S&w 940 Vs 640

J

JerryM

New member
I'm wondering if any of you have done any chronographing of the 9 MM loads from a S&W 940. I am not sure that the .357 offers any power advantage over the 9 MM in these short barrels. If so I think it is marginal. I realize that if you get the absolute maximum loads in the .357 it would offer some advantage, but I don't think most of us use those loads in these light revolvers. I know that in my case the recoil is too punishing.

In the .357 640 2 1/8" with factory ammo I chronographed;
110 gr Hp Win White Box - 1185 fps
125 gr Speer GD - 1185 fps (in M 60 3" v = 1253)
158 gr Fed HS (Fired from a snub Taurus) 1178 fps

In a G 25
115 gr Cor Bon - 1277 fps
115 gr Rem +P - 1211 fps
124 gr Fed Nato - 1106 fps.

I realize that the barrel on the G 26 is longer, but considering the practical short barrel carry guns, there is not a great deal of difference in the .357 and the 9 MM unless one goes to something such as the 158 gr load.

It would be interesting to compare the 940 with the 640.

Jerry
 
Yes, but most revo bullets are not encumbered with rigid jackets all the way to the tip. I suspect there may be a better, though marginal, chance of expansion with the reduced velocities of the shorter barrels. That .357 can also be downloaded with loads that are easier on both the gun and the shooter. Not so the 9mm, whose cartridges must have a base level of power necessary for the reliable operation of auto pistols.

The .357 can also be 'tactically':rolleyes: reloaded, rare though the need may be. Fire two, extract, and re-fill. Or, dump the whole cylinder, pocket the live ones, and speedload. Before you go there, ever try to re-insert a moonclip still holding one or more spent cases?:eek:
 
Your numbers duplicate mine. I chrono'd a 3" mod 65 years ago and my 940. The only loads that outran the 9mm was the 110gr and 125gr JHP and they were less than 100 fps faster, though my 9mm speeds were about 50-100 fps slower than yours. This was in the 3" .357 out of a 2" it would be even slower. I was considering upgrading from a .38 spec 638 to a .357 version, but I ended up dumpig the 638 for the 940. With the blast and recoil of the .357 I am happy to be carrying a 9mm, besides the .357 needs the longer barrels to reach its' full potential. My mod 27 has the 8 3/8" barrel, the .357 really screams out of that gun.
 
Jeff OTMG,
I don't know why I didn't ask, but from your post I surmise that the recoil of the 940 is significantly less than the 640. Is that true?
Thanks,
Jerry
 
Awww, c'mon, VL!

It's just as easy to download 9x19 loads for a 940 as it is for the 640. Heck, all you need is a reloading press, right? :) What am I missing?
 
Jerry, I don't have a chrono anymore, but I have a 940 and I live in NM . . . let me know if you want to get together and run some numbers.

When the 940s and SP-101s first came out, back in '89 or '90, a guy I knew had one of those old Shooting Chronys. I managed a gun store at the time, and we ran a lot of numbers on a lot of different guns. I can't find the tapes, and I fear they may have been thrown out. This was before any of the non-custom "j-frame" .357 snubs were released, but the 9x19 sure beat any .38 load's velocity, weight-for-weight. And I recall that the ballistics of the .357 mag. out of the 2 1/2" S&W k-frames and 2 3/4" Ruger Speed Sixes were none too impressive.

Take it for what it's worth, but that's why I have the 940. Let me know if you want to chrono it.
 
The 115gr CorBon in the 940 will sting, but it is not worse than a 158gr LSWHP in an Airweight mod 38. I have never fired a .357 in a J-frame so I can't comment on that. A +P .38 Special in my 342 is worse than anything I have fired out of my 940.
 
OK, VL --

you're "downloading" by loading .38 Specials, right?

I gotta say (but this is personal opinion) that I don't think the 940 recoil is too bad. Not sure I like the moon clips for concealed carry reloads, though.
 
"..you're "downloading" by loading .38 Specials, right?"

Well, naturally.:D As to the 'lil moonclip, I supect it may be just a touch fragile in the front-pocket environment. :)
 
Erich,
Unfortunately, I am in Las Cruces. My own experience is that the 9MM in short barrels is about as good as the .357 in short barrels.
Thanks for the offer. Maybe we will cross paths one of these days.
I sure hope they make some changes to the CCW law. The current one is terrible, and I have to give up my TX Chl.
I'll be gone for a couple of weeks. Going to Quemado Lake for some peace and quiet. Maybe a trout or two.
Jerry
 
VL -- I download the proper way :) by reloading at lower powder weights.

Seriously, I figure it may be many, many rounds before you etch the cylinder -- but why not just avoid it by loading Special loads in Magnum cases?

I agree completely on the moon clip. I do enjoy the little 940, though. Plus, it's very, very cheap to feed.
 
I haven't gotten around to digging out the data, but I chronographed a few factory loads from my 2" 940 several years ago. I remember that 115 gr. Silver Tips were running about 1100 fps. It seems to me that I was losing about 50-100 fps compared to my Glock 17.

I did find the 940 to be a little "snappier" than .38 +P in a Model 60. The Model 60 was bought shortly after they came out in .357. I tried exactly 20 145 gr. .357 Silver Tips and 20 Remington 125 gr. .357s in the Model 60 and sold it.

I still have the 940 and plan on hanging on to it. It is carried on a semi-regular basis. I can carry a reload in a shirt pocket or in loose fit jeans and have NEVER bent one YET. It was carried everyday when I worked in a gun store for nine years.

I also shoot it in Back Up Gun matches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top