wingnuut
Member
I have at least 2k rnds through my coverted 40 to 9 and it has been flawless and i am shooting wolf ammo , have 1000s of rnds of it i want to use it up
Converted my Shield .40 to 9mm
- Thread starter Smitty357
- Start date
robkarrob
Member
Gentlemen, I don't think anyone is buying the 9mm barrels specifically for SD. I purchased my Shield 40, as I wanted that caliber for my SD round. The reason for the 9mm barrel is to lower the cost of shooting target rounds. Smitty357, TheBigC1234, and wingnuut have confirmed the barrel conversion has performed flawlessly for them.
shwan mccarver and MP1SG (who pointed it out several times) posted that "the cartridge head dimensions on 9mm and .40 S&W are DIFFERENT". I measured the heads and found the 9mm is .388 diameter and the 40 is .420 diameter. This amounts to .032 difference in diameter and only .016 (1/64 inch) difference in radius. So is 1/64 inch enough to create a problem. Apparently not from what the three that have tried the conversion have said. For them neither the extractor or the ejector has had a problem handling the .016 smaller radius of the 9mm cartridge head. I will soon be testing the conversion myself and I believe my outcome will be the same, no problems. If there are no problems, then I can't see why someone wanting to convert down from 40 to 9mm should have a problem for SD carry. You test with the ammo you are going to use for SD, and if you have no issues then they should feel confident of the safe conversion.
We thank those that have made us aware of a possible conversion problem. If testing proves the possible problem to not exist, then we can move on to finding a good supply of barrels, for those that want to make this conversion.
Bob
shwan mccarver and MP1SG (who pointed it out several times) posted that "the cartridge head dimensions on 9mm and .40 S&W are DIFFERENT". I measured the heads and found the 9mm is .388 diameter and the 40 is .420 diameter. This amounts to .032 difference in diameter and only .016 (1/64 inch) difference in radius. So is 1/64 inch enough to create a problem. Apparently not from what the three that have tried the conversion have said. For them neither the extractor or the ejector has had a problem handling the .016 smaller radius of the 9mm cartridge head. I will soon be testing the conversion myself and I believe my outcome will be the same, no problems. If there are no problems, then I can't see why someone wanting to convert down from 40 to 9mm should have a problem for SD carry. You test with the ammo you are going to use for SD, and if you have no issues then they should feel confident of the safe conversion.
We thank those that have made us aware of a possible conversion problem. If testing proves the possible problem to not exist, then we can move on to finding a good supply of barrels, for those that want to make this conversion.
Bob
Last edited:
Yankee Bill
Member
If S&W states it can not be done, then one can only assume that it would also void their Warranty. Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just saying that performing this conversion may be cause for concern should any future warranty work be needed on your weapon. Then again, I guess smith would also have to be aware of the conversion for that to be the case.
Personally, I don't think I would do it though. JMHO. YMMV.
Safe shooting,
YB
Robkarrob
So, There is a difference in the size of the cartridge head? And still people feel comfortable doing this. I am almost sure someone on this forum who is converting the shield 40 to a shield 9 is at some point going to carry this conversion for a SD weapon.
Ok, I bet my car can run on diesel for a little while before it breaks down and becomes useless.
Just my 2 cents
So, There is a difference in the size of the cartridge head? And still people feel comfortable doing this. I am almost sure someone on this forum who is converting the shield 40 to a shield 9 is at some point going to carry this conversion for a SD weapon.
Ok, I bet my car can run on diesel for a little while before it breaks down and becomes useless.
Just my 2 cents
robkarrob
Member
MP1SG
Since it can be done, some of us are going to do it. You have warned us, what more is going to be gained by continuing these warnings. If you test and it works with no issues, what else can we do? Are you aware how little 1/64 inch is? These guns were not designed with that small of variation to have much of an effect on ejection, which should be the only issue with this conversion. We each have our opinion on mods to a gun. Yours is against this particular mod, and mine is for. We have expressed our opinions so let's move on.
Warranty should be a non-issue. Put the stock 40 barrel back in and you have a stock Shield.
Bob
Since it can be done, some of us are going to do it. You have warned us, what more is going to be gained by continuing these warnings. If you test and it works with no issues, what else can we do? Are you aware how little 1/64 inch is? These guns were not designed with that small of variation to have much of an effect on ejection, which should be the only issue with this conversion. We each have our opinion on mods to a gun. Yours is against this particular mod, and mine is for. We have expressed our opinions so let's move on.
Warranty should be a non-issue. Put the stock 40 barrel back in and you have a stock Shield.
Bob
Last edited:
Ok, Moving on
Ok so the guys with the 40c have been converting to .357 and 9mm for quite some time now. And im not talking about the StormLake conversion either. Plenty of those guys are swapping factory barrels and mags, and they are yet to have problems either. Since they have had longer to test this vs the Shield guys. I'd have to say that they should have come up on problems (if there were any) by now.
Since they havent had any problems and those of us who have converted our Shields also havent had problems. I think we can say that the conversion works without issue.
Since they havent had any problems and those of us who have converted our Shields also havent had problems. I think we can say that the conversion works without issue.
Dikinalaska
Member
I posted charts with part number for the 9,9c,40,&40c in the thread 40c or 9c or something like that and it shows that both 40c & 9c have many parts that are the same and same with both full sizes. Now I don't know technically what the difference between extractor and ejector, but the ejector is the same on the 40 & 9. Probably rings true with the shields as well.
robkarrob
Member
Just got my Shield 9mm barrel from Guns and Gear. Made a video showing comparison between the two barrels, similar to Smitty357 made, only with a few measurements and observations. Follow this link to the new thread:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-...d-40-barrel-conversion-9mm.html#post136856047
Bob
http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-...d-40-barrel-conversion-9mm.html#post136856047
Bob
Last edited:
DWalt
Member
I was unaware it was this simple to swap calibers in the Shield, and am happy to know that the .40 slide will work with 9mm. I will be buying a .40 Shield and barrel/mag for 9mm. I see little point in getting a .357 barrel, as I don't particularly like that caliber.
I have a Colt M1911 (yes a real WWI M1911) in .45 ACP, and for over 10 years used the same frame for .45, 9mm, and .38 Super. However, it is necessary to have a slide for 9mm and .38 Super (.38 Super and 9mm use the same slide), plus a .38 Super magazine (which also works fine with 9mm), a 9mm barrel, a .38 Super barrel, and an ejector for 9mm/.38 (same for both). A heavier strength recoil spring is also needed for the .38 Super.
I have a Colt M1911 (yes a real WWI M1911) in .45 ACP, and for over 10 years used the same frame for .45, 9mm, and .38 Super. However, it is necessary to have a slide for 9mm and .38 Super (.38 Super and 9mm use the same slide), plus a .38 Super magazine (which also works fine with 9mm), a 9mm barrel, a .38 Super barrel, and an ejector for 9mm/.38 (same for both). A heavier strength recoil spring is also needed for the .38 Super.
robkarrob
Member
Video is up showing my trip to the range with my Shield 40 and the 9mm barrel.
Bob
Follow this link:http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-...shield-40-9mm-barrel-range.html#post136858539
Bob
Follow this link:http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-...shield-40-9mm-barrel-range.html#post136858539
I followed the link and found the mags no problem. Barrels, not so much. Only thing I saw was a 9-40 conversion barrel for a compact. Made by Storm Lake, BTW.
TheBigC1234
US Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,001
- Reaction score
- 7,059
The intent of my statement was, I thought clear. I did reverse the caliber swap in my original post, but that was not intentional. I have corrected my original post.
What is amazing to me is that the reader who wanted to criticize MP1SG could not discern (1) that it was my quote and not that of MP1SG and (2) that I meant to say .40 to 9mm, since going from 9mm to .40 is clearly not an option as the breech face is too small
It should be OBVIOUS to all concerned that you CANNOT go from 9mm to .40 by changing the barrel and magazine as the larger case head of the .40 will not work in the 9mm breech face.
As I said in my original post, going from .40 to 9mm MAY work, but it is a bad idea as the larger dimensions of the breech face of the .40 do not properly hold the 9mm, and the extractor will not grip the 9mm case head properly. While this may work some of the time, or even most of the time, it is ABSOLUTELY not to be trusted for carry or self-defense. In addition, inevitable malfunctions will reduce confidence in the weapon as you will never quite be sure if it is JUST the wrong size ammo or if the extractor has been truly damaged by this practice, which will undoubtedly put stress on the extractor that was not intended by the designers.
I stand by what MP1SG says and by my original post (except for the mistaken 9mm to .40, which has now been corrected to .40 to 9mm.
These amateurish caliber conversions in pistols not intended for it are a BAD idea at best and perhaps dangerous at worst.
Since it is apparent by the number of questions and discussions that seem to repeatedly crop up on this topic, it seems that either folks have no idea how to use the search function, or they simply do not wish to hear the truth, looking instead for some kind of validation for their bad ideas.
If you want to shoot 9mm, what is wrong with just buying a 9mm?
Thank you MP1SG for lending some common sense to this thread.
robkarrob
Member
As someone stated, Guns and Gear Outpost does not show the barrels on their website. Call them at 413 786-0100.
Another note is I spoke to Chris, at Guns and Gear, and he told me the 9mm barrels are S&W factory barrels. They purchase directly from Smith, and sell them to the public.
Lastly is we get posts saying this conversion does not work, or should not work, it will be dangerous, etc. I will be the first to say this is BS. I have an Mechanical Engineering background and also served a full four year Tool & Die Maker Apprentice Program. So I know how products are designed and I know how to make them. I have all the equipment to measure, and compare and the 40 barrel and 9mm barrel only differ on two points: 1. The bore diameter; 2. The width of the tang/tab at the top rear of the barrel (sight hole). I am thinking S&W designed the tang/tab variance so the assembly line didn't put a 40 barrel into a 9mm slide, however the 9mm will drop into the 40 slide???
Converting the full sized M&P 40 to .357 or 9mm, with a barrel swap, has been going on for years, with no problems. So now we are doing the same with the Shield 40, and the naysayers are back. How can they keep knocking something that works. Case head size variance of .010 inch is going to make a huge difference. I don't think so. I've done the barrel swap, along with Smitty357, wingnut, and others. It works, it's not dangerous, subject to problems, etc. Anyone thinking about the Shield barrel swap should not take the naysayers warnings into consideration. They point out a possible problem, but all testing and operation of the barrel swap proves their suppositions to not be valid.
There are people out there that are convinced they are right, and that is it. You can prove them wrong and then you hear, "ya, but". After my brief testing of the 9mm barrel operation, I found it worked perfectly. However I only put around 50 rounds through the conversion, and using only one brand of ammo. This would not be near enough for me to trust my life with it. But after several hundred rounds, including a couple of boxes of my carry ammo, I would have no worry about using it for carry. This being said, I bought the 40 for carry, and the 9mm is for practice only, in my case.
I also propose that some Shield 9mm owners will barrel swap to the 40. All that would be required to make this swap would be to remove .010 inch (less than 1/64 inch) from each side of the tang/tab of the 40 barrel. They would have to purchase 40 mags, as the 40 cartridges will not fit into the 9mm mags. They would be good to go and the 40 barrel would actually fit into the 9mm slide better than the 9mm barrel fits into the 40 slide. Less side to side movement when in battery.
Bob
Another note is I spoke to Chris, at Guns and Gear, and he told me the 9mm barrels are S&W factory barrels. They purchase directly from Smith, and sell them to the public.
Lastly is we get posts saying this conversion does not work, or should not work, it will be dangerous, etc. I will be the first to say this is BS. I have an Mechanical Engineering background and also served a full four year Tool & Die Maker Apprentice Program. So I know how products are designed and I know how to make them. I have all the equipment to measure, and compare and the 40 barrel and 9mm barrel only differ on two points: 1. The bore diameter; 2. The width of the tang/tab at the top rear of the barrel (sight hole). I am thinking S&W designed the tang/tab variance so the assembly line didn't put a 40 barrel into a 9mm slide, however the 9mm will drop into the 40 slide???
Converting the full sized M&P 40 to .357 or 9mm, with a barrel swap, has been going on for years, with no problems. So now we are doing the same with the Shield 40, and the naysayers are back. How can they keep knocking something that works. Case head size variance of .010 inch is going to make a huge difference. I don't think so. I've done the barrel swap, along with Smitty357, wingnut, and others. It works, it's not dangerous, subject to problems, etc. Anyone thinking about the Shield barrel swap should not take the naysayers warnings into consideration. They point out a possible problem, but all testing and operation of the barrel swap proves their suppositions to not be valid.
There are people out there that are convinced they are right, and that is it. You can prove them wrong and then you hear, "ya, but". After my brief testing of the 9mm barrel operation, I found it worked perfectly. However I only put around 50 rounds through the conversion, and using only one brand of ammo. This would not be near enough for me to trust my life with it. But after several hundred rounds, including a couple of boxes of my carry ammo, I would have no worry about using it for carry. This being said, I bought the 40 for carry, and the 9mm is for practice only, in my case.
I also propose that some Shield 9mm owners will barrel swap to the 40. All that would be required to make this swap would be to remove .010 inch (less than 1/64 inch) from each side of the tang/tab of the 40 barrel. They would have to purchase 40 mags, as the 40 cartridges will not fit into the 9mm mags. They would be good to go and the 40 barrel would actually fit into the 9mm slide better than the 9mm barrel fits into the 40 slide. Less side to side movement when in battery.
Bob
Last edited:
Engine49guy
Member
Seems the biggest reason t convert an M&P from 9mm to .40 is ammo costs but with the cost of a 9mm barrel and mag near $100 and a case of 9mm another $250 to $300 consider 1000 rounds of 22 lr is $50 and a .22lr M&P about $350 ,
Would it not be more cost effective to purchase an M&P 22 for cheap plinking and recoup the cost of the gun with every 1000 rounds fired ?
Just sayin...
Would it not be more cost effective to purchase an M&P 22 for cheap plinking and recoup the cost of the gun with every 1000 rounds fired ?
Just sayin...
TheBigC1234
US Veteran
So far on this board about 5+ people have safely converted from .40 to 9mm none of us have had any issue's. I understand where Mp1sg and Shawn McCarver are coming from pretty much it's not a 9mm don't make it a 9mm.
Our testing (very minimal probably total of 3,000 rounds between us) has suggested that this is perfectly fine, safe, and possible. Also with Robkarrob's background/lesson I still see no feasible issues.
Only time will tell if any issues arise but it seems very unlikely.
Also Shawn McCarver if you were referring to me in your post. 1. define quote. 2. reread the thread. And guess what yes I know you can't go up (without some sort of modification) from 9mm to .40 but not everyone knows that (someone posted on this exact thread that question). How am I supposed to know that you know what you're talking about? It's the internet, I can't see your resume of vast gun knowledge.
Our testing (very minimal probably total of 3,000 rounds between us) has suggested that this is perfectly fine, safe, and possible. Also with Robkarrob's background/lesson I still see no feasible issues.
Only time will tell if any issues arise but it seems very unlikely.
Also Shawn McCarver if you were referring to me in your post. 1. define quote. 2. reread the thread. And guess what yes I know you can't go up (without some sort of modification) from 9mm to .40 but not everyone knows that (someone posted on this exact thread that question). How am I supposed to know that you know what you're talking about? It's the internet, I can't see your resume of vast gun knowledge.
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
-
-
WTS- Mags, Barrels & Parts Kits, PRICES REDUCED
- Latest: sndbggr1484
-
WELL THE STINKY STUFF JUST HIT THE AIR CIRCULATION DEVICE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
- Latest: Deke Thornton
-
-
-
Why didn’t 38 S&W or .455 become the standard?- Latest: Glenn R. McMannly
-
-
-
-
-
