929 is NOT 9x19, but 9x21!

[tomf52]

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.

 

[shawn mccarver]

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.

 

[WhistlerSWE]

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.

 

[nipperdog]

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.

 

[9146gt]

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

Tom

 

[foytfoyt]

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.

 

[ridgewalker]

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

 

[Pizza Bob]

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.

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

 

[44wheelman]

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....

 

[old&slow]

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 ?

 

[Pizza Bob]

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....

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

 

[foytfoyt]

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

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.

 

[44wheelman]

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.

 

[Pizza Bob]

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.

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

 

[S&W1006]

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.

 

[waffles]

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.

 

[WhistlerSWE]

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.

 

[USARMYSPEC4]

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.

 

[wolverine]

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)

 

[seanct]

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.

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

Better/worse/same?