would you buy a 9mm revolver?

would you buy a dedicated 9mm revolver? with the said specifications

  • yes

    Votes: 338 54.7%
  • no

    Votes: 280 45.3%

  • Total voters
    618
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, KosmicKrunch who'd have ever thought there would ever be a

convoluted exception to the general rule?

If you're going to shoot 22LR long term anyways, which admittedly is a good way to go for practice, there are 1911s already chambered in 22LR...

Also admittedly, the .45 ACP round and 1911 pistol are well proven for SD.
But that's not what we were discussing here.
 
Sure, I'd buy a good concealable 9mm revolver. I have a S&W Model 1917 in .45 ACP, and its a nice complement to my 1911 and more accurate. I have no problem with the moon clips...I can reload faster with them than I can any of my other revolvers.

Tinpig
 
I clicked "yes." However my "yes" is only a yes if I was going to be somewhat frivolous in buying a gun. My current stage of life allows me to buy guns occationally, but I try to buy guns/accessories/ammo based on my current need/want or to fill a hole in the versatility of my arsenal.

Sorry to complicate my answer, basically, I'm not opposed to the idea of owning a 9mm revolver. :)
 
Yes. But it should have the proper length cylinder for the cartridge.

This is my answer too. A proper length 9mm cylinder would be what, half the length of a standard j-frame cylinder? That's a big increase in ease of concealment.
 
I have heard that 9mm handles shorter barrels better than .38 so I would consider it.
 
I have owned a S&W 9mm revolver (940) and currently own Ruger Speed Six and SP101 and Taurus 905 9mm revolvers. I carry my Ruger LCR and before that my S&W 642.

9mm revolvers are fun to shoot. I am currently looking at a S&W 625, 327 or 627 to use with moon clips. Moonclips, in my opinion, are preferrable to speed loaders. Give moon clips a try before dismissing them. A whole lot of very successful professional revolver competitors can't be wrong.
 
Ive had my eye out for a 547 for awhile now. I had a couple of 940's when they first came out, and they were trouble. Both failed in the first 200 rounds. Nice idea, just didnt work out.
 
Ive had my eye out for a 547 for awhile now. I had a couple of 940's when they first came out, and they were trouble. Both failed in the first 200 rounds. Nice idea, just didnt work out.

Sorry to hear of your bad luck with the 940 - mine was very different. I had close to 1,000 rounds with no problems of any kind - the only reason I sold mine was because I was offered 50% more than what I paid for it. My order of preference for the 9mm revolvers that I have personally owned is as follows: Ruger Speed Six and SP101, S&W940 and then Taurus 905. Zero problems with any of them. 905's are easy to find and relatively cheap. I have shot a S&W 547 - very nice but I prefer moonclips.
 
I voted no, because a 9mm revolver would not fill any void that my present firearms do not already cover. Just having something different is not enough reason for me.
 
Sorry to hear of your bad luck with the 940 - mine was very different.
I got mine when they first came out. I suppose they were having teething problems with them, and I just assumed since they did away with them, they never got it worked out. Liked the idea, just never trusted them after the second gun.

My second gun was the replacement for the first. Unfortunately, it had the exact same issues as the first (parts in the trigger group broke, tying the gun up to the point it had to be disassembled to get the live ammo out). I always assumed that since parts were breaking, it was that the 9mm was just to hot for the gun. Interestingly enough, my second gun had the same serial number as the first, but it was obvious it wasnt the same gun, as the markings were very different. When that one quit, I told them I didnt want it back in 9mm, and they sent me a 642.


I like the idea of a 9mm revolver, simply for the ease of ammo simplicity. I do load .38, but only because I need to for my .38 revolvers. Since I load a lot more 9mm, it would just make it simple if I could practice with a 940 instead of my 642's.

The moon clips are sort of a good thing/bad thing kind of deal. They are fast to load and unload, but they are somewhat bulky (still better than speed loaders though) and you cant get by with speed strips like you can with the .38's. Then again, you actually could with the 547, so the hunt for the 547 is still on. :)
 
A scandium frame or similar in weight WITH the shorter chamber previously mentioned, would have me buying one. Curved revolvers, IMO, are a LOT easier to pocket carry concealed
 
I would also love to see one that has a correct length cylinder for 9mm. It would be small and have less freebore before the bullet hit the rifling.

Not just a .357 cylinder rechambered. :barf:

Like an LCR with a stubby short cylinder.
 
Not likely, because no one will ever make one to specifications that take advantage of the cartridge.

In order to justify it, a 9mm revolver would have to:

have a short cylinder designed around the length of the cartridge
use an extractor assembly similar to the S&W 547, to eliminate the need for moon clips
be a J-frame sized gun with a barrel 3" or less
have a barrel diameter and twist rate designed around a 115 gr. .355" bullet

...and still cost the same amount as a comparable .38 SPL revolver.
 
I respectfully disagree, cackalak.

If done right, the gun would have an overall length shorter than any .38 with the same length barrel.

Add in the fact that std. 9mm cranks a bullet out to 1150/1200 fps, instead of 800/900 for a .38, it could be a real winner.

9mm is an efficient little cartridge. Higher pressure than .38, but not higher than .357 mag.
 
I voted no... for revolvers, I prefer to use cartridges that were designed for revolvers. It is just a matter of taste... I know a few guys that love their auto cartridge revolvers. I am not one of those people.
 
No thanks. For those that have posted about the 9mm beating out the 38 Special in same size guns, I wonder what magic is at work here? The 9mm is running at much greater chamber pressure than the 38. Standard 38's are in the 15K CUP range. +P takes that up around 19K. 9mm rounds run around 30K CUP. The 357 Magnum does an average of 37K give or take. Does the 9mm outclass the Magnum in same sized guns? If so, does this indicate that the 9mm somehow makes more efficient use of it's smaller powder charge than the magnum does of it's larger one?
If the 38 Special were loaded to it's capacity, I think it could keep up with the 9mm no problem. Maybe even outpace it. It is capable of being loaded to 357 Magnum pressure/speed and fired in strong guns. I've experimented with this myself. The problem with this is you can't have these rounds floating around and finding their way into a Charter Arms Undercover or similar "weak" guns. So I doubt we'll ever see such cartridges offered up by the factorys.
The 9mm revolver only makes sense in that it allows the use of a standard cartridge running at the higher pressure that the 38 needs to be but can't.
 
Waywatcher - On paper, sure, the 9mm is a more modern cartridge. But in real life, is that extra 200fps and 100ft/lb going to matter? I really doubt it, but I could be wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top