View Full Version : 9mm revolver
So any idea why Smith doesn't make a light weight 9mm snubby? I've seen the taurus one, but hey its a taurus... Was looking for a hammerless version that was reliable and trust worthy. Any other recommendations.
D
Alaskapopo
09-29-11, 00:14
So any idea why Smith doesn't make a light weight 9mm snubby? I've seen the taurus one, but hey its a taurus... Was looking for a hammerless version that was reliable and trust worthy. Any other recommendations.
D
I would love a revolver built on a J frame in 9mm with a 9mm sized cylinder in length and made with Scandium alloy. Using moon clips of course. But I heard there are problems with 9mm revolvers with extraction.
Pat
Rumor on the S&W Forum is that they are coming out with one later this year. A rep from S&W told a forum member this info who then posted about it. Its supposed to be based on the new Bodyguard revolver.
You can always look for a used Smith 940, a 9mm J frame Centennial that is no longer in production. They can command a premium, so the trick is finding one in good shape for a reasonable price.
Alaskapopo
09-29-11, 02:53
You can always look for a used Smith 940, a 9mm J frame Centennial that is no longer in production. They can command a premium, so the trick is finding one in good shape for a reasonable price.
For me they are too heavy to be a good pocket gun. I want the same thing but with a scandium alluminum alloy frame.
Pat
For me they are too heavy to be a good pocket gun. I want the same thing but with a scandium alluminum alloy frame.
Pat
Some guys have built their own using a 940 cylinder in a 642, or re-chambered Scandiums to 9mm, but if Smith is really coming out with one, that would be the easier path.
http://www.smithandwessonforums.com/forum/s-w-gunsmithing/2171-how-fit-new-940-cylinder-j-frame-airweight-642-a.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive-carry-guns/59847-showing-off-my-new-s-w-369-9mm-scandium-snubby.html
A 9mm j frame will be my main purchase in 2012. I would prefer a 940M&P model, but I would settle for the new bodyguard design. Then I will have finally consolidated all of my ammo to 9mm and .223!!!
If Smith doesn't do it, then I may give in and see if my 340 can be rechambered.
I had one of the Taurus ones briefly. I found the 9mm to be more painful than .38+Ps. Of course, that was with the stock hard rubber grips and it was December, IRRC. I'd much prefer a snubby K-frame like the 66 in 9mm.
I've heard of people having revolvers bored out for .38 Super.
I have always wanted a 9MM J frame.
This guy can rechamber your .38. Been thinking of doing it for a few years but I just don't want to be without my snubby for that long.
http://www.pinnacle-guns.com/revolver.asp
You could always pick up a spare cylinder and have it fitted locally after Pinnacle does the rechambering.
This guy can rechamber your .38. Been thinking of doing it for a few years but I just don't want to be without my snubby for that long.
http://www.pinnacle-guns.com/revolver.asp
Dang! Bookmarked that for later! :D
LonghunterCO
09-30-11, 22:19
I have a 9mm Ruger Speed Six from years ago. They only sold them for one year and rumor was that they were an over run from a sale to the Israeli police force. Not sure if that was true. I started looking one about 8-9 years after they sold them, and it took me three years to find one. I love it. I bought it back when I was starting to lean to re-load, and if a batch of re-loads did not run in my auto I just ran it in the Ruger. My issue with it outside of a range gun was that with its 6 shot capacity and weight I could be carrying a sub-compact 9mm with twice the rounds or a .357 with the same amount. That said I love the J-frame and would get in line for one in 9mm.
Alaskapopo
09-30-11, 22:28
You could always pick up a spare cylinder and have it fitted locally after Pinnacle does the rechambering.
Pinnacle did my 25 in 45 colt so it would work with moon clips in 45 acp. Function is fine accuracy sucks with the ACP.
Pat
Pinnacle did my 25 in 45 colt so it would work with moon clips in 45 acp. Function is fine accuracy sucks with the ACP.
Pat
That's too bad. Sounded like a cool idea.
anachronism
09-30-11, 22:35
I've had two S&W 940s now. I didn't like them, and replaced them with 38 SPLs. The main problem with them is the muzzle flip, it is very brisk with the stainless guns, and would be even worse with a lightweight. The moon clips are a pain in the neck, since 5 rounds of 9mm takes up about the same space in my pocket as a speedloader with 38s. I also managed to bend a couple of moon clips in my pocket, and although I could still fire the gun, the double action pull was atrocious because the case heads drug against the recoil shield. Accuracy was only so-so, my current 649 will drive nails if I keep my focus. Did I mention how noisy they were indoors? I won't be repeating that experience anytime soon. :no::no:
I have a 9mm Ruger Speed Six from years ago. They only sold them for one year and rumor was that they were an over run from a sale to the Israeli police force. Not sure if that was true.
No, they actually sold them for a couple years, and they made them in several variations, blue and stainless, 2 3/4" and 4" barrels.
Alaskapopo
09-30-11, 22:45
That's too bad. Sounded like a cool idea.
I think its the free bore the bullet has to jump before it reaches the forcing cone. With ball ammo it grouped 18 inches at 25 yards. I then tried some 250 grain lead bullets I load in my 45 colt and loaded them in the ACP cases and that shrank groups to 6 inches. In 45 colt it will group 2.5 inches at 25 yards. I email the smith about the problem but he never replied.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Revolvers/Mountaingun.jpg
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-30-11, 22:48
I've had two S&W 940s now. I didn't like them, and replaced them with 38 SPLs. The main problem with them is the muzzle flip, it is very brisk with the stainless guns, and would be even worse with a lightweight. The moon clips are a pain in the neck, since 5 rounds of 9mm takes up about the same space in my pocket as a speedloader with 38s. I also managed to bend a couple of moon clips in my pocket, and although I could still fire the gun, the double action pull was atrocious because the case heads drug against the recoil shield. Accuracy was only so-so, my current 649 will drive nails if I keep my focus. Did I mention how noisy they were indoors? I won't be repeating that experience anytime soon. :no::no:
That is because the 9mm is pretty close in power to a 357 mag. Most people think of it as a wimpy round but its not. You can launch 124 grain bullets at 1250 to 1300 fps while a 357 mag with 125 grian bullets is typical 1400 to 1500. The 38 is around 900 to 1000 with 125 grain bullets. The 9mm is closer in power to the 357 mag than the 38.
Pat
I had a 940. Moon clips were a pain to carry, it bit my hand hard with each pull (I could tolerate that) and extraction could be difficult. Mostly it was too damn heavy. I don't care to have another one, particularly because I can get .38 ammo a lot cheaper than 9mm.
I think its the free bore the bullet has to jump before it reaches the forcing cone. With ball ammo it grouped 18 inches at 25 yards. I then tried some 250 grain lead bullets I load in my 45 colt and loaded them in the ACP cases and that shrank groups to 6 inches. In 45 colt it will group 2.5 inches at 25 yards. I email the smith about the problem but he never replied.
Pat
I wouldn't have thought the freebore would make that much of a difference. Maybe the difference in bore size between .45 Colt and ACP?
I always thought that combo would make a great woods gun. You could carry warm .45 Colt loads in the cylinder for critters, with a couple moon clips of acp for backup if it was two legged trouble.
Alaskapopo
10-01-11, 00:53
I wouldn't have thought the freebore would make that much of a difference. Maybe the difference in bore size between .45 Colt and ACP?
I always thought that combo would make a great woods gun. You could carry warm .45 Colt loads in the cylinder for critters, with a couple moon clips of acp for backup if it was two legged trouble.
Its a modern 25 Mountain Gun so the bore size is the same with the ACP and the 45 colt at .452. Older 45 colts were .454. I do carry a 45 colt for a woods gun but its a Hamilton Bowen Ruger Redhawk with a 5 shot cylider. The handload I use is a 350 grain gas checked lead bullet at 1350 in my gun.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Revolvers/Bowen.jpg
Pat
Its a modern 25 Mountain Gun so the bore size is the same with the ACP and the 45 colt at .452. Older 45 colts were .454. I do carry a 45 colt for a woods gun but its a Hamilton Bowen Ruger Redhawk with a 5 shot cylider. The handload I use is a 350 grain gas checked lead bullet at 1350 in my gun.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Revolvers/Bowen.jpg
Pat
That is a studly piece of kit you have there! :)
prestonoconnor
10-01-11, 08:06
I would really like a 642 in 9mm. I wish S&W would make a 642 m&p. I think the 642 is light enough; I don't need scandium. I like the big dot sights and rather spend the money saved for a crimson trace boot grip, alessi ankle holster and kramer pocket holster.
The tapered and rimless case being used in a revolver is a real issue.
I had a 940 for awhile, and had several friends who had them as well. All had extraction issues. Mine would often lock up so bad I had to use a mallet on the extractor rod to ge the round out.
Mine went back to S&W twice and they couldn't get it un****ed. They gave me a brand new 642 when they couldn't get the 940 running.
Moonclips work well for competition guns, they suck for concealment guns.
My first back up was a 940. I got into the whole idea of 9mm revolvers for a time and owned the Ruger Speed 6, Ruger Blackhawk, Ruger SP101, S&W 940, and a pair of S&W 547's in the early 1990's. To me the 547 was the most useable of the 9mm's. It was a "K" with 3 or 4" heavy barrel, very similar to a model 10. After messing with them and the various S&W 25's and 625's I came to the conclusion that the S&W 25's and 625's were really the only revolvers chambered for auto rounds that were worth a damn.
The 940 went for a 42, then a 442, and to the current pre lock 342 that I've owned for many a year. For me the .357 in a 10-12 oz. "J" is not worth the trouble. I carry .38 +P or +P+ and feel as confortable as I can with a 5 shot snub.
As an FYI if you can find an old box of .357 Federal it works just like a 45 Auto Rim in the 940's. Instead of carrying a spare full moon that will get bent in your pocket I used the .357 Federals in Bianchi Speed Strips as reloads.
anachronism
10-02-11, 11:39
A friend of mine bought one of the first .357 S&W scanium revolvers on the market. I told him if he wanted real adventure, he should try 145 gr Silvertips in it, since they were the nastiest recoiling load I've found. Yup, just like having a cherry bomb go off in your hand. He cleaned the gun and left it in the safe from that point on.He thought my 940 was pretty much in the same class recoil wise, but it really wasn't. I'm just not a 9mm man, I like heavy bullets and straight cases.
The tapered and rimless case being used in a revolver is a real issue.
I had a 940 for awhile, and had several friends who had them as well. All had extraction issues. Mine would often lock up so bad I had to use a mallet on the extractor rod to ge the round out.
Mine went back to S&W twice and they couldn't get it un****ed. They gave me a brand new 642 when they couldn't get the 940 running.
Moonclips work well for competition guns, they suck for concealment guns.
Ten years back or so I had a couple of 940s. I remember having the extraction isssues with some brands of ammo(even standard pressure factory stuff), and not with others, but can't remember which was which. Had the chambers polished locally; that helped but didn't completely fix the problem. Got rid of both of them because of that, and because after carrying them for a while I came to view them as simply too heavy for pocket carry; replaced them with 642s.
As the pocket 9mm autos get better and better(IMO), I find that my interest in a 9mm revolver wanes.
Rumor on the S&W Forum is that they are coming out with one later this year. A rep from S&W told a forum member this info who then posted about it. Its supposed to be based on the new Bodyguard revolver.
I am very interested. Been looking for small carry weapon.
Because of many different sources of 9mm ammo--foreign, domestic, commercial, military--considerable case dimensional variation exists within this caliber. This fact and the tapered case often results in a troublesom combination for revolvers.
thats one bad ass weapon man!
Failure2Stop
10-09-11, 22:56
thats one bad ass weapon man!
Really?
Why?
I would love for you to actually write out a response to something that took more than rubbing three brain cells together to type, or are you just blatantly running up your post count?
Really?
Why?
I would love for you to actually write out a response to something that took more than rubbing three brain cells together to type, or are you just blatantly running up your post count?
:lol:
Thats awesome for a sig line
decodeddiesel
10-09-11, 23:12
This guy can rechamber your .38. Been thinking of doing it for a few years but I just don't want to be without my snubby for that long.
http://www.pinnacle-guns.com/revolver.asp
Oh my! I would be very pleased with a 9mm M&P340 to compliment my M&P9C.
A friend of mine had his 642 converted to 9mm with a cylinder and barrel swap. It was an aluminum frame and the trigger axis pin sheared off. It's machined as part of the frame.
That is because the 9mm is pretty close in power to a 357 mag. Most people think of it as a wimpy round but its not. You can launch 124 grain bullets at 1250 to 1300 fps while a 357 mag with 125 grian bullets is typical 1400 to 1500. The 38 is around 900 to 1000 with 125 grain bullets. The 9mm is closer in power to the 357 mag than the 38.
Pat
Would using a round like a subsonic 147 grain JHP help at all?
I'd be very interested in a 9mm J frame.
PA PATRIOT
10-12-11, 09:23
Has anyone actually seen any press releases from S&W or can link to posts from a verified S&W representative that a 9mm snubbie is in the works?
nobody knows
10-29-11, 21:12
I would love a 9mm j frame, but don't want to pay that much for a 940. I may get a used steel no lock 442 and have it converted. But by that time I will probably be close to a 940 in price. But I definitely don't want an aluminum framed 9mm snubie.
The same friend now has a stainless 3" j frame that he had the stainless cylinder from his 442 debacle put in. It's pretty sweet. I was looking at some ruger speed or security six's for idpa revolver qualifiers. I may have to go 45 acp N frame instead.
I had been toying with the idea of a Smith 940 for a while because I think the idea of ammo consolidation was really cool as was the cartridges performance out of the snub.
Unfortunately the price of the firearm and the lack of availability (local gun stores) were really the deciding factors for me. Also the dependance on moon clips was something I wasn't very keen on.
So to me, while the firearms' concept seems really interesting the stars just never aligned.
anachronism
11-06-11, 21:16
Before I forget- some of the early 940s had less than optimal chambers, and wouldn't chamber some factory loads. Most got sent back to Smiff, and the chambers & throats were recut. If you have one, double-check your ammo before relying on it. I'm sure everbody here does this anyway, but it's something that needs to be said out loud every once in a while.
Before I forget- some of the early 940s had less than optimal chambers, and wouldn't chamber some factory loads. Most got sent back to Smiff, and the chambers & throats were recut. If you have one, double-check your ammo before relying on it. I'm sure everbody here does this anyway, but it's something that needs to be said out loud every once in a while.
Mine didn't get re-cut, it got trashed, by S&W, as they could not fix the gun at the factory after two trips back. This is how I got my first 642.
I humbly submit that if S&W couldn't get the 940 right that it may not be possible to get it right.
Mine didn't get re-cut, it got trashed, by S&W, as they could not fix the gun at the factory after two trips back. This is how I got my first 642.
I humbly submit that if S&W couldn't get the 940 right that it may not be possible to get it right.
I don't think that was it. I think that when the 940 came out, there just weren't enough customers willing to pay for one, to justify getting it right. I doubt there are today either.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.