The makers already produce a myriad of frame and cylinder sizes for everything from .22 to .500.
eh - Smith makes a J-frame, K-frame, L, N, X.
In the J they do .22, .32, .38/.357.
The K gets the same (or did before the .32 was dropped).
The L gets .357 and...?
The N gets the .44's and .45's, and the X is just ridonkulous.
I don't see room for yet another frame size just for auto rounds.
Why not put 'em in a J or K and shorten the cylinder? Or the L, or
the N like the 10mm/.45acp (it IS in the N, right?)
It would be neat if they did it, but changing the frame affects a lot of parts, and that's expensive. You'd need one short frame for .32/9mm and another one for .40/.45. Two more frames to accommodate calibers that have already been done in the other frames, just to save 3/8" in length seems unlikely.
Optimal for us users, but not for manufacturing!
If you can convince them to do it, I promise to drool when you post pictures of yours.
Ruger only really has 3.5 DA frames.
However! Perhaps I'm off base. Ruger DID reintroduce a smaller frame single-action. Though they were down to only two frame sizes before, and that made the popular .38/.357's very silly. It was as if Smith had dropped the K & L frames, then brought them back later.
-Daizee