Springfield XD Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,244 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was thinking the other day of how semi-autos keep getting smaller and smaller (and lighter), but the 5-round revolver hasn't really changed in dimension or gotten thinner. Sure, they've gotten lighter, but not necessarily thinner than the J-frame. The limiting factor with relation to the width are the number of rounds (i.e. - the cylinder). IMHO, a .38 Spl is better than a .380, but would a three or four round and therefore thinner .38 revolver be better for concealed carry?

To me, in my biased opinion, carrying a .380 is better than nothing. Carrying a thin .38 Spl with only three rounds would likewise be better than nothing and guessing would only be .75 inches thick (or less) and shorter in height. The difference to me is that a .38 would be more effective in self defense. It's not as if an assailant would think, I'd rather get hit by two .380 versus one .38. They just wouldn't want to get shot.

What do you think? Just a thought, but I'd like other's opinions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
That thought makes my brain hurt. Hey Im all for shot placement. But I want a handgun that has more then 3 rounds in it before I need to reload.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,244 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
The other idea was if the .38 Spl round/cartridge was update dimensionally. The .38 is so long because it was originally design for black powder. In the same way the .45 ACP was re-dimensioned to the .45 GAP, could/should the .38 be re-dimensioned?.? That would make for a shorter revolver with similar performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,244 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
That thought makes my brain hurt. Hey Im all for shot placement. But I want a handgun that has more then 3 rounds in it before I need to reload.
Understood. I'm thinking of a "better than nothing" type pistol or how the revolver could be updated to make it appealing for CC other than a J-frame. The revolver has benefits the semi-auto just can't provide such as simplicity and reduced maintenance. It was just a thought.

The reason this even occurred to me is because I've got a Taurus 85UL, Ruger SP101 (3" hammered and 2" hammerless) and a Ruger GP100. I was thinking of adding another revolver, but really don't need more than a .38/.357. I was thinking what would be different and motivate me to purchase another revolver. Going to a polymer revolver really doesn't make a difference since I have the 85 ultralight. What would really be new and/or different and sufficient reason to purchase another CC revolver?.? I was looking more at function rather than appearance.

There are people that buy derringers. A three round revolver would provide an extra round and grip options. I'd personally consider it more reliable and easier to load as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
I personally could see it as perhaps a BACK UP to my main weapon. Just as the derringer would be. But as a main weapon. Well I dont think I could spend the money for one. But your milage may vary. Interesting Thought tho I will give you that :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,687 Posts
I am thinking a 3-shot cylinder wouldn't be much thinner than a 6-shot. Getting the clocking to align the barrel and cylinder wouldn't save you any room. You need a symmetric shape. 2 would be the thinnest with a 180 degree rotation. 4 would have protusions to each side with 90 degree rotations (like a spinning die). 6 allows a smooth side and even clocking while rotating 60 degrees. The Chiappa Rhino has a hexagonal cylinder to thin it's profile.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,885 Posts
Not a revolver, but....

COP .357 MAG


If you can find one!
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top