Converting a .38 Special Revolver to 9 mm

[Oyeboten]

Hi WC145, all...


You'd menioned -

The "step" is appropriate for a 9x23 round to headspace on. The cylinder can't be cut with a "step" for the 9mm to headspace on because it's already larger in diameter than the 9mm, hence the need for moonclips. To do what you're talking about you'd have to start with a smaller caliber cylinder than 9mm. Or you could just find yourself a S&W 940 and be done with it. They headspace on the case shoulder and don't require a moonclip except for ease of extraction, same as the Taurus 905.

Understood...


Originally, all this began in my mind, in admiring my Model 1917 Colt New Service in .45 ACP, and, comparing it with it's rival, the S & W Model of 1917 in .45 ACP.

...and thinking..."Why ever did not Colt and S & W offer mid-frame Revolvers right then, or soon after, which using Half-Moon or Full Moon Clips, could chamber and fire .30 Mauser, 9mm Parabellum, .38 ACP or others?


I think they would have been very well received and appreciated all over the World...and would have sold well.


Both S & W and Colt could have ( and in my view, should have) began making and offering these by 1919, if not a lot earlier.


So...originally, what I wanted to make, or have made, is either a 'teens to 'twenties or even 'thirties Colt Army Special, or ditto S & W 'M&P', chambering the .38 ACP Cartridge, and, using Full Moon Clips to do it.

Or, a 'Snubbie' of either, chambering the 9mm Parabellum, with Full Moon Clips ( if having to 'Snub' the Army Special myself, since Colt did not seem to offer any Snubbies at that time...unless one went through 'Fitz' or did it one's self or had a Smith do it. )


Now...sadly, I am not confident either would stand the Pressures safely, but, maybe they would, I don't know.


Later...I began thinking, an S & W Model 10, Heavy Barrel, 4 inch, Square Butt, or, ditto in 3 inch Round Butt, would be a very nice Revolver in .38 Super, if using Full Moon Clips...and, or, chambering 9mm Para, and Full Moon Clips, and...thus began my Thread...

I like Full Moon Clips...and, I do not really feel drawn to other methods of chambering semi-rim or rimless Cartridges in a Revolver.


The S & W 940, while a fine Revolver, is of no interest to me, since it is around sixty to eighty years late as for S &W having had any savvy at all, and, because in their trying to be clever for the sake of clever, and at the expense of common sense and convenience, it does not relyon the forthright use of Full Moon Clips.


And, rather than patronize their remarkable tardyness to get with it, I'd far rather make my own, or, commission the modification to an able and savvy ( and one would hope, sympathetic ) Smith.


It is not a matter of having just anything which as a Revolver, would fire 9mm...for the sake of firing 9mm...rather, it is a matter for me, of only a very few Revolver kinds, I would want to have do so, for me to own, use, or carry them.


And really, the Revolver I would most wish to have chambering 9mm Para, would be an old, 'Round Front Sight' S & W M&P 'Snubby'...far as 9mm goes.


Probably, an S & W Model 13 would really be the best Candidate for me, if I wanted to convert to 9x23, or, to .38 Super, since I could expect it to have the strength
needed...and, I like it's looks, 'feel' and balance, same as I do the Heavy Barrel Model 10s.


So, while this conversation is academic, and anecdotal, and also practical, for me, it is also only about a very few possible Candidates for conversion...and of course, about understanding how various Cylinder Bore issues would be reconciled.

Now, an S & W 'Terrier' or 3 inch early J Frame with the 'Round' Front Sight...or, a short Barrel Colt 'Police Positive' ( ditto ) in 9mm Para, would also be appealing...if able tohandle the pressures, and, I doubt they would!


I have a Model 13 ( .357 Magnum, 4 inch Heavy Barrel, Square Butt ), and, I love and admire it for what it is...it is 'perfect' and excellent as what it is.


The 'Full Moon, .38 Super, Model 10, Heavy Barrel" ( if it is feasable, ) would be it's own thing...perfect for what it is, intrinsically interesting, and appealing to me.


If they'd made them, I'd buy one.


They did not...so...if I want one, I will have to have one converted.


Thus the brooding...



What fun..!


This is a good Thread, and good learning for me...good thinking, brainstorming...


Good discussion...



Thanks!



Phil
l v

 

[WC145]

I find ALL this very interesting, but keep going to the question that begs to be asked; why push a 9mm or sub a .38 super when you already have a .357 mag.?
and, does not the .38 special have a "jump" when in a .357 cyl. and still work well?
hmmmmmmmm

In my case going with 9mm in my snubby/BUG is a simple matter of caliber consolidation. I carry a 9mm on and off the job, I keep a folding 9mm carbine in my gear bag. It makes sense for my BUG to be a 9mm and the revolver is the most reliable and fool proof platform available. I do not "push" the loads, I use only factory ammo in my guns, standard pressure for training, +P+ for duty/SD carry.

Yes, you're correct, the .38spl has a "jump" when shot from a .357mag, like many other guns that shoot multiple calibers. I've never known it to be an issue as far as practical performance and accuracy.

 

[WC145]

Oyeboten-
I understand what you're talking about and certainly, had S&W or Colt come out with other auto caliber revolvers using moonclips early on they would probably be more popular/accepted now. Instead they're viewed as an oddity by many and the usual question I hear is, "Why?".

As to the question of why weren't more moonclip, auto caliber revolvers made back then, I'd agree that pressure would be the main reason. These rounds operate at near .357mag pressures and, remember, the first .357mags were N-frames. The lighter framed guns probably would never have handled the smaller, hotter rounds. Plus, the fact that the .45ACP was an all-american military round and readily available probably had a lot to do with it. I don't know how available 9mm Luger, .30 Mauser, etc would have been at the time, nor, given the state of the world, how well accepted those calibers would have been. The .38 Super might have caught on as a hot revolver load, especially since it is semi-rimmed and you wouldn't need a moonclip, but it was probably too hot for the smaller guns and the .357mag was king of the big guns onve it came on the scene. Indeed, there are plenty of .38spls out there that will chamber .38 Super without any trouble. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some people using Supers in their .38's then but, again, I'd imagine there were lots of factors in play - ammo availibility, gun strength, advertising, general gun knowledge, cost effectiveness, etc.

 

[Jim Watson]

I also wonder about the jump through the .380" i.d. Special chamber and its effect on accuracy in a K frame gun with the grip, weight, and sight radius to make it more easily measurable than in a J frame hideout. If the rechamber is to 9x23, there is also a jump through a .382" chamber section if shooting 9x19 before getting to the .380". And a step too slight for headspace control but enough to snag a bullet.

Has somebody ever Ransom Rested one of these things?

Historical notes:
The Webley-Fosberry Automatic Revolver was available in .38 ACP with eight shot clip loading in 1902.
Smith & Smith illustrate a copy of the S&W M&P in 9mm P using half moon clips a la 1917 made by the Workers' Industry for Arms in Israel.
Smith & Wesson built a few M686 revolvers in .38 Super for the IDPA trade; also two batches in .40 S&W. There were also some 627 Supers, I presume for ICORE.
The S&W 547 (clipless) and 940, the Ruger Speed Six and SP101, the Taurii, and Charter are better known, along with foreign efforts from FN, Manhurin, and Korth.

Production was low for all. The clipped revolver for rimless rounds other than the .45 ACP is a niche product more often seen on the Internet than the range.

 

[Oyeboten]

Oyeboten-
I understand what you're talking about and certainly, had S&W or Colt come out with other auto caliber revolvers using moonclips early on they would probably be more popular/accepted now. Instead they're viewed as an oddity by many and the usual question I hear is, "Why?".

As to the question of why weren't more moonclip, auto caliber revolvers made back then, I'd agree that pressure would be the main reason. These rounds operate at near .357mag pressures and, remember, the first .357mags were N-frames. The lighter framed guns probably would never have handled the smaller, hotter rounds. Plus, the fact that the .45ACP was an all-american military round and readily available probably had a lot to do with it. I don't know how available 9mm Luger, .30 Mauser, etc would have been at the time, nor, given the state of the world, how well accepted those calibers would have been. The .38 Super might have caught on as a hot revolver load, especially since it is semi-rimmed and you wouldn't need a moonclip, but it was probably too hot for the smaller guns and the .357mag was king of the big guns onve it came on the scene. Indeed, there are plenty of .38spls out there that will chamber .38 Super without any trouble. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some people using Supers in their .38's then but, again, I'd imagine there were lots of factors in play - ammo availibility, gun strength, advertising, general gun knowledge, cost effectiveness, etc.

Hi WC145,


Good mentions...


I think what impeded the development and offering of mid-size-frame Revolvers in erstwhile Auto-Loader Cartridges, was three things, much as you suggest -


Unpleasant recoil, especially in an era where many adults were used to BP loadings...or learned in shooting BP ( ie, 1900 to say 1917 )

Metalurgy was doing very well, and would have had no roubles producing Frames and Cylinders adapted to handle the pressures of say, .30 Mauser, .38 ACP, 9mm Parabellum, et al.

But, given that Colt really cringed to stamp, say, ".44 S & W Russian" or ".44 S & W Special" on the sides of New Service Revolvers...and, S & W was loathe to stamp even ".38 Service C'tg" in lieu of stamping ".38 Colt", etc...( or so I have heard )...one suspects they had some bias, or pride, or proprieary desire to stay with and promote their 'own' Cartridges as much as possible, only grudgingly offering Revolvers adaped to anyone else's.


So, it seems there was a bias toward other's Cartridge types, as well as toward eachother's...so, probably, also, toward foreign ones.


Which leaves the mystery then, as for why Colt did nothing Revolver wise, with their own, proprietary, .38 ACP Cartridge ( and later, .38 Super) or .380 ACP Cartridge.


Granted, by the '30s, S & W's "38-44" was widely respected, shooting hopped-up .38 Specials. Where, Colt, could have done similar, adapting New Service, or even their Army Special, for their own peppy-enough .38 Super, or, as they pleased.


And a Police Positive or New Police, in .380, would have been dandy!


My understanding from childhood, talking with World War One Veterans, is that pretty well all admired the Lugar and ( 'Broom Handle ' ) Mauser Pistols, and, the Cartridges they fired.


Lots of other people in the US, in the 'teens, 'twenties, 'thirties, also admired the Lugar and Mauser Pistols and their Ammunitions, and, far as I could ( or can ) tell, the American Public held no bias toward these Arms, or the Cartridges they fired. Or if anything, it was quite the opposite of bias - people liked them!


I remember my dad and some his friends, having taken me along to go plinking, around 1959, and one of them had a WWI bring-home Lugar, and everyone there was all "Ooooos" and "Ahhhhhhs" over it, and saying compliments and hushed admires on it's powerful Cartridge...Toggle Bolt Action, acccuracy, comfort in the Hand, and so on.


So, it sort of seems, that it was the Manufacturers who demured, for reasons of their own...reasons which I would suggest, only harmed their innovation, creativity, earnings, and sales.


Probably, the recoil and Fireball in a mid-frame, or smaller frame Revolver, from .30 Mauser, would be terrible...from .38 Super, likewise...from 38 ACP, tolerable to the strong of Heart...and from 9mm Para, about the same.


These concerns, as with other things, are easily left to the individual to decide for themselves. And probably, enough people would have accepted the Recoil of these, and been alright with it. Serious LEO of the day, and Hunters carrying an ancillary Side Arm, especially.

As Defensive Weapons, these would have been hard to beat, and I am confident this would not have been lost on anyone interested.


Phil
l v

 

[Jim Watson]

Well, about 40 years ago, Jan Stevenson suggested that updating the French Modele d'Ordnance Revolver 1892 with more ergonomic grips, heavy barrel, and better steel to allow chambering for 9mm Mauser Export (9x25) in clips would be about as modern a revolver as you could get.