.223 Remington in a SA revolver??

[Mus408]

Any reason this couldn't be built?

 

[Anonymous]

I can't really see why anyone would want one, but for starters, you'd need a really odd cylinder that was necked down internally, then I'm not sure how precise that would be from round the round, so you'd probably want some sort of half moon clip system like any revolver that shoots a 9mm, 45ACP etc. uses.

That round is really designed for rifles with longer barrles, although there is some short barrel AR-15's, so I guess if the barrel was at 7" or so, it wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Mus408]

It would be an interesting shooter for sure. Might take a company like MRI,to do it.since they make rifle caliber (BFR) revolvers already.

 

[SAJohn]

It is difficult to make bottle neck shaped cases work well in revolver cylinders. Admittedly, both Taurus and BFR seem to have solved the setback troubles of earlier revolvers such as the S&W 53.

 

[stantheman86]

The heat would cause massive flame cutting, wouldn't it?

 

[twobisquit]

My Encore with a 12" .223 barrel is very accurate but like stantheman86 said, I bet the flame cutting would be pretty severe.

 

[BlkHawk73]

Even if the case design was made to work where other similar styles have had issues, the dynamics of the performance would see some signifigant loss in such a platform. You'd have the cylinder gap blast to contended with and then the short barrel...I'd certainly be uninterested.

 

[Flash]

I thought the 223 requires a closed breach. I can imagine the recoil shield coming apart with an open breach gun. I'd never shoot it.

 

[Mus408]

So the blast out the cylinder gap,would a big issue then?

 

[Anonymous]

I thought the 223 requires a closed breach. I can imagine the recoil shield coming apart with an open breach gun. I'd never shoot it.

I believe Taurus makes one, or at least showed one before, it was a Raging Bull. I don't think a closed breach is a requirement, but I wouldn't want one regardless.

 

[63November]

Taurus had/has the Raging Hornet, not quite in the same league pressure-wise as the 223. The Hornet is also rimmed, unlike the 223.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I meant a Raging Bull .223, not the Hornet.

They may not have ever actually produced it, but several years back they had shown one, but perhaps they thought better and never actually produced it.

The fact they were considering it at the very least seems to suggest it is possible, but I still don't see any point in it.

 

[Lefty SRH]

Just me but Ruger SA and the .223 just don't belong together....

 

[toysoldier]

With enough money, it could be done. Successfully? Probably not. You'd end up with a clumsy revolver that weighs more than a .223 bolt-action rifle. It wouldn't get half as good ballistics, and would sound like Hell tearing open.

Any time you put a rifle cartridge in a pistol platform, you lose significant performance and increase recoil and blast. I don't understand the attraction.

Putting a pistol round in a rifle gets you more velocity and useable accuracy with less blast and recoil. That makes sense.

 

[bogus bill]

I once owned a ruger hawkeye in .256, still own a barrel for it for a T/C, and I own a S&W 53 in jet. Both are based on the .357 case. I would think the jet would be very similar to the idea. The muzzel blast will give you a nose bleed. Need muffs or plugs for sure. There is next to no recoil with the jet. But really, in the jets case, any ammo found is sky high, cases can stick, the flame cutting thing, but considering the money difference many people find it cheaper, more practable and there isnt as much difference as you would expect, just buying a 22 wmrf.

 

[CraigC]

A Remington Model 7 would be more practical and only slightly larger.

 

[Lee Martin]

It'd be a mess. You'd have to headspace off the shoulder, which makes case setback more likely. You'd need a Maximum length frame too.

 

[stantheman86]

You would be far better off with an AR-15 pistol if you wanted a compact .223 handgun.

As far as handgun-distance ballistics, stuff like .454, .480, and .500 blows .223 out of the water.

 

[Pal Val]

In my way of thinking, you can make almost any gun fit for firing almost any cartridge. Only limitation is trying to reason why. I cnnot find a use for a revolver firing a .223 round. I someone does, let hm make one.

 

[gerryb158]

"Any reason this couldn't be built?" I'm sure it could be done but as most folks have said it certainly wouldn't be very practical. Some years ago, at least ten or fifteen, I learned of a gentleman from Switzerland (or maybe it was the western part of Austria) who built a six shot single action revolver in .458 Winchester Magnum. It worked. But I understand it wasn't much fun to shoot.
Gerry

 

[Lee Martin]

Gerry....a guy (from Germany or Austria I think) actually built a 600 Nitro revolver way back. I'll try to find photos of it.

 

[Lee Martin]

Here it is.....

Kinda ridiculous if you ask me, but you have to appreciate the workmanship (and nerve it would take to shoot full house loads).

 

[63November]

I think a 223 WSSM would make more sense than the Rem chambering perhaps, not that I would personally go there either.

 

[KWYJIBO]

Taurus had/has the Raging Hornet, not quite in the same league pressure-wise as the 223. The Hornet is also rimmed, unlike the 223.

I've often thought a .22 Hornet Blackhawk with at least a 7 1/2" barrel would be cool.

The .30 Carbine Blackhawk is a gun I would definitely have bought 40 years ago when the surplus ammo was abundant (the reason WBR came up with that gun, if I'm not mistaken).

The reasons I don't buy one now, in spite of it being a neat concept are mainly as follows:

- The ammo is no longer plentiful, so I'd have to reload it. If I'm doing that, I can get any cartridge I want.

- I don't like rimless cartridges in a revolver (even a single action where ejection is not a problem), because case trim length becomes critical for correct headspacing. With that said, I recently picked up a .45 convertible and will probably shoot lots of ACP through it.

Sorry... I've now diverged pretty far from the original topic. I guess you don't get the same headspacing issues with a necked case like the .223. Still, I agree with those who say the idea doesn't appeal to them. But a .22 Hornet revolver is something I would buy!

 

[stantheman86]

Without the barrel length of a rifle, you would have a really loud .22 revolver chambered in a round that beats the frame up :D

Even the shorty AR-15's like the Colt Commando give up a lot in ballistics to a full size M16.

 

[Lee Martin]

Hard to beat the 218 Bee or 218 Mashburn in a revolver. Both can push 50 grain bullets to 2,000+ fps out of a 7" barrel. Here's one I built years ago:

If you go bigger the law of diminishing returns kicks in. There's only so much powder you can burn in a 6 - 8" barrel. Plus the chance of case setback increases with higher intensity rounds.