What about this "back to the future" notion?

[gunfan]

What about an S&W "I" frame (in scandium, of course) revolver with a titanium cylinder, weighing in between 6 and 8.5 ounces (depending on barrel length.) These would be chambered in .32 H&R Magnum (with a 6 round cylinder) and in .38 S&W Special (with a 5 round cylinder.)

S&W discontinued the diminuitive "I" frame in 1961. Originally chambered in .32 S&W Long (.32 Hand Ejector in a 2.25", 4.25" and 6" barrel as well as the .32 Regulation Police (2" and 4" barrels, I believe.) It also was chambered in the .38 S&W cartridge with a 2" barrel, called the "Terrier."

If S&W would return to it's "roots", lengthen the smaller "I" frame and craft it of modern, ultra-light and ultra-strong modern materials they would again create the ideal revolver for undercover police work. A truly effective "deep concealment" piece capable of withstanding the stoutest .38 +P loads one can concoct (within pressure limits, of course) and versatile enough to take small-game hunting.

Chambered in .32 H&R Magnum, this "bit of kit" would handle "full-house" .32 S&W Long loads as well as the old .32 S&W shells. With one handgun, you could hunt small game, shoot in "bullseye" matches, and rout pests with consummate aplomb.

In .38 Special +P, the "plainclothes" officer would love the revolver's light weight. The uniformed officer would laud this as a fantastic "back-up gun." The Narcotics detective would give his eye teeth for a lightweight revolver that won't "telegraph" it's presence.

We all realize that a carry gun deemed "too heavy" or "too bulky" will likely be left in a sock drawer or police locker, rather than carried. A revolver of this ilk is the answer to many shooter's prayers. It's powerful enough to "get the job done," yet small enough to disappear into a coat or waistband.

Let's hear some opinions concerning this "resurrection" of a small, yet modern and reasonably powerful revolver.

Scott

 

[middy]

Sounds great! Especially in .32 mag. I've always longed to rout pests with consummate aplomb.

 

[Majic]

If S&W would return to it's "roots", lengthen the smaller "I" frame and craft it of modern, ultra-light and ultra-strong modern materials they would again create the ideal revolver for undercover police work.

It's already been done. It's called the J-frame. The I-frame's (or even the improved I-frame) window was not large enough for the .38 spl cartridge. The J-frame was created as a solution.

 

[telomerase]

short cases

>The I-frame's (or even the improved I-frame) window was not large enough for the .38 spl cartridge

A cartridge far too long for modern powders. Taurus has the shorter-than-J "Instant Backup" or "IB" frame (note the "I") chambered in 9mm.

Unfortunately I hear that the IB moon clips are flimsy. Does anyone know if there is a fix for this?

 

[gunfan]

I have measured the frame "windows" on both the "J" and "I" frmes. The "I" frame possesses adequate space for both the .38 Special and .32 H&R Magnum. There is no excuse for not going to the smaller frame! (I even checked with the people at S&W!)

The only thing that prevents them from "resurrecting" the "I" frame, is the cost of "tooling up" to do it! This seems silly as there is a great deal of money in selling a revolver of this size!

Do ya think?

Scott

 

[RyanM]

NAA is already hard at work making an ultra small frame .32 mag.

 

[gunfan]

I presume that this new development will be in the form of a double action revolver. If so, I shall inform S&W of this development, and see if we can get some business competition going. I am absolutely certain that the "Ladies and Gentlmen of Springfield" will not want to be beaten at their own game!

Scott

 

[Old Fuff]

If you go back and check your "I" frame again you'll notice that the barrel sticks out at the back about .375" to reach the face of the (short) cylinder. The cylinder length itself is about 1.25". The longest cylinder then would probably be around 1.53".

A .38 Special cartridge with a 110 grain bullet has a OCL of about 1.460" while with a 158 grain slug it runs 1.550". When you measured the window did you remember to leave room for the cartridge rim and headspace? These dimentions refer to S&W's pre-war I frame. If they could have put the .38 Special/158 grain load into that frame the J-frame would have never seen the light of day.

Regarding the .32 H&R Magnum (and possibly .22 RF, .22 WRM, as well as the .380 or 9mm in moonclips) you have a good idea, but Taurus has beat them too it. But with the exception of the 9mm x 19 I don't know if the market would be big enough to absorb the costs involved in developing yet another frame.

 

[RyanM]

I presume that this new development will be in the form of a double action revolver. If so, I shall inform S&W of this development, and see if we can get some business competition going. I am absolutely certain that the "Ladies and Gentlmen of Springfield" will not want to be beaten at their own game!

I have no idea if it'll be DA or SA. They seem to be keeping it pretty hush-hush right now.

 

[gunfan]

Thanks, Old Fuff.

I stand corrected! Thank you, Old Fuff. I still think that it would be a real hot number in .32 H&R Magnum! The "I" frame is quite small, and would, with modern manufacturing techniques, (read: CNC and modern materials) be an easy resurrection!

Scott

 

[Old Fuff]

I agree with you up to a point. I would personally like such a revolver, especially with an enclosed hammer. Overall length in a pocket pistol can be critical, so within reason the shorter the better.

I my likes and dislikes are often the exception to the rule, and S&W is more interented in "the rule" then "exceptions" such as ourselves. From their point of view (I suspect) the new revolver would have limited appeal, and cut into J-Frame sales.

The cost of developing a new frame isn't so much in the machining process as it is tooling to make either forgings (which S&W uses) or investment castings (which Ruger and some others use). This can get to be very expensive, and to make a profit the company has to sell a whole lot of guns.

Taurus has come up with a shorter frame/cylinder gun along the lines you are thinking of - but they see the big market for this kind of revolver being in 9mm, not .32 H&R Magnum. They are however considering the .32 cartridge as a future offering, and if/when they do I will be seriously interested. I have handled the 9mm version and found it to be a neat gun.

I have been into short-cylindered guns for a long time - both I-frame S&W's and Colt Police Positives. I see a market for similar revolvers chambered for many popular pistol cartridges, (which are shorter then similar revolver rounds) such as the previously mentioned 9mm, .38 Super; and in a larger version, 10mm, 40 S&W, and .45 ACP. Don't know that the manufacturers see it that way though.

 

[grendelbane]

I see a market for similar revolvers chambered for many popular pistol cartridges, (which are shorter then similar revolver rounds) such as the previously mentioned 9mm, .38 Super; and in a larger version, 10mm, 40 S&W, and .45 ACP. Don't know that the manufacturers see it that way though.

Its you and me against the manufacturers! Guess who is going to win?

There is a lot to be said for a short cylindered, short cartridge revolver. Possibly some thing loaded to a little higher pressure than the specials, but short, like the auto pistol cartridges.

.38 Super, 9x23mm, and .40 S&W come to mind as examples. Possibly a .41 Russian, if you know what I mean.

 

[gunfan]

I agree, to an extent. but listen to this!

Yuppers, Grendelbane! I believe that NAA is working on a "hush-hush" project concerning the.32 H&R Magnum in a similarly-sized cylinder to the venerable S&W "I" frame.

It really sounds as if they are building the ultimate "mini bad boy" to me!

 

[gunfan]

From "Sandy's Soapbox" at the NAA Website.

May 2005


.32 H&R Magnum Mini-Revolver

What happened to April?

I'm pleased to announce that NAA has engaged a firearms designer and charged him with the design of a 'as-small-as-possible' .32 H&R Magnum single-action minirevolver.

Some of you will recall that we conducted just such an exercise a couple of years ago. The results were very disappointing; the prototype was big, heavy, ungainly and something which we felt was 'not ready for prime time'.

What's different this time? A new designer. Any promises? No, just lots of anticipation, expectations and anxiety. When? No clue. Why? Because we listen to you. Stay tuned.

 

[BluesBear]

I think if NAA could just take the exact same design as their .22 mag mini-revolvers and scale them up to about the size of the old Marlin .32 Rimfire and chamber it for the .32 H&R Magnum it would be a winner.

With todays metals it could work.

I know I'd buy one.

 

[Jim K]

Well, nobody's buying the J frame .32 Magnum revolver S&W does make, so why should they want to tool up to make an almost identical one that no one (except Gunfan) wants?

Jim

 

[scbair]

On the other hand, Jim, a LOT of folks buy the J-frames in .38 Spec. (myself included). Yet, fickle beast that I am, sometimes something just ... a ... bit smaller would be appreciated, if I didn't have to drop to a .22 rimfire. I actually seriously considered a 2" I-framed .32 S&W Long, with an idea toward handloading some "+Ps" for it. Fortunately, I regained my senses, first.

A shorter-cylinder, perhaps smaller in diameter (to accommodate 5 .32s rather than 6), and a smaller (I-frame-sized) handle would be a must-have for me.

 

[RyanM]

A J-frame .32 is a lot like a .41 on a .44 magnum frame (which is what they use). You end up with a gun that's just as bulky and heavy as a more powerful one, chambered in a semi-obscure cartridge, with the only advantage being a little more controllability.

What NAA is doing is making a (hopefully) much smaller revolver than a J-frame. It'd be like a .41 mag L-frame or GP-100.

Might end up like this. 5-shot, 9 ounce .32. Or one of these. Links from here.

 

[Cosmoline]

I'd buy it! The old "I" frame break tops conceal better than even the "J" frames. In a .32 H&R Mag size, hammerless, it would be a *TRUE* pocket revolver. As it is the only other true pocket guns are very small semis that tend to lack the punch for self defense. a .32 H&R mag replicates high-end .38 Special ballistics and is certainly better than a .25 ACP or a .32 ACP.

 

[Old Fuff]

Ah ... Cosmo:

The "I-frame" is a hand ejector, it fact it was Smith & Wesson's first one. Think of it as a "J-frame" but shorter. So far as the rest of what you said, we fully agree.

 

[BigG]

Bullistics -

32 H&R mag replicates high-end .38 Special ballistics

From whence did this bolt of inspiration descend?

 

[Old Fuff]

scbair:

>> I actually seriously considered a 2" I-framed .32 S&W Long, with an idea toward handloading some "+Ps" for it. Fortunately, I regained my senses, first. <<

Finding a .32 "I-Frame" with a 2 inch barrel would be difficult. A J-frame would be another matter.

The .32 H&R Magnum is relatively mild as Magnums go. H&R came up with it to fit one of their not-particularly-strong revolvers. On the other hand the .32 S&W Long is downloaded because of many top-break revolvers floating around. A later production S&W 1903 Hand Ejector is another matter, as are Colt Pocket Positive and Police Positive revolvers. You can use heavier .32 S&W Long handloads in both safely.

 

[Cosmoline]

Got my wires crossed. I was thinking of the .32 Safety Hammerless break tops. THAT is the model I'd like to see. With titanium frames they could be made strong enough for .32 H&R Mag while staying the same size. The hand ejector frames are too bulky. Like this one only without the hammer exposed and with a double action trigger:

 

[Cosmoline]

From whence did this bolt of inspiration descend?

230-290 ft. lbs. range. Call it what you want, it's the same place on the chart as the full power .38 Special before you get to .38+p. My understanding was that the .32 H&R Mag was intended to duplicate .38 Special ballistics in a smaller package. Not .38 Special +p or +p+ or low-power target loads under 200 ft. lbs.

 

[Old Fuff]

Cosmo:

Again I agree with you about the little .32 S&W Safety Hammerless - I have one and have been know to carry it.

But the very compact, 5-shot cylinder will only hold a regular .32 S&W (about the same length as a .32 ACP) but not either the .32 S&W Long or of course, the even longer Magnum. You could streach out the frame and cylinder, but you'd lose some of the compactness we both like.

During the period following World War One, S&W advertised the ".32 Safety" as a better alternative to that "other manufacturer's" .25 and .32 Pocket Model automatics. "More dependable" they said, "and if you have to it will shoot through a pocket." Also, "it can't go off because you carry it with the hammer at rest, and if you do the same with a pistol you'll have to rack the slide before you can fire." Ah yes, the advertising agency had a great time.

Smith & Wesson also made a larger version as a 5-shot chambered in .38 S&W. That one you could make into a 6-shot .32 Long, and with modern materials, a .32 H&R Magnum.