[B]I had a great idea today![/B]

[rockstar.esq]

What if Taurus or S&W etc. made a small framed 5 or 6 shot snubbie chambered in 40S&W that chambered with or without moon clips! I like the size of a 5 shot .357mag for concealment, but I'm not sold on the caliber for that application. If the cylinder was appropriately shorter for the .40 and the frame window as well, we might just have something thats very potent, very concealable, and chambered in a popular caliber. What do you guys think? I know the .357mag/.38 compatibility thing is appealing but if you're shopping around, you'll no doubt notice that snubbie calibers start at .17 and go up to .38 then they jump to .44spl. To my way of thinking, this is the same whole that S&W say in the market when they introduced the .40. There really wasn't a popular "intermediate" caliber between the 9mm and the .45.

 

[Majic]

Without moonclips ejection would be slow.
Most today think of snubby revolvers as being pocket guns thus the J-frame size. The .40 cartridge seems to be too large to chamber 5 rounds in a J-frame. Since you would have to go to the K-frame size not many shooters would want to carry that in a pocket so it would become a holster gun. In the K-frame size it could be a 6 shooter and they already have the M646 which is a 4" L-frame 6 shot .40SW. They could shorten the barrel, but even the 4 incher wasn't a big seller.
In short there probably isn't much of a market for one. If the 9mm didn't sell well in a snubby (and there's a huge 9mm market) then the .40 wouldn't fair any better.

 

[rockstar.esq]

From where I sit, this is more of a problem of correlating existing frame sizes. I would think that if the revolver had an extractor that had a star that was smaller and fit into a slot cut down the length of each chamber thus allowing ejection against the case mouth. Additionally, if the smaller frame window/ smaller cylinder length were actualized, we'd have a gun significantly shorter than a .38. If this had been done for the 9mm as mentioned, I would think popularity would have been sure fire. Even if they didn't make the frame smaller, they could make a shorter cylinder with the barrel threaded deeper in which would leave the barrel length past the frame really short! This could be a super short package!

 

[Majic]

Whoa now a minute. If you cut a slot into the chamber you do know what will happen to the brass when you fire the revolver? The brass will expand and most likely rupture trying to fill that slot. That rupture will run full length from the case mouth to the case head. You can't disrupt the integrety of the chamber. It is precisely cut to specific set of dimensions because brass can only expand to a certain degree before stress failure develops.

 

[Gewehr98]

I believe our thread author is thinking about the older S&W Model 947

Which had a neat extractor star that grabbed the rimless extractor grooves of the 9mm rounds it was chambered for.

Something scaled-up for the .40 S&W, perhaps? Too big for a J-Frame, though...

 

[rockstar.esq]

Gewehr98 understood what I meant initially

Although the aforementioned slot could be filled by the extractor when it was at rest. What I'd invision would match the profile of the chamber down to where the case mouth would rest. When the extractor was pressed, it would act upon the mouth of the case.

I understand why a different frame size wouldn't be a popular suggestion, however a short fat frame would be just about perfect for this idea.

 

[Gewehr98]

That's cut too far forward, Rockstar.

If you want the extractor to work on the case mouth, you will indeed weaken the chamber walls. The 9mm S&W revolvers had their star-fingered extractors working on the case extractor grooves, and didn't intrude into the pressure bearing areas of the chambers. You cut slots forward that deep into the chambers, you're asking for trouble.