Tom,

Is this the only reason you are looking for rimless cartridges? If so I think you are asking the wrong question. I believe the 38/357 Magnum, 44 Special/Magnum and 45 Colt cartridges are all rimmed and can be used with full moon clips! My S&W 627 from thee Performance Center is an 8 shot 357 Magnum revolver that has a cylinder cut to accept full moon clips. It even came with a few full moon clips. And I believe some revolvers such as the S&W 686 can have its cylinder cut to accept full moon clips.

The above mentioned revolver cartridges all have a groove in the case right about the rim. All can lend themselves to use full moon clips.

I hope this helps!

It's a part of the reason.  The second relates to what Inspector was saying.  My preferred gun for concealed carry is a .38 snub nose (I have a lovely S&W.)  But, it occurs to me that something built around a smaller cartridge could be even smaller, or, in the same package, squeeze more chambers in the cylinder.  9mm is an obvious choice, but I wanted to make sure there wasn't a better, lesser-known choice.  I've also considered a .22 magnum, but the rimfire gives me pause. 

With the advent of us being able to carry concealed one day I have been rethinking my concealed carry weapon. I originally purchased a Sig P228 for concealed carry. That was many years ago and I have now re-evaluated what I consider a good carry weapon for me. While the Sig is an excellent choice I have come to embrace a smaller and lighter solution. Obviously with less ammo. I was thinking small 38 snubby until Charter Arms came out with the 9mm Bulldog. Then when I found the LCR in 9mm was coming I got excited because the LCR revolver is a good compact, light, proven platform. Now that the Korth 9mm revolver has been designed around the 9mm cartridge, I will wait to see if it gets to the US. It seems likely to me that my choice will be between these two revolvers.

If you are looking for a good deep concealment or a back-up carry gun then I would suggest you consider cartridges such as the 32 ACP, 380 ACP or the 22 WMR. I would not recommend anything less than a 9mm or 38 for a primary carry gun unless you are recoil sensitive.

If and when I carry concealed with a revolver I will carry additional ammo in full moon clips. With 9mm cartridges the full moon clips are quite compact and not as bulky as a speed loader. For my home defense gun I keep my Ruger Speed Six 9mm revolver at hand with plenty of full moon clips hidden at strategic areas around my house.

Then when I found the LCR in 9mm was coming I got excited because the LCR revolver is a good compact, light, proven platform.

Weird.  The LCR in 9mm is 4 ounces heavier than the .38, has the same overall dimensions and the same capacity. 

Weird.  The LCR in 9mm is 4 ounces heavier than the .38, has the same overall dimensions and the same capacity.

I don't think it is that strange. According to the chart I am looking at the SAAMI chamber pressure specs for the 9mm +P is a little more than twice that of the 38 Special +P. And the 9mm +P is slightly higher than the 357 Magnum. All in a smaller cartridge. I am sure it can be attributable to extra material in the cylinder.

Terry,

Are you referring to the S&W 547? It is a 9mm revolver that doesn't require moon clips. Designed for sale to Israel. But the sale never happened. Interesting history on that revolver. My 547 shoots VERY well still.

I don't remember exactly since I wasn't interested in a 9 revolver at the time.  But now that you mention it, there was at least one model which had a wire springy-thingy mounted in the extractor star which would slip into the extractor grooves.

You probably know more about the specifics than I do, and I don't have time to do deep research on it now.  As I mentioned, I was working from memory on a "grand sweep of things" for oldfart.

I will say one thing from actual experience, and that is that reloading the M1917 with three-shot half moon clips was very fast.  At the time, I don't think the twist-top speedloaders for revolvers had even been invented yet.

Terry

Tom_G said,

My preferred gun for concealed carry is a .38 snub nose (I have a lovely S&W.)  But, it occurs to me that something built around a smaller cartridge could be even smaller, or, in the same package, squeeze more chambers in the cylinder.  9mm is an obvious choice, but I wanted to make sure there wasn't a better, lesser-known choice.  I've also considered a .22 magnum, but the rimfire gives me pause.

I agree, in terms of "bad breath range" self-defense guns.  I've often thought that a six or seven-shot hot .32 in a small hammerless stainless (for the tensile strength) revolver would be pretty nifty. 

They had a couple of .32 "magnum-ish" cartridges come out in recent years, but as far as I can tell, they never really took off.

Again, for close-up personal defense.  No, it would not be a 25-yard gun... in fact, I never even bother practicing at 25 yards with my everyday carry guns.

Terry, 230RN

Tom_G said,
 

I agree, in terms of "bad breath range" self-defense guns.  I've often thought that a six or seven-shot hot .32 in a small hammerless stainless (for the tensile strength) revolver would be pretty nifty. 

They had a couple of .32 "magnum-ish" cartridges come out in recent years, but as far as I can tell, they never really took off.

Again, for close-up personal defense.  No, it would not be a 25-yard gun... in fact, I never even bother practicing at 25 yards with my everyday carry guns.

Terry, 230RN

I have had a small amount of experience with the 327 Federal Magnum cartridge. The cartridge is just a lengthened version of the H&R 32 magnum. Which means any revolver chambered for the 327 will shoot any of the other 32 revolver cartridges. If I remember correctly the cartridge was designed to shoot a 100gr or 110gr JHP at velocities similar to the 357. I was interested in this cartridge but it never really caught on. I am not sure any of the Ruger and Smith DA revolvers are made any more. But I just read an article in Shooting TImes I believe about a new release of the Ruger Single Six in the 327 FM cartridge. It is a seven shot single action revolver and they seemed to like the cartridge in the Single Six. Maybe they called it the Single Seven?

Yeah, now that's what I'm talkin' about ! 

The Federal .327 Mag!

100 gr JHP, 1,400 ft/s, 435 ft·lbf

Woo-hoo!

That even beats the .45 ACP at 365 ft-lbf !

I don't understand why that cartridge never seemed to "take off," unless it's all that bullshit about the .380 being the minimum sized cartridge for defensive purposes.

"Ah, but thirty-twos are even smaller than that."

Of course, it could have been a result of the recent shortage of all kinds of standard cartridges, let alone having a newcomer .32 come on the scene.

I wrote about a stainless 6 to 7-shot stainless magnum .32 revolver with a laser sight being my wet dream as a defensive rig a long time ago.  I believe it was on the old, now-defunct, packing dot org site.

Terry, 230RN

Yeah, now that's what I'm talkin' about ! 

The Federal .327 Mag!

100 gr JHP, 1,400 ft/s, 435 ft·lbf

Woo-hoo!

That even beats the .45 ACP at 365 ft-lbf !

I don't understand why that cartridge never seemed to "take off," unless it's all that bullshit about the .380 being the minimum sized cartridge for defensive purposes.

"Ah, but thirty-twos are even smaller than that."

Of course, it could have been a result of the recent shortage of all kinds of standard cartridges, let alone having a newcomer .32 come on the scene.

I wrote about a stainless 6 to 7-shot stainless magnum .32 revolver with a laser sight being my wet dream as a defensive rig a long time ago.  I believe it was on the old, now-defunct, packing dot org site.

Terry, 230RN

I'm no expert but I believe the 327 failed due to the stigma of previous .32 caliber cartridges being so anemic and not terribly good SD rounds. One of my favorite deep concealed carry and backup firearm is the Seecamp semi auto in .32 ACP. As you stated, on paper the .327 cartridge has good numbers. It is really too bad the cartridge never really caught on. The old H&R .32 cartridges are a pleasure to shoot. ANd the old top break H&R revolvers are cool to shoot. I had a chance to buy an H&R about a year ago and waited too long.

Oh, I also like top-break revolvers.  Had an antique S&W (forgot model --five shots) in .38 S&W (not Special) and really liked that action.  Real fast to reload, with natural hand movements. The Russians made a top-break in .357 Magnum, but that one was a little big for everyday carry (EDC).



Too bad about the .327.  I still dream about "my" seven shot top-break hammerless DA-only revolver in .327, appropriately sized for the cartridge, and with a laser sight.  Oh, and with a couple of speedloaders.

I'm a firm believer in laser sights, as you can tell.

Terry, 230RN

REF (.38 S&W cartridge):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_S%26W

If my memory serves me correctly (it sometimes fails me) the S&W 632 was the gun to have. When it came out it garnered some very good reviews and it had 6 rounds instead of the normal J Frame 5 rounds. I looked at one while visiting my family in CA maybe 4-5 years ago. It was stainless and felt pretty good in my hands. I should have bought it at that time. I shot the Ruger SP101 which is not a bad gun but I am not enamoured with it. Ruger also made the GP100 and Blackhawk in 327. I really like the GP100 and I am a Blackhawk fan both in 357 mag but I am not sure I want one of these in 327 since they are very large for a smallish diameter cartridge but they do offer extra rounds per cylinder. So they should be nice shooters but not the best carry guns. Which brings me back to the Smith 632. I think the Smith being on the J Frame and offering 6 rounds is probably the best carry gun in the 327 cartridge. I would buy one right now but I need a new project like I need a bullet to my head.   

I like the .327 caliber, I like the 6 shot capacity in a J-frame, not crazy about the 3" barrel.  That makes it less desirable for concealed carry.  Also would prefer it without the external hammer

That antique .38 S&W S&W revolver I had, had the hammer bobbed.  But pulling the trigger in Double Action, there was a distinct "kink" in the trigger pull just before the sear let off, so it shot almost like single action anyway. 

Don't know if that was a deliberate design characteristic, or if someone tinkered with the trigger to have that kind of "feel" to the DA letoff.

There was enough of the hammer left after the bob job that DA-ing it back a little, you could still thumb the hammer back as in SA shooting, though.

I guess the former owner figured that single-action for a "belly gun" wasn't really an important feature.

It's funny, because for years and years and years I never fired a gun Double-Action, preferring the long range accuracy of SA.  But when I got my CCW and got "interested" in purely defensive shooting, I rarely shot anything SA except for my 1911, 

I pretty much quit carrying the 1911, preferring my two DA-only guns, a 9mm semiauto and a .38 SPL revolver.  As I mentioned, I never even practice at 25 yards anymore, just DA with either carry gun at 3, 7, and 15 yards.  Both of those and the 1911 are laser-sighted.

I have a special technique I developed for lasered guns which so far, I have not seen talked about in the gun community.

Terry, 230RN

That antique .38 S&W S&W revolver I had, had the hammer bobbed.  But pulling the trigger in Double Action, there was a distinct "kink" in the trigger pull just before the sear let off, so it shot almost like single action anyway. 

Don't know if that was a deliberate design characteristic, or if someone tinkered with the trigger to have that kind of "feel" to the DA letoff.

There was enough of the hammer left after the bob job that DA-ing it back a little, you could still thumb the hammer back as in SA shooting, though.

I guess the former owner figured that single-action for a "belly gun" wasn't really an important feature.

It's funny, because for years and years and years I never fired a gun Double-Action, preferring the long range accuracy of SA.  But when I got my CCW and got "interested" in purely defensive shooting, I rarely shot anything SA except for my 1911, 

I pretty much quit carrying the 1911, preferring my two DA-only guns, a 9mm semiauto and a .38 SPL revolver.  As I mentioned, I never even practice at 25 yards anymore, just DA with either carry gun at 3, 7, and 15 yards.  Both of those and the 1911 are laser-sighted.

I have a special technique I developed for lasered guns which so far, I have not seen talked about in the gun community.

Terry, 230RN

A common malady in those old revolvers was stacking in the trigger. Where the trigger resistance would get harder right before let off. I wonder if this is what you were experiencing? It doesn't really matter. As long as you were able to shoot it well that is all that matters.

I love the old Colt revolvers. Maybe someday I'll stop buying military rifles and start looking for a nice Colt or two.

When I go to the pistol range I always practice double action. If you practice enough it does become like second nature and you learn to pull the trigger smoothly and evenly.

So maybe when you have some time you could share your technique with a lasered gun? I have not jumped on that bandwagon yet and I would love to hear what you have accomplished.

^
I got interested in laser sights when I noticed that I could not see iron sights as well as when I was younger and my targets were getting pretty shotgunny.

The biggest problem people have with the laser is that the dancing dot emphasizes your natural wobble in aiming.  You wobble the same with the iron sights, but it isn't as noticeable.  This is quite discouraging when you first try it out.

Another problem that occurs is that in bright daylight, the dot is hard to see.  In this case, you revert to the iron sights.

Most people in defensive practice will assume either the Weaver stance or the isoceles stance, with the gun held out way forward --as much as two or three feet.

I now stand slightly clockwise and hold the gun in two hands down by the bottom of my rib cage just below my <ahem> "strong nipple", pressed tightly against my body, with my off forearm pressed into my belly.  This greatly reduces the wobble as well as reducing the recoil felt by your hands. This also shields your own COM a little better than a straight-on stance.

In addition, in low light situations, the muzzle flash is well below your line of sight and doesn't blind you for that critical little time for re-acquiring the sighting, as it would with using the iron sights.  (I mostly practice at my indoor range with the lights off.)

I use a trigger technique I adopted while shooting high power competition which works for some but not others.  The usual rule is to gradually squeeze the trigger until the letoff "surprises" you and to stop queezing if the sight picture drifts away, then start squeezing again when the sighting is right until the gun fires. 

I do not do this.  What I do is know when the trigger will let off, and pull it (yes, pull it) just before the sight picture crosses the center of the target again.  You have to try this a couple of times yourself to know if it will work for you, and you need a decent trigger in the first place, and you have to know that trigger well.  This is similar to the trigger slap that shotgunners use.

Adopting this concept to using the laser sights, it is very easy to judge just when the dot will cross the target again while it's dancing around... about ten inches or a foot (for me) at ten or fifteen yards.  (As I mentioned, I don't even practice at 25 yards any more.)

My first laser was mounted on a .45 1911, and I thought I'd get punched in the belly with the slide, but for some reason, I only felt it once, and had a slight grease mark on my shirt from it.  I guess I unconsciously re-adjusted my hand  to avoid this.  I was frankly a little worried that if the slide were stopped by my body, it might cause a failure to extract or feed, but it didn't happen.  It doesn't happen at all with my smaller Kahr CW-9 in 9mm.

With revolvers, of course, there's no danger there, and there doesn't seem to be a danger from the cylinder gap blast, at least not with my little J-frame with +P 38s in it.

There are some disadvantages to the laser sights, such as not being able to acquire the dot if there's nothing behind the target, and of course, battery life.  I blip the sights before venturing out to make sure they're working, and with some holsters, the holster material may push the button and keep the sight on while you're not aware of it, thereby running the battery down.  And with my J-Frame, the first shot used to shift the gun in my hand so my finger slipped off the button, so I put a blob of RTV on it to enlarge the button a bit.  (This does not happen with the .45.) 

Another slight disadvantage, depending on the range, is that since you are shooting from a low gun position at slightly upward angles, the shots may go over the berm or into the ceiling on an indoor range.  Adjust your paper target lower, accordingly.

As I say, I started messing with laser sights because it was getting hard to see the irons with advancing age and I now have three PDWs (Personal Defense Weapons) with lasers mounted.

The first time I aimed it in the house  after I'd installed it, I was pretty discouraged about that wobble in the Weaver Stance, but then I realized, I wasn't wobbling any more than with iron sights and ultimately developed the above-described "belly stance" and trigger control method.

Maybe it just works for me... I can't know that for sure.

Another advantage to it, at least theoretically, is that it is harder for somebody to disarm you with one of those Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks or other means since the gun is held tightly to the body.

All I can say is try it and let me know how you like it.

For myself, in my situation and with my three laser-sighted guns, it seems to work pretty well... at least at the range. 

Terry, 230RN

"Damn, there's always one flyer!"  Five shots, J-frame, 15 yards, laser in belly stance:

WOW! Great post, thanks for spending the time explaining everything!!!! 

Being a bit old school I am not always on the fore front of embracing the latest technology. Nothing wrong with technology. I just enjoy the older technology as that is what I grew up with. But then age and my failing eyes start catching up with me so I am starting to think about a laser but my SD gun is so old school I am not sure I can outfit it with a laser. It may be time to retire my SD gun and rethink my options.

Thanks again for all the great info!!!

.30 Luger
.30 Mauser ("Broomhandle")
7.63 X 25 ("Tokarev")
.30 Carbine (Whitney semi-auto, Ruger Blackhawk, Iver Johnson "Enforcer")
9mm Largo (Astra pistols)
9mm Mars (Mars pistol, long obsolete and pretty rare)
.41 AE (rebated rim, "baby" Desert Eagle)
.455 Webley (1911 and the weird Webley semi-auto from WWII)
probably a few others but then I'd have to start looking them up in a book