Why isn't there...?

[Dave T]

Why isn't there a alloy (with the reportedly stronger alloys of today) K-frame sized revolver, ideally with a 3" barrel and round-butt grip for concealment? That 3" barrel, slightly tapered would be nice, would need a real front sight, not the nearly invisible ramped offerings so many gun makers think is mandatory for revolvers. And along with a good front sight a clearly and easily visible rear notch would be a refreshing change from the usual offerings.

I know everyone on the planet will say it has to be chambered for the 357 Magnum for "the versatility" but that means a slightly longer cylinder and more weight. This is a concept carry gun, one that is controllable but still light enough to go with you anywhere. If you're comforted by lots of muzzle blast and recoil there's always Buffalo Bore Heavy 38 Special +P rounds, or even 38-44 level hand loads, and you'd still be saving weight and length of both cylinder and frame.

Six rounds is mandatory but seven gets us into L-frame territory. I have a 386 Night Guard and frankly it's just a bit big and heavy to be comfortable every where and every time. I'm sure someone is yelling at the computer, "856 Taurus", but I've handled three of them now and they are just too small. After 16+ years as a firearms instructor I know small guns just don't shoot as well as medium or service size when it comes to a revolver. And I'm not so old as to no longer believe hitting is important. Other than having a gun in the first place, hitting with the first couple rounds is probably the most important requirement. Now let the caliber arguments begin. (smile)

Final point on my dream carry revolver. I would say DA only as I think that is the ONLY way to fire a DA gun. To paraphrase a signature line on one of these gun forums: If you can't make that hard or long shot shooting DA you need more practice, not a hammer spur.

Point your fingers and laugh or nod your head in agreement, I've been thinking about a carry gun like this ever since age and arthritis took me out of the world of semi-autos and made me a revolver only guy. Heck, I'm probably not going to live long enough to ever see a gun like this produced...but it sure would be nice.

Dave

[FrankB]

Taurus 856 with a 3” barrel and Ameriglo front sight, and a svelte 17 Oz: https://www.taurususa.com/revolvers/...hogue-r-rubber

[feudist]

A Centennial Model 12, updated with Novak sights would be the bombdiggity.

[Hizzie]

“856 Taurus” Too small.
Dave

What’s too small about them? There are some man sized grips available for them.

[Totem Polar]

The 3” RB NY-1 is one of the best serious use wheelguns ever invented, IMHO. DAO, six-shot, K-frame goodness. The smaller K6S and upmarketed “executive” DAO Taurus are but mere substitutes. Bring back the NY-1 spec .38 with a modern front sight, and possibly an alloy frame, and we’d have something. I agree wholeheartedly with @Dave T’s premise in the OP.

I will entertain some positive discussion of the Colt Night Cobra on this—although I’d like a longer tube.

I type this as a guy who’s owned a small pile of 4” NY-spec wheelies, as well as a Night Cobra, a King Cobra, and a 3” DAO K6S. Sooooo close, but just not quite there, IMHO.

From a past thread, and a lucky buyer:

[deputyG23]

Why isn't there a alloy (with the reportedly stronger alloys of today) K-frame sized revolver, ideally with a 3" barrel and round-butt grip for concealment? That 3" barrel, slightly tapered would be nice, would need a real front sight, not the nearly invisible ramped offerings so many gun makers think is mandatory for revolvers. And along with a good front sight a clearly and easily visible rear notch would be a refreshing change from the usual offerings.

I know everyone on the planet will say it has to be chambered for the 357 Magnum for "the versatility" but that means a slightly longer cylinder and more weight. This is a concept carry gun, one that is controllable but still light enough to go with you anywhere. If you're comforted by lots of muzzle blast and recoil there's always Buffalo Bore Heavy 38 Special +P rounds, or even 38-44 level hand loads, and you'd still be saving weight and length of both cylinder and frame.

Six rounds is mandatory but seven gets us into L-frame territory. I have a 386 Night Guard and frankly it's just a bit big and heavy to be comfortable every where and every time. I'm sure someone is yelling at the computer, "856 Taurus", but I've handled three of them now and they are just too small. After 16+ years as a firearms instructor I know small guns just don't shoot as well as medium or service size when it comes to a revolver. And I'm not so old as to no longer believe hitting is important. Other than having a gun in the first place, hitting with the first couple rounds is probably the most important requirement. Now let the caliber arguments begin. (smile)

Final point on my dream carry revolver. I would say DA only as I think that is the ONLY way to fire a DA gun. To paraphrase a signature line on one of these gun forums: If you can't make that hard or long shot shooting DA you need more practice, not a hammer spur.

Point your fingers and laugh or nod your head in agreement, I've been thinking about a carry gun like this ever since age and arthritis took me out of the world of semi-autos and made me a revolver only guy. Heck, I'm probably not going to live long enough to ever see a gun like this produced...but it sure would be nice.

Dave

Probably the closest thing currently produced is the M19 3” Carry Comp by S&W.
I would prefer .38 +P chambers, no ports, DAO with no hammer spur, and no ILS.

[OlongJohnson]

The closest thing that's ever been made to what you're asking for is the 315 NG. AFAIK, it's the only scandium K frame that's ever been made, and there's never been a Ti cylinder made for K frames. It weighed 23.8 oz. versus the 25.1 oz. of your 386 and held one less round. Between that and the fact that it was only chambered for .38 SPL, not .357 Mag, you can understand why some of them might have sat around longer than the 386 back when they were new at retail. Another issue was that the NG series was launched into the 2008-2009 recession when even people who still had money simply weren't buying stuff they didn't need. So sales of the NG series were probably far below expectations.

The wish list for a 2.5-3 inch version of the NG is brought up every couple years on this site in threads with more useful titles than this one and has been discussed extensively in the past. My understanding is that @Wayne Dobbs was at one time solicited for a wish list of revolver shooters and presented them an outline of what you're asking for. That was several years ago, and all we get from S&W is crickets.

So the answer to your question is known only by people who work for S&W, and they don't seem to be interested in talking in public.

[Half Moon]

The closest thing that's ever been made to what you're asking for is the 315 NG. AFAIK, it's the only scandium K frame that's ever been made, and there's never been a Ti cylinder made for K frames. It weighed 23.8 oz. versus the 25.1 oz. of your 386 and held one less round. Between that and the fact that it was only chambered for .38 SPL, not .357 Mag, you can understand why some of them might have sat around longer than the 386 back when they were new at retail. Another issue was that the NG series was launched into the 2008-2009 recession when even people who still had money simply weren't buying stuff they didn't need. So sales of the NG series were probably far below expectations.

The wish list for a 2.5-3 inch version of the NG is brought up every couple years on this site in threads with more useful titles than this one and has been discussed extensively in the past. My understanding is that @Wayne Dobbs was at one time solicited for a wish list of revolver shooters and presented them an outline of what you're asking for. That was several years ago, and all we get from S&W is crickets.

So the answer to your question is known only by people who work for S&W, and they don't seem to be interested in talking in public.

The 242 would be pretty close to the specs (though an L frame not a K). As I understand it, it wasn't a good seller though and face planted. Which may or may not influence S&W's thinking today. I'd be happy with a modernized Model 12 in 2" and 3" formats.

[sharps54]

The problem with S&W though is the ILS, they might leave it off like the J frame’s with concealed hammers but it is a deal breaker on a defensive revolver.

[OlongJohnson]

The problem with S&W though is the ILS, they might leave it off like the J frame’s with concealed hammers but it is a deal breaker on a defensive revolver.

I am sure Mr. Dobbs would have suggested that. There was some discussion of calling it an "M&P" or "Pro" so as to justify leaving out the lock, as they do with certain current no-lock models.