9mm revolvers ?
- Thread starter RAfiringline
- Start date
HighValleyRanch
New member
^^^^^^^^^^
TruthTellers
New member
Lucky Gunner has been spending a lot of money on their ballistic gel tests and youtube videos for a couple years now, I get no sense they're trying to steer people to buying one product they sell over another.
Let's leave the conspiracy crap on Twitter.
You have their test results, and can form your own opinion...
Sorry, but not seeing them being experts from that. Draw your own conclusions. But I can say, shooting a 9mm revolver (an Airweight, for my example) is not something most people do. I’ve heard people say .38+P is too much, and sometimes that 9mm is terrible. Never hear people say .357 Magnum is easy to shoot. Haven’t had any issues with my 9mm revolver. Ballistics are definitely important... being able to shoot it is likely just as important, for obvious reasons.
That being said, I’ve been up in Maine since Saturday. All that time, I’ve been carrying my 642-1, converted to 9mm. Hornady 147 grain XTP... very happy with the load, and works better than the .38+P I original used. Tip, Hornady crimps are awesome for 9mm revolvers. Shot like four cylinders to test one round, and no movement at all.
In regards to the revolver, I removed it once; mailed a package from the Post Office. Comfortable, and easily carrying 20 rounds of 9mm on me (full gun, three moonclips in weak side pocket).
Since it usually comes up on how my gun is going to blow up in my hands... I bought an older M&P up here (1920ish production), as I have a FFL-03. I downloaded the Supica/Nahas book on S&W firearms... mainly to have a source of info after trying to scramble to figure out what I was looking at with the revolver I was purchasing. Has a good deal of info on the 1917, which I’ll likely be buying after I get situated up in Maine... but I bring it up for this little blurb about the 942.
Heard the story a few times, but seeing the revolver pictured and authored information... I feel is a bit more interesting. My gun is identical to that prototype... just no porting and coated in NP3 Plus.
Ah, you're a conspiracy theorest. Duly noted.
HighValleyRanch
New member
Paul Harrell and Chris Baker are quoted more than anyone else on the internet!
@wild cat....thanks for the data. What all have to realize is that 9,40 & 45 are getting the bulk of the ammo company’s attention. So that is how 1000 FPS 9 does what 1400 FPS 357 can do.
I get the case for 9mm revolver, but does anybody make that gun? Seriously, the case is for a 6 shot 3” bbl med weight 30oz belt gun with moon clips and preferably top break that auto ejects the moon clip/cases. It needs big sights with fo and tritium front option. It needs a dlc finish and durable lockwork. It needs 6 shots.
I get the case for 9mm revolver, but does anybody make that gun? Seriously, the case is for a 6 shot 3” bbl med weight 30oz belt gun with moon clips and preferably top break that auto ejects the moon clip/cases. It needs big sights with fo and tritium front option. It needs a dlc finish and durable lockwork. It needs 6 shots.
The problem with Lucky Gunner's tests, in my mind, is that they chose to use Clear Ballistics gelatin. Clear Ballistics is not the same as calibrated 10% ordinance gel and doesn't always give results consistent with real ordinance gelatin. Clear Ballistics gel is cheaper and easier to work with hence why so many YouTubers choose to use it, but it cannot be trusted to give the same results as the industry standard calibrated 10% ordinance gelatin.
Because they did not use what most in the industry have agreed is the best tissue simulant extant, Lucky Gunner's tests really aren't much more useful than the people who shoot water jugs, wet paper, modeling clay, specimens from the butcher's shop, or various fruits and vegetables.
Because they did not use what most in the industry have agreed is the best tissue simulant extant, Lucky Gunner's tests really aren't much more useful than the people who shoot water jugs, wet paper, modeling clay, specimens from the butcher's shop, or various fruits and vegetables.
wild cat mccane
New member
Ah. But when you do the same gel across all calibers, that complaint can only lead one to say it can't be compared to other gel.
You can look at Lucky Gunners 9mm vs 357 as a comparison between the two calibers, because it was the same gel.
You can look at Lucky Gunners 9mm vs 357 as a comparison between the two calibers, because it was the same gel.
Onward Allusion
New member
The Taurus 692 is a 7 shot 38/357/9 convertible that has a 3" barrel w/black oxide finish option that uses moon clips for 9mm and has large sights but no off the shelf tritium.
The type of gel used has no impact on the velocity numbers out of known barrel lengths, so that's useful. And as somebody else pointed out, you can't necessarily compare performance in clear gel versus calibrated gel, but you can compare performance in the same clear gel. I think seeing how consistently various bullets expand is also useful.
stinkeypete
New member
You fellas really need to reframe your question and hand load.
.38/.357 is .357 inch diameter in a rimmed case
9mm is .355 inch diameter in an unrimmed case
The difference is the thickness of a human hair.
Any pistol that can handle a .357 magnum load can simply duplicate a 9mm load. The only issue is the very short barrel, so I imagine that the .357 magnum should be loaded with a very fast powder compared to a longer barrel maximum load.
It’s true that with a runty short barrel one could use a load in a .357 case that would simply produce an enormous fireball without increase (maybe even decrease) in projectile velocity by using a slower powder. But that’s an incompetent load for that barrel.
It’s also true that the .357 load can exactly duplicate the 9mm load.
(I think it’s against the rules to suggest that any gun that can handle the 9mm can also duplicate that load in a .38 case as that brass has a larger volume but it’s a sort of “saami specs” argument over “what is plus p”.)
It seems like people are debating about “what factory ammunition can I buy that works well in a runty short barrel”
and
“I can buy cheap 9mm cheaper than .38 special because I don’t reload yet”
and
“I can get moon clips to solve the problem I created by using rimless cases.”
and
“How come I can’t get semi-wadcutters for my 9mm revolver?”
You boys are arguing about which factory ammo kills a block of jello the deadest.
Not many people are attacked by jello. For shooting humans, a .357 and .355 hole have the same practical effect.
.38/.357 is .357 inch diameter in a rimmed case
9mm is .355 inch diameter in an unrimmed case
The difference is the thickness of a human hair.
Any pistol that can handle a .357 magnum load can simply duplicate a 9mm load. The only issue is the very short barrel, so I imagine that the .357 magnum should be loaded with a very fast powder compared to a longer barrel maximum load.
It’s true that with a runty short barrel one could use a load in a .357 case that would simply produce an enormous fireball without increase (maybe even decrease) in projectile velocity by using a slower powder. But that’s an incompetent load for that barrel.
It’s also true that the .357 load can exactly duplicate the 9mm load.
(I think it’s against the rules to suggest that any gun that can handle the 9mm can also duplicate that load in a .38 case as that brass has a larger volume but it’s a sort of “saami specs” argument over “what is plus p”.)
It seems like people are debating about “what factory ammunition can I buy that works well in a runty short barrel”
and
“I can buy cheap 9mm cheaper than .38 special because I don’t reload yet”
and
“I can get moon clips to solve the problem I created by using rimless cases.”
and
“How come I can’t get semi-wadcutters for my 9mm revolver?”
You boys are arguing about which factory ammo kills a block of jello the deadest.
Not many people are attacked by jello. For shooting humans, a .357 and .355 hole have the same practical effect.
Last edited:
I purchased a Ruger LCR in 9mm because, after years of looking at ballistic test results in different media, I came to conclude that, when comparing commonly available commercial self-defense loads, the 9mm clearly outperformed .38 spl from a 2" barreled revolver. It does not perform as well as .357 magnum so I also purchased a 3" barreled .357 SW.
The biggest downside to the LCR in 9mm are the moon clips. They bend way too easily. When I carry it, however, I usually don't carry a reload anyway so the moon clips are not a concern.
The biggest downside to the LCR in 9mm are the moon clips. They bend way too easily. When I carry it, however, I usually don't carry a reload anyway so the moon clips are not a concern.
Sure, testing various calibers in the same medium gan give you a basis of comparison between calibers, but only in that particular medium. Calibrated 10% ordinance gelatin is the industry standard because the consensus is that it gives the closest approximation of living tissue that can be consistently repeatable in a laboratory environment. Water jugs, wetpack, and modeling clay can give repeatable results, but those media don't behave like living tissue when shot. Clear Ballistics gel is not the best approximation of living tissue so drawing conclusions about cartridge effectiveness from tests with it won't necessarily be accurate.
As to velocity figures, you don't need any gel at all to test that, only a chronograph. But velocity and energy are merely numbers on a page, .357 Magnum ammo is available with bullet constructions like LSWC and SJHP which aren't commonly available in 9mm. Differing bullet constructions will have an impact on how the bullet behaves when it strikes the target.
Finally, comparison of expansion characteristics is highly dependant on the test media. Almost any service caliber JHP will expand in water jugs, but that tells us little about what they do in anything else. Expansion and penetration characteristics are not consistent between Clear Ballistics gel and real 10% ordinance gel so results in one cannot be accurately extrapolated to the other.
As to velocity figures, you don't need any gel at all to test that, only a chronograph. But velocity and energy are merely numbers on a page, .357 Magnum ammo is available with bullet constructions like LSWC and SJHP which aren't commonly available in 9mm. Differing bullet constructions will have an impact on how the bullet behaves when it strikes the target.
Finally, comparison of expansion characteristics is highly dependant on the test media. Almost any service caliber JHP will expand in water jugs, but that tells us little about what they do in anything else. Expansion and penetration characteristics are not consistent between Clear Ballistics gel and real 10% ordinance gel so results in one cannot be accurately extrapolated to the other.
I had two 940's back when they first came out back in the mid 90's or so. One replaced the other after going back to S&W, and the third came back as a .38 on my request.
Both of the 940's "broke" within the first couple of hundred rounds or so, and in the same manner. The guns locked up tight and had to be disassembled to get the remaining loaded rounds out of them to send them back.
I never saw anything that looked broken when I took the side plate off, but the same malfunction happened with both guns. Trigger locked up and the cylinder would not open with the release.
The second gun came back with the same serial number, but the lettering was different and wasnt the same as was on the gun I sent in for repair, and looked to be laser etched.
The 940's werent "Airweights" either. They were basically a 640 in 9mm. Not sure what the issue was, as S&W would never say. I always figured that the 9mm was to hot for the J frames and they never got things figured out, and thought that was why they discontinued them soon after.
Always liked the gun (up until they didnt work), and would like to have one if they ever decided to try and get it worked out and do it again.
I always wanted a 547 as well, and always have my eye out for one. They seem to be hens teeth around here though.
TruthTellers
New member
When carrying a 9mm revolver, a moon clip isn't necessary for the reload. I would carry it with the moon clip and 5 rounds in the gun for ease of extraction/ejection, but the spare would be 5 rounds in a speed strip that carries flat or a speedloader that's more sturdy than a moon clip.
If after 10 shots the problem isn't gone, a third reload isn't gonna help much either, but it's not like you can't remove the fired cases from the cylinder, it's just not as simple or guaranteed.
Maybe we could agree that in the little ~2"-3" revolvers, 9MM effectiveness lies somewhere between 38 +P and .357 Mag ? With the .357 being more powerful, but exhibiting more recoil and muzzle blast. And 9MM being more powerful than .38+P, but with less recoil and muzzle blast than .357 Magnum?
Mention was made of 180 grain .357 ammo. I chronographed some of the Buffalo Bore 180 in some 4" and 5" revolvers. Velocities ranged between 1384 to 1444 FPS, with one of the 4" guns recording the highest velocity. The 180 BB is the most powerful factory .357 ammunition I have used. I would not look forward to carrying the 180 grain BB, or similar, in anything like a little 2" concealed carry revolver.
FWIW, I once chronographed some Winchester 125 JHP .357 in a 3" revolver. It averaged 1369 FPS. For comparison, the Federal 9MM 124 HST +P in a 3" revolver averaged 1295 FPS. I can't recall getting more than 1000 FPS or so from any 38+P, even in a 4" revolver. So the 9MM definitely didn't smoke the .357 in my little informal comparison. In the little 2"-3" revolvers though, the 9MM is perhaps more than, "just a rimless 38+P", as some have claimed.
Even though I can't claim that the 9MM smokes the 357, I think I'll hang on to my wimpy little 9MM revolvers for the time being
Mention was made of 180 grain .357 ammo. I chronographed some of the Buffalo Bore 180 in some 4" and 5" revolvers. Velocities ranged between 1384 to 1444 FPS, with one of the 4" guns recording the highest velocity. The 180 BB is the most powerful factory .357 ammunition I have used. I would not look forward to carrying the 180 grain BB, or similar, in anything like a little 2" concealed carry revolver.
FWIW, I once chronographed some Winchester 125 JHP .357 in a 3" revolver. It averaged 1369 FPS. For comparison, the Federal 9MM 124 HST +P in a 3" revolver averaged 1295 FPS. I can't recall getting more than 1000 FPS or so from any 38+P, even in a 4" revolver. So the 9MM definitely didn't smoke the .357 in my little informal comparison. In the little 2"-3" revolvers though, the 9MM is perhaps more than, "just a rimless 38+P", as some have claimed.
Even though I can't claim that the 9MM smokes the 357, I think I'll hang on to my wimpy little 9MM revolvers for the time being
