The 940 Centennial

[RobG]

Ok,

Been looking for one of these at a decent price for a while now.

I would love to hear opinions from those of you that own one or have previously owned one.

Over-all reviews?
As a concealed firearm?
Vs. .38 and .357?
Complaints or issues?
Other thoughts considerations?

If you have one, post pics so I can drool.
Thanks!

 

[mclark202]

I love mine. I traded a nice 686 for it years ago with member "HEADKNOCKER" who many consider the 940 expert. I don't know what all he did to this 940 other than reaming the cylinder, but it is a SMOOTH trigger on this gun! Mine has some Spegel grips that are perfect for it.

From what I have read the cylinders in these are notorious for not ejecting the casings, so smoothing out the inside of them is a common practice to make them eject more cleanly.

I have to admit, I have yet to shoot mine. It's just so pretty I have never taken it out....lol.

 

[RobG]

*Droooooooool*

Very very nice.

 

[Matt C.]

Just picked up a 940-1 and am also impressed by the trigger.

It feels "substantial" in hand but not much heavier than my (converted) 642.


Also, I think the 9mm round is near perfect out of a snubby.

 

[st regis]

I have one on my ankle as I type this...it's a back up for the S&W 1911 PD in the basketweave....great gun....stand by for a link....

 

[st regis]

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/234799-940-ballistics.html

see if that worked....

 

[mc5aw]

Snappy to shoot, and the cylinder often needs to be honed.

 

[M29since14]

Like all the steel Centennials, it is a heavy gun, for what it is. Otherwise, it has the usual Centennial features. They generally have good triggers and shoot well enough. I did not have the trouble with extraction that some have had, but my gun did have noticeably small throats (exit-bores). I had the throats honed to .3555-.3560 diameter to see if that would improve accuracy. Probably kind of a pointless exercise to worry too much about accuracy in this type of gun. Anyway, the gun was trouble-free and it turned out the honing was not necessary - probably not detrimental, just not necessary.

I did not like the heavy barrel profile. Some 940s were made with the light barrels, but they are hard to find. I gave up looking for a gun with one, or just for the barrel.

I think it is probably a better solution than the 640 if you are not averse to carrying speedloaders/moon-clips. If you are a speed-strip guy, the 940 is a non-starter.

The steel guns were always just too darned heavy for me. Mine weighed 24 oz. loaded, and I could substitute my 3913 for four more ounces, it was flatter (or at least it seemed to be), and it carried easier for me. If S&W would have made the gun with the lightweight frame, and if it would hold up, I would have preferred a "942" to the 940.

 

[RobG]

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/234799-940-ballistics.html

see if that worked....

Thank you!

 

[RobG]

Like all the steel Centennials, it is a heavy gun, for what it is. Otherwise, it has the usual Centennial features. They generally have good triggers and shoot well enough. I did not have the trouble with extraction that some have had, but my gun did have noticeably small throats (exit-bores). I had the throats honed to .3555-.3560 diameter to see if that would improve accuracy. Probably kind of a pointless exercise to worry too much about accuracy in this type of gun. Anyway, the gun was trouble-free and it turned out the honing was not necessary - probably not detrimental, just not necessary.

I did not like the heavy barrel profile. Some 940s were made with the light barrels, but they are hard to find. I gave up looking for a gun with one, or just for the barrel.

I think it is probably a better solution than the 640 if you are not averse to carrying speedloaders/moon-clips. If you are a speed-strip guy, the 940 is a non-starter.

The steel guns were always just too darned heavy for me. Mine weighed 24 oz. loaded, and I could substitute my 3913 for four more ounces, it was flatter (or at least it seemed to be), and it carried easier for me. If S&W would have made the gun with the lightweight frame, and if it would hold up, I would have preferred a "942" to the 940.

I have heard that some have done this conversion with a 642 and a 9mm cylinder.

 

[tekarra]

I like my 940 and would like to get one with a 3" barrel. The 940 is heavy and the recoil is snappy. S&W did make a 942 for Wiley Clapp who said the recoil was quite snappy. As noted previously, some forum members have installed 940 cylinders in the 642. Do a search and you will find some interesting reading on the topic.

 

[RobG]

I like my 940 and would like to get one with a 3" barrel. The 940 is heavy and the recoil is snappy. S&W did make a 942 for Wiley Clapp who said the recoil was quite snappy. As noted previously, some forum members have installed 940 cylinders in the 642. Do a search and you will find some interesting reading on the topic.

will do,

Thanks!

-Robert

 

[walkin' trails]

I bought one new back in the early 90s. I liked the way it shot. I even put some 115 and 124 grain +P+ thru it and thought it handled great. I think that heavy 158 grain +Ps and hot 125s kicked more from a .38 than the 9 mms from that gun. I wasn't keen about the moon clips, but it was more of a personal thing. The problem I had with the gun was that it locked up and would not let me open the cylinder one afternoon. I'd been shooting Fed Hydra Shok 147s. After it cooled down, I got it unloaded and back to the shop that sold it. It got back to S&W, allegedly fixed, but no explaination as to what was actually done, so I traded it for a .38 version right there. Now I wish I'd kept it.

 

[HEADKNOCKER]

Mike C sell me that 940 Cheap!!
Gary/Hk