Converting J frame to shoot 9mm

[JDinAZ]

"Maybe it’s also a flame cutting thing"

And maybe not.
My three aluminum framed, titanium cylindered 637-2 9mm J-frames haven't had any problems with flame cutting.

Cool then it rules that out

Can you answer the question I asked above

Being that you have an aluminum j frame. Would you say it’s safe put a 357 cylinder on it and run 357 ammo in it

Do you see where my conundrum in this whole thing is. No one will endorse using a 357 cyl and ammo in an aluminum j that is marked for 38. But 9mm is right at the same level of SAAMI pressure

 

[JDinAZ]

"But you did claim that the aluminum frame is fine for 357/9mm"

Post a quote, in context.
That said, I've noticed that so far, my three 637-2 titanium cylindered 9mm J-frames have incurred zero damage from 9mm. I have .357 titanium cylinders for them, but don't shoot .357 because 9mm recoil is painful enough.

Literally the whole past page man. And your post I just quoted where you asked me to quote you in context

Your endorsement of 9mm in aluminum j frames. You mentioned just above you have three aluminum j frames that are converted

"The 38 Spl is MUCH more powerful than 9mm if you can reload your own and not be beholden to what ammo companies make".

Wouldn't it be quicker and easier to just use over the counter .357Mag ammo if you want that much more power? It takes less than two minutes to replace the 9mm cylinder/crane assembly with the .357Mag assembly. I don't often do it because the 9mm recoil is painful enough to suit me.

This one you insinuate just swapping to a 357 cyclider because it’s easier

See my conundrum.

I could be wrong and like I said. I kinda hope I am wrong on this one. I’d love to run a dedicated cylinder conversion line in the shop. But I have a hard time going outside the approved frame rating from the factory

 

[Screwball]

It is pretty amazing what a revolver can be called on to do. But if you can't fire the gun more than a handful of rounds before your hand is numb, you're not really setting yourself up to fight with confidence. So most of this just seems like exotica rather than practicality.

Having carried the same revolver in .38 +P, and then shot a LCR in .357 Magnum… I don’t consider 9mm to be excessive.

I shoot all my carry ammo yearly, which is a full box of Hornady XTP (standard pressure, 147 grain). Throughout the year, I practice with my stash of bulk UMC 115 grain… which has an identical POI as the Hornady (why I bought it in bulk). Both will hold crimps for the four rounds, but I did test Hornady with multiple cylinders, just for peace of mind (I did three four-round groups on the same test round… no bullet movement).

A 100 round range session isn’t hurtful, nor is my hand numb afterwards.

Maybe it’s me, as I grew up shooting .44 Magnum. Literally, 12 years old… shooting standard Magnum loads out of a 6” 629, not Specials. I have an M&P40C that I am planning on utilizing my new .357 SIG barrel once ammo somewhat stabilizes. But I enjoy shooting my 9mm 642.

 

[Baltimoreed11754]

I had my scandium .38 spcl j frame cylinder cut for moon clips. Plus-P is more than sufficient in such a light gun to my thinking. 9mm would be a bear.

 

[winchester62]

I read the whole thread, and I'm the proud owner of a .38/9mm K frame conversion. And I really don't get why someone would bother with this sort of thing in a J frame. I understand that it is neato, and I see the ballistic argument. But they make .357 and .38 +P defense loads that should get you there - and they hurt enough in a really light revolver.

A five shot .38 may not be a cannon, but most folks would acknowledge that it is probably good enough. And if you like revolvers and like super light weight, an ultralight with .38 standard pressure seems like a reasonable compromise.

But if that isn't good enough, I just can't see the argument against just spending $450 on a Kahr CM-9 and being able to fire 7 rounds of hot 9mm from a platform with relatively little painful kick and accuracy similar to a J frame while being notably smaller. But maybe I'm looking at autos as being reliable enough and not convinced revolvers - especially ones fired much with heavy kicking ammo - are going to be any more reliable. (Bullet jump especially considered.)

It is pretty amazing what a revolver can be called on to do. But if you can't fire the gun more than a handful of rounds before your hand is numb, you're not really setting yourself up to fight with confidence. So most of this just seems like exotica rather than practicality.

As you say, some people might not prefer the conversion in a light J frame. How would you say the conversion is in a k frame? Pleasant? Between a 38 and 357? Would you do the conversion again if you were making the decision now? I'm a few days away from sending my 64 4 inch heavy barrel off if I don't change my mind. My motive is cheaper factory ammo and I like the idea of quick reloads too. Thanks for any feedback. I hope nobody minds the k frame creep.

 

[HeyJoe]

I read the whole thread, and I'm the proud owner of a .38/9mm K frame conversion. And I really don't get why someone would bother with this sort of thing in a J frame. I understand that it is neato, and I see the ballistic argument. But they make .357 and .38 +P defense loads that should get you there - and they hurt enough in a really light revolver.

A five shot .38 may not be a cannon, but most folks would acknowledge that it is probably good enough. And if you like revolvers and like super light weight, an ultralight with .38 standard pressure seems like a reasonable compromise.

But if that isn't good enough, I just can't see the argument against just spending $450 on a Kahr CM-9 and being able to fire 7 rounds of hot 9mm from a platform with relatively little painful kick and accuracy similar to a J frame while being notably smaller. But maybe I'm looking at autos as being reliable enough and not convinced revolvers - especially ones fired much with heavy kicking ammo - are going to be any more reliable. (Bullet jump especially considered.)

It is pretty amazing what a revolver can be called on to do. But if you can't fire the gun more than a handful of rounds before your hand is numb, you're not really setting yourself up to fight with confidence. So most of this just seems like exotica rather than practicality.

the same argument you present can be used against your converting a k frame to 9mm. People do it because it is possible and they want too, just like you did, no further justification needed.

 

[JimCunn]

May not be practical, but I have three of them.
I usually carry with the 9mm cylinder.

 

[JimCunn]

Two more years have gone by.
None of my three 9mm J-frame titanium cylinder conversions have had any problem with flame cutting, crimp jump, cylinder face erosion, or frame stretching.
I have had one extractor fail due to wear on one ratchet lug, but that's just ordinary wear and has nothing to do with the conversion.

I'm still a happy camper and still have no desire to shoot .357 because 9mm recoil hurts enough already.

 

[steelslaver]

On J frames, especially alloy models there is a point of diminishing returns. The recoil becomes such that it is difficult to get back on target quickly. Then you are sacrificing second shot time for the power of the initial shot.

I learned this when I made a alloy J frame into a 327 Feed mag.

I have big beefy hands and a good grip. It isn't about any pain. With the smaller grips and the light weight it is about trying to keep the gun from twisting up out of alignment then getting it back on target.

 

[CherryRiver]

I'd also be curious to hear chrono results from firing ordinary 9x19 out of a snub like a 642.
The power loss I experienced on my 686 and 25 when firing the auto rounds after clip conversions was significant.

 

[Screwball]

I'd also be curious to hear chrono results from firing ordinary 9x19 out of a snub like a 642.

I’ve been meaning to do this… more so that I got the Garmin chronograph.

When I get a shot in August, I’ll spend my carry ammo and give some numbers. Also have the .38 cylinder… so can compare them easily.

 

[JimCunn]

Using .357 Mag titanium cylinder reamed for 9mm with 147 gr 9x19 in a 1-7/8" barrel, avg 952 fps and about 292 ft-lbs.

 

[-BTM-]

I’m intrigued by the moon-clipped rimless cartridge for a few reasons. Bought an L frame 7 round cylinder but haven’t sent it off yet.

1. From what I’ve read, the moon clips are thicker/stronger
2. I hate picking up loose brass
3. Cheap bulk 9mm is appealing

What’s holding me back is TKCustoms warning about the use of standard loads only, no +p or hand loads. Not sure if that is CYA or a fact. TK himself , way back when, ran just about anything that would fit in an L frame up to 9x23.

Julian from TK confirmed this recently no more 9x23. Due to sticky extraction and no comment on downloaded-but still reloaded ammo. I specifically asked about 9x21 which seems like a good compromise, it can be loaded longer than standard 9mm but still eject well with a short rod.

 

[Rock185]

BTM, I had a 686 7-round cylinder converted to 9mm a few years ago by Pinnacle. The moon clips I use are the ones made for the S&W 986 revolver. Thicker/stronger than others; I don't know. I haven't tried reloads in mine, but have shot and chronographed several different factory loads in mine. Those factory loads included standard pressure Federal 115 grain ball, JHP and IMI ball, Winchester and IMI 124 grain NATO, Federal 124 grain +P HST and 115 grain 9BPLE JHP, and Winchester M1152 JFP. Due to the long, large diameter freebore with 9mm in a .357 cylinder, velocities were generally lower then might be expected. Some of these loads are higher than standard pressure, but going through my notes, I don't see any indicating hard extraction, etc.