hardluk1
member
If one of the companies would make a 9mm revolver that wieghted the same as there ultra lites do i would own one. Hard for a 38 to compete at all and not have to deal with one more brand of ammo.
9mm revolver WHY?!?
- Thread starter 30cal_Fun
- Start date
- Status
markdaniel
Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 85
What about the guy whose wife is uncomforatable with an auto loader and is comfortable with a revolver. I think it ma be great in this instance he may only have to by 1 calibre of ammo.
I'm a big fan of conversion revolvers. Somehow I have the odd twisted imagination that I might get in a situation where the guns and ammo don't match. So, in order to sleep soundly I have acquired a Colt Trooper .38/.357, a Ruger Single Six with .22/.22 mag cylinders, a Ruger Blackhawk with .45LC/.45 acp cylinders, a Western Marshall .44/.44mag, and to return to topic a Ruger Blackhawk with .357/.38 and a 9mm cylinder. So that's five revolvers that can shoot nine calibers. I don't shoot 9mm often in the Ruger because I shoot it in my semi autos but I could. It was snappier than I thought it would be. Accuracy is decent. The 9mm is the third gun, the .45 acp /45lc isn't pictured
Ed Harris has given the correct answer. Revolvers are often considered more "PC" than auto pistols for police. Another point is that in France and other countries, the police could draw on Army ammunition supplies without cost to the police budget. Since the Army had only 9mm P., it made sense to order revolvers that could use the "free" ammo.
The other "reasons" are interesting, but guesswork.
Jim
The other "reasons" are interesting, but guesswork.
Jim
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
my 942, a 642 with a 940 cylinder
my old 940
my old 940
roaddog28
Member
Its simple. 9mm is availiable and cheap. I am a revolver guy and am buying a couple 9mm semi-autos because I want to shoot. The Ruger SP101 would be great to have but I can't find one in California. They are rare and too expense.
Thanks,
roaddog28
Thanks,
roaddog28
earlthegoat2
Member
Even though I understand the benefits of the 9mm revolver I still figure your better off forgoing the expense or trying to locate a 9mm revolver and just get a 38. I figure it is not worth it in the end and go with what is plentiful: a 38 revolver.
TonyRumore
Member
Many of you guys are probably too young to remember the 9mm Federal cartridge introduced in the 80's. It was a rimmed version of the 9mm parabellum used in the Charter Arms revolver. It was still-born from day one. Kinda like the Smith and Wesson 356 TSW....it didn't just lose traction, it balked and fell on its nose while still in the gate.
Tony Rumore
Tromix Corp
Tony Rumore
Tromix Corp
Yup, I remember the Charter Arms Pitbull. Was going to buy one, but was sent overseas while I was looking. They come up occassionally on Gunbroker, but haven't seen ammo for awhile. Still would like to get on though, if for no other reason than to be the only kid on the block with one. Sometimes that is reason enough to buy a gun.
BCRider
Member
I don't think this would be a big issue. The makers already produce a myriad of frame and cylinder sizes for everything from .22 to .500. One more wouldn't confuse things that much. And a short frame could be the basis for some other short cartridge caliber compact revolvers as well.
I guess the popularity of such a revolver can be somewhat based on how popular the other mood clip wheelguns are. That would be the ones that shoot 10mm/.40 and .45ACP. If it turns out that these are more of an oddity than a serious market share then I guess I'll just have to sit here and sigh over the fact that a mooned 9mm isn't going to happen And from the looks of the number of posts around here and other forums dealing with moonclip guns it would seem that I'm detined to remain an unhappy camper.
eh - Smith makes a J-frame, K-frame, L, N, X.
In the J they do .22, .32, .38/.357.
The K gets the same (or did before the .32 was dropped).
The L gets .357 and...?
The N gets the .44's and .45's, and the X is just ridonkulous.
I don't see room for yet another frame size just for auto rounds.
Why not put 'em in a J or K and shorten the cylinder? Or the L, or
the N like the 10mm/.45acp (it IS in the N, right?)
It would be neat if they did it, but changing the frame affects a lot of parts, and that's expensive. You'd need one short frame for .32/9mm and another one for .40/.45. Two more frames to accommodate calibers that have already been done in the other frames, just to save 3/8" in length seems unlikely.
Optimal for us users, but not for manufacturing!
If you can convince them to do it, I promise to drool when you post pictures of yours.
Ruger only really has 3.5 DA frames.
However! Perhaps I'm off base. Ruger DID reintroduce a smaller frame single-action. Though they were down to only two frame sizes before, and that made the popular .38/.357's very silly. It was as if Smith had dropped the K & L frames, then brought them back later.
-Daizee
TMann
Member
So if we ignore the fact that the 9mm cartridges allows/requires moon clips for loading...
Wouldn't it be true that one could duplicate the ballistics of the 9mm with a lightly loaded .357 magnum?
TMann
Wouldn't it be true that one could duplicate the ballistics of the 9mm with a lightly loaded .357 magnum?
TMann
and at lower pressures, yes. Every possible load of the 9mm could be had PLUS a ton more with heavier bullets.
If you prefer a subsonic bullet, you can still throw a larger one with a .38spl because the 9mm simply runs out of room in the case. In 3"+ barrels it's probably a toss-up.
The the .357 spanks both in that category still below max pressures. Imagine a medium-soft 180gr LHP at 950fps. That's .40s&w muzzle numbers, with excellent penetration potential (sectional density) and equal expansion at lower pressures AND from a short barrel, but without the extra ka-blooie of a high-speed .357 round. I call it the ".357 Special" run-on sentence.
-Daizee
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
You are all forgetting the main fact that the 9mm is a great revolver round, It is because we can.
We can have a gun in 22lr, 41 special, 480 Ruger, et al.
We can load 357s to 9mms level and still have that honking long case to deal with.
we can use 38 specials but we loose the compactness of a 9mm, so someone suggests a 38S&W or a 38 Short Colt...
We can suggest a 45 but that takes at least a K frame and is still a 5 shooter(Taurus) how about a 10mm but they need at least an L frame and reaming a nice 646 so why not stay with a 9mm in a J frame and quit worrying about the jump from the cartridge to the barrel with "SUCH A LONG" transition thru the cylinder.
Go find a 9mm revolver and try it, shoot a couple of hundred rounds through it and then come back and tell me why or why not.
It works, It works well and it was a great idea, to bad some goof ball writer shut it down by saying that his opinion was that it would not work, but IIRC he did not send it back to S&W.
A 9mm has been around since the early 1900s and with the metal technology and capabilities of today's manufacturing, we can have a 9mm revolver that would handle the most punishing loads but some lawyer probably said something and some marketing dweeb does not know what is really happening in the world of shooters, look at the Ruger LCR, finally some thought in a small carryable hand gun. NOW if S&W, COLT AND RUGER WOULD GET OUT OF THEIR IVORY CASTLES AND SEE WHAT REAL SHOOTERS ARE DOING, WE MIGHT HAVE SOME REAL GOOD REVOLVERS BEING PRODUCED.
oops sorry for the minor rant, but a 9mm revolver works and works very well.
We can have a gun in 22lr, 41 special, 480 Ruger, et al.
We can load 357s to 9mms level and still have that honking long case to deal with.
we can use 38 specials but we loose the compactness of a 9mm, so someone suggests a 38S&W or a 38 Short Colt...
We can suggest a 45 but that takes at least a K frame and is still a 5 shooter(Taurus) how about a 10mm but they need at least an L frame and reaming a nice 646 so why not stay with a 9mm in a J frame and quit worrying about the jump from the cartridge to the barrel with "SUCH A LONG" transition thru the cylinder.
Go find a 9mm revolver and try it, shoot a couple of hundred rounds through it and then come back and tell me why or why not.
It works, It works well and it was a great idea, to bad some goof ball writer shut it down by saying that his opinion was that it would not work, but IIRC he did not send it back to S&W.
A 9mm has been around since the early 1900s and with the metal technology and capabilities of today's manufacturing, we can have a 9mm revolver that would handle the most punishing loads but some lawyer probably said something and some marketing dweeb does not know what is really happening in the world of shooters, look at the Ruger LCR, finally some thought in a small carryable hand gun. NOW if S&W, COLT AND RUGER WOULD GET OUT OF THEIR IVORY CASTLES AND SEE WHAT REAL SHOOTERS ARE DOING, WE MIGHT HAVE SOME REAL GOOD REVOLVERS BEING PRODUCED.
oops sorry for the minor rant, but a 9mm revolver works and works very well.
Radagast
Member
In Australia there were quite a few .38 Super S&W 627s sold for ICORE competition that were swiftly reamed out to 9mm for ease of loading and because 9mm brass is plentiful - the Australian federal police leave it on the ranges they shoot at.
Some people mentioned the 9mm Federal and the Charters Arms Pit Bull. The Pit Bull wasn't the failure point, the round was. It would chamber in some of the old .38 S&W topbreak revolvers that were designed for a round with half the pressure of the 9mm. Federal withdrew the round due to liability issues.
One area where the 9mm loses out is in reloading the case - straight cases such as the .38 special are easier to reload for. Of course, when your brass is free (see above) vs paying for .38 special, the occasional bulged round doesn't matter so much.
Realistically, the 9mm revolver doesn't have a place commercially. The majority of minimally trained CCWers are going to go with a rimmed cartridge, they won't want to bother with moon clips and de-mooners.
The well trained or very interested will go to an auto. The bullseye shooters will stick with .38 special - it works. The hunters and silhouette shooters will go with .357 magnum or greater for the extra energy.
Which is a great pity. I'd love a moonclipped 686 SSR in 9mm. I would consolidate on one centerfire cartridge for my revolvers and my autos so I could get my brass for free.
Some people mentioned the 9mm Federal and the Charters Arms Pit Bull. The Pit Bull wasn't the failure point, the round was. It would chamber in some of the old .38 S&W topbreak revolvers that were designed for a round with half the pressure of the 9mm. Federal withdrew the round due to liability issues.
One area where the 9mm loses out is in reloading the case - straight cases such as the .38 special are easier to reload for. Of course, when your brass is free (see above) vs paying for .38 special, the occasional bulged round doesn't matter so much.
Realistically, the 9mm revolver doesn't have a place commercially. The majority of minimally trained CCWers are going to go with a rimmed cartridge, they won't want to bother with moon clips and de-mooners.
The well trained or very interested will go to an auto. The bullseye shooters will stick with .38 special - it works. The hunters and silhouette shooters will go with .357 magnum or greater for the extra energy.
Which is a great pity. I'd love a moonclipped 686 SSR in 9mm. I would consolidate on one centerfire cartridge for my revolvers and my autos so I could get my brass for free.
Sgt. Stiglitz
Member
I have a S&W 940 in 9 MM
I have a S&W 940 and I can tell you, 9 MM come out a lot faster than any .38 Special. Besides it is fun to shoot......
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=476934
Hirtenberger 9mm 100gr. Truncated Soft Ponts Kahr PM 9 MM 3" Barrel:
1101 fps
1192 1192
1200 1200
1186 1186
1163
Federal 115Gr +P+ JHP's Kahr PM 9 MM 3" Barrel:
1085 fps
1165 1184
1131 1168
1163
Winchester Ranger SXT 127Gr +P+ JHP's: Kahr PM 9 MM 3" Barrel:
1190 fps
1160 1124
1158 1139
1140
Out of the 2 1/4 " Barrel S&W 940 Federal 115Gr +P+ JHP's ran:
1198 fps
1196
1172
1191
1191
As a control I shot the Winchester Ranger STX 127Gr +P+ JHP's out of a S&W Model 39-2 with a 4" Barrel:
1258 fps
1262 1256
1244 1237
1242
Cast Lead Round Nose with 4.5Grs. Unique ran around 1050 fps and shot pretty well in the Polygonal rifling of the Kahr PM 9 MM.
I have a S&W 940 and I can tell you, 9 MM come out a lot faster than any .38 Special. Besides it is fun to shoot......
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=476934
Hirtenberger 9mm 100gr. Truncated Soft Ponts Kahr PM 9 MM 3" Barrel:
1101 fps
1192 1192
1200 1200
1186 1186
1163
Federal 115Gr +P+ JHP's Kahr PM 9 MM 3" Barrel:
1085 fps
1165 1184
1131 1168
1163
Winchester Ranger SXT 127Gr +P+ JHP's: Kahr PM 9 MM 3" Barrel:
1190 fps
1160 1124
1158 1139
1140
Out of the 2 1/4 " Barrel S&W 940 Federal 115Gr +P+ JHP's ran:
1198 fps
1196
1172
1191
1191
As a control I shot the Winchester Ranger STX 127Gr +P+ JHP's out of a S&W Model 39-2 with a 4" Barrel:
1258 fps
1262 1256
1244 1237
1242
Cast Lead Round Nose with 4.5Grs. Unique ran around 1050 fps and shot pretty well in the Polygonal rifling of the Kahr PM 9 MM.
Last edited:
HoosierQ
Member
I would totally love one. I have a 642 and am happy with the platform but would love to have it in 9mm for about 100 reasons...many mentioned above already.
Sgt. Stiglitz
Member
They kick a little with +P+'s
It's a little bit of a handful with +P+'s. With +P's not nearly as much and with regular 9 MM, it's easy to shoot it all day.......Even my little Model 60 3" .357 can be a handful. No I don't shoot lots of +P+'s through it, just did that one time to see what the difference was in the barrel lengths.....
It's a little bit of a handful with +P+'s.
With +P's not nearly as much and with regular 9 MM, it's easy to shoot it all day.......Even my little Model 60 3" .357 can be a handful. No I don't shoot lots of +P+'s through it, just did that one time to see what the difference was in the barrel lengths.....hardluk1
member
wc145 9x23 That takes care of the 357 crowd in a short barrel . I want one.
- Status