New 9mm revolver offering from S&W
- Thread starter C0untZer0
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 9mm 9mm revolver s&w revolver
- Status
Hastings
Member
That makes me smile for some reason.
Does the 9mm Federal work in S&W or Ruger moonclip 9mm revolvers?
Does the 9mm Federal work in S&W or Ruger moonclip 9mm revolvers?
No idea, it wasn't around long enough to really get much exposure. I've only ever seen it once at a demo
Hastings
Member
Has anyone tried cutting a 38 special casing down and resizing it with 9mm dies to use in a 9mm revolver? Looks like the rim thickness could be an issue depending on the allowance the revolver gives for moonclip and rim. I also wonder about the thickness of the brass at the mount once it's cut down to the appropriate length. Are there any other possible parent rimmed cartridges that might work if the 38spl won't? Looks like the 38 s&w might work better, but I'm not sure.
Just wondering?
Just wondering?
Last edited:
The rim on the 45 Auto Rim is thicker than the "standard" rim thickness on a rimmed cartridge. It accounts for the position of the moon clip on the case and the thickness of the moon clip.
I'd suspect a 9mm Auto Rim cartridge would have a similar requirement.
45 Auto Rim rim thickness is .0827".
9x19 rim thickness is .050". So, with a .020" to .025" thick moon clip, you would need a rim .070" to .075 thick rim.
38 Special rim is .050" thick.
I could not find exactly what the 9mm Federal rim thickness is except a comment that it is a "normal" thickness and not thick like the 45 Auto Rim.
I did find a comment of a fellow who resized 38 S&W brass that worked in a 9x19 revolver but cautioned that the cases are not strong enough for full 9x19 loads. Use this info at your own peril.
Edit, to add, if the chambers are cut to headspace on the case mouth, the rim thickness is some what irrelevant as long as the diameter is large enough to catch the extractor star.
Some of the 45 ACP revolvers do not headspace on the case mouth hence the rim on the 45 Auto Rim is important.
I'd suspect a 9mm Auto Rim cartridge would have a similar requirement.
45 Auto Rim rim thickness is .0827".
9x19 rim thickness is .050". So, with a .020" to .025" thick moon clip, you would need a rim .070" to .075 thick rim.
38 Special rim is .050" thick.
I could not find exactly what the 9mm Federal rim thickness is except a comment that it is a "normal" thickness and not thick like the 45 Auto Rim.
I did find a comment of a fellow who resized 38 S&W brass that worked in a 9x19 revolver but cautioned that the cases are not strong enough for full 9x19 loads. Use this info at your own peril.
Edit, to add, if the chambers are cut to headspace on the case mouth, the rim thickness is some what irrelevant as long as the diameter is large enough to catch the extractor star.
Some of the 45 ACP revolvers do not headspace on the case mouth hence the rim on the 45 Auto Rim is important.
Last edited:
Hastings
Member
I appreciate the cautionary note, but I don't own a 9mm revolver and would only really consider one if there were a reasonable parent cartridge for a rimmed 9mm casing. I assume any rifle that might be close to the correct dimensions would likely have a case wall thickness that would pose problems once it was trimmed. I guess the idea ends right here. Please forgive my flight of fancy.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
It's obvious you like the 9mm over standard revolver cartridges, I do not. I guess that's why both are still in production.
Actually I don't. I much prefer the .38Spl in a revolver because:
1. It is a easier cartridge to reload due to it's straight case
2. It is available in a wider range of bullets
3. There is less case variation between ammo manufacturers...although I do trim my sorted brass
4. I have a huge supply (10k-15k) of once fired cases.
What I'd really like is if they would shorten the case (20-23mm) with an internal volume to efficiently contain a common power charge and chamber it in a cylinder properly sized for minimal jump...in something like a Rhino (low bore; striker fired; DAO)
I don't understand not scaling down the revolver .. there's clearly way too much there for a 9mm and that giant gap is nutty.
RealGun
Member
Instead of making the mountain (the gun) come to Mohammed (the ammo), why not design a new cartridge in conjunction with a gun maker? Instead of having the entire concept be driven by the desire to load with moon clips and carry reload lumps, wanting to utilize the cheapest commercial ammo, have the gun come with two cylinders or be offered with or without MC cutout for rimmed catridges. Keep in mind that revolver cartridges with any real power need to have a roll crimp, i.e. the bullets need a crimp groove. That could be a real issue when the the cylinder is shortened to match the ammo and bullets otherwise creep out of the cases under recoil.
Part of all that would be loads that work with the new case volume. Meanwhile, you also have to decide if this gun is for shooting games or for some level of carry.
Last edited:
RealGun
Member
Round count is what they are after, and then picking the frame with a big enough cylinder capacity. It's all about shooting games, since there are quite adequate choices for about everything else. Ruger is the one with the obvious hole in their line up, because they have nothing for larger bores in DA 5-shot, always moving to the the monstrous Redhawks, better left for hunting cannons.
Last edited:
A modern .38 S&W AKA .38-200?
That's a lofty goal to try to achieve. But how successful have new handgun cartridges been in the past few decades?
With all the existing cartridges out there, it is difficult to design something new that offers substantial improvement in performance (cartridge size, velocity, energy, recoil, ease of use, availability, etc. etc. etc.) over cartridges that already are available.
I would guess the margins in gun manufacturing are pretty low and bringing out a substantially new platform is a fairly high risk
investment. Without the lure of a lucrative contract, there is not much incentive for the manufacturers to branch out. Evolutionary changes are relatively inexpensive versus revolutionary changes.
On the other hand, I do not feel the gun manufacturers introduce new products well. The supply chain fills too slowly for demand and frequently the quality control of the new product is just not there souring the interest of the buying public.
We can always hope though.
That is what i was thinking too
RealGun
Member
Whether it is a good thing to do is a different discussion than the chances of it happening. Talk of fantasy guns does not really need a cold shower. I think the 9mm Federal was on the right track, but there again the interest should be in whether that made a good firearm possible rather than why the cartridge never got traction in the industry.
Luger_carbine
Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 77
The existence of the 9mm Luger and all that it entails is the impetus for creating a revolver around it. One thing that the 9mm was not designed for - it was not designed to be shot from a revolver.
RealGun
Member
Existing cartridges are based upon black powder volumes and pressure levels, so a 9mm Federal with a shorter case was a modern approach. As we see with the 327 Federal Magnum, the trick is getting the retail pipeline to accept stocking the ammo and not always looking for the fastest turnover. So far, I haven't found much effort to provide special bullets for it except Rimrock's gas check. 32-20 bullets work quite well actually. What the 9mm Federal missed is that building the cartridge around .357 instead of .355 would have allowed use of common bullets for 38 Special/.357 Magnum that had crimp grooves.
hollywood63
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 55
I cut down 38 S&W cases and load 9mm for a Taurus 905 works great. No moon clips and ejection like another revolver.
Tacoma
Member
As much as I love S&W Revolvers, I need to question the "Intent" of this one. I'm thinking that anybody with the fortitude to carry the weight and bulk of an L frame revolver would rather be armed with 7 rounds of 357 mag vs 9mm.
Personally, I think they would have a better market if the made a similar 686 with a scandium frame and 357 clambering.
Personally, I think they would have a better market if the made a similar 686 with a scandium frame and 357 clambering.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
They make the M327 which weighs 21oz. but it is slightly wider being an N frame but in turn does hold 8 rounds of .357 Magnum.
RealGun
Member
A gun like that is better for conversation than for shooting or even investment. Seriously? You can only go so far from the original platform of a 6 shot N-frame with a 6" barrel. Even the ammo industry has cut back on loading, trying not to be the guy that is "too hot to handle".
Zendude
Member
I thought the main point of a 9mm revolver is the lower cost of 9mm ammo. So, I don't know why S&W would think that someone worried about ammo cost would drop $1,200 on a snub to shoot the cheaper ammo.
It wasn't. 9x19mm wasn't always cheaper than .38 Spl, I remember when it was quite a bit more expensive
It was just to allow the option of shooting 9mm in a revolver in communities where the 9mm was more common
A reasonable assessment.
For me, I do not shoot much full power loads any more. If I want wrist snapping recoil or the desire to punch a hole in a big block Chevy engine, I'll shoot a cylinder full of 460 S&W Mag in my 460 XVR. Otherwise, I load soft or mid range loads in my magnum cartridge guns. Also, rapid follow up shots with full power loads are not as quick or accurate for me as with less powerful loads. (Ah, the joys of aging.)
So, a 9x19 chambered revolver sits nicely in that concept for acceptable recoil. (Note, I throughly enjoy shooting 38 Special wadcutters in my K-frame 38 Special revolvers. There is just something special about that.
)Recently, I've seriously discovered moon clip for quick reloads with the discovery of BMT Equipped moon/de-moon tools to go with my moon clip equipped revolvers. Besides an S&W M625, I have three 38 Special J-frames that accept moon clips. I can perform reloads better with moon clips than fumbling with speed loaders.
Full moon clips with 9x19 cartridges are a bit more compact than for my 38 Special or 45 ACP revolvers so a bit more convenient to carry.
So, I like my 5" S&W 986. It serves my purposes well despite its limitation on cartridge power. I'm considering the new 2-1/2" barreled version as a companion to it.
This is just one data point. Others will have different opinions and that's OK.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
