 

[marlin39a]

Just bought a new 638 this morning. Pocket protection.

 

[rockquarry]

No, because it would have to be a bigger gun. Five-shot vs. six-shot is more of a mythical want for the sedentary gunfighters than a real concern.

 

[BBMW]

Given the fact that, except for the tiniest of .38s, six shot is pretty much the standard number of chambers for a revolver, you're wrong.

No, because it would have to be a bigger gun. Five-shot vs. six-shot is more of a mythical want for the sedentary gunfighters than a real concern.

 

[BBMW]

A six shot .38 J frame is impossible only if you, or, really, S&W (since it's their definition) define a J frame by the frame aperture size. If you define it by the section of the frame members, grip design or other design elements, Ie not the more heavily built frames like K, L, or N, than a six shot J-frame would easily designed/built, and, as noted, was done back in the 70's

This has already been covered.

A six shot .38 J frame is impossible.

However, S&W could do a frame size between a J and a K to compete with offerings from Kimber, Colt, Taurus, Charter, etc...

The particular configuration the OP has in mind is a D frame sized Centennial.