My kingdom for a modern 6-shot .38 snubbie - anyone else?

[ILoveSigs]

I would absolutely kill for a modern 6-shot .38 snubbie, +P rated, with a 2-inch barrel, lightweight alloy frame, internal hammer, and night sights. Basically a current Smith 640 Pro Series



...but holding 6 shots instead of just 5.

What a fantastic little carry piece that would be. Anyone else feel the same way? I really wish Smith or...(yes, I dare) Colt (it's possible!) would get on this and make it. Oh, and I've always felt Ruger was making a massive mistake by not offering the SP101 as a 6-shot .38+P - if that cylinder can easily handle 5 rounds of full-power .357 Magnum (which it can) then it's plenty big enough to be able to handle 6 rounds of .38+P, no they wouldn't have to make it (or the frame) any bigger.

[Bigghoss]

I'd rather have mine in .357. I'm hoping Smith & Wesson makes a 2" or 3" model 66.

[ILoveSigs]

I'd rather have mine in .357. I'm hoping Smith & Wesson makes a 2" or 3" model 66.

In a snubbie?! No thank you. Of all the people who own a snubbie chambered in .357 (like the 640 above) I'd say 75% of them never have and never will fire even a single round of .357 Magnum in it (it'll be all .38 all the time), 90% will never once actually carry it with .357 (they'll use .38+P), and 95% won't carry it the majority of the time loaded with .357 (meaning that of those that do carry .357 in it, most will only do so occasionally, it won't be their usual carry load).

Also, what you want already exists: it's called the 686, and you can get those with 7 round capacities!

[WDW]

The differences between .38 & .357 are in length, not width. So saying a 5 shot .357 could be a 6 shot .38 doesnt really make sense. You sacrifice concealability when you widen that cylinder out to accept that 6th round. The closest thing to what you're wanting would be a snub model 10, 66, 19 or even a 2" 686.

[LSP972]

You sacrifice concealability when you widen that cylinder out to accept that 6th round.

Exactly. I have all three 'sizes' of super-light S&W wheel guns designed for concealed carry; a 342, a 12, and a 242, all with 2 or 2.5" barrels. The second two (especially the 242 L frame) are nowhere NEAR as concealable as the J frame.

The Colt Agent, with its shortened grip, is about as small as you're going to get a six-shooter. And it isn't in the same league, in terms of concealability, as a J frame. Simple physics applies here.

.

[jetfire]

Every night when I say my prayers I ask the Wheelgun Fairy for Ruger to please make a medium frame LCR-style revolver that holds six (or seven!) rounds of 38 and has a three inch barrel and a DAO hammer.

[Dagga Boy]

Every night when I say my prayers I ask the Wheelgun Fairy for Ruger to please make a medium frame LCR-style revolver that holds six (or seven!) rounds of 38 and has a three inch barrel and a DAO hammer.

Me too....

[ILoveSigs]

The differences between .38 & .357 are in length, not width. So saying a 5 shot .357 could be a 6 shot .38 doesnt really make sense. You sacrifice concealability when you widen that cylinder out to accept that 6th round. The closest thing to what you're wanting would be a snub model 10, 66, 19 or even a 2" 686.

You don't need anywhere near as much metal between rounds or between the rounds and the outside of the cylinder with .38 as you do with .357 due to the significant difference in pressure between the two cartridges, was my point. Maybe it would need to be a bit larger, but a 6-shot .357 cylinder will be noticeably bigger than an otherwise identical 6-shot .38+P cylinder due to the increased amount of metal needed to contain the significantly higher pressures of .357 Magnum.

[RevolverRob]

I'm going to tell you straight up - I have pocket carried a Colt Agent (alloy frame, six shots, 2" barrel) and I've pocket carried a 642. Dimensionally the guns are so close...but the difference between them is night and day. The thing is that extra round in the cylinder? It adds bulk in just the wrong place for pocket or ankle carry and it adds just enough weight to make a noticeable difference. And frankly, that's what 2" guns are best at, is the hideout/unconventional type of concealed carry. The J-Frame works better than any 6-shot gun could. Sorry, I know it's a bit of a downer, but it's the truth.

The 6-7 shot gun Caleb and Nyeti are wishing for, the 3" LCR67 - That is a damn near perfect belt revolver in medium caliber, something that is the screaming successor to the 3" heavy barrel, fixed sight, K-Frame. Or maybe a little more like a 3" Model 12 or 3" Colt D-Frame, not as chunky as the 3" GP100, 3" L-Frame. I have a 3" D-Frame and a 3" K-Frame and the differences between them, again, you almost need a pair of calipers to detect, but they make all the difference in the world, in the way the guns carry, with the Colt being that much nicer, because it is just a little bit smaller, in all the right ways.

-Rob

[ILoveSigs]

I'm going to tell you straight up - I have pocket carried a Colt Agent (alloy frame, six shots, 2" barrel) and I've pocket carried a 642. Dimensionally the guns are so close...but the difference between them is night and day. The thing is that extra round in the cylinder? It adds bulk in just the wrong place for pocket or ankle carry and it adds just enough weight to make a noticeable difference. And frankly, that's what 2" guns are best at, is the hideout/unconventional type of concealed carry. The J-Frame works better than any 6-shot gun could. Sorry, I know it's a bit of a downer, but it's the truth.

The 6-7 shot gun Caleb and Nyeti are wishing for, the 3" LCR67 - That is a damn near perfect belt revolver in medium caliber, something that is the screaming successor to the 3" heavy barrel, fixed sight, K-Frame. Or maybe a little more like a 3" Model 12 or 3" Colt D-Frame, not as chunky as the 3" GP100, 3" L-Frame. I have a 3" D-Frame and a 3" K-Frame and the differences between them, again, you almost need a pair of calipers to detect, but they make all the difference in the world, in the way the guns carry, with the Colt being that much nicer, because it is just a little bit smaller, in all the right ways.

-Rob

I would be interested in carrying this on my belt, so none of that's a problem. I wouldn't be carrying it on my ankle or in my pocket. I actually have a Colt DS (1978) I've carried a bit in a Bell Charter Oak Chicago Rocker and I've been very pleased with it, it's just that I'd like essentially a modern version of that as described in my original post (alloy frame, night sites, internal hammer, etc.).