9 mm revolvers??? - Page 2

9 mm revolvers???

This is a discussion on 9 mm revolvers??? within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by QKShooter The real advantage of 9mm in a semi-auto is (magic words) Higher Capacity. Higher capacity is what you Don't have with ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 34
  1. #16
    Senior Member Array WC145's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Downeast Maine
    Posts
    829
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    The real advantage of 9mm in a semi-auto is (magic words) Higher Capacity.
    Higher capacity is what you Don't have with a revolver so the only advantage to having a revolver chambered in 9MM is ammo compatibility with your other semi-autos.
    Otherwise you're far better off with .38 Special +P+ which (my personal opinion) is a much more effective short barrel revolver cartridge.
    The moon clips are a disadvantage in my book & who needs them when there are speed loaders readily available?
    I believe that the reason 9mm revolvers are not more popular is that the 9MM is a great semi-auto cartridge with a 11+1 or 17+1 capacity advantage but not so incredible with 6 in a wheelie.
    Yes, the advantage of the 9mm in a semi-auto is higher capacity but there's also advantages to the 9mm in revolvers as well. The 9mm is more efficient cartridge than the .38spl and works quite well in short barreled guns, including revolvers, delivering more velocity and power for a given load than the equivelant .38spl.

    As far as speed loaders vs moonclips, the moonclip is far easier and much faster to use. The rounds line up easily and all drop in together without having to fiddle with releasing them from a speedloader and, since the empties are short, not only do they all come out together but they completely clear the cylinder with a push of the ejector rod, unlike the .38 cases.

    Facts are, with the 9mm, you gain velocity and power over the .38spl without giving up controllability, and moonclips allow faster reloads than .38's with speedloaders. To say that it's okay to carry a 5 or 6 shot .38spl but not a 5 or 6 shot 9mm revolver doesn't make sense to me.


  2. #17
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,426
    Just curious as to if you are basing your 9MM bullet velocities on "9" fired from a longer barreled semi-auto as VS the "9" fired from a short barreled snubbie complete with a barrel/cylinder gap.

    Also much depends on if you want to ignore bullet weight.
    If you do ignore bullet weight then the 9MM is the winner in the velocity dept.

    Not really my argument since I only usually carry a .38+P+ snubbie as my BUG and not my primary & I certainly feel that either the "9" or the +P+ .38 are suitable for that intended purpose.

    "As far as speed loaders vs moonclips, the moonclip is far easier and much faster to use. The rounds line up easily and all drop in together without having to fiddle with releasing them from a speedloader and, since the empties are short, not only do they all come out together but they completely clear the cylinder with a push of the ejector rod, unlike the .38 cases."

    I'll grant you that point though I never personally felt that speedloaders were any sort of problem with a bit of practice.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  3. #18
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,489
    The main (only) reason why I want a 9mm snubbie is ammo compatibility with my semi's.

    With a 9mm BUG snubbie I could use the ammo from my EDC if it failed to function.
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array WC145's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Downeast Maine
    Posts
    829
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    Just curious as to if you are basing your 9MM bullet velocities on "9" fired from a longer barreled semi-auto as VS the "9" fired from a short barreled snubbie complete with a barrel/cylinder gap.

    Also much depends on if you want to ignore bullet weight.
    If you do ignore bullet weight then the 9MM is the winner in the velocity dept.

    Not really my argument since I only usually carry a .38+P+ snubbie as my BUG and not my primary & I certainly feel that either the "9" or the +P+ .38 are suitable for that intended purpose.

    "As far as speed loaders vs moonclips, the moonclip is far easier and much faster to use. The rounds line up easily and all drop in together without having to fiddle with releasing them from a speedloader and, since the empties are short, not only do they all come out together but they completely clear the cylinder with a push of the ejector rod, unlike the .38 cases."

    I'll grant you that point though I never personally felt that speedloaders were any sort of problem with a bit of practice.
    Here's some numbers to support my velocity argument. These are a few years old so some of the newer hotter ammo may very well outperform these.

    In any case I ventured out this afternoon to partially follow up on a topic I promised - the comparison of the .357 and 9mm in 2" J-frames.

    First the .357 640 (which is actually 2 1/8" of course):

    125gr. Remington Factory JHP = 1231 fps
    145gr. Winchester Silver Tip = 1149 fps

    Now the 9mm 940 1 7/8"

    115gr. Win. Ball = 976 fps
    124gr. Speer G-D +P = 1105 fps
    124gr. Fed +P ExFMJ = 1085 fps
    127gr. Win. +P+ Ranger= 1198 fps
    147gr. Fed H-S = 947 fps
    147gr. Win Black Talon = 940 fps

    I'll say this - the Win. 127 is roughly equal to the Remington 125 gr .357 (though I think the latter may expand more becuase of design) but there is no comparison in recoil, blast and flash - the 127 9mm behaves about like the +P 38 in the snubby.
    Here's the link if anyone is intersted in the whole thread:
    9mm snubby muzzle velocities - Topic Powered by Eve For Enterprise

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array tns0038's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,163
    Quote Originally Posted by jfl View Post
    There is a small difference in bullet diameter between .38 (.357 diameter) and the 9mm (.355 diameter).
    Probably doesn't make a difference at close range.

    About the Charter Arms: whatever has that name on it will make me run away.
    I agree. Othen than for use as a backup to a 9mm what's the point of a 9mm instead of carrying 38.

  6. #21
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,426
    Good Info & Always Appreciated.
    Always remember though that while 9MM short barrel ammo is getting better so also are the .38 & 357 short barrel offerings.

    Heavy .38 SPL +P
    Item 20A: 158gr., very soft cast, semi wad cutter, (Keith) hollow cavity, with a gas check. This bullet will mushroom violently on impact and will penetrate roughly 14 inches in human flesh. Again, this bullet is gas checked and will not lead your barrel.

    S&W mod. 60, 2 inch- 1040 fps (379 ft. lbs.)
    S&W mod. 66, 2.5 inch- 1059 fps (393 ft. lbs.)
    Ruger SP101, 3 inch- 1143 fps (458 ft. lbs.)
    S&W Mt. Gun, 4 inch- 1162 fps (474 ft. lbs.)

    Item 20B: 125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point. This is the Low velocity version designed to expand under 800 fps. It will mushroom violently and penetrate roughly 12 inches in human flesh.

    a. S&W mod 60, 2 inch- 1072 fps (319 ft. lbs.)
    b. S&W mod 66, 2.5 inch- 1108 fps (341 ft. lbs.)
    c. Ruger SP101, 3 inch- 1180 fps (386 ft. lbs.)
    d. S&W Mt. Gun, 4 inch- 1258 fps (439 ft. lbs.)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    .357 Mag.
    1.3 inch S&W J frame

    a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard cast LFN = 1302 fps
    b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC (jacketed hollow cavity) = 1299 fps
    c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1398 fps
    d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1476 fps

  7. #22
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,426
    You might be interested in the 124gr. +P+ 9MM offering also by BuffaloBore.
    They should be decently hot and hard hitting out of a snub.

    1. Item 24A/20 (+p+) 115gr. Jacketed Hollow Point

    Browning Hi Power MK111, 4.6 inch barrel---------1426 fps
    Beretta 92F, 4.9 inch barrel-----------------------------1402 fps
    Glock 19, 4.0 inch barrel--------------------------------1389 fps

    2. Item 24B/20 (+p+) 124gr. Jacketed Hollow Point

    Browning Hi Power MK111, 4.6 inch barrel------------1330 fps
    Beretta 92F, 4.9 inch barrel-------------------------------1304 fps
    Glock 19, 4 inch barrel------------------------------------1296 fps

    3. Item 24C/20 (+p+) 147gr. Jacketed Hollow Point

    Browning Hi Power MK111, 4.6 inch barrel----------1179 fps
    Beretta 92F, 4.9 inch barrel------------------------------1131 fps
    Glock 19, 4.0 inch barrel---------------------------------1165 fps

    (The following loads have not yet been tested-
    Please check back later.)

    4. Item 24D/20 (+p) 115gr. Jacketed Hollow Point

    Browning Hi Power MK111, 4.6 inch barrel----------
    Beretta 92F, 4.9 inch barrel------------------------------
    Glock 19, 4.0 inch barrel---------------------------------

    5.Item 24E/20 (+p) 124gr. Jacketed Hollow Point

    Browning Hi Power MK111, 4.6 inch barrel-----------
    Beretta 92F, 4.9 inch barrel------------------------------
    Glock 19, 4.0 inch barrel--------------------------------

  8. #23
    Member Array Bowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, Fl
    Posts
    475
    Getting some really good info here on ammo specs and such. Looks like the more modern and advanced ammo we have now would give pretty similar performance and I am assuming recoil as well.
    Glock 26 4gen, H&K USPc, S&W 642, Wilson Combat 1911 CQB

  9. #24
    Member Array Rangemaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    126
    From what I hear, 9mm in a snubnose has recoil that is comparable to a .38. So my question to you is, ammo standardization aside, why wouldn't you just get a S&W airweight .38 or .357?

    It just seems like you could carry a much heavier weapon for your BUG than 9mm.
    Kimber Pro Carry II
    SIG Sauer P229, 238, Mosquito
    Beretta 92FS
    Custom STI 1911
    Glock 17 Gen 3
    NRA LIFE MEMBER

  10. #25
    Ex Member Array LSP972's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Rangemaster View Post
    From what I hear, 9mm in a snubnose has recoil that is comparable to a .38. So my question to you is, ammo standardization aside, why wouldn't you just get a S&W airweight .38 or .357?
    When the 940 first came out, I was running my agency's FTU, and had several troopers bring their new 940s to me for approval.

    I had no problems with that, but I asked each one of them "Why? Why do you want this instead of a .38 AirWeight?"

    Pressing them, it really came down to the CDI/coolness factor. Okay... nothing basically wrong with that, either. But when I began questioning them regarding spare ammunition, the RCA dog looks began to appear.

    None of them had considered how much more bulky a loaded moon clip is than a speed strip. Also, if the moon clips are bent in the slightest, they can bind up the action. Etc., etc., .....

    In short, _I_ cannot see a 9mm snubby doing anything that cannot be done as well, or better, than one in .38 (using the old FBI load or the CCI 135gr Gold Dot).

    Not being critical... that "369" the fellow had made is truly neat and innovative, and if you just WANT a 9mm snubby, then by all means... get one.

  11. #26
    Senior Member Array bzdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Seattle(ish), WA
    Posts
    749
    Quote Originally Posted by WC145 View Post
    I solved the problem by having a 13oz scandium frame S&W 360J .38spl rechambered to 9x23.
    I'd love a 12oz Scandium in 9mm. Sounds like a perfect pair with DoubleTab 124gr +P as well.

    Where did you have the conversion done?

    Thanks,

    -john

  12. #27
    VIP Member
    Array nn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    7,120
    Quote Originally Posted by SCfromNY View Post
    Just a point of fact. You do not "have to use" moonclips in a revolver .45ACP however, you will have to pick out the spent brass since the hand ejector will not eject them for you.
    Not exactly so, some 625's do not fire without moonclips while some do.

  13. #28
    Member Array user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Va. & Middle of Nowhere, W.Va.
    Posts
    386
    I don't get it, myself. I see .38's and 9mm's as essentially equivalent. So I've got 9mm pistols and .38 revolvers. Only real problem is the requirement that I stock two kinds of ammo.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    Nothing I say as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice. Legal questions should be presented to a competent attorney licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  14. #29
    Member Array Mica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    27
    I read somewhere on the 'net that Charter has some delays releasing their new 9mm revolver. These are attributable to patent and trademark issues.
    Six Stringers and Six Shooters

  15. #30
    Member Array ranburr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by SCfromNY View Post
    Just a point of fact. You do not "have to use" moonclips in a revolver for 9mm or .45ACP however, you will have to pick out the spent brass since the hand ejector will not eject them for you.

    S&W actually made a J-frame for French police trials that did not require moonclips and the hand ejector did work.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. 9mm revolvers???
    By REVMAN in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: February 21st, 2010, 10:18 PM
  2. M&P revolvers
    By usmc0811 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2008, 07:47 AM
  3. ND's/AD's with revolvers
    By samtechlan in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: August 13th, 2007, 07:48 PM
  4. .22 Revolvers
    By matdicdad in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: July 15th, 2007, 03:44 PM
  5. Why revolvers?
    By incredipete in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: May 31st, 2007, 11:54 PM

Search tags for this page

45 mm revolver
,
9 millimeter
,

9 millimeter revolver

,
9 millimeter revolvers
,

9 mm revolver

,

9 mm revolver light

,

9 mm revolvers

,
9 mm rvolver
,

9mm revolver

,
millimeter revolver
,

nine millimeter revolver

,
why aren't there 9mm revolvers
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors