Revolvers chambered for semiauto cartridges.
- Thread starter SIGSHR
- Start date
As with many things in the real world, it's not a simple black/white proposition.
Let's think about another question: Is the 10mm successful? It's not as common as 9mm or .38SP, but it has been around for several decades and doesn't seem to be going away. There have been a lot more 10mm gun/ammo sales than, say, for the .41AE which went bust in the 80s, and probably even more than cartridges like the .460S&W or the .32H&R Magnum which have never sold tons of guns or ammo but also aren't going away any time soon.
Are semi-auto cartridge revolvers a failure? Sure-the -same way the 10mm, .460S&W and .32H&R Mag are all failures. They're not going to ever rival the more popular conventional revolver cartridges for sales figures.
Are semi-auto cartridge revolvers a success? Sure--they don't seem to be going away--they're enough of a success that one manufacturer or another makes a run of them from time to time.
Can we boil it down to a simple 'Yes' or 'No' answer? I'd say it depends not only on the specific definition of success one chooses to use, but also on where the specific threshold of success/failure is drawn.
Let's think about another question: Is the 10mm successful? It's not as common as 9mm or .38SP, but it has been around for several decades and doesn't seem to be going away. There have been a lot more 10mm gun/ammo sales than, say, for the .41AE which went bust in the 80s, and probably even more than cartridges like the .460S&W or the .32H&R Magnum which have never sold tons of guns or ammo but also aren't going away any time soon.
Are semi-auto cartridge revolvers a failure? Sure-the -same way the 10mm, .460S&W and .32H&R Mag are all failures. They're not going to ever rival the more popular conventional revolver cartridges for sales figures.
Are semi-auto cartridge revolvers a success? Sure--they don't seem to be going away--they're enough of a success that one manufacturer or another makes a run of them from time to time.
Can we boil it down to a simple 'Yes' or 'No' answer? I'd say it depends not only on the specific definition of success one chooses to use, but also on where the specific threshold of success/failure is drawn.
jetinteriorguy
New member
Man, that’s a nice revolver. I’d take one like that in a heartbeat. How did they make it so it doesn’t need moonclips?I have two 9mm revolvers. One is more of a safe queen that only occasionally gets to the range, a SW 547 that doesn't need moonclips:
The other is my 9mm Ruger LCR. Half the moonclips I got from Ruger (including extra I ordered) were useless right out of the package. Then I found Speed Beez moonclips and they have worked great. I carry the Ruger, but usually not with a reload (I usually didn't carry a reload with my .38 spl J-frames either). I like the little extra velocity of factory 9mm over factory .38 spl from a short barrel.
My 45 ACP Bulldog works OK. Ejecting a moonclip is easier, ejecting rimmed cartridges works better. The Charter Arms system doesn’t always give positive ejection and you’ve kind of have to angle the rounds in to load them.
The Charter Arms system works better than using nonrimmed cartridges without moonclips but not as well as moonclips. Not having to use moonclips sounds good in theory but in practice it just makes unloading and reloading slower. Of course carrying the Bulldog would allow you to just carry loose rounds so maybe some would see that as an advantage. If I had to choose between carrying my S&W 325 PD or the Bulldog, the 325 with moonclips would be the easy choice. Of course the S&W costs about twice as much.
Jim Watson
New member
The trick 547 extractor looks like umbrella ribs spreading out around the star as the ejector rod is pushed. Beryllium copper, I think.
Do you have to push rounds in past the teeth on the Charter rimless extractor?
Do you have to push rounds in past the teeth on the Charter rimless extractor?
Pushing them past the teeth is one option. If you load the rounds at the correct angle they will kind of slip past the teeth. I find the easier way to load is to hold the extractor about a quarter inch away from the cylinder and then start the rounds into the cylinder and once all the rounds are loaded you can allow the extractor to close and it grabs all the rounds.
jetinteriorguy
New member
Thanks, think I’ll just stick with .38sp and .357mag.
Here's a photo of the extraction system:
The rear of the cylinder face is slightly recessed and that's where the circular, one-piece extractor sits. The copper-colored pieces actually grab the cartridges. These were supposedly expensive to manufacture and the system is supposedly not real sturdy. I haven't put a lot of rounds through this gun, so can't speak to how sturdy they are.
I've seen two stories about the origin of the 547. The one that makes more sense to me is that it was developed for the French Police, who then went a different route. The other is that the Israelis originally contracted with SW to make a 9mm revolver for Palestinian police in the late 70's (they evidently did not want to give them semi-auto pistols) but cancelled the order.
In addition to the 3-inch barreled revolver with round butt, SW also made a 4-inch barreled version with a square butt.
It seems there is one aspect that has been eluded to but not really discussed here. "Pistol caliber" revolvers seem to be used as an alternative that provides more economical ammo options.
It used to be that a person would buy a .357 revolver and use magnum ammo for hunting or personal protection. But much practice or recreational shooting was done with .38 Special. When the military was still using .38 revolvers and could sell surplus on the civilian market, .38 Special ammo was significantly less expensive than commercial .357 Magnum.
That's not so much the case any more. In recent years, "recreational" grade ammo for .357 or .38 Spl. cost roughly the same amount. The same is true for premium "personal defense" ammo. But the glut of inexpensive 9mm ammo in recent years meant a person could shoot that cartridge for sometimes half the cost of .38 Spl. or .357 Mag.
For those who don't reload, being able to shoot inexpensive ammo for practice seems appealing. The same could be said for shooting relatively inexpensive .45 ACP vs. .45 Colt. Or .40 vs. 10mm.
There have been D/A revolvers introduced in recent years designed to use clips to shoot .45 ACP in .45 Colt chambers, or .40 in 10mm cahmbers. The Convertible single actions from Ruger and others are another example that provide a way to shoot an "inexpensive" alternative along with the "premium" cartridge by simply swapping cylinders.
And then, fast forward to the market craziness of today. Finding any ammo at reasonable prices is challenging. It seems one of the last cartridges to dissapepear from shelves completely was the .32 ACP. This can be used in revolvers chambered for any of the larger straight wall .32 cartridges. It seems cartridge flexibility offered by some revolvers has become more of an advantage than it once was.
It used to be that a person would buy a .357 revolver and use magnum ammo for hunting or personal protection. But much practice or recreational shooting was done with .38 Special. When the military was still using .38 revolvers and could sell surplus on the civilian market, .38 Special ammo was significantly less expensive than commercial .357 Magnum.
That's not so much the case any more. In recent years, "recreational" grade ammo for .357 or .38 Spl. cost roughly the same amount. The same is true for premium "personal defense" ammo. But the glut of inexpensive 9mm ammo in recent years meant a person could shoot that cartridge for sometimes half the cost of .38 Spl. or .357 Mag.
For those who don't reload, being able to shoot inexpensive ammo for practice seems appealing. The same could be said for shooting relatively inexpensive .45 ACP vs. .45 Colt. Or .40 vs. 10mm.
There have been D/A revolvers introduced in recent years designed to use clips to shoot .45 ACP in .45 Colt chambers, or .40 in 10mm cahmbers. The Convertible single actions from Ruger and others are another example that provide a way to shoot an "inexpensive" alternative along with the "premium" cartridge by simply swapping cylinders.
And then, fast forward to the market craziness of today. Finding any ammo at reasonable prices is challenging. It seems one of the last cartridges to dissapepear from shelves completely was the .32 ACP. This can be used in revolvers chambered for any of the larger straight wall .32 cartridges. It seems cartridge flexibility offered by some revolvers has become more of an advantage than it once was.
"9mm vs. .38 Special" was a commonly-recurring gun magazine staple during the 1980s and early 1990s. I was on the .38 Special side...
However, since I acquired a .38 revolver seven years ago, I have noticed that no local store or gun shop carries .38 Special any more. It's easy to reload, of course, but (at least before the current ammo shortage) for times when I was lazy, stuffing the revolver full of cheap imported 9mm would have been very nice.
However, since I acquired a .38 revolver seven years ago, I have noticed that no local store or gun shop carries .38 Special any more. It's easy to reload, of course, but (at least before the current ammo shortage) for times when I was lazy, stuffing the revolver full of cheap imported 9mm would have been very nice.
BUGS BUNNY
New member
Wife & I shot IDPA every weekend for years, The Smith 625 45acp w full moon clips as some mentioned was not as easy as a 629 which I used mostly loaded down of course, she had 66 for her revolver when I didn't have 45acp ammo loaded 
The moon clips hung really bad with lead / cast bullets even factory 230gr ball if it fell in cocked, jammed compared to 6 loose shells dropping independently from a safariland loader.
I have a few 625's I wound up chamfering the cylinder on one to alleviate the problem but it just was not as easy as the 66 / 629 for matches imo
Just my observation in a speed scenario not the best.
The moon clips hung really bad with lead / cast bullets even factory 230gr ball if it fell in cocked, jammed compared to 6 loose shells dropping independently from a safariland loader.
I have a few 625's I wound up chamfering the cylinder on one to alleviate the problem but it just was not as easy as the 66 / 629 for matches imo
Just my observation in a speed scenario not the best.
A couple of videos showing how the S&W 547 extractor looks and works.
At 3:47 in this video you can see a round inserted and then extracted. I didn't watch the whole video, only the pertinent part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnGv3yRnnEY
Here's another one. At about 2:17 there's a closeup of the extractor and the videographer pushes on the spring-loaded "fingers" so you can see how they work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHd3D1GqNJA
At 3:47 in this video you can see a round inserted and then extracted. I didn't watch the whole video, only the pertinent part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnGv3yRnnEY
Here's another one. At about 2:17 there's a closeup of the extractor and the videographer pushes on the spring-loaded "fingers" so you can see how they work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHd3D1GqNJA
9mm and .30 carbine
I have S&W 940s with 1.75" and 3" barrels. Also a Ruger LCR 9. Never liked the clips for the LCR.
Ruger made a couple of Black Hawks for the .30 carbine round.
The safe queen of my .30 carbine collection, however, is a Taurus Raging Thirty. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only double-action .30 carbine revolver made. It has a 10" barrel and is so heavy that you can use it as a boat anchor in a pinch.
I have S&W 940s with 1.75" and 3" barrels. Also a Ruger LCR 9. Never liked the clips for the LCR.
Ruger made a couple of Black Hawks for the .30 carbine round.
The safe queen of my .30 carbine collection, however, is a Taurus Raging Thirty. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only double-action .30 carbine revolver made. It has a 10" barrel and is so heavy that you can use it as a boat anchor in a pinch.