S&W 940

[Tinygnat219]

All,
I haven't seen too many posts about the S&W 940. There are several things I like about this gun:
Chambered in 9MM, it's got more oomph than .38 SPL, and it's below .357 Magnum in terms of felt recoil.
It's accurate. I actually found it easier to shoot than my 640. Not sure why that is, but I could shoot tighter groups with it.
The 9MM cases lend themselves to easier extraction with the moonclips since they are so much smaller than .38 SPL. I carry spare moonies in an Uncle Mike's case meant to hold speedloaders. I can fit 4 moonies in there for reloads and it works pretty well.
Here it is:

Here it is with my Lemon Squeezer and 640:

 

[WC145]

Nice guns. You need to look harder, lots of threads here on 940s and 9mm revolvers in general.

 

[H Richard]

940's are good shooters. I have found that 124 gr. loads tend to shoot tighter groups in mine than 115 gr., and shoot to the point of aim at 10 yards and also at 25 yards. I shoot a lot of lead loads, and a 124 gr. cast RN at 906 fps shoots right on.

 

[Ashlander]

You have me convinced -- if I see one I just might pick it up. I have a Model 60 (.357) and a 640. It would go well in their company.

 

[Retired W4]

My recently acquired 940 is a real sweetheart, as I mentioned in an earlier post. The 11 lb trigger doesn't feel that heavy, maybe because it's so smooth. The 9mm presents many advantages over the .38 special in that type of package. It's a joy to shoot. Sheriffoconee has just about convinced me to leave the stock springs in it, but because I already ordered the Wilson Combat spring kit, and the gun is apart awaiting their arrival I will give them a try.

 

[tekarra]

You will find a lot of information if you search the forum for 940s. There are also a number of posts by fellows who fit 940 cylinders into 642s and other J frames.

 

[Tinygnat219]

I'm thinking about fitting a 9MM Cylinder to a 642. That idea is sooooo tempting. The problem is, that it's essentially cost prohibitive for a neat idea, especially since I have already picked up my 940.

 

[David Sinko]

I just shot mine this afternoon with some nasty Winchester 115 gr. FMJ that were covered with sticky green corrosion. I was pleasantly surprised that I did not have any extraction problems for the duration, considering all the crud in the chambers. I practice a lot with my 940 just so that I can shoot it over the same duty gun qualification course, but with the weak hand and out to 25 yards. I find that I can shoot my 940 better than I do many full size DA autos. The extra weight in the muzzle and Centennial configuration contribute a lot to how well it points and soaks up the recoil.

Dave Sinko

 

[What the]

Nice guns you guys! The 9mm model 940 is on my short list for sure but the price is too high for me considering I already have a couple J frames.
I really like those wood grips in post #3, they add a little class to the stainless frame gun.

 

[walkin' trails]

I bought a 940 back in the early 90s. It shot great with 115 and 124 grain +P+ rounds that were also my duty rounds. It locked up on me firing some 147 grain subsonics. I couldn't get the cylinder open till it cooled down. I took it back to the shop where I bought it. Got sent back to S&W, was told it was allegedly fixed, no one would say what the problem was. I wasn't comfortable and traded it for a 640. In retrospect, I wish I'd kept it to see if it worked after that. I seem to recall that it shot better than the .38 versions. The only other potential problem was the moon clips. Although I never had a problem I could equate to them, I found that they weren't as convenient to drop a spare or two in your pockets. S&W should have made use of the ejector system they used on the 547s, and make using moon clips an option. It was a great concept and I wish they'd bring it back with the afore mentioned improvements.