9mm revolver

[Jim Watson]

I wouldn't mind seeing a snub .45 with a cylinder meant only for .45 ACP that was cut for moon clips, but could also work with shortened .45 Cowboy Special cases in the event I didn't want to deal with the clips.

That does not compute at all.
If you don't want to clip .45 ACP, you must use .45 Auto Rim which has a thick rim to control headspace the same as ACP + clip.
.45 Cowboy Special is the same length as .45 ACP but has the rim diameter and thickness of .45 Long Colt. It is meant for powderpuff loads in Single Actions. Hard to shorten it and have anything left.

 

[SIGSHR]

If you look up "Israeli 9MM Revolver" on Google Images it will take you to silahreport.com-Israel's Attempt at a 9MM Revolver.

 

[44 AMP]

...but could also work with shortened .45 Cowboy Special cases ...

I put this down to simple grammatical error, as often happens to me during a flurry of typing. Short or shorter would have been fine, but shortened got typed instead.

Alternately a spellchecker/grammar checker goofed. Or the author did.

Personally I think the idea of a .45 Cowboy revolver would be superior to a .45ACP revolver from a functional standpoint. However, reall world considerations of cost and availability of ammo would argue against it.

Also there is the mechanical issues with the fact that .45acp and .45 colt cases are NOT the same size.

And with the .45 Cowboy being a shortened .45 Colt with the Colt dimensions and the ACP case length, there will be an issue making both work in the same cylinder without clips for the acp brass.

AND, since .45 Auto rim has a rim 0.030 thicker than the .45 Colt, there is an issue there, that needs to be addressed in the basic design of the gun to begin with.

The .45 Cowboy (I've also heard it referred to as the .45 Cowboy Special) is the same .480" at the case mouth as the .45 Colt. while the .45ACP is .473".

And since the chamber stop ledge used for headspacing the ACP has to be slightly less than .473" using a chamber with the ACP headspace ledge for a case .007" larger at that point will cause a problem. The only way to use the same cylinder for .45 Cowboy and .45acp would be to have no headspace ledge in the chamber and rely on clips to headspace the acp.

This is not an impossible task, simply one that has to be taken into account when designing the gun. And while there is not currently any .45 Cowboy ammo loaded to ACP performance levels, there is no reason at all it could not be done.

SO, a personal defense revolver in .45 Cowboy with defense level ammunition would allow .45acp performance with a rimmed case, that isn't the .45 Auto rim. But would there be a market?

Right now, I'm doubtful.

 

[Don P]

USPSA killed off their .45 six-guns by allowing 8 shot minor revolvers and the 9mm and .38 Short Colt have taken over the Division.

Still useful in IDPA if you have a 4".

Probably a niche in ICORE.

ICORE made a special division for the 6 shot moon clip guns called L6.
I disagree with USPSA killed off the 6 shot being you have stages set up for 8 shot friendly shooting positions. So they were always behind the 8 ball with round count. Jerry made it work, but then again, he is one special shooter.

 

[44 AMP]

But your argument is the same as me saying where are all the .38 Special /.357 Magnum autoloaders? That Colt and S&W that used wadcutters… Desert Eagle… and the Coonan. Must be such a terrible round since there isn’t a Glock made in it.

I got to thinking about this, and I don't think it's the same argument. It sounds like just the reversal of my question about the lack of 4 and 6" 9mm revolvers, ("field guns" was what I had in mind, though I did neglect to specify that). but its not, really.

And the reason its not has to do with the why and the why is due to available gun designs, and ammo designs, primarily.

You can also say tradition plays a part, and I'm sure it does play some part, but one needs to understand that the traditions get formed from actual real world performance.

So consider these points, first, neither the 9mm Luger nor the .38 Special were always what they are today. Just for comparison, and using only ft/lbs of energy, look where they both started. (and for further comparison I'm going to add in the .45acp) as those three were the primary common pistols rounds in the pre WWI era.

The "standard" .38 Special load, a 158gr @ 850fps (6" barrel) developes about 270 ft/lbs energy

The orignial 9mm Parabellum load was a 124gr @ 1050fps (4" barrel) which develops about 300ft/lbs of energy.

If we shoot the .38 special from a 4" barrel to match the Luger, the 9mm round has a calculated advantage of about 50 ft/lbs
for comparison, the .45ACP load of 230gr @ 830 fps (5" barrel) develops about 360ft/lbs of energy.

Between its German Army adoption in 1908 and WWI (1914) the 9mm Luger load was changed to a 115gr bullet @ 1150fps, which has about 350ft/lbs of energy. Putting it roughly on a par with the .45acp in terms of ft/lbs. However energy alone is not the entire story of field effectiveness.

from the time of their introduction, the semi auto pistol rounds were loaded with FMJ bullets and the .38 Special with a lead bullet. Factory ammo didn't change this until the late 60s/early 70s, and it took still another decade plus for generally reliable JHP ammo to become common in semi auto pistol rounds. This being the case, the 9mm Luger never got the reputation as a
good field round (even for small game) simply because despite the energy, the bullet, a pointy FMJ was not a good game bullet. (and neither did the .45acp RN FMJ). The lead bullet of the .38 special and particularly when an SWC shape was used performed better on game. And, often on people, as well, because the lead bullet would sometimes expand a bit, while FMJs never did.

This has, of course changed significantly but that's where they started, and where people's attitudes and "traditions" began as well.

Now, lets look at the guns. From the first days of the 9mm Parabellum, there were revolvers capable of being chambered in that cartridge. Not so for the .38 Special in semi autos. None of the available semi auto pistol designs could accept the loaded length of the .38 special round. The guns simply just weren't made big enough to do that. A couple match guns were made to take flush seated wadcutters in .38 special cases (or .38 spl length brass) but those were only for target use.

It isn't until you get up to the 1970s that there were semi autos built big enough to take the .38 special length, and by that time, no one was interested in having a semi in .38 special when it could be had in .357 Magnum or bigger, even more powerful rounds. If I remember right, the .357 Desert Eagle showed up about 1984 or so.

FWIW, I have a .357Desert Eagle and a Coonan Model A, and as factory produced, they will fire the .38 special but will only work as manually operated repeaters. .38s will not cycle the actions. The new Coonan "Classic" comes with a spring set to run the .38 special, as far as I know, the Desert Eagle never has done that.

So, historically speaking we have the facts that while the major US gunmakers could have made revolvers in 9mm as a standard commercial item, they didn't bother until after interest in the 9mm round picked up with the advent of bullets better than the standard FMJ.

While at the same time, they didn't make .38 Special semi autos, generally, I think primarily because there was no market demand or interest outside of bullseye shooting.

The OP was fairly brief, and stated that he thought a 9mm revolver made more sense than a .38 special.

I disagree. I agree there are circumstances where a 9mm Luger revolver makes sense. I just don't think it makes more sense than a .38 Special.

 

[jetinteriorguy]

I haven't reloaded for some time, those who do have told me that the ammo shortage has caused a components shortage-primers especially.

Any serious reloader is prepared for these shortages ever since Obama’s first term. Between ammo I have loaded and SPP’s I have in stock I have close to 15000 rounds in .38, 9mm, and .357 available to either shoot or load. I would hazard a guess there are a lot others equally prepared as I am. And this isn’t counting what I have in large pistol and rifle rounds/primers. Heck, in all primer sizes alone I have somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 on hand plus plenty of already loaded ammo. Remember the Boy Scout motto, be prepared.

 

[74A95]

So consider these points, first, neither the 9mm Luger nor the .38 Special were always what they are today.

How has the 38 Special changed?

from the time of their introduction, the semi auto pistol rounds were loaded with FMJ bullets and the .38 Special with a lead bullet. Factory ammo didn't change this until the late 60s/early 70s, and it took still another decade plus for generally reliable JHP ammo to become common in semi auto pistol rounds.

The 38 Special has been loaded with metal point bullets and the 9mm has been loaded with hollow point bullets long before the 60s.

 

[Jim Watson]

The reason the .38 Special is too long for service pistols is that it was originally a black powder cartridge.

The 9mm Federal gives plenty of performance in a small to medium revolver but it ran into two problems.
It will chamber in a .38 S&W revolver, potentially subjecting 19th century guns to triple pressure. No doubt the liability lawyers freaked out.
Charter Arms was the only gunmaker interested and they just put it in guns long enough for Specials and even Magnums. A hardsteel I frame Smith would have been just the ticket.

 

[stuckinthe60s]

..............Handguns had very little, if any, impact on the outcomes of WWI and WWII...............

hilter didnt use a rifle. lol.

 

[stuckinthe60s]

the way i understood it, many 9mm revolvers were made and sold to island countries under european govt. rule. since european countries were supplied with surplus 9mm, they needed 9mm guns for their police forces. many in europe didnt feel the islanders could figure out a semi auto, or were afraid theyd mysteriously loose them. so they gave them revolvers.
heck...many liked them since it was considered a modern step up from 32 and 380.
bias? ok. i didnt write history. im just sharing what i learned travelling thru the years.

 

[KyJim]

I have a SW snubby that fires .38 spl +P and a Ruger snubby that fires 9mm +P. I don't currently reload. Considering only factory self-defense loads, there are more 9mm loads than .38 spl loads that will expand credibly and also penetrate the FBI standard of 12-18 inches in ballistic gel.

When I carry either the SW or Ruger, it's almost always without a reload because it is either: (a) a backup or (b) my "running an errand down the street" gun. Thus, the issue of moon clips doesn't come into play (the Ruger LCR doesn't need moon clips).

I also have a three-inch barreled SW Model 547 that shoots and extracts 9mm rounds without a moon clip. But with the extra inch, there are more .38 spl rounds that expand and penetrate appropriately for self-defense. So, my 547 rarely gets out of the safe while one of my three-inch barreled .38s do.

 

[rock185]

I wouldn't say that the 9mm revolver makes more sense than a .38 revolver, but do admit I like 9mm revolvers. Had the Blackhawk .357/9mm convertible, 547s, and a few others. I can say that while the 9mm cartridge is no .357, the chronograph reveals the 9mm cartridge to be very efficient in the little 2" and 3" revolvers. In fact, and FWIW, ballistically superior to any major manufacturer 38+P I have chronographed to date.



.

 

[TruthTellers]

I put this down to simple grammatical error, as often happens to me during a flurry of typing. Short or shorter would have been fine, but shortened got typed instead.

Alternately a spellchecker/grammar checker goofed. Or the author did.

Personally I think the idea of a .45 Cowboy revolver would be superior to a .45ACP revolver from a functional standpoint. However, reall world considerations of cost and availability of ammo would argue against it.

Also there is the mechanical issues with the fact that .45acp and .45 colt cases are NOT the same size.

And with the .45 Cowboy being a shortened .45 Colt with the Colt dimensions and the ACP case length, there will be an issue making both work in the same cylinder without clips for the acp brass.

AND, since .45 Auto rim has a rim 0.030 thicker than the .45 Colt, there is an issue there, that needs to be addressed in the basic design of the gun to begin with.

The .45 Cowboy (I've also heard it referred to as the .45 Cowboy Special) is the same .480" at the case mouth as the .45 Colt. while the .45ACP is .473".

And since the chamber stop ledge used for headspacing the ACP has to be slightly less than .473" using a chamber with the ACP headspace ledge for a case .007" larger at that point will cause a problem. The only way to use the same cylinder for .45 Cowboy and .45acp would be to have no headspace ledge in the chamber and rely on clips to headspace the acp.

This is not an impossible task, simply one that has to be taken into account when designing the gun. And while there is not currently any .45 Cowboy ammo loaded to ACP performance levels, there is no reason at all it could not be done.

SO, a personal defense revolver in .45 Cowboy with defense level ammunition would allow .45acp performance with a rimmed case, that isn't the .45 Auto rim. But would there be a market?

Right now, I'm doubtful.

It was not a typo, I specified a shorter .45 Cowboy case is because standard length is just a bit longer than .45 ACP, but a .45 Cowboy Special snub that was cut for .45 ACP moon clips would be just fine. I have zero interest in dealing with .45 Auto Rim and the nice thing about .45 Cowboy is I can stick them in my .45 Colt revolvers if I wanted to.

That's the major appeal for this gun: a modern rimmed .45 ACP to replace the obsolete .45 Auto Rim.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I firmly believe the 9mm revolver makes much more sense than the .38 special. Regardless of what some people may believe the 9mn is a more powerful round than the .38. It's cheaper to shoot and you have the option to use the moon clips. "

OK, cool. You have a firm opinion.

I have a different opinion.

I'm not looking for the most power in a small defensive handgun.

I'm looking for a combination of bullet penetration and expansion, and these days there are many .38 Special rounds that do that admirably, even out of a snub nose revolver.

I've carried a .38 snub for over 30 years. I've also carried 9mms, .357s, and when I need a really small and concealable pistol, a .22.

I'm confident in my abilities with all of them, and I choose the best ammunition that is available at the time.

 

[Jim Watson]

It was not a typo, I specified a shorter .45 Cowboy case is because standard length is just a bit longer than .45 ACP, but a .45 Cowboy Special snub that was cut for .45 ACP moon clips would be just fine. I have zero interest in dealing with .45 Auto Rim and the nice thing about .45 Cowboy is I can stick them in my .45 Colt revolvers if I wanted to.

That's the major appeal for this gun: a modern rimmed .45 ACP to replace the obsolete .45 Auto Rim.

The .45 CS was designed to hold the minimum charge of black powder for the SASS BP division. Of course there was an immediate search for smokeless loads.

I don't see a reason to shorten it any more; that would give you the equivalent of a .45 GAP rimmed. To get any good out of it, "they" would have to bring out an all new short frame revolver and that is not going to happen.

 

[44 AMP]

It was not a typo, I specified a shorter .45 Cowboy case is because standard length is just a bit longer than .45 ACP,..

Not having it my old books I had to resort to finding the case drawing online.

The drawing I found shows the .45 Cowboy having a case length of .898"

This is exactly the length of the .45 ACP and .45 Auto Rim.

and this matches what I have heard about the case, that it is the same length as the .45ACP.

Not longer.

 

[TruthTellers]

Not having it my old books I had to resort to finding the case drawing online.

The drawing I found shows the .45 Cowboy having a case length of .898"

This is exactly the length of the .45 ACP and .45 Auto Rim.

and this matches what I have heard about the case, that it is the same length as the .45ACP.

Not longer.

Because of the taper to the .45 ACP case the .45 Cowboy may not fit in .45 ACP chambered revolvers, thus they'd require trimming.

One way to alleviate that for reloaders is to use .45 ACP sizing dies. I know from experience using .45 Colt sizer dies on .45 ACP works just fine in the Ruger Redhawk.

As to why I want this, IDK, I just like being given a choice of shooting .45 ACP with or without clips or using a rimmed case that is basically super short .45 Colt that I could use in .45 Colt chambers.

 

[44 AMP]

The .45 acp and the 9mm Luger are the same in one aspect, they are intended to headspace on the case mouth. There is a ledge at the front of the chamber to do this. When, in a semi auto the case is too short to be stopped by this ledge, it is usually still held in place by the pistol's extractor, and so still fires normally.

This is the method commonly used in revolvers, as well. It is the system exclusively used in Single action revolvers in those calibers. Clips are not used, in an SA revolver they are not needed and not practical.

In a DA revolver, there are two options, and both work. Which one is actually doing the work of headspacing the rounds depends on tolerances.

If the rounds are headspacing on the chamber ledge, then the clip serves only to allow simultaneous ejection. The gun can be used without the clips,
rounds will headspace and fire properly they just won't eject .

If the rounds are too short to reach the chamber ledge, or there is no chamber ledge, then the clip does double duty, acting as both the headspace and allowing ejection. Guns that do that cannot be used without the clips.

This was demonstrated by the very first batch of 1917 .45acp revolvers. The Colt guns did not have the chamber ledge, and could not be used without the half moon clips. The S&W guns did have the headspace ledge in the chambers and could be used without the clips.

Because of numerous complaints, after the first batch, Colt put the headspace ledge in its guns, too.

Because of the taper to the .45 ACP case the .45 Cowboy may not fit in .45 ACP chambered revolvers, thus they'd require trimming.

Its not the taper its that the actual case and chamber dimensions are different.

One way to alleviate that for reloaders is to use .45 ACP sizing dies. I know from experience using .45 Colt sizer dies on .45 ACP works just fine in the Ruger Redhawk.

Your Redhawk is chambered for what?? .45 Colt, isn't it?

Allowing for the variances in tolerance and understanding that the usual case drawings show the maximum dimensions, consider this...

The .45 ACP has a rim that is .480" The case head is .476" and tapers to .473" at the case mouth.

the .45 Colt (and the .45 Schofield, and the .45 Cowboy cases) have the same body dimensions other than length. .480" at the case head, .480" at the case mouth.

The .45 Colt chamber will easily accept an ACP case because the ACP case is undersize for the chamber. But you must use clips or the ACP case will go too deep into the chamber to fire. There is no ledge in the .45 Colt chamber at the right length to headspace an ACP case.

The .45 Cowboy chamber will not have the ledge, either. If it had a ledge to headspace ACP rounds, the larger diameter (.480" vs .473") case would not fit. In a gun with the clearance for the clips, you could fire ACP in a .45 Cowboy chamber. With out clips, it will not work.

The reverse, firing .45 Cowboy in an ACP chamber will not work, IF things are in spec.

there have been 9mm DA revolvers with special extractors that do not need to use clips. As far as I know, no one has done that with .45 ACP revolvers.

 

[Jim Watson]

there have been 9mm DA revolvers with special extractors that do not need to use clips. As far as I know, no one has done that with .45 ACP revolvers.

"Introducing the Charter Arms .45 ACP caliber Pitbull. The unique design provides a dual coil spring assembly located in the extractor which allows for the insertion and retention of the .45 ACP caliber cartridge in each chamber of the revolvers’ cylinder. (No moon clips required) This patented system allows the shooter ease of ejecting spent cartridges for immediate reloading."

the very first batch of 1917 .45acp revolvers. The Colt guns did not have the chamber ledge, and could not be used without the half moon clips.

I have read about this for years but have never seen one of those early Colts. Did they replace cylinders after the design change? Are they all lurking in collections, never fired?

Any road, you can reprise that situation today. There are several shops that will cut your .45 Colt to accept clipped .45 ACP and still shoot .45 LC. Ruger even makes one at the factory.

"Chambered to shoot both .45 Auto and .45 Colt cartridges and ships with three (3) full moon clips that act as both a speed loader for the .45 auto rounds and aid in the ejection of the spent cartridges."

(Ruger clip is not the same as for Colt and Smith.)

The OP could also shoot .45 CS in such a gun. What he could not do is shoot unclipped .45 ACP or .45 AR.

Another thing not feasible in these guns is to shoot with half moon clips due to the way the outer border of the cylinder face is left to headspace the rimmed cartridge.

 

[44 AMP]

I have read about this for years but have never seen one of those early Colts. Did they replace cylinders after the design change? Are they all lurking in collections, never fired?

it is my understanding that the very first batch of 1917 Colts, the ones with the bored straight through chambers were refitted with new cylinders after WWI.

Ok, so Charter arms makes (made?) a .45ACP revolver with a special extractor that doesn't need clips.

That explains why I had never heard of one....