Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
854 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Why is SW no longer producing a 9mm J Frame (940)? It seems like the perfect combo of someone who wants a small gun with a bit more potent caliber (no caliber war intended, I have a SW 442 in 38+p). I'm guessing that they didn't sell well, don't know why. I wonder if they will ever make one again?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,088 Posts
don't know why,,,but many mango seaons ago i looked at one and i wonder why any one would get a 9mm in a gun that was the same size as a j-frame 38sp. same size gun,,smaller cal. but when it comes down to it the 9mm is just as good as the 38sp in small guns. but i carry hydro shok +p+ in my 1980's year s&w model 60. talk about a hand full with these +p+ issue duty loads for the back up gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
703 Posts
Sales would have to be the only reason, of course, but you can't tell they didn't sell well from the prices they sell for now. There are guys on the S&W forum hunting them ALL the time. I don't think they ever made an airweight framed one, but if they ever did, I'd buy it (even with a stupid lock on it) and enough moon clips to swim in-might even trade my 642 no dash and a buck or two for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
I am no S&W historian by any means, but it could have been when they made the model 60 in .357 magnum it may have sounded the death knell for the model 940 9mm.

S&W has a funny way of doing things, for an example they dropped the models 431/432 Airweight in .32 H&R magnum, but are not offering a .327 Federal magnum model while Ruger and Charter Arms do. I think now would be a good time to offer a six shot all steel J frame .327 Federal magnum. I know this caliber is new and it is unclear how it will do in future sales, but if S&W got on the bandwagon, it would probably take off and sell like hotcakes.
 

·
1943 - 2009
Joined
·
10,368 Posts
I don't think they ever made an airweight framed one,
They did. The S&W Performance Center built one prototype Model 942 with a 2 inch ported barrel on a Model 642-1 alloy frame with a stainless steel cylinder in 1999.

It was shipped to gun writer Wiley Clapp for evaluation.

His verdict: "The idea has yet to catch on".

(SCSW, 3rd Ed).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShooterGranny

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,765 Posts
I think Taurus still makes a limited number of 9mm snubbies.

But I would rather carry a .357 snubbie and shoot .38's out of it than carry a 9mm snubbie. I am probably not alone and that might be one reason why 9mm snubbies haven't really caught on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Haywood

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,520 Posts
I think Taurus still makes a limited number of 9mm snubbies.

But I would rather carry a .357 snubbie and shoot .38's out of it than carry a 9mm snubbie. I am probably not alone and that might be one reason why 9mm snubbies haven't really caught on.
IIRC they are no longer offered, you can find them used, but I think they died out as well.


**Edited to add:

I just checked their website for 9mm revolvers and they all show as discontinued.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
145,421 Posts
Just my personal opinion that what makes the 9mm such a good all encompassing general purpose semi~automatic round really does not carry over very well to its ideal use in an ultra short barreled snub nose revolver.

So...no great loss that it's not being made anymore and S&W probably concluded the very same thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,028 Posts
The performance of a 9mm in a 2" snubbie that has a cylinder/barrel gap, through which gases escape, is not going to be nearly as good as let's say a Glock 26 with 3 1/2" bbl. and no gap (the Glock being roughly the same overall size). Then, of course you also have to deal with clips on the rimless 9mm for reliable ignition in a snubbie. So, I think that all in all, it really was never a good idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
703 Posts
They did. The S&W Performance Center built one prototype Model 942 with a 2 inch ported barrel on a Model 642-1 alloy frame with a stainless steel cylinder in 1999.
Thanks, CC, that is interesting. I stand corrected...I now don't think they made an airweight framed TWO. ; )
One other thing struck my mind after seeing the above post, now that Jerry mentions it, my speed strips carry a lot more easily than my speedloader for my 642, so maybe I'll pass on the stack of 9mm moon clips after all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
I have and carry a 940 S&W. It is very fast to reload and the empties all come out with the moonclip. To reload drop in moonclip.

I also have a 642. The empties sometimes stick and the cases are longer and don't completely eject out of cylinder. Even with speedloader for 642 the 940 is faster.

I'd like to have airweight in 9MM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,055 Posts
940

I still use mine as a sometimes BUG, and sometimes as a "bet you never saw one of these before" gun. FWIW, 2 moonclips fit into the space of one .38spl speedloader. When I tested mine, there was very little velocity loss compared to a Glock 26, I use 124gr +P Gold Saber.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joezilla

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
I've got three 12.5oz. 637-2 Airweight J-frames with titanium cylinders converted to 9mm.
Barrel length in a 9mm Kimber Micro 9 is 3.15 inches, primer to snout. A 1-7/8 inch J-frame is 3.5 inches, primer to snout. J-frame muzzle energy with 9mm 147gr JHP averages 292 ft-lb.
I got no complaints.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,602 Posts
Hey, it is alive.

I'm kinda intrigued by all this 9mm revolver stuff that keeps popping up since the 1990s. I can see good value in it for the person dedicated to the 9mm cartridge and some possible value in it for those who are willing to practice to attain speedy reloads with moon clips.

Otherwise, I just don't see the 9mm as being able to provide any additional performance over the best the .38 Special has to offer from out of a revolver. I'd love to get a good 9mm revolver with a more meaningful barrel length (3 to 4 inches)in order to wring it out over the chronograph. I think I would not be proven wrong in asserting that the .38 Special will top 9mm performance from revolvers. I just haven't wanted to invest the funds to obtain a suitable revolver for running the tests.

It's certain that a 2-inch revolver isn't the way to go when looking for best 9mm ammunition performance from a revolver when testing. Might be great for compact carry use.

JimGunn mentions the load I'd carry in a 9mm revolver if I chose one for serious use. Forget flea-weight bullets. Gimme some bullet weight!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,234 Posts
I can't believe someone dredged up an 11 year old thread, especially one about 9mm revolvers. But, since it's here... I had a S&W 360J converted to 9mm way back in 2008 when this thread was originally posted. I had a very specific want/need when I had it done. At the time, the only 9mm snubbies around were the 940, SP101, and Taurus 905 - all steel, all around 22oz empty. I did it because I wanted a light weight BUG for when I was on duty (my converted 360J weighs around 13oz ) and because the 9mm is more efficient than the .38spl. You get substantially better ballistic performance than the .38spl with similar bullet weights without a huge increase in muzzle blast/recoil, there are more modern bullet offerings in 9mm, and a 5rd moon clip of 9mms is very fast and easy to reload, even with one hand. The gun turned out exactly as I intended and I've carried it regularly ever since. Of course, now there are a few more 9mm revolvers on the market, the Ruger LCR is the lightest at 17oz.

I've never understood why people view 9mm revolvers so negatively, .45ACP revolvers have been around 100+ years, using rimless cartridges in revolvers is hardly a new thing. A 9mm revolver is simply taking advantage of the 9mms attributes - ballistic efficiency, short OAL, modern projectiles, inexpensive ammo - in a different platform using moonclips, which make for much faster reloads in a revolver. Sound reasons, if you ask me.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,602 Posts
I'm never off put by necro-posting if the old thread can still serve a purpose and pertinent discussion can be had. It's just the 11-year old threads on topics such as: "Should I buy this one or that one?" that are annoying clutter. Those folks have likely made up their mind by now.

Do you really think 9mm offers substantially better ballistic performance than .38 Special WC145? I just can't see it, not in theory in my mind. Perhaps I have a prejudiced chronograph, but in testing 9mm loads in automatics, the 9mm has never set the woods on fire for me and only gains its ballistic advantage when the .38 Special is deliberately limited to watered down loads and light bullets. Out of snub revolvers with barrel/cylinder gaps I feel like any advantage that the 9mm could have enjoyed is lost.

I recall a magazine article, or was it a magazine cover from back in the 80s when the 9mm became the latest darling and took the shooting public by storm. Went something like this. "9mm, far more powerful than .38 Special! Approaches the .357 Magnum in power!"

I was shooting my .38s, a 9mm Luger, and .357 Magnums over the chronograph screen and scratching my head because no special properties or advantages could be attributed to the 9mm cartridge that were trumpeted in the articles. Was building some fairly nuclear-powered handloads for that Luger too, trying to achieve reliable function because I'd read somewhere that Lugers liked hot ammo. What I found out at the time was that .38 Special gave up nothing to 9mm if thoughtful modern loads were used and that the .357 Magnum is a horse! Let my gun magazine subscriptions expire soon after.

Oh, I know. We've got better 9mm ammunition now. I have my doubts however.

I'm probably the only person who thinks this way.

Y'all are gonna make me fool around a buy a stinkin' 9mm revolver, just to satisfy my mind. One of those 22 oz. models would suit me for the purpose.
 
1 - 20 of 76 Posts
Top