Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Smith & Wesson General Topics > Smith & Wesson - The Wish List
Forum Register Expert Commentary Members List


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-23-2011, 01:11 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 26
Likes: 10
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default A 9 mm j-frame

Hello everyone. My wish is for a 9 mm j-frame revolver like the model 940. Offer it with a 2.5 inch barrel in stainless steel. And I really wish they would make a model 625 revolver in .45 ACP with a five inch barrel.
__________________
LarryC213
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-24-2011, 09:03 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 3
Liked 140 Times in 114 Posts
Default

Hey Larry, I like both of your ideas.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-24-2011, 09:07 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 26
Likes: 10
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Thank you. I hope that somebody at S&W reads these forums.
__________________
LarryC213
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-02-2011, 09:43 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 145
Likes: 24
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Great ideas.
I also think Smith is missing the boat by not offering a J frame in .380...shorten the cylinder to make it more concealable. With modern high performance ammo the .380 isn't a bad defense round.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-04-2011, 07:12 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Sc frame and 547 type extractor - probably cost a pretty penny.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-07-2011, 11:55 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
Sc frame and 547 type extractor - probably cost a pretty penny.
I would buy one in a heartbeat! IMHO, a lightweight hammerless "no lock" 9mm J-frame would be the ultimate CCW.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-07-2011, 09:58 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 3
Liked 140 Times in 114 Posts
Default

Ralph,
If the cylinder were shortened, the frame would have to be shortened as well making a whole new revolver. The cost would probably be more than S&W is willing to gamble. However, this is a "wish list" and anything goes.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-10-2011, 08:08 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SC/TX
Posts: 618
Likes: 339
Liked 77 Times in 52 Posts
Default

I'll take one please,,,with no lock of course.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-20-2011, 04:19 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,983
Likes: 256
Liked 1,331 Times in 513 Posts
Default

You're reading my mind. A J Frame 9mm. I wonder, could it retain the size of say a 640 while being lighter and perhaps 7 rounds? Just wishing out loud.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-20-2011, 07:44 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 3
Liked 140 Times in 114 Posts
Default

Steve,
S&W did make the 940 which is very similar to the 640. Put the two side by side and it is difficult to tell them apart. The 940 chambers five rounds, so a seven round cylinder would be considerably larger and result in a larger frame.

S&W did make a lightweight 942 for Wiley Clapp and Mr. Clapp said the recoil was very snappy. Several members of this forum put 940 cylinders in 642 frames with good results. You can do a search and you will find some interesting reading.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-26-2011, 08:22 PM
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,356
Likes: 1,964
Liked 892 Times in 505 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tekarra View Post
Ralph,
If the cylinder were shortened, the frame would have to be shortened as well making a whole new revolver. The cost would probably be more than S&W is willing to gamble. However, this is a "wish list" and anything goes.
Why? Just extend the Bbl. further into the cyl. window. Presto, shorter overall lengh with the same Bbl. lengh. Although I personaly would rather see a "I" frame model.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-26-2011, 08:28 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 26
Likes: 10
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by therevjay View Post
Why? Just extend the Bbl. further into the cyl. window. Presto, shorter overall lengh with the same Bbl. lengh. Although I personaly would rather see a "I" frame model.
I agree. I am pretty sure that is the same thing they do with the model 625!
__________________
LarryC213
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-26-2011, 09:39 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 3
Liked 140 Times in 114 Posts
Default

The comment made in post #4 was for a more concealable revolver. Extending the barrel into the window may gain some advantage, but concealabilty would not be one.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-26-2011, 10:38 PM
HotRoderX's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 720
Likes: 164
Liked 347 Times in 157 Posts
Default

I would have money in hand the day of release be really sweet having a 9mm snub nose J-Frame.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-02-2011, 11:36 PM
Gatofeo's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Remote Utah desert
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
Liked 57 Times in 29 Posts
Default

A 9mm snubnose would be popular with combat troops, I'm sure. It could be carried inside their trousers, in a groin holster.
You access it by lowering your fly.
Don't laugh!
Most people, when they search a prisoner, are reluctant to really search the groin. An American soldier taken prisoner might still be so armed after a bad search by an insurgent.
He can indicate the need to urinate, moments after capture. Most captors will allow that much of prisoners, not wanting to endure the stench if they don't.
If the soldier is lucky enough to have only a couple of insurgents guarding him, they'll be off-guard while he turns away and lowers his fly. Come up with a 9mm snub, shoot the captors, grab their rifle and attempt to escape.
The chances of escape lessen with each minute after capture. In the first few minutes, you're still close enough to your lines to fellow Soldiers.
I knew an Air Force survival instructor years ago who told me of a pilot who carried a Colt .25 in such a way. He was never shot down, but it might have allowed him to escape if he were.
A revolver is absolutely reliable. If it fails to go bang, it's almost always the fault of the ammo. Today's revolvers are even more reliable, owing to coil springs and advanced design and metallurgy.
A 9mm snub would be handy in a thigh pocket, as a last-ditch gun. In very close quarters, such as in a vehicle, foxhole or when an enemy is physically clutching you, a snubnosed revolver can be a lifesaver.
My father told me that during the Battle of the Bulge, sidearms were at a premium by the troops who sat in foxholes. Wielding a rifle in a foxhole against an enemy who just jumped in next to you is nearly impossible.
A 9mm snub would be nice to have, and no problems getting ammo like with the .38 Special.
Make it stainless steel, with a shorter cylinder and the barrel coming back through the frame to the cylinder, and a 2-inch barrel. This would give you a total of about 3 inches of barrel, which would help velocity.
A 9mm snub would be a best-seller among service members.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-03-2011, 12:26 AM
Sebago Son's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sebago Lake, Maine, USA
Posts: 5,351
Likes: 6,398
Liked 6,084 Times in 1,746 Posts
Cool Might it look a little like this?

3" 940.







By the way, the 625 WAS made in .45 ACP with a 5" Barrel... it's the "Model of 1988" and "Model of 1989".
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #17  
Old 06-03-2011, 08:57 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 3
Liked 140 Times in 114 Posts
Default

Sebago Son, that is my grail revolver.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-05-2011, 05:24 PM
seagill's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Clearwater Fl
Posts: 496
Likes: 485
Liked 149 Times in 53 Posts
Default

I read a rumor that S&W actually does have plans to produce the Bodyguard revolver in 9mm.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-31-2011, 02:03 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 26
Likes: 10
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default I've heard the same rumor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seagill View Post
I read a rumor that S&W actually does have plans to produce the Bodyguard revolver in 9mm.
Massad Ayoob, mentioned on another forum that he, too had heard the same rumor. Then he said that it was at this point, simply a rumor. And I might be imagining this, but I believe he also said that it was rumored to be built on the same frame as S&W's new polymer framed .38. I would be standing in line to buy one of those. And just in case the good folks at S&W ever read these forums... Please bring back the 5" model 625 in .45ACP and .45AR. A blued steel frame wouldn't hurt anything either! Not everybody wants a model 625 as a games gun where it has to fit inside a certain box. The 5" model 625 is a damn fine revolver and it deserves to be made again. This was a real working gun... not just an IDPA toy! The 5" barrel gave it a fine balance and the 4" just doesn't cut it for some of us. Those folks over at IDPA have no right to dictate what type of guns the rest of us should have. There, I hope that makes my position very clear.
__________________
LarryC213

Last edited by LarryC213; 07-31-2011 at 02:09 AM. Reason: I had something to add!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-31-2011, 11:59 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Southeastern, IN
Posts: 216
Likes: 26
Liked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph G. Briscoe View Post
Great ideas.
I also think Smith is missing the boat by not offering a J frame in .380...shorten the cylinder to make it more concealable. With modern high performance ammo the .380 isn't a bad defense round.

Not only more concealable...but easier on the hands of those w/ weak hands (arthritis, carpal tunnel, peripheral neuropathy, etc.)

All I can say is prepare to be flamed by the "nothing less than .40 crowd."


Last edited by mtheo; 07-31-2011 at 12:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-07-2011, 10:21 PM
J D Allen's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: hamilton ohio
Posts: 130
Likes: 14
Liked 7 Times in 5 Posts
Default 9mm jframe

Ok my 2 cents. I like the duty round in a back up weapon. I know that S&W made the 547 and a 940. I do know a couple of shops do conversions to j frame guns. As for a 380 j frame , not worth it. The 327 magnum has way more stopping power and could be a 6 shot. I still hope for a 686 40 s&w.











:
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-26-2011, 01:01 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I'd put money on the table in seconds for an 8-shot 9mm with moonclips , like the 627 models from the Performance Center.
Fantastic guns , and 9mm ammo is available in abundance + cheap.
Lucky me , I already have 5 inch .45 Model 625.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-09-2011, 11:26 AM
WC145's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,650
Likes: 917
Liked 1,486 Times in 386 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J D Allen View Post
Ok my 2 cents. I like the duty round in a back up weapon. I know that S&W made the 547 and a 940. I do know a couple of shops do conversions to j frame guns. As for a 380 j frame , not worth it. The 327 magnum has way more stopping power and could be a 6 shot. I still hope for a 686 40 s&w.
That's been done, find yourself a 646.
__________________
Don't kiss smiling dogs!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:13 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

For those of you who carry 940's or other moon clip guns for concealed carry, how do you carry a spare clip (or clips) without it bending in your pocket, etc?
Thanks,
Scott
__________________
Scotp7
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-27-2012, 11:34 PM
HeyJoe's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 296
Likes: 162
Liked 74 Times in 44 Posts
Default

one inside the other in my watch pocket.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-30-2012, 02:28 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Joe,
Thanks. Sounds good. Doesn't bend?
Scott
__________________
Scotp7
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-30-2012, 02:57 PM
WC145's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,650
Likes: 917
Liked 1,486 Times in 386 Posts
Default

I've carried them in pockets and never had a problem with one bending.
__________________
Don't kiss smiling dogs!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-30-2012, 07:33 PM
gasaman's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: MA
Posts: 693
Likes: 503
Liked 148 Times in 70 Posts
Default

Matt DelFatti moonclip holder
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-30-2012, 08:15 PM
HeyJoe's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 296
Likes: 162
Liked 74 Times in 44 Posts
Default

no they dont bend. carrying it inside each other reinforces both.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-12-2012, 03:26 PM
J D Allen's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: hamilton ohio
Posts: 130
Likes: 14
Liked 7 Times in 5 Posts
Default 642 in 9mm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tekarra View Post
Steve,
S&W did make the 940 which is very similar to the 640. Put the two side by side and it is difficult to tell them apart. The 940 chambers five rounds, so a seven round cylinder would be considerably larger and result in a larger frame.

S&W did make a lightweight 942 for Wiley Clapp and Mr. Clapp said the recoil was very snappy. Several members of this forum put 940 cylinders in 642 frames with good results. You can do a search and you will find some interesting reading.
A place named pinnacle does a conversion for the 642 to 9mm.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-14-2012, 09:19 PM
Austerity's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Martinez, GA
Posts: 145
Likes: 7
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Ruger did it with the SP101.
__________________
M66, M&P 360, 642, M85 UL/Ti
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-15-2012, 07:16 AM
M2MikeGolf's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 623
Likes: 337
Liked 308 Times in 150 Posts
Default

Quote:
A 9mm snubnose would be popular with combat troops, I'm sure. It could be carried inside their trousers, in a groin holster.
Unless it was issued, they wouldn't be allowed to carry it, and if caught doing so could be punished (and most likely would).

Hate to say it, but the Army is never going back to the revolver, except perhaps for Delta Force or Special Forces, for a lot of reasons. Soldiers may buy such a thing but most will be reluctant to as carrying it starts breaking into the law of land warfare business, which the Army prosecutes their own more than the enemy for. By regulation and law, soldiers cannot carry non-issue, civilian designed and manufactured weapons with rare exceptions. As an example, if a soldier purchased a Beretta 92, even if it looked like issue, if he or she were caught with it, they could be punished, and severely.

As far as what insurgents do to soldiers after capture, it's not based on fair treatment or normal kind of procedures that we might know and they know all about searching in unusual places just like soldiers are trained to do; usually if the soldier lives very long, he or she would be lucky just to use it on himself more than the enemy and might even prefer to do so; normally soldiers are captured after being wounded, incapacited or unconcious following IED strikes or ambushes. Insurgents don't care anything about casualties among themselves and want live captives for propaganda and revenge and know well how to search and restrain them. If rifles and machine guns have failed to that point, handguns are useless and the insurgents have little or no fear of them. It may make the soldier feel a little better to have such a weapon, but not if he or she is being prosecuted by their commander for carrying it. It's not that easy for soldiers to even own firearms of their own in garrison, especially if they live in barracks; the commander can even deny ownership in environments like that, sadly. The other issue is that there are so few soldiers now (and there will be less in the future) that sales would barely be affected enough for there to be a need.

Now if all of us civilians would create a need as there are millions of us, that would do the trick. Sadly, the military has little effect these days on anything as soon paying light bills and keeping fuel in armored vehicles will be a struggle for those organizations. Glad I retired when I did, but it hurts me to see what's being done to our military...but I digress.

In the meantime, I say bring back the 2 or 3" 940 (I can't help it, I've got to put in a plug for the 547!) or the 3" 547 for those of us that can have them!!!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-15-2012, 07:35 AM
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: WA
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M2MikeGolf View Post
It's not that easy for soldiers to even own firearms of their own in garrison, especially if they live in barracks; the commander can even deny ownership in environments like that, sadly.

and that is why I will never live on post..... I do like the idea of a 9mm J-Frame and will buy one in a heart beat if one ever crosses my path.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-15-2012, 10:20 AM
M2MikeGolf's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 623
Likes: 337
Liked 308 Times in 150 Posts
Default

Quote:
and that is why I will never live on post..... I do like the idea of a 9mm J-Frame and will buy one in a heart beat if one ever crosses my path.
I concur with both those statements, unfortunately sometimes living off post just wasn't always an option for me.

Just wish S&W would make a 940 with the same extraction system as the 547.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-15-2012, 10:24 AM
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: WA
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M2MikeGolf View Post
I concur with both those statements, unfortunately sometimes living off post just wasn't always an option for me.

Just wish S&W would make a 940 with the same extraction system as the 547.
oh I understand that there may not be a choice at times, I will just avoid it as long as I can.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-25-2012, 10:23 AM
M2MikeGolf's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 623
Likes: 337
Liked 308 Times in 150 Posts
Default

I posted this in another thread, but thought some might be interested in it here as well. I reference the 547 a lot, but I'd also like to see the 940 return just as much, I mean maybe anything in a 9mm revolver and here's some reasons why:

I keep trying to champion the cause of the return of the 547 (or even the 940) in the hopes that maybe someday S&W will....at least think about it.


Awhile back, I got to thinking about some comments I've seen on other threads about 9mm in revolvers, so I thought I'd put a little comparison together that is generic, and based on what I own, not necassarily what's out there for a more specific bullet type or availability comparison. I am a bit limited on ammunition availability, so I have added here a brief snapshot (literally) of .38/.357/9mm comparison. I own a L-Frame (619), so had to use seven round speedloaders, which will influence the width, but not length shown in the photos. I've included simple ballistics that, for instance, would be applicable here in Germany for hunting. However, here they use Joule and not energy per foot pounds, so I entered what we good Americans are used to. FYI, in order for a handgun to be used for hunting purposes, it must be able to produce 300 joule at the muzzle, which is about 220 foot pounds. Note: you cannot hunt with handguns in Germany, they can only be used for "finishing shots" (dispatching wounded animals). I had to used something as a comparison, so chose these ballistic figures, obviously one could get a lot more detailed, particularly handloaders. I'm also going to post this on a few other threads for reference, just for interest sake.

Like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Note the "power to size ration" between .38 special +P and the Federal 9x19 124 grain. A speed loader with 9x19 (in any flavor), is very easily carried, even in a pocket as the dimension is nearly equal all the way around. To me, this sells 9x19 as a revolver caliber in a lot of ways. For those that say you can get +P+ .38s to match 9x19 performance, what you can't replicate is the ammunition availability and compact size. The only problem with this is that 547 HKS speedloaders are not that easy to find; I was able to get about seven of them on ebay a few years ago.



And of course, I would be remiss if I didn't post a photo of my 547, which I own but cannot take possession of for a few weeks until the nightmarish paperwork clears (it's quite the process over here). Get them while you can!!!

Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-28-2012, 10:14 PM
chp chp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 443
Likes: 37
Liked 15 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Just bring back the 940 please!

The prices of used 940's are crazy.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-29-2012, 10:11 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 3
Liked 140 Times in 114 Posts
Default

M2MikeGolf,
Keep beating that drum and hope S&W is listening.
Bring back the 940 in 2" & 3" barrels and the 547 in 3" & 4" barrels. The 547 extractor in the 940 would be terrific.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #39  
Old 03-01-2012, 03:41 AM
M2MikeGolf's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 623
Likes: 337
Liked 308 Times in 150 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tekarra View Post
M2MikeGolf,
Keep beating that drum and hope S&W is listening.
Bring back the 940 in 2" & 3" barrels and the 547 in 3" & 4" barrels. The 547 extractor in the 940 would be terrific.
I just can't give up on it, will just have to be happy to have two 4" 547s in the meantime. I closed the deal on the one here in Germany last week, just waiting on the paperwork. Pretty happy about it, it's NIB just like my Texas 547.

I know I keep reposting that cartridge comparison, but it's just too dramatic to keep to myself (or so I think). On another thread awhile back, I kept seeing posts from people saying they saw no purpose in 9mm in a revolver, so this is my comeback. The difference is pretty serious between .38 spl and 9mm and you even get a power increase. I laugh often at the 9x19 detractors, it is proven and effective as long as the shooter fufills their part of the shooting responsibility. Even if S&W never puts a 9mm revolver back into production, I'm just happy there's still something out there!

Besides a 3" RB 547, a 3" 940 (just like Sebago Son!)is on my "gotta find" list when I return to the US.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-01-2012, 07:02 AM
WC145's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,650
Likes: 917
Liked 1,486 Times in 386 Posts
Default

They don't need to bring the old 940 back - IMO, at 22oz, it's way too heavy for it's intended purpose. What they need to do is to make a new scandium frame version, the weight savings would be substantial and make the gun so much more pleasant and convenient to carry. My 9mm 360J with CT LG-105 laser grips weighs exactly 16oz loaded with 115gr JHP. It is a breeze to carry and a great shooter. In fact, I shot an IDPA BUG match with it a couple of weeks ago and using UMC 115gr FMJ I won the match with a total time almost 25% faster than the #2 shooter.
__________________
Don't kiss smiling dogs!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #41  
Old 03-01-2012, 07:58 AM
M2MikeGolf's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 623
Likes: 337
Liked 308 Times in 150 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WC145 View Post
They don't need to bring the old 940 back - IMO, at 22oz, it's way too heavy for it's intended purpose. What they need to do is to make a new scandium frame version, the weight savings would be substantial and make the gun so much more pleasant and convenient to carry. My 9mm 360J with CT LG-105 laser grips weighs exactly 16oz loaded with 115gr JHP. It is a breeze to carry and a great shooter. In fact, I shot an IDPA BUG match with it a couple of weeks ago and using UMC 115gr FMJ I won the match with a total time almost 25% faster than the #2 shooter.
Even better!
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-01-2012, 09:16 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 3
Liked 140 Times in 114 Posts
Default

A 3" 940 no dash is my grail gun.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-18-2012, 08:15 AM
M2MikeGolf's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 623
Likes: 337
Liked 308 Times in 150 Posts
Default

Just wanted to let you guys know on GB right now:

SMITH & WESSON Model 940 3" 9MM EXC IN BOX : Revolvers at GunBroker.com

Sebago Son can give you a review on it since he has the evil twin! If someone here get's it, let us know. It's nine bills, which is steep, but I'd pay it if I could, problem is not money, but location and circumstances.

Talk about a classic needing to be re-introduced, this 940 and the 547 have got to be top of my list. 3" barrels for 9x19 are just made for each other, will just have to satisfy my need for the combo with my old P228 for now. I'm with tekarra now though, the 3" 940 goes to the top of my list.

Last edited by M2MikeGolf; 03-20-2012 at 05:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
327, 380, 45acp, 547, 640, 642, 686, 940, bodyguard, ccw, colt, concealed, extractor, hammerless, idpa, j frame, lock, model 625, p228, performance center, polymer, scandium, snubnose, umc

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Smith & Wesson - The Wish List Thread, A 9 mm j-frame in Smith & Wesson General Topics; Hello everyone. My wish is for a 9 mm j-frame revolver like the model 940. Offer it with a 2.5 ...
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:36 PM.


S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2015
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)