L frame conversion to .40 S&W

[Boreal]

Has anyone ever converted their L frame Smith to the .40 S&W round? I understand that Moon Clips would be necessary but they already exist for the model 646 and therefore should be able to be located.

I have no interest in the 10mm. If I did, I would just buy a nice 610 and be done with it. Putting .40 S&W as sub-loads in a 10mm revolver fails to interest me. I would want a dedicated .40 S&W revolver if possible.

My first choice would be an L frame 586 or 686 because I like the size and pointing characteristics of these revolvers. If for some reason the L frame conversion was a bad idea, I would then pursue a N Frame conversion.

The novelty and usefulness of a revolver that takes the same rounds that I buy for my Semi's, seems pretty cool. Hence the question of the conversion.

Any knowledgeable input is greatly appreciated.

Thanks

 

[epj]

I wonder if you can still buy a barrel and cylinder for a 646 as service parts? Might be cheaper to just buy a 646. There is one on Gunbroker that is currently in the $700 range.

 

[BUFF]

Is there a reason you want to convert a M-586 or -686 to .40 S&W instead of buying a Model 646 already so chambered?

 

[Boreal]

Two main reasons I am not bidding on the 646:

1. I don't have the funds to put a bid on the 646 currently. I probably will have enough $ to buy a good used L frame after X-Mas but certainly not before.

2. I am not a fan of the Ti cylinder used on the 646. I would rather have a good Carbon or SS cylinder on my revolver.

 

[WC145]

Good luck finding a 646 barrel or cylinder for your project. The second run of 646s (the 2003 non-PC version) used up the cylinders they had left and my assumption is that they cut only enough new barrels to build those guns.
Also, they never made any steel .40S&W cyls. My understanding is that they used the Ti cyl for the strength because there isn't enough metal left in a six shot, .40 caliber, steel cylinder to handle the pressure. You could have a cylinder and barrel made but I'm sure that would be at least as expensive as buying a 646 and you'd still have to contend with questionable cylinder strength.

 

[k22fan]

Boreal,

I would also love to have an all stainless L frame in either .40 or 10mm but since like you I'm not rolling in dough I just shoot .40s out of my 610. The cost of a conversion is so high that you basically come out paying for the gun twice. If the price of the now discontinued 610s goes up than the total cost of converting a GP100 might not look so bad because Rugers cost less to start with, but you'd probably take a big loss reselling the conversion while the 610 would keep going up in value. Even though a dedicated .40 L frame would be preferable for its shorter trigger reach, my 610 has been a very practical .40 launcher.

For reloaders it is nice to have revolvers that shoot all the automatic pistol cartridges that we load for. While finding loads that our autos like using new components we inevitably load some cartridges that won't cycle in our autos. It's easier and more fun to shoot them up in a revolver rather than pull the bullets. Some day in the future you may have room in your budget and safe for a 10mm auto. With a 610 you'd be ready with a matching caliber revolver.

Best Regards,

Gil

 

[44wheelman]

As noted, finding a .40 cal bbl will be the challenge. You can have a 686 bbl re-bored, but that ain't cheap.

A 610 with an auxilliary cylinder from a 627 converted to .40 would be an option..but you're back to an N frame.

Other than the obvious 646.... not many options. You will have the price of a donor gun, plus several hundred in customization costs.

 

[Shooting4life]

When ever you want to make your gun like another gun s&w already sells it is always cheaper to sell the gun you have and buy the one that you really want.

 

[Bullseye Smith]

When ever you want to make your gun like another gun s&w already sells it is always cheaper to sell the gun you have and buy the one that you really want.

What he said for sure - unless one can't be found .

 

[Boreal]

Thanks for the replies all.

My First Choice was a 40 S&W conversion on a medium framed revolver such as a L Frame Smith or failing that a GP100. A third potential subject would be an N Frame Smith but with the understanding at this point that a large frame revolver would be necessary.

Now I am learning a possible reason as to why S&W put the the Ti cylinder on the model 646. The implied thing WC145 was getting at was that a 686 or 586 with a conventional SS or Carbon Steel cylinder would not have the strength for the .40 S&W round. That is precisely the kind thing I needed to know.

As for re boring barrels and re chambering cylinders from .357 to .40 caliber I figured it would not be that big of a deal in the hands of a competent gunsmith. Expensive perhaps but an expense I could budget for over time. The idea was to buy a good candidate revolver in the next few months and then over another few months save for the necessary caliber conversion in increments. This way I wold never be smacked with a big bill at one time thereby making the process within reach for me financially.

I asked the same question an anther forum an learned that Clements does 10mm conversions on a GP100. With this in mind, getting the same thing done but only in .40 S&W would seem possible and that is where I will start.

 

[scooter123]

Pertaining to a steel cylinder in the 40 S&W on an L frame, it's currently being done in the 310 Night Guard. Since that's a 10mm revolver, I don't think that a steel cylinder chambered for the 40 S&W would be any problem.

Personally, I think that S&W is missing out on a real marketing opportunity. I purchased my 610 specifically because the cost of shooting 38 spl. was becoming prohibitive. At one point during the ammo drought, plain old 130 grain FMJ was costing 24 bucks a box at the one range in my area that was able to get some. BTW, they were paying 22 dollars a box to the distributor, so they weren't trying to clean up. I'll also point out that 9mm FMJ was the exact same price. Meanwhile, the local Walmart was well stocked with 40 caliber Federal Champion at 13.97 per box.

So, I bought my 610 and the savings on ammo versus 38 spl. in the past year has gone a good way towards paying for the cost of the 610. I've also found that the 610 is capable of pretty good accuracy with the cheap ammo from Walmart, on a good day for me it'll group between 2 and 3.5 inches from a bench rest at 100 feet. Best was a 2 1/4 inch group with some vertical stringing but most of the time I'll shoot around 3-3.5 inches from a rest.

The simple fact is that the revolver calibers are now "niche" calibers and this means it costs a lot more than the 9mm and 40 S&W. If I were in charge of marketing at S&W there would be 9mm and 40 calibers L frames on the web site right now and I would suspend the 686 production until the public finally caught on to the benefits of running moon clips and shooting cheap semi auto ammo.

 

[RedBerens]

Scooter, I never thought of it that way, but you make a really good point.

 

[WC145]

Pertaining to a steel cylinder in the 40 S&W on an L frame, it's currently being done in the 310 Night Guard. Since that's a 10mm revolver, I don't think that a steel cylinder chambered for the 40 S&W would be any problem.

The 310 is an N-frame.

 

[scooter123]

WC, you are correct. Don't know why but for some reason I thought the 310 was an L frame.

 

[ikor]

$700 is a good price for a 646. I have one and am thinking of doing some trading and I can guarantee you it won't be valued at that. Very nice package (mine is the 'second' model if you will) but I am not a .40 fan. I don't see any way you could do such a conversion well for less than that figure.

BTW this is not my second post...I have dealt with a few guys here before, but I was forced by the new software to re-register and that began at post #1 again.

 

[Bullet Bob]

Nothing wrong with a 646 in my opinion, once you get some grips that are big enough.

Of course, if steel is what you want, that's good enough reason for anyone. I've had some work done by Mr. Clements in the past, and was well satisfied.