About the S&W 929.

Fact 1:
People are reporting trouble with accuracy when using light to medium weight bullets up to 124 gn. Most people get reasonable to good accuracy with heavy bullets 140-160 gn.

Fact 2:
People report residue build ups in the chamber, right before the throats. Similar to those found when shooting .38 Special in a .357 Magnum cylinder.

Fact 3:
9x21 brass fits like a glove in the 929 revolver, that is sold and heavily marketed as a 9x19 revolver.




So, we have a cylinder cut for 9x21, that is sold as 9x19 and when people use 9x19 they have accuracy troubles, since light bullets will clear the case before they reach the throat.

I'm thinking liability issues on S&W's part. Will they even acknowledge this, or will they just blame Taurus (who manufacture all S&W titanium cylinders)?

ALL 929 and 986 users do this check. If the 9x21 case fit's nicly like the pictuers above you have a 9x21 cylinder.

I dont have either gun, but I am interested to see what other owners results are.

I'm with qballwill ^

Also, I wasn't aware of this:

Well, I will check mine first thing tomorrow, because I havent even shot it lately , I was so disappointed in its accuracy,compared to any other S/W revolvers I own.
Tested it with 105/115/124/ a couple 147 gr 9X19 ammo and nothing shot worth a darn.. AND I had to push the last few moonclips to seat them into the cylinder (wasnt thrilled about that either) after 70 -80 rounds. Thanks for the tip. Bob

Who was that character who used to say; "veerrrreee eenteresting"?

__________________
But then, what do I know?

Arte Johnson..........Laugh in

Arte Johnson

Not surprising as Smith made a 9X21 revolver for export to Italy a few years ago.

Tom

I didn't have any 9x21 brass in my misc. box. So, I trimmed a 38 super comp. brass to .833 length. And it seemed to fit fine. FWIW , a 38 super brass ( .900 ) sized in a 9mm die was to long.

I'll have to see if I can find some real 9x21's to try.

I've been using 147 gr cast and FMJ in my 9x19 brass and I'm quite satisfied with the accruacy of my 929. And since I have a 5 gallon bucket of 9x19 brass I probably won't be switching to 9x21 brass any time soon.

But it is,, verry interesting.

S&W claims that all 929s are 9x19. This is from an email I received earlier this morning:
"It is 9 x 19. There is no other version of that model."

Did anyone else see the "Impossible Shots" program last week? Jerry Miculek was doing fast reloads using his new 929. He shot it and reloaded it (average 1.84 sec.) very quickly.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

As I recall, the whole quote was......

"Veerrrreee eenteresting.... but stupid!"

__________________
~ S&W aficionado in training ~

I can not believe that a chamber that is 2MM longer then expected is causing an accuracy issue.

Not even a tenth of an inch, it is .078"

If that extra length were such a big deal, there would be millions of 357 Magnum and 44 Magnum owners complaining about the accuracy of using 38 Special and 44 Special in their firearms that have Magnum chambers.

After all, the 357 & 44 Magnum chambers are 3.7/3.6MM longer than the 38 & 44 Special cartridge. This is .135" and .125" respectively

9x21 is far more popular in Europe too.

I can't even think of any guns here in the US that are sold in 9x21.

__________________
629 686+ 586 67 10
M&P45

I don't have any 9x21 brass to try in my 986 but even with light loads and light bullet heads it runs like a dream for steel shooting. I'm not a bullseye shooter so I just need to hit a plate.

I've never really checked on paper my model 610 accuracy with 40 S&W -vs- 10mm .. But the major of the rounds used in it are 40 S&W and it has always been good enough for minute of steel plate ,, or minute of A zone..

I haven't shot 38 spl. in my .357's for years. But use to, and I've known lots of folks that have used 38 specials in .357's for years.

One of these days I'll have to put it on paper and see if I can tell a difference.

I've been happy with the accuracy of my 929 using .356 , 147 gr cast & xtreme plated bullets in 9x19 cases. Don't know if it made a difference. But when I purchased the 929 I checked the cylinder throats to make sure they were all the same at .356.

My PPC gun is built on a 686 and I never shot anything but .38s in it and out of a ransom rest it was shooting just over an inch at 50 yards.
Though, I never tested with 357 brass, so maybe it shoots even better... Can't be much of a difference though.

I posted a thread on 10-1-14 concerning my 986 revolver having 9x21 chambers. I have found no difference in accuracy using 9x21 (without moon clips) or ANY weight 9x19 ammo.

I have no idea why these "new" S&W 9s were not bored for 9x19. The need for moon clips (to use 9x19) plus the unavailability and cost of 9x21 ammo makes the 9x21 chambering my least favorite feature on these guns.

Mark

Actually...........it was, Veerrrreee eenteresting, but silly, stupid, dumb! In a German accent, of course.

My 986 shoots Lee 105 SWC's like a lazer with just about any moderate powder loading. 9X19 cases all the way. Don't even size them. They come out of the mold at .358 to .3585.

__________________
Lost in Penn's Woods

Back to Post 1. Sorry, but you cannot make a "drive by" allegation that Taurus makes titanium cylinders for S&W without disclosing your source, and then expect that you will not be called on it.

So, consider this a friendly request to enlighten all of us here with your proof, source, or whatever supports this claim, which I consider highly suspect.

Thank you.

shawn mccarver: I've been told that Taurus is the manufacturer by several S&W Club 30 gunsmiths, who in turn were told this when the 929 and 986 were unveiled at the IWA show. Also, the titanium cylinders are all together MIM (the extractor is regular milled steel). Some may like it, some won't. Personally I don't mind the MIM parts, though I do like chambers that follows spec, not .358 throats and 9x21 chambers when you expect .356 throats and 9x19 chambers.

Some people only shoot steel or tin jars from 10 yards. Each to their own. I however, expect that a $1800 revolver from "Performance Center" is within spec. Saying that a .38 shoots fine out of a .357 is irrelevant, the 9x19 is a whole other animal. The whole point of getting a 929 for most competitors is to get away from the issues with using .38 Short Colt in .38 or .357 cylinders. What we got was the same problem all over again.

The 9x19 is a high pressure and high velocity cartridge. It cannot be compared to wadcutter velocity .38 Specials. The higher the velocity, the higher the requirement that throats and chambers are within spec. I can fire low velocity .38 Specials with the Lee 105 gn SWC through my .357 MAXimum revolver with great accuracy, but when loading .357 Magnum in the same gun accuracy drops off, since the higher velocity needs full support from the chamber throats and a guided entry to the forcing cone. Put in a .357 Max case and you can load that baby to insane velocity and accuracy up to 300 yards!

There are workarounds on the 9x19 vs 9x21 problems in the 929 and 986. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be needed. The advertised use is what it is, and that is what it should perform out of the box.

9X21mm Brass&Ammo would be much more expensive to fire out of the gun then common 9mm. If the Barrel is marked 9X19mm that is what I would use in it.

Then there is the model 19-8 ....barrel marked .38 special and will chamber .357.

Tom

Perhaps this also explains why this forum has reported that the 929 will have light, or no, strikes without moon clips, while the Ruger guys report the LCR 9mm ignites just fine without moon clips.

Presumably, the Ruger does not headspace cases as deep in the cylinder without moon clips.

Here is some info I found on Wikipedia:

The 9×21mm pistol cartridge (also known as the 9×21mm IMI or 9 mm IMI) was designed by Israel Military Industries for those markets where military service cartridges, like the 9×19mm Parabellum, are banned by law for civilian use, like in Italy.

And this I believe is very pertinent to this discussion:

Based on the 9×19mm Parabellum cartridge, the case was lengthened from 19.05 to 21.15 mm (0.750 to 0.833 in). The bullet sits slightly deeper in the case, which results in almost the same overall length as the 9×19mm Parabellum cartridge (29.69 to 29.75 mm (1.169 to 1.171 in)).

Here is the picture they include in the article:



Since the overall size of the 9x21 and the 9x19 is approximately the same, I wonder if it is all that surprising that a 9x21 will fit in the 929 cylinder.

Here is the citation of the Wiki article I quoted: 9×21mm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
Accuracy supercedes Speed

Chambers are bored for case length per SAAMI specs, not cartridge OAL.

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

I agree with those who think it is wrong; it should be able to shoot 9x19 with or without a moonclip if the gun is marked 9x19.

My 9x19 autoloaders chamber on the case mouth....& I don't need moonclips to shoot my 610, Ruger Blackhawk, or m1917 45....

Actually my 929 is marked 9MM on the barrel and box

Isn't it a pain to get the empties out without the moonclips ?

You are correct in assuming the shoulder in the chamber is there for headspacing purposes. However, since SAAMI sets the specs for cartridge dimensions, the shoulder is placed at maximum case length depth for a given caliber. My experience has been that any factory ammo or brass, when new, is always considerably less than this dimension - meaning that, in reality, headspacing on that shoulder, by the case mouth, seldom actually occurs.

With a semi-auto, the reality is that the cartridge headspaces on the extractor - not the shoulder in the chamber. With your single action Rugers, since extraction isn't a problem and you have a rebounding firing pin, it is just made long enough so that, even if the hammer blow drives the cartridge into the chamber, the FP is long enough to still cause ignition.

In instances like your 610 or M1917, what does happen is that variances in chamber roundness, smoothness, cleanliness and other variables, will hold some cartridges firmly enough that a firing pin strike will ignite the primers. Others are driven forward in the chamber, which results in a light primer strike and a failure to ignite.

Just as some rounds are held tightly enough for ignition and others are driven forward, some cases may drop out of the cylinder from gravity, while others may be "pluckable" and yet others will have to be poked out using a rod.

You should consider moon clips essential for any revolver that is chambered for a rimless or semi-rimmed round. The other alternative is using the rimmed version of that round, if one exists.

Moon clips are the greatest thing since sliced bread and your aversion to them is, most likely, founded in falsehoods found on the Internet or from people who either have no personal experience, or just a passing experience with them.

In order to fully utilize, and fully enjoy, them requires the right tool(s) to load and unload the clips.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

I agree with most of what you say. However, you should also respect those who hate idea of using moon clips, no matter how great they are for some purposes. It is NOT because we do not understand the advantages. In an emergency, it is advantage for a revolver to function when a moon clip has failed and is not usable.

Also, some makes and models of double action revolvers DO ignite rimless calibers reliably without moon clips, in spite of the variables you correctly list.

Oh, I like moon clips... I even have a PC 629 that is factory cut for moon clips.
The only time I have shot a rimless cartridge in a revolver without moonclips was to simply determine if it could.
The 9mm is a tapered case, s&w should be able to get the chambers close enough to not need moonclips to fire, they used to. My 547 (among others)works just fine without. To me, it's just a mfg cost effectiveness issue to make the chambers deeper than required, and it sorta bugs me.

Federal made a rimmed 9 mm cartridge, but it was rather short lived.

I bought my first Model 25-2 in July of 1977. I now have seven revolvers that require moon clips and have shot, literally, thousands of moon-clipped rounds. I have never had a moon clip fail. It's a flat piece of metal, what is there to fail, unless it's bent, and the only way that happens is if they are stepped on or otherwise abused. That's hardly a failure of the moon clip.

I don't disrespect those people that don't like moon clips, I just think that it's disingenuous of people to buy a revolver that requires moon clips to function 100% all of the time and then chastise S&W when it doesn't work without them.

I listed the variables in my previous post that could account for why some guns or selective chambers may function without the clips, but I'd never stake my life on that being the case.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Ok I'll chime in. I was lucky enough to snag a 627-4 chambered in 38 super last year. The previous owner had the chambers reamed to 9x23 dimensions. I mostly fire 9x19 in my 627 and is as accurate with 9x19 or 9x23 or 38 super. I can't imagine that an extra 2mm makes that much difference considering there is a 4mm difference between the 9mm and 9x23. Mine shoots under an inch with 125 grain lead round nose in 9mm brass.

I'm loving the thought of one of us defending our homes with a thousand dollar PC revolver, and the horrors that will result from a moonclip not being perfect, instead of, yaknow, it being a fun, expensive, competition gun.

Much more interested in that bit about Taurus making parts for it to be honest.

Just to keep the topic alive, I can say that I have shot quite a few rounds of 9x21 WITHOUT clips in my 929 the last few months. They headspace and fire just fine with and without clips and is in my view a definite answer to the question of which SAAMI spec the chamber has.

Ejection need some help from fingernail under the rim or rod like tool from the front of the cylinder, but 9x21 works just the same in 929 as .45 ACP does in 625.

I have a 986 and use all 9x19 cases loaded with 124gr RN coated lead bullets and have had no problems with accuracy. I shoot steel, not bulls eye, and to date not had a problem with having to push moon clips in due to sticking.

__________________
Nam '66-67

MY 986 will easily fit 9x21 & will fit slightly shortened 9x23. (9x19 won't fire without moon clips)

Lots of speculation on why the 986 chamber is drilled for the 9x21 but the one I feel has credibility is that Smith is using leftover Titanium cylinders left over from an old Italian 9x21 contract.

The accuracy on my 986 is just fine so I can't say the 9x21 chambers have any effect on accuracy.

I have a couple of 686's that have good accuracy with 38 specials so I really don't see the big deal with the 986 having 9x21 chambers. (my 986 does like heavier bullets though)

Do you have any hard data, 50 yards or any distance i guess, for the 9x21 brass?

Better/worse/same?

Not necessarily. It has been my experience that new brass, whether for reloading or from factory ammo, is considerably shorter than the actual SAAMI spec chamber dimension. The fact that 9x19 mm gets pushed into the chamber and 9x21 mm headspaces correctly without clips serves to illustrate that. Measure the brass and compare to specs and measure the chamber. Just because 9x21 fits doesn't mean that is what the cylinder is chambered for - it means that your 9x21 mm brass is short.

Just a little fuel for the fire.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Video is in Italian but shows 9X21 S&W revolver for Italy.

Tom

Found this also.
s&w revolver mod 986 5" cal.9x21 6c pro-serie - Bignami

Tom

Evening Bob

I must be missing something there-- I just measured one of my 9x21 cases & the brass length (as measured) is 21.11mm. When I clip that into a moon clip that 21.11mm case goes all the way into the chamber with the moon clip tight to the rear of cylinder.

I'm not sure how to accurately measure the chamber depth on a moon clip cylinder as moon clip thickness & case base to rim slot is not spelled out in the SAAMI specs.

I was basing my comments on extrapolations from research and actual measurements I did on .45 ACP cases. The difference may have come about for three possible reasons: 1) Being European in origin the 9mm cartridge family adheres more closely to actual caliber name dimensions. 2) Smith may add a plus (+) side to their chamber dimensions based on specified length. Or, 3) I'm flat out wrong.

I am still of the opinion that Smith didn't intentionally set out to have the 986 and 929 chamber 9x21mm rounds, but it was just incidental to good manufacturing practices (+ and - specs).

Adios,

Pizza Bob

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Morning Bob;

I have no idea what is going on with the longer chambers but
with the gun being designed to use moon clips a deep chamber
is not a big deal.

To me the chambers are sure not to 9x19 specs as I can't shoot
a production 9x19 in my 986 without a moon clip as the 9x19
slides into the chamber way too far for proper firing pin contact.

My 986 will positively & easily shoot 9x21 (both with moon clip &
without)

here in Italy guns chambered in 9x19( Luger/Para) are forbidden , while 30 years ago 9x19 REVOLVERS were allowed.
I would like to have more reports from the many 929 owners that the cylinder is chambered in 9x21,if so it could become possible to import such a beautiful revo

Simple ream of the cylinder will make all 929's chamber 9x21. Or ream 9x23 and include many other calibers.

Tom

I doubt you will be able to get it as it will be documented as a 9x19 mm throughout.
Good luck.

Just a question here.

Is the titanium cylinder on the 929 strong enough to shoot the 356 TSW which is approximately a 9X21.6 and a maximum pressure of 50,000 psi?