New 9mm revolver offering from S&W

I want one for my 6-inch Rhino. I'll call them and ask I guess.

CajunBass said:

I just never understood the attraction of the revolver chambered for a semi-auto cartridge. I suppose it made sense during "The Great War" when they just needed a gun, any gun that could shoot the new 45 ACP cartridge, but since then it just seems like a solution in search of a problem.

I've seen a half dozen or more hit the market and just as quickly die when they just don't sell. Ones like the Smith & Wesson 547 was it? Become collectors items...the others? Not so much.

And it's got an unfluted cylinder. Looks like they forgot to finish it.

But then I'm an old curmudgeon. What do I know?

Click to expand...

I guess there are guys out there who just want to convert everything to accept moon clip reloads...the modern gunfighter, if you will. For a carry gun, the 9mm is a natural for that, I think.

Chiappa does make a 9mm Rhino, they just don't distribute it here in the U.S.

Click to expand...

Well I'll be; last I heard it was a 9x21 or something like that for the Italian market where common chamberings are banned. It does appear you can get a parabellum/357 conversion cylinder set for the low-low price of one grand, however. Price is stupid, but it's good they are finally addressing that market (I saw 40SW variants for sale for a long time, but never saw the 9mm jobs which are apparently produced in small fewer numbers, presumably because the 357's are so much more popular)

there isn't a noticeable decrease in accuracy firing 9mm through a 38 /357 barrel.

Click to expand...

Nope, only one thousandths of *nominal* difference (i.e. no difference). The MR73s had a conversion cylinder as well, while being directly marketed at the uber-accuracy crowd.

It's a shame that Chiappa won't make a properly-scaled 9mm specific version, since the design makes for a very compact little blaster (the grip length/angle, namely) that is still shootable.

I just never understood the attraction of the revolver chambered for a semi-auto cartridge.

Click to expand...

When you have a fairly short, tapered cartridge like 9mm, that also has a wide semi-auto-style extractor groove, the moon clips are thick enough to keep a *very* firm grip on the cartridges and the bullet points & case tapers are essentially self-guiding into the cylinder. Next, the extractor ram has a far, far more sturdy connector to the cases it is pushing out, so that random stuck case is highly unlikely to tie up the gun in any scenario (okay, six stuck cases might be difficult, but that suggests ammo problems and is just as much an issue for rimmed cases). Lastly, the 'magazines' don't take up hardly any room at all depending how you carry them; they aren't flat, but they are smaller in volume.

So, you get a very small, very fast-reloading handgun that not only rivals similar small-scale autoloaders for capacity & barrel length (maybe one less round), you get second strike/cylinder advancement in the event of a misfire as well as avoiding all the sensitive loading/cycling issues endemic to small size automatics. It can also be fired far more reliably from inside a pocket or coat or up against the assailant. Basically all the standard revolver advantages, while essentially closing the gap on reload speed with automatics.

What I don't understand is revolver enthusiasts' refusal to entertain anything but antiquated rimmed cartridges (not you, the market generally), which really aren't that big a deal to use properly. I have an 8-shot S&W 357, and even with its loosey-goosey moonclips and long dangling cases I still find clips to be a far more convenient way of handling ammunition than strips or loose cartridges. It's just not as superior as it could be (again, long ammo held loosely by thin clips). I wanted to say that I don't understand the point of magnum-length frames being used to chamber these short cartridges, but the lack of demand you rightly recognize is the reason these 9mm snubs don't get their own chassis. Kind of a self-defeating situation, sadly.


With a more minimalist grip and losing the rails, that shortened 9mm cylinder makes for a very compact blaster. The Rhino even more so since the low set chamber greatly reduces the stresses across the top strap, so the 'dead space' of the frame in front of the inactive cylinder can be milled away (that's where I'd be putting an integral laser sight were I to get all techno like the Korth)

TCB

barnbwt said:

What I don't understand is revolver enthusiasts' refusal to entertain anything but antiquated rimmed cartridges (not you, the market generally), which really aren't that big a deal to use properly.

Click to expand...

It seems a large percentage of the revolver enthusiasts are "budget minded" and are not willing to pay $6.50 per moon clip or $100 for quick, efficient mooner/demooner tools. So I can see why the use of rimless cartridges in revolvers does not get traction.

Of course, if the use of moon clips would become more popular, the costs of clips and tools would go down.

It seems a large percentage of the revolver enthusiasts are "budget minded" and are not willing to pay $6.50 per moon clip or $100 for quick, efficient mooner/demooner tools. So I can see why the use of rimless cartridges in revolvers does not get traction.

Of course, if the use of moon clips would become more popular, the costs of clips and tools would go down.

Click to expand...

No reason for a demooner to cost that much, other than that no one else is making them. Think of how many mag-loading tools are available for semi-autos (whose magazines are just about as notoriously difficult to load with fingers as moonclips) and even come included with the gun itself. A mooner-demooner is about as complex & expensive to make as a mag-lula.

Also, I may have mentioned earlier that revolvers in recent years have become something of a luxury item, often costing twice or more as much as comparable semi-autos made from polymer. Kind of a funny dynamic, since as you say, they were the 'cheap' option not too long ago. The frame/barrel/trigger design on wheelguns simply will never allow them to be made as inexpensively as striker-fired Glock clones, and it's forced most makers to push these product lines toward more upscale markets. In that light, I would think moons and accessories even less of a concern, but, as you point out, old habits die hard, and curmudgeonly buyers would gripe about a 20$ pack of moons & a demooner being included with their revolver after dropping 1000$ on the purchase

Semi-auto buyers have long been trained to not see their magazines as a 'separate item to be purchased apart from the gun,' but revolver buyers still see it that way.

TCB

Any links to moon loaders that work well with 9mm? I can search but am interested in testimonials.

I really like BMT Equipped moon clip loaders and de-mooners. Easy, quick and efficient to use. Loads and unloads the whole clip in one motion. But pricey.

http://www.bmtequipped.com/products.php

TK Custom has tools that are well made, work great, not as quick to use as the BMT, but not as expensive. Loads and un-loads one cartridge at a time. Their moon clips are good and are the source for several private label moon clips.

TK Custom will machine the cylinder of most revolvers to accept moon clips. I recently had two J-frames modified for 38 Special moon clips. Nice work and quick turn around.

http://tkcustom.com

Dillon re-sells tools as well. I forget the manufacturer. They are similar to the TK Custom offerings, heck, they may be TK Custom stuff.

Is it me or do others also feel that there is no reason today chamber a revolver in a semi-auto cartridge? I'm quite happy carrying a 38/357 revolver.

I find many of the current crop of modern designed revolvers, not just S/A cartridged, to be ungainly looking. Whether it's adding rails, or fat barrels, or weird frame shapes, or whatever, I prefer a more traditional look and would never consider buying one regardless of how "tactical" they may be. Life's too short to carry an ugly revolver.

Most of the performance center short-barreled revolvers from S&W look, to me, like they were designed by a blind person (no offense to the blind - I'm damn-near legally blind). I understand the cylinder to frame situation based on fixed frame sizes, but why can't they come up with a barrel configuration that doesn't look like they whittled it down with a cold-chisel to shorten it?

Am I the only one that finds them really unattractive. I know it's "Performance Center" not "Appearance Center", but if it's an L-frame why couldn't they just dress up the full under-lug barrel from a 686 by fluting the barrel like on the 640 Pro. Even the Pro-Series N-frames use this styling on the short-barreled revolvers and I've always thought it looked like a real afterthought or mistake.

Appearances aside, my choice of a short-barreled L-frame revolver for a carry gun would be a 7-round 357mag, not a 9mm. Maybe that's just me. I understand the 5" versions for target shooting and fast reloads with moon clips, but the 686 Plus seems like a better choice for more than a couple hundred dollars less if you are looking for a short-barreled L-frame revolver for a carry gun.

The longer barreled version does intrigue me, though. For those of you with one of these, how do they shoot? Other than recoil and ammo price, what are the advantages over a 686 or 627?

If those cylinders get too short, could run into some gas-cutting issues, on flesh.

9mmepiphany said:

I think it is mostly you clinging to tradition. I'm saying this as a person who shoots a .38Spl in competition, who carried one for CCW for 20 years, and who takes great pride in my 8.375" M-27 and 6" Python

I think a more accurate question for today would be, "Why are we still chambering defensive revolvers for rimmed cartridges?"

Click to expand...

Because the gun frame was designed for that length cartridge. For now, it is the cartridge requiring moon clips that is the step child.

The whole situation is sort of like how the width of a horse's rear end drove the size of the space shuttle.

I keep hoping that one of the benefits of all the technological advancements we're experiencing will be that S&W will stop using tooling set-up costs as an excuse for limiting their revolver frame sizes to those based on black powder cartridges. I love j, k, l, and n frame Smiths dearly, but how about a new revolver with a frame sized for a more modern cartridge. Polymer revolvers don't count, and neither does the x frame.

I truly don't feel the 9mm is a better choice in a revolver than the .357 Magnum, outdated rim or not. The .357 Magnum is a betrer and more versatile cartridge over the 9mm. I like a 158gr bullet even in a small revolver and it's not because I'm clinging to tradition.

I didn't mean in my last post that sticking with 357, 44, or 45colt was clinging to tradition, or even if it were that were that it would be a bad thing as long as it doesn't impede forward motion in design evolution. My favorite all-around handgun cartridge is the 45colt, so I'm not much of a modernist. I can't imagine a revolver I could enjoy more, shoot better, or like as much as a S&W N-frame or SAA in 45colt. However, if every revolver for the next 100 years is based on the cartridges these guns come in and follows their basic design, it would seem like a stall in the flow of innovation. I sorta feel like we are sitting in a similar time to the 1870's or 80's when a flood of new designs are about to be developed and I find it exciting. I think it's more a matter of stepping back from the standard or "traditional" constraints that currently dictate a gun's key dimensions, required strength, and basic functions, and look at it from with fresh eyes.

Love em or hate em, Glock was a step in this kind of direction. Not the first striker fired gun, not the first to use plastic, but one of the first to unashamedly embrace both concepts and come up with something different enough to inspire intense hatred form traditionalists. I wouldn't even pick one up for 24 years. Thought they were the devil's spawn. When I finally was convinced to handle and shoot one I kicked myself for being a damn idiot and missing out on a good thing for so long. Not the best gun by a long shot, but a great gun nevertheless.

So, what would the 9mm look like if it were unencumbered by the constraints of an autoloader? 165gr wide-meplat hardcast bullet at lower velocity maybe. Enormous hollow-point cavity in a jacked hollowpoint that no autoloader would ever feed reliably. Full wadcutter rounds for competition. All of those should be possibilities in the L and N frame Smiths now. What if the same freedom were given to a revolver design. Design the ideal sized revolver with the optimum parameters and then design the cartridge to fit that gun. Just a thought. Now we can argue over what the optimum parameters would be.

Rimmed cartridges work the best in traditionally-designed revolvers. .357 is a relatively new cartridge...many years newer than 9x19 and .45ACP. .327 Magnum has never been a very prolific cartridge, but it is very modern, and effective.

As far as non-traditional revolvers, the Charter Pitbull uses rimless cartridges without moon clips. They also appear reliable from the reviews I have seen. They still have not sold nearly as many as you would think. Mostly, in my opinion, because they aren't a S&W...and S&W is "the best."

So S&W keeps making BP derived revolvers, and that's what people want because it is what S&W sells.

And if you designed a 9mm that could take advantage of the bullet spectrum that .38 and .357 offer, it wouldn't be much shorter than a .38. Wadcutters eat a lot of case space.

Hastings said:

.... However, if every revolver for the next 100 years is based on the cartridges these guns come in and follows their basic design, it would seem like a stall in the flow of innovation. I sorta feel like we are sitting in a similar time to the 1870's or 80's when a flood of new designs are about to be developed and I find it exciting. I think it's more a matter of stepping back from the standard or "traditional" constraints that currently dictate a gun's key dimensions, required strength, and basic functions, and look at it from with fresh eyes.

Click to expand...

Just a note, while the .38 Special was originally a BP cartridge that was very short lived. It was released around 1899 but the new and modern 9mm Para while never a BP cartridge was developed in 1902. (I think it was 1902) I'm not sure a cartridge which is well over 100 years old and only a few years newer than the .38 Special should be called modern.

I think my favorite revolver I've ever owned was a S&W 22-4 TRP. I'm not much of a moon-clip fan, but I picked up a bunch of 45 autorim casings and reloaded for it using those. That, in my opinion, was a very handy revolver. I really like the 45 autorim case. Some might see it as a step backward, I suppose, but it is a nice round to reload and shoot.

Is there a 9mm autorim ? Guess I should google it. I like the idea of new cartridge development, but I prefer rimmed cartridges - even in rifles. I'm obviously not an AR guy.