The Pro series 986, 5 inch barrel and I think 8-shot plus the Jerry Miculic Perfomance center 929. The quoted retail price on the 986 was $1195, the 929, well, if you have to ask... Looks like both are intended for the competition game, are 8 shot revolvers allowed in ICORE?

Here is a link:

Smith & Wesson starts 2014 with strong new additions to their revolver line up: the 9mm 986 and 929?SHOT Show 2014

__________________
Old paratrooper in NC

I am super excited! I shoot Steel Challenge. The 8 shot is calling me!

Check out the Brian Enos forum for more discussion about it.

They're great guns for their intended function. I'd like to see another 940.

__________________
Get up offa that thing

Had the 627 PC and it was very accurate. The new 9's sound interesting. Maybe they will fit in the clips without wobbling like the 357's. Larry

I know how you feel about the "floppy" rounds in the moon clips. Some venders now have moon clips sized for the correct thickness of the case being used. They don't wobble any more. Some are expensive; some are reasonable.

I'm sure they will be great for the intended use but I would have preferred something like a 940 that was for self defense (carry) to go along with the return to a 9mm revolver. I guess that market is just too small and they assume they have the shield for that niche.

__________________
18-4, 15-4

I tend toward lighter revolvers and have taken a shine to the 986 - 7 shot, titanium cylinder. At 35oz and 7 shots I think it's an L-frame. The 8 shot is 44 oz.

Here's the deal; I bought a 642 pro about a year ago. S&W hasn't had moon clips in stock, at all, in a year. AND if, I stress IF, they did, then they would cost you the princely sum of about $9 APIECE! Fortunately, the 642 works without moonclips.

However, before I would even think of buying a NEW 986 which CANNOT POSSIBLY FUNCTION without said moonclips, I would ensure that I could buy several dozen of said moonclips at a REASONABLE price.

But I'm sure S&W will think about that in advance

__________________
But then, what do I know?

I very much enjoyed shooting the 986 last week. As these models get expanded upon over the years I am sure more folks will warm up to them.

From the SHOT Show 2014

Larry,
The moon clips required for rimmed revolver cartridges are much thinner and more flexible than moon clips for semi auto cartridges.

Additionally, the grooves that the clips engage in a revolver cartridge have no SAAMI specification. This is why certain brass/clip combinations are tight while others are loose. There is even some revolver brass with no grooves that will not fit in moon clips at all.

There is a SAAMI specification for the groove that the moon clips engage in auto loader brass. This is required since that groove has to reliably interact with the extractors in autoloaders.

How about a SS version of the 547 and a version with target sites ,
A 686+ MG 7 shot .357 with a spare cylinder for 9mm would be cool too .

At just less than a minute into the video he says that they designed the cylinder to function without moonclips, and the cylinder is not cut for moonclips, maybe a similar setup to the 547 cylinder?

You could always do a convertible yourself.

Here is my 627 Pinto with a 2nd 9x23 cylinder and LPA fiber sights.

To answer TrooperDan's question, yes 8 shot revolvers are approved for use in ICORE. Without an optic sight, the 8 shot revolvers fall into the "limited" classification. If you choose to add a red dot, then they are classified as an "open" gun. The 6.5" barrel length makes the 929 a good choice for the limited classification because of its longer sight radius, and 2 extra shots. Since the 9mm round is shorter than the 38 special, it should make for faster reloads. If I didn't already own a 627, I'd be giving the 929 some serious consideration.

Oh, and by the way, now with the USPSA rule change that goes into effect on February 1, the 8 shot revolver now becomes competitive in USPSA.

Every so often I entertain the fantasy of going all 9mm with my revolvers -- selling off the old standbys and putting the cash into some well-preserved 547s and 940s.

Essentially every handgun in the line-up, revolver and semi, consolidated into one caliber. It appeals to the simplifier in me. The effort and the impracticalities ultimately put the brakes to the impulse.

But it has emerged again with the announcement of the 986, most especially with the confirmation that it'll run with or without the moon clips, a convenience I've quickly grown accustomed to with my other moon clipped revolvers.

Too, I don't have any current production S&W revolvers larger than lockless J-frames, but I've been very curious to have at least one in the collection to see how it stacks up against its older brethren.

All this to say, the new 9mm revolvers announced by S&W have very much caught my attention, particularly the 986 versus the more race gun 929. I tend to hold fire and see how things shake out, early reviews and user experience and all, but I will be watching closely -- especially to see what variations might get offered in the line up.

Like a purpose-build defensive 3" 986.

Ostensibly, it will be the ticket for ICORE and USPSA (and some other venues, like steel.)

The "usefulness" of the 929 has been discussed ad nauseum in a couple of other threads. Some (mostly non-competitive) folks bashed/whined/cried about it. Competitive (and some other) shooters are quite excited about it.

Me? I would be very excited about the 929 IF I weren't already set up with a 627 shooting .38 Short Colt (for ICORE, USPSA, and steel.) That said, still LOVE the 625!

Down the road, I suspect I'll have to get a 929 too!

Wonder of the bore on these guns is .355 or .357?

That's what i want to know.. That is a good Question......

Main reason I raise the question is the comments above suggesting the guns could be convertible from 9mm to .357. I would expect one or the other to suffer from poor accuracy. " compromise " bores usually don't work out all that well either. Then there's the issue of the .357 being considerably longer than the 9mm. I could see a 9x19 and an extra 9x23 cylinder being a possibility.

@M3Stuart - TK Custom lists several options for moon clips for the 642, dependent on the brass you're using. Expensive, but not as expensive as you quote. They appear to be $6.50 ea.

Revolver Moon Clips, 45 ACP Full Moon Clips and Speed Loaders - TK Custom

@IraIII - While the 625, 646, 940 and now the 929 and 986 can be shot without moon clips, it is not advisable unless you are just fooling around at the range, or it's a dire emergency and you have no other choice.

These are all chambered for rimless pistol rounds, so they headspace on the moon clip. Without a moon clip they have to rely on the shoulder in the chamber and headspace on the case mouth. Look at the specs for case length of a given cartridge and then measure a piece of once-fired or new brass. You will find the manufacturers make their brass shorter than max length. Max length is where the shoulder in the chamber will be cut so seldom does the case mouth actually come in contact with that shoulder. When the hammer hits a round, it drives it forward in the chamber. It may go off, it may not. So you may ask, "How do these calibers function in a semi-auto, as they rely on the shoulder in the chamber and headspace on the case mouth?" That's theoretical - in point of fact most semi-autos headspace off the extractor, which holds the cartridge against the breech face as it is being struck by the firing pin.

The other downside to using a pistol caliber in a revolver without moon clips, is extraction. Since there is no rim for the extractor star to push against, empties (those that don't fall out from gravity) must be poked out one at a time with a rod. Not exactly conducive to fast shooting. It was disingenuous of the S&W rep to say that it was, "...designed to work without moon clips." That simply means they didn't bore the cylinder straight through.

@epj - re: Bore diameter. I've seen this question come up often on many forums. There was one video of Jerry Miculek, taken at the SHOT show in Smith's booth, where he categorically states that the 929 (and one would then assume the 986) has a bore sized for .355" bullets. There was a lot of concern about this in the competition community. Why spend >$1K on a gun that is not made to be optimally accurate (i.e. a .355" bullet going through a .357" bore).

HTH

Adios,

Pizza Bob

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Not for me I like Magnums

Are they chambered for .357 Magnum?

The 929 and 986 have a .355 bore

I'll get both if I can find the bucks.

How did you find that out ? That's great,it makes them both good shooters. I wanted to get the 5in. revolver -now i can go and give my LGS the money. He wouldn't order one until i paid.

Truthfully, I do not even understand the reason people are asking that question. Why in the world would S&W build a 9MM revolver with all of the resources and precision of the Performance Center and then purposefully bore the barrel to .357?

However since I saw that this question was being asked by numerous Forum members, I asked one of the engineers when we were shooting the new 986 revolvers last week

It seems I may be the only one here who thinks they're gimmicky...but I've adapted the notion of "there are revolver cartridges, and semi-auto cartridges and the twos don'ts mix" I can see if you want to have multiple guns and same ammo, I just don't feel the same. I'm sure this would be a great LE gun if'n they could still carry revolvers.

__________________
Still just a kid at heart

I'm not sure they offer anything of practical value in the real world, but revolvers chambered for semiauto cartridges are always interesting and unique!

I wish S&W would make the J frame in a 9mm with a SHORT CYLINDER to match the cartridge which of course would mean an overall shorter gun.

Oh, you're not the only one. In other threads many have opined with dislike.

No need to rehash it here, but suffice it to say it isn't [necessarily] about having multiple guns with same ammo.

For example, no speedloader ever made can compete with moon clips when it comes to fastest reload time.

But how are they of "impractical" value?

Obviously, the long barrel may not be so practical for CCW. But with a short barrel (like the existing short-barreled M627 .357), why not?

I too would be interested in a J frame moonclipped 9mm. And I've never even been a big fan of the 9mm!

When S&W made the short cylindered .45ACP M625, they simply placed a shortened cylinder in the existing N frame and extended barrel into the frame window. Rather than design/manufacture a shorter J frame, I suspect they would do the same if they were to ever make a 9mm.

Second that!!!!!

I asked that question 357 or .355 because my LGS and the gun smith said that S&W made a 9 mm rev. once and the bullets were all over the place on target. It was not a good shooter.

I've got zero interest in these two guns but a J-frame 9mm would be a big seller if they brought one back like the former 940 - never could figure out why they discontinued that model.

How about an air weight 9mm J-frame? That should be a hit with the concealed carry folks.

I like the fact these new revolvers don't require moon clips but wonder does anyone make speed loaders for them? But all said and done I doubt these two revolvers will sell in large numbers.

Bring back the 940 or a similar model, please, Smith and Wesson Then you'll sell some guns!

I'm not being argumentative, I am really interested.

Is that true for sure?

I shoot steel with .38 Specs in a 627, and have used moon clips and the Five Star Firearms speedloaders. I am not sure that I am not faster with the Five Stars because they hold the cartridges with a little less wobble.

Because, years back when they made the 627's in .38 super they used .357 barrels instead of .356 barrels on some batches. There were issues with cylinder throats as well.

RichardC,

You should not have to suffer from wobbly moonclips. You can Google up TK Custom. Tom can make you moonclips that will fit the brass you plan to use. This generally will require to pick a brand you have the most of. Tom knows what thickness to give you. Of course it will cost money but what the hey!

__________________
Bob.
SWCA 1821

They appear to be fine revolvers for the shooting games, but I would like to see a more everyday type of 9 mm revolver. Bring back the 547.

If they manufacture a J-frame w/5" brl I'm all over it. They would need to close the cylinder window instead of extending the brl though.

I like the looks of a seven shot L frame though it's a mite pricey for me. I'd probably opt for the Mod 69. Five shots is plenty.

I shoot revolvers almost exclusively in competition, about 15,000 rounds last year. Moonclips are much faster than speedloaders, there is less motion/effort required by the shooter. With moonclips you just need to get the bullets started toward the holes and the rounds go in clip and all. Depending on the speedloader there are other motions (ie time) required. The 5 star and HKS loaders require turning a know to release rounds, even the Safarilands (faster speedloader) require extra effort to push the loader against the cylinder to trigger the release of the rounds.

That said, when it comes to moonclips they are NOT all created equal! As others have mentioned clips made to specific brass is the way to go in all but the 625's. I use Heartco's in my 627's.

I converted a 640 to a dual caliber gun with a 940 cylinder, and it is a tack driver in 9mm even with the original .357 diameter barrel. I spoke with a smith at S&W who told me that the 940 barrels were not .355 but .357 caliber and there were no problems. If there are accuracy problems with some of the .357 barrels out there something else might be going on...

What Chico said!

I too use Hearthco's. Great moon clips for the M627.

The M625? Not so picky about moon clips.

Are moon clips faster than speedloaders? No doubt about it!

I believe that the groove in rimless is not always the same. I have a bear of a time getting .40s&w Win brass into ranch clips for my 646. Nickel or brass, the same struggle. Rem and Fed work great! I don't fully buy into the fact that the Saami spec is being adhered to so closely all around in the rimless.

Another positive vote for Hearthco moonclips. I buy the real deal from the man himself. I have had some custom batches done up by Dave for my 610 and some in .38 Supercomp for a toy I am still building. I specifically spec'd the web to be widest possible so as to make the clips as strong as possible to resist the evil stompers. So far it has worked. I expect the .38's to be invincible...well nearly.

Side note: I admire all of you that take it in stride when someone steps on your moonclips. I may never master this grace so please watch where you step after I have just finished a stage. My five 8$ moonclips are just as important to me as your 50-150$ magazines are to you. Cheers!

__________________
This≠DodgeCity&You≠BillHickok

I wonder would it be possible to shoot 9mm major with this new 929?

Am not an authority on shooting Major with the 9mm.

But I suspect you easily could.

Respectfully there is no point. Major is limited to six shots and time and time again we have seen folks get the open bump on the seventh shot. Mainly the 625 is so much easier to reload with the big .45 holes that it makes no competitive sense to do the slightly slower reload for the risk of an open bump and a sharper recoil impulse.

Personally I'm a weirdo and have settled on .40 major in a 610 classic. I still have a pair of 625's for really getting down to speed work. I am more accurate from 5 to 50 with the 610, but finding pointy jacketed bullets is a PITA.

On an odder note I'm working on a six shot major gun based on the .38 supercomp that should be a lot of fun to play with. Trying to sneak into major with heavy bullets and slow velocity. Tinkering is so much fun.

__________________
This≠DodgeCity&You≠BillHickok

I remember the competitive crowd at the FOP Range in Pleasant Grove having a devil of a time making their expensive 'race guns' work with 9mm +P machine gun ammo just to make 'major' classification (PF>165). I recall letting one of their better shooters shoot my 696 one day with 240gr LRNFP making just under 700 fps (Major PF!) from the 3" barrel - a real 'poof' load - and from .44 Russian brass, too. Now - go to a 127gr 9mm pill - it would have to make >1,300 fps - pretty extreme chamber pressures. The Ti cylinder likely was chosen for normal 9mm pressures, thus the 7/8 holes... I'd certainly rethink the 'major' PF use - unless the PC Shop will state it's okay.

I understand the 646's need for Ti, but it would seem, considering how many 627 8-shot .357M's they've made that stand up fine, it would seem overkill in a consumer gun - perhaps not in a competitive revolver - and I think that is the niche for the 986 Pro & JM PC929. My needs are met with 627's - moonclips or not.

I am not saying I don't like bottom-feeder rounds in a revolver - that would be heresy! After all, I keep 240+ Ranch Products moonclips full of my homebrew .45 ACP ball ammo - mostly in two ammo cans - for my 625JM and Governor, my first line defense against Zombie attacks. Besides, S&W has made revolvers that would chamber that round since 1917. BTW, my Zombie deterrence works pretty well... I still haven't seen one.

I will await a .40 S&W version - a la the 646 - hopefully less the Ti cylinder, whose care is too involved and use too tenuous for me, based on my eleven years ownership of a 296. Still - it's good to see new revolvers from S&W - thanks for the thread!

Stainz

I like the new 9 mm 8 shot revolvers for how their spread in popularity may lead to improved availability and price for used, well cared for 8 shot 38 special N-frame revolvers.

[QUOTE=forrestinmathews;137675991]Respectfully there is no point.QUOTE]

Unless, of course, he plans to shoot in Open Div with a revolver with optics!

I hope they sell well and lead to cylinder/frame window specific J-frame models in 9mm/40 that aren't all snubbies. I bought one of the New Vaqueros, SS no less, in 45 Colt though some bemoaned the smaller frame w/XR3 stocks that couldn't withstand Ruger only loads.

Every outing isn't a bear hunt nor social discourse a crazed methhead combatant. I appreciate the Redhawk 44 mag weight/built like a tank when I touch off rounds one-handed. There's a spot for many niches. In me best/worst limey/Cockney/Telly down under ad accent I offer, "'ello Gov'ner" as support to claim.

Some prefer wheelguns to bottom feeders. I need to limit my carry to the more petite five holer. I'd prefer options that included a five/5.5 inch tapered brl. I'm excited/hopeful that the Mod 69, combined w/969 will encourage S&W to give due consideration to a J-frame 9mm and/or 40.

I feel the Charter Arms 3" 44spl was the ultimate in concealed carry incorporating a lot of firepower in a small package. I've no interest in various 2" offerings. Not everything in a five round package needs to carry in cargo shorts. For that I have an Airlite 22mag, loaded w/1 shotshell and six 45gn WRF flatnose, that carries well and beats throwing rocks.

I bought a Mod 60-15 w/magnum frame in 3" and I can see it in a 40 w/moonclips. A tad too healthy a build for the nine. In a 10mm it would be a fire breathin' dragon w/o being sized as a Dragoon.

That's right, shoot those cheap 40 value packs for practice/plinkin' and save the 10 for packin' a wallop. That should be in the same neighborhood as the 5 rnd L frame 44 mag Mod 69 recoil wise.

But, for the time being I'd gladly purchase a 9/40 in a 5 rnd pkg in something over 3". I like the 969 love the 5" brl I just don't need seven rnd/L frame.

I don't think the 969 will dip low enough in price, so I'll probably throw my ltd financial support to the Mod 69 as it is a 5 rnd has a ever so slightly longer than 4" brl and it adheres to a large rnd/smaller platform. Plus, it's merely a hop, skip & jump from there to 40 w/moonclips. Albeit the L frame is not the compact carry of my desire.

I might even settle for the brl extending into the frame window, yet if cylinder length/window specific I'd be prone to buy two. The five rnd J-frame moonclip 40 will become the new & improved bulldog if offered in various brl lengths including a 3-3.5" up to a 5-6".

I'll find a way to carry an extra 1 1/2" or so before I'll give up the muzzle energy. That's why I own no snubnose save semi-autos that measure 3 1/4-1/2" from the back of the cartridge. I overlook that as they're flat. If I'm going to deal w/wheel bulge then I want at least three beyond the cylinder.

He ain't Roger Davis. So that probably won't happen. You know that guy classified pretty well in Open with his revo, a comp, and a dot?

@nicksterdemus:
Buy a 646 and get some Hearthco clips for it. You won't be sorry. That little magnum is going to bite. Big time. I'm resisting the urge to get one because of the need for the extra reloading supplies and adding a new caliber. Please don't try to talk me into it. I've got enough problems debating between a matched set of shorty birds head vaqueros and a USPSA setup and 929.

Excellent reference between the two vaqueros! Have you tried carrying an RX3 as opposed to an old model? It's very different indeed. About like the spread between L and N frame. Cowboy action shooting makes these models very familiar in either hand. Eagle gunfighter grips, very nice and worth the cost.

Getting back to S&W's, I don't know about the .40/10mm. I own each and I think Smith feels a little bitten by the lack of warm reception of the Nightguard. I think if they did a titanium cylinder and made an Lframe .40/10 it would be a hit. The short N-frames were just so clunky looking and the rear s-i-ght left something to be desired. Maybe a bowman rough country rear s-ight instead?

__________________
This≠DodgeCity&You≠BillHickok

Seems the 646 wasn't exactly welcomed w/open arms. Been a while, so maybe they'll give a five rnd 5" brl a whirl. Even though I have a few larger wheel guns I prefer small-medium frames for the most part. I finally broke down and purchased a 25-5 45acp last year. Nice, but still one rnd too many for me.Looked at a 610, have ammo & 1006, but it was almost as huge as a Redhawk 45 Colt. Or so I recall.

The New Vaquero fits me as a glove. Short fat fingers on a medium hand. I bad wanted a Night Guard and was waiting for the price to drop a bit. Didn't realize they were going to can the project. The 396 was calling my name, but the length of the brl was not.

Sadly, it would appear that beyond the J-frame I'm looking at South America w/ or w/o an Italian flair for larger caliber 5 rnd wheelguns. I have an old Charter Arms Bulldog and a Rossi 720C. However, I would enjoy a S&W in a five rnd.

My main carry was a Kahr CW45. Reasonably light/flat and concealable w/6+1 45acp DAO striker fired. It's as if the world is awash in semis & snubbies.