No, I want something smaller. How about a "I" frame?

That could be done with no problams, useing steel. It would still be relitively light. And the big problam with "J" frames, is size not weight.

What you would then have is a "Terrier" with a real bite.

hmmm, well, number 1 if they had worked weell cnough they may have been more popular
back when S&W offered them.... now it's just
.45 ACP Revolver envy.

Touche"

A 940 is my favorite carry gun, and I would like to see it re-introduced. However, I'm not interested in anything lighter because a 940 in stainless has all the recoil I want! I'll leave those titanium, aluminum, and alloy guns to you younger guys.

Would a j-frame chambered for regular pressure 9mm have more recoil then one firing regular pressure .38 special?

I'm especially interested because what I've read about the new Walther PPS is that is doesn't have a lot of recoil.

Is this because the Walther's slide action absorbs some of the recoil while the j-frame doesn't?

quote:

Originally posted by M'HeadSmith:
Would a j-frame chambered for regular pressure 9mm have more recoil then one firing regular pressure .38 special?

I'm especially interested because what I've read about the new Walther PPS is that is doesn't have a lot of recoil.

Is this because the Walther's slide action absorbs some of the recoil while the j-frame doesn't?

A PPS weighs 22 oz empty.
A 340PD weighs 12 oz.

Go shoot them both and come back with a report on what you think about the recoil............

http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp

I don't know. Can a properly made 9mm revolver be made to fire without moonclips? Does the tapered case create a special problem? Their newer .45 ACP revolvers usually don't work without moonclips and I consider that to be a manufacturing defect which is attributed to incompetence. I would refuse to buy any revolver that needs moonclips to fire.

Dave Sinko

As one of the posters from France noted: "I'm actually looking for a model 940 but it is a very uncommon handgun here..."

They aren't that common on this side of the pond, either.

I would definitely buy one to have a wheel gun in a compatible caliber with my wonder nine. Though, as another poster indicated a light weight alloy version may be to much to handle in the recoil department for some shooters.

Another thing to consider is the reported "problems" that S&W 940's had with ejecting the spent brass. Was this ever actually a problem, or was it due to not properly cleaning the chambers on a regular basis?

quote:

A 940 is my favorite carry gun, and I would like to see it re-introduced. However, I'm not interested in anything lighter because a 940 in stainless has all the recoil I want! I'll leave those titanium, aluminum, and alloy guns to you younger guys.

+1!

quote:

Would a j-frame chambered for regular pressure 9mm have more recoil then one firing regular pressure .38 special?

Yes.

quote:

Can a properly made 9mm revolver be made to fire without moonclips?

The 940 doesn't need moonclips to fire. Loose rounds will fire just fine. Unless you want to poke the cases out individually with a pen, moonclips are needed for extraction.

quote:

Another thing to consider is the reported "problems" that S&W 940's had with ejecting the spent brass. Was this ever actually a problem, or was it due to not properly cleaning the chambers on a regular basis?

S&W doesn't recommend using +P ammo because the cases tend to stick to the cylinder wall, making extraction more difficult (which I can confirm). Most of the accounts of sticky extraction using standard 9mm seem to come from early production. I don't know if there was some slight manufacturing change made or what, but it seems to be a less common complaint in the 940-1s. Cleaning could be a factor as well. I've noticed that after I run about 50 rounds through my 940-1 that extraction gets harder.

I'd Be First in Line to but a 942..
I Love my 940 & have been carrying it for a couple of years now, I've had my 642 for over a year now & realy love it for pocket carry, The 940 is just a tad too heavy for easy pocket carry but with a good holster such as a Kramer it can be done with jeans..But Heavy!!
Just last week I finaly aquired a 342 AirLite Ti & will have to say that it's so much easier to carry in the pocket than the Airweight, I know it's only 3 ounces lighter but it sure is easy to almost forget you have it in your pocket..
Perfesr Here at the S&W Forum has had a 940s cylinder fit to a 642 No Dash & has had good luck with it using the 38 Spl Barrel..
I saw a 940s cylinder sell on Gunbroker a few weeks back for $235 & was gonna bid but that's twice what a cylinder is worth IMO..
The Trouble with the sticking cylinders on the early 940s was that they had a Bad Cylinder Reamer, I know this because I've looked down in several with an eye loupe after having trouble with mine.. I since have had the cylinder in my 940 Reamed to 38 Super, which is a straight case & have had great success with 38 Supers & Most 9mms Since.. Thanks To Forum member Dave Manson for the reaming & charge hole bevel..
A 9mm can be made to fire without moonclips, My Model 547 is proof possitive, But It has extractor segments & an extra pin that the hammer hits above the firing pin to keep the case from backing up by pushing it forward apon detonation, A Realy Nifty Idea..
I think most people would want the 942 to use the full moon clips for ease of reloads..
I wish S&W Would make the 942 & Loose the Lock & MIM parts. I will have to say that the 342Ti isn't bad & it's MIM..
Here's my Current Carry Guns 940 642 & 342Ti, All No Dash & NO LOCKS..
Gary/HK

Very nice indeed, Headknocker. So, you can fire both the 9mm and .38 Super in your 940 since you had it reamed?

I keep looking for a 940, but I am not having much luck as I do not care to pay $700 for the one that I did see. A friend of mine locally had his 642 reworked with a 940 cylinder, barrel, etc., by a local gunsmith. It is gorgeous, but I think he paid like $700 just for the parts and labor, not including the original 642. That being said, the gunsmith told him that it would be cheaper for anyone else who wanted it done because he now has the tools and know how. It turned out great and is a great shooter!

quote:

Originally posted by twogunjay:
I keep looking for a 940, but I am not having much luck as I do not care to pay $700 for the one that I did see. A friend of mine locally had his 642 reworked with a 940 cylinder, barrel, etc., by a local gunsmith. It is gorgeous, but I think he paid like $700 just for the parts and labor, not including the original 642. That being said, the gunsmith told him that it would be cheaper for anyone else who wanted it done because he now has the tools and know how. It turned out great and is a great shooter!

Also, the parts I just made mention of are still showing available through Brownells.

quote:

Originally posted by Glock1911:
Very nice indeed, Headknocker. So, you can fire both the 9mm and .38 Super in your 940 since you had it reamed?

Yes Glock1911 The cylinder reaming has worked out realy well, Also this 940 with the purdy Spegels had the smoothest slickest lightest feeling trigger I've ever incountered on any J Frame, It has also been 100% with ever ammo tried so far as primer strikes go, Some surplus 9mm ammo have very hard primers..

here's a Pic I had on my Harddrive showing the cylinders face after the reaming..
Gary/HK

Nice!

J frame chambered for 9mm, without the internal locking system. That's the gun I'd buy.