Was it a problem with sticking cylinders, people disliking the moon clips, or something else?

__________________
Aaron Terry

Probably a little of all the above. Biggest thing to me is, is that it's an answer to a question that nobody asked to begin with. 9mm won't do anything that .357 Magnum in the exact same gun won't do better. And, contrary to opinion, .357 in a 640-sized jframe really ain't that bad. I wouldn't want to shoot a couple hundred rounds at a time, but in small doses, it's not bad.

Pretty simple I think - it just didn't sell. There really isn't any other reason to stop making them.

As to why they didn't sell, there are many opinions, including the ones you listed above. My personal opinion is that the typical J frame buyer wasn't interested in the 9MM revolver because it is more complicated to use then a 38 special, and potentially prone to more problems. A lot of these buyers only buy one gun, and rarely shoot them.

I think it is easy for those of us that shoot a lot and are into guns to forget that. This is something I am reminded of every time I teach an NRA class and deal with a new shooter. A revolver can be complicated enough without introducing moon clips.

My personal experience with the 940 has been good and bad. I have two; one has always shot very well and extracted properly. The other one jammed the cylinder and had rough extraction. I sent it back to Smith & Wesson, they fixed it for free, and I have never had a problem with it since.

I think the problem was that the 940 was ahead of the curve. Today, S&W could probably find a good market for a moon clip 9mm. As for why, it's simple. Cost of ammo. The 38 spl. runs me 19.99 per box of 50 at the only shop where I can find it, 9mm from Walmart is only a bit more than half that price. I would dearly love to be able to slide a 9mm moon clip cylinder into my 620 and I suspect there are a lot of 686 owners who feel the same.

As for moon clips, I love them. I can spend a half hour loading 16 clips for my 610 and when I hit the range I can do nothing but shoot. In addition, at 13.97 per box for 40 caliber Federal Champion, I save just about 6 dollars a box versus shooting 38 spl. with my 620. Compared to shooting 357 Magnums, it's a 10 dollar per box savings.

BTW, don't tell me about reloading, the 4 dealers near my home who sell reloading supplies haven't been able to get any primers for nearly 8 months. I'll think about reloading when components finally become available.

i think they would sell them good now ever 9mm revolver i see 940 547 and the rugers that come up sell good like on gunbroker but i think they was not selling good back when they was makeing them ruger stop makeing the sp101 in 9mm in 98 and smith stop the 940 that year to i like moon clip revolvers i have 5 9mm ones 940-1 and 2 speed sixes and 2 sp101 and 2 625s and a 610

I agree that S&W stopped the production of the 940 due to poor sales & possibly having to do several repairs that were mostly cylinder replacement to to rough improperly reamed cylinders..
If they started selling them at this time there would be alot of folks wanting the 940-3, as long as they could loose the lock..
Gary/Hk

I shot a moon clip .40 S&W in IPSC. It is truly fun. I am qual'ed in all the classes & the revolver class was the most fun. I don't think there is anything I would rather competition shoot than a big ol' 45 ACP moon clip gun. Except maybe my Brazos Custom Pro SX with 28 rounds of .38 Super

has anybody seen a 940-2

I bought a 940 when they were first introduced because my issued service pistol was a 9mm. Since then, the shift was made to .40 S&W and I wound up back where I started.

Now I carry a .45 ACP and my backup weapon is a 642 (.38 Special).

I think the 9mm is a bit delicate with full moon clips stored in the pocket.

I liked mine when I had it. It's a turbo charged little gun when it goes off.

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

The paragraph at upper right shows what S&W at one time said about the problems. Sorry it is a little blurred...

How bout Smith makes a no lock 642/442 in 9mm to see if it would sell. I'd but one.

__________________
Forum consigliere

Better yet, how bout Smith makes a 642/442 in 9 mm with a cylinder utilizing the 547 extraction- I bet THAT would sell like hot cakes.
Then we can have "Can you shoot .380 in 9mm cylinder" threads

__________________
Forum consigliere

"No Lock" "9mm Para" "442/642" " Centennial"
Sounds like the factory Model 942 of which there was only one factory made.. Of course there's a few others that were made one of which I have in my stash of 9mms..
Here's my 642 No Dash that has had a 940-1s cylinder fit to it's yolk & now is a convertable 38/9mm..
Here's a pic right after fitting the cylinder..
Range Report Still Due as I haven't had much time to get to the range lately.. Thanks Obama..
Gary/Hk
Model 942 Convertable

I'm one of the guys that decided that the 9mm in a small frame revolver was right for me. I finally found a 940 on this Forum that matched the price I wanted to pay and I'm glad it got it. It's become my daily gun gun, in addition to my 3913. Since it took awhile to locate a 940, I had a 637 converted to 9mm by TK Custom. The heft of the 940 makes 9mm+P rounds easier to manage, but the light weight of the 637 is much easier on the pocket or ankle all day. If S&W were to come out with a 942, even with the lock, I'd snap one up as soon as my dealer could get one.

I don't know why they stopped making them but I think they should start again only using a scandium frame like my converted 360. IMO, a 13oz 9mm revolver is the perfect BUG/CCW, 1000% reliable, plenty more power than a .38spl, and nowhere near the recoil of a .357mag.

__________________
Don't kiss smiling dogs!

I like Caj's and Gary's idea, a 642/442 with a 9mm cylinder. Make one WITHOUT the lock and I'm in.

__________________
Sure you did

I wasn't going to bring that up, but since you did, I'll second that. I carried a 940 for a while as a BUG with clips in my customary location, which is my right rear trousers pocket. Works fine with speedloaders and speedstrips. What I got with the 940 was a fair number of bent clips, which sometimes wouldn't reload the gun reliably and rapidly. I went back to J-frames that I can feed with Comp-1 speedloaders.

Try carrying two moon clips stuck together one round in the middle of the other & this makes them smaller & carry very well..
I haven't bent a moon clip yet but mine are .040" thick TKs
I need to get a pic of these clips stuck together..
Gary/Hk

I have had my 940 for several years now and it is a good revolver. The recoil is stout though. I am thinking of buying a 642 and fitting a 940 cylinder. The combination of the 9mm round in a lightweight J frame should kick pretty hard. For me that would rule out a Scandium frame, particularly due to cost. What I would really like to have is a 940 with a 3" barrel.

I was looking high and low for a 940. I even had some conversation with Headknocker about his conversions. I finally got lucky and found one for sale on Gun Broker and bought it. Mine extracts great and is very accurate. I'm very pleased with it. I think having the 9mm with near magnum velocities and greatly reduced recoil is the best of both worlds. I may still get an M&P 340 and have it bored for 9mm in order to get the weight reduction.

__________________
Dave Frost

[QUOTE=CAJUNLAWYER;1132759]Better yet, how bout Smith makes a 642/442 in 9 mm with a cylinder utilizing the 547 extraction- I bet THAT would sell like hot cakes.


WHY DIDN'T Smith & Wesson produce the Model 547 9mm in stainless steel...? I would certainly love to gain the benefit of cheaper 9mm ammo, in a revolver, without the nuisance of the full moon clips...!

Not personally owning one and not personally being involved with S&W decision making of course, but in in GENERAL......... Company's stop making a specific product for several reasons. The first is that they can NOT make what they deem to be enough profit. Second is lack of what they deem to be enough sales, third is difficulty in producing that product in proportion to the amount of profit made per unit.

So to sum it up it was probably an expensive model to make and they just were not selling enough to warrant production. The manpower and equipment tied up in production of this model was probably better spent on more profitable and popular models.

On a related note, why can't S&W make the trigger on the current Centennial models equal to what came on the 940 series. Mine has the best out-of-the-box trigger of any J-frame I've ever owned, and this perception seems to be very common among 940 owners. Does anyone know if these triggers were "tuned" or somehow different from revolver-caliber J-frames?

Smith & Wesson CAN make them terrific Triggers if they wanted to but would rather err on the side of "Political Correctness" and make them on the heavy side. They would rather someone else tune their guns to a lighter and smoother action so they can say the gun left the Factory to Factory specs and someone else did the aftermarket playing around with the action - sort of takes them off the hook. The other side of the coin is that making a trigger to a descent spec takes more time, labor and effort = less profitability. Remember....... S&W is now in the money making business - not necessarily in the gun business.

I think back in the early 90s (?) there was a local shop that had a 640 in their case for several months. It seemed nobody around here wanted it. So, having piqued my interest, I made a trade offer that was very much in my favor and the owner jumped on it. I found that the thin metal moon clips were inconvenient. They bulged in my pockets and were easily bent, rendering them unusable. Plus, they meant shucking out all everything if a reload was needed. Single loading to top up the cylinder was not an option...It was all or nothing. A bent clip could tie up the gun. I didn't carry a 9mm so the cartridge commonality wasn't an advantage. I found no advantages over my trusty M638 and wound up trading it off. I did consider trying to get 9mm Federal rimmed ammo for but that chambering was long defunct. It was similar to. 45 Auto Rim it for .45 acp...I had a 625-3 back then and the clips were ok since it was a range/fun gun so toting concealed clips wasn't an issue. Still, I do have brass and loaded .45 AR for it. I traded that too...kind of a sickness with me...But got another 4" 625-3 last year...So, I might get one if they were around at reasonable prices, to play with. I also has one of the small Taurus 9mm snubs briefly. It ran ok but was a nasty kicker and, well, it was a Taurus.

Mea culpa...I MEANT a 940 not 640...Old age brain dysfunction...Sheesh

WOW!!

A six year old thread about a discontinued 9mm revolver..
As some of you may know, back in 2009 I became deathly Ill & then lost my job & had to sell ALL of my weapons to make the house payments eat etc.. Tough times for me..
That's right every single one of those sweet Smiths etc. were sold at great prices to a bunch of great folks mostly here on the S&W Forum BTW.. THANKS GUYS FOR HELPING A BROTHER OUT!!
I know where MY 642/942 is & may be able to reacquire it in the future?? Maybe?? I'll see him at the gunshow this weekend..
I also know where a engraved 940 rests at the gunshow..

I still want another 940, And a 3" 547 if the prices were right

Until then my Colt 45 Officers ACP will be by my side

642/942-940-940-342Ti

Ruger SP101s SPNY 38spl, 2 1/4" 9mm & 3 1/16" 9mm

4" Model 547 & Model 940 with Craig Spegel Stocks
Rubbish Old Pic but shows em both, Both very Missed



WTB 940, PC940 & 3" M547

Gary/Hk

Why did S&W discontinue the 940?

I figure the results of all the sticking case problems led to the 940 being discontinued..
If anyone has ever had a 940 that had issues & looked into the chambers with magnification they would know that S&Ws tapered 9mm cylinder reamer was a worn out piece of junk & caused all the trouble.
Ruger & Taurus have 9mm revolvers that work perfectly & just can't see why Smith & Wesson couldn't get it right? They have in 45acp but not in a small J Frame sized handgun..
I figure that now the Ruger LCR 9mm & Taurus 905 are a hit for these companies it's possible that the 940-3/942 could become a real seller for S&W, "Hey Smith don't forget to loose the lock feature & hey that will actually save you money in parts & machining just like in the old days..
If some liberal state requires it then give a huge S&W padlock like Ruger did or hide it under the grips ruger style..
Also get Hogue or someone/Craig Spegel to make a nice small concealed carry grip for you again that isn't "UGLY".."

I'm gonna pick up another 940 soon or possibly another 9mm SP101..

You can keep the LCR & 905 but having these around gives US a few other places to acquire GOOD Moon Clips for the 940..

And while your at it Smith "a K Frame 547 3"/4" would be nice too..
Buy a good reamer & keep it changed out as it wears.."

Step up to the plate & make something "NEW" That I'd be tempted to buy.. If you wanna stay around another 150+ years..

Just a rant, maybe someone at Smith will read this & agree..

__________________
MightShowYouHisSmith&Wesson

I had an early 940 that would not eject the spent cases without tapping the ejector rod with a hammer. Made speed reloads impossible. I sent it back to S&W so many times that they finally gave up and without asking me sent me a 640 in 357. Fine by me.

They had claimed I was using the wrong brands of ammunition. I never discovered the right brand.

__________________
I like Ike.

Apparently Ruger sees a market for such a gun and is making a 9mm snubbie now.

__________________
Loyalty Above All.. but Honor

S&W must have bought a new bit for their 9mm cylinder reamer. My 986 ejects spent cases cleanly and smoothly.