Smith 43C and 351C

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I made a 432 my J frame, not a 38 , pocket carry gun. They don't make them anymore. I got it cheap when they were dumped after SW ceased production. Easy to shoot in 32 HR mag, 6 shots.

[Gun Mutt]

I would love a 432!

[Wheeler]

Thankfully my 43c, 317 and .22lr LCR have all been GTG the whole time I've had them.

I still wish I had kept my 351

The .22mag LCR needs to be an 8 shooter.

Interestingly enough my 317, 43c, and 351c have also been quite reliable. What are the odds of two of us getting lucky like that?

[Jared]

Rented a 351c today and was pretty underwhelmed. I could keep a cylinder inside 2" using a cover hold at 10 yds Da/Sa but it took some work. After 20 rounds or so, the powder build up underneath the extractor had to be brushed out or it would bind and not close. Ammo was CCI TNT JHP. 50 rounds was all I cared to fire, as it was pretty rough. About $20 for rental and ammo told me it's not for me.

Some years ago I briefly had a 6" Model 48 (K frame 22 Mag). It would go about 2 cylinders full before the unburned powder caused issues under the extractor star. I also found it to be quite blasty compared to a 22 LR. I sent it on down the road in less than 6 months. I love the 22 WMR out of a rifle, but that revolver soured me on using one in a handgun.

[Wheeler]

Some years ago I briefly had a 6" Model 48 (K frame 22 Mag). It would go about 2 cylinders full before the unburned powder caused issues under the extractor star. I also found it to be quite blasty compared to a 22 LR. I sent it on down the road in less than 6 months. I love the 22 WMR out of a rifle, but that revolver soured me on using one in a handgun.

My 17-5 also has to stay clean to run more than a few cylinders through it. I've never had an issue with unburnt powder getting under the extractor star, that's usually an issue with the methods used to unload rather than powder sneaking around the cylinder and getting under the star.

I suspect that most any magnum cartridge is going to have more blast relative to it's understudy, 44 Mag to 44 Special, 357 Mag to 38 Special, 22 Mag to 22 WRF. As an interesting side note, there is no developmental relation between the .22 LR and the .22 Mag. The only similarity is they are both rimfire cartridges.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

When I had the 651 and fired it at an indoor range at 7 yards, it would leave a big cloud of unburnt or burnt black something on the target. Not only would it stop the attacker but it would make said person dirty.

As far as blast effects, I have a NAA 22 Magnum with a 1 5/8 barrel. I shot it at a range between the partitions. I thought I blew up. There was a giant flash and I felt blast waves push back my hair (I had some then), and even felt the shot wave go under my glasses. My eyes slammed shut in reflex and I slowly opened them and looked for damage. Wow - that would be a room clearing event. Outside, not so bad, I think the partitions set up an constructive interference wave effect.

The NAA is still in the inventory as a deep BUG.

[Totem Polar]

Way OT, but, if you’ve shot full-power .327 Federal out of a short barrel revolver, you’ve seen the devil in muzzle blast.

The 100 grainers going almost 1500 fps are, like, AR loud indoors. Makes enough noise to scare Beethoven, despite the whole deaf/dead thing...

[Jared]

My 17-5 also has to stay clean to run more than a few cylinders through it. I've never had an issue with unburnt powder getting under the extractor star, that's usually an issue with the methods used to unload rather than powder sneaking around the cylinder and getting under the star.

I suspect that most any magnum cartridge is going to have more blast relative to it's understudy, 44 Mag to 44 Special, 357 Mag to 38 Special, 22 Mag to 22 WRF. As an interesting side note, there is no developmental relation between the .22 LR and the .22 Mag. The only similarity is they are both rimfire cartridges.

I'm familiar with the proper way to eject empties in a revolver to help keep getting crud under the star. Didn't help with that model 48. I also have a Model 17. Loads of difference in the number of rounds that could be fired without having to do something. My 17 would go a lot lot longer than the 48 ever thought about.

I also know there is no development similarities between 22LR and 22 Mag. All that said, and I'll repeat, there was enough extra noise and blast with the 48, combined with the fact it needed brushed out after about 12 shots, that I decided the 22 WMR is an excellent rifle round. In a revolver, I'll just stick to the 22LR.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree about the 327. I was surprised when I shot the full power from my SS SW 632 3 inch comp'ed gun. It really gave my hand a whack. Much more that a 230 gr 45 ACP from a Scandium Commander.

[Wheeler]

I'm familiar with the proper way to eject empties in a revolver to help keep getting crud under the star. Didn't help with that model 48. I also have a Model 17. Loads of difference in the number of rounds that could be fired without having to do something. My 17 would go a lot lot longer than the 48 ever thought about.

I also know there is no development similarities between 22LR and 22 Mag. All that said, and I'll repeat, there was enough extra noise and blast with the 48, combined with the fact it needed brushed out after about 12 shots, that I decided the 22 WMR is an excellent rifle round. In a revolver, I'll just stick to the 22LR.

I wasn't trying to probe you wrong or change your mind, merely offering another point of view based on several years of competing with revolvers, including rimfires. I am glad to see another student of the vertical reload.

Cheers and have a happy New Year.