Tell me about the 940 and 9mm revolvers in general

[Ed333]

547

The 547's have the advantage of not needing moonclips, there is a very sophisticated extractor system. In addition, the size and weight of a 4" K frame handles the snappiness of the 9mm round a lot better than a J frame. However, the one I had, the trigger was not much fun, no where near as smooth and nice as my 940. I agree with what has been said about the triggers on 940's generally, and the need for honing the chambers if you want reliable extraction. They are both out there, just have to be on the lookout.

 

[FotoTomas]

I realize this thread is an old one but wanted to add that the 940 I had some years ago was a nice pistol but an obscene pain when it came to extraction. I was unable to get any ejection reliability from any of the budget or premiun 9mm ammo I could get. I carried a rubber mallet to the range to tap the ejector rod until I traded it for a 638.

I regret trading it now and would love to find another if the sticking problem could be corrected. I would prefer to have ammo commonality between my 9mm duty/off duty pistols and my pocket revolver.

 

[HEADKNOCKER]

That sad to hear!!
I too used to carry the rubber shot hammer to the range with mine too!!
The hones are available for anyone to use for FREE!!
I have them in 9mm/38/357, 41, 44 & 45..

 

[1 old 0311]

If you re-chamber for 9mm can you still fire the .38 cartridge?


p.s. how's the recoil compared to the .38?

 

[HEADKNOCKER]

No if you cut the chamber for 9mm it is slightly larger & if the 38 is then fired in it the cases will fire form to the 9mm cylinder & stick..
I've heard of some doing it but of course there was that problem..
9mm in a snubbie is snappy but managable, In my Airweight it's a pretty good whack to the hand but not as fierce as a 357 magnum from a 13oz snub..
The standard 9mm rounds do seem to have slightly more recoil than a standard 38spl, more like a +P 38spl..
I did my convertion by fitting a 940-1 cylinder to my existing yolk/crane & can switch back to the 38spl cylinder by just removing the end shake screw & swap cylinders, I had to fit the new 940 cylinder to the existing hand & shim the new cylinder with two .002" end shake shims.

Hope this Helps!!
Enjoy All!!
Gary/Hk

9mm Model 642 No Dash aka M942

 

[1 old 0311]

^^^^^Good info. Thanks!

 

[xraydave1]

rechamber

Hello, I had my 940 rechambered to shoot 9x23. Works perfect. I load it to 38 super loads. Because I don't like clips I took 38 special cases trimmed them to 23mm long and load. Perfect ejection.lots of power. I am retired law enforcement and carried for over 22 years.

 

[sac-gunslinger]

There is a lad on Calguns.net offering a 547 for sale. He is asking $1500. Seems steep but it is a rare piece. K-frame, round butt, 3" barrel, what's not to love?

 

[S&W357]

Guess I'll post a pic of mine again, since we're on the subject. For those that haven't seen it, it's a scandium framed 360J rechambered to 9x23, among other work, by Pinnacle High Performance. I usually load it with 9mm +P+. It is accurate, very light, and a pleasure to carry and shoot.

That's a real classy looking Rev. I seen that gun on this site.That gun is following me. lol

 

[WC145]

I still carry it just about every day. I had a some changes made a year or so ago, it's now DAO, added a trigger stop, had the hammer bobbed the rest of the way and polished, and had the IL disabled. It continues to be one of my favorite self defense guns.

 

[David Sinko]

I still carry my 940 on duty as a backup gun in a pocket sewn on the front of my body armor. But I don't carry it off duty. I recently bought a 340PD and the light weight allows all kinds of carry options not possible with the much heavier 940. But despite the hi tech scandium and titanium components of the 340PD, I feel that my 940 is still the better made revolver in the grand scheme of things.

The conversion cylinders are interesting but I don't want to give up the ability to fire 9x19 without moonclips. And I have not seen any actual chronograph data that shows that any .38 Super load will beat handloaded 9x19 out of a 2" barrel.

Dave Sinko

 

[hotrod150]

Hello, I had my 940 rechambered to shoot 9x23. Works perfect. I load it to 38 super loads. Because I don't like clips I took 38 special cases trimmed them to 23mm long and load. Perfect ejection.lots of power. I am retired law enforcement and carried for over 22 years.

This is an interesting thread, glad you resurrected it. I'm curious what dies you use to reload your shortened cases- 9x23?
It seems to me like the only advantage of your gun is the shorter-than-standard 38 spl cases will be easier to punch out of the gun in a hurry (no short-stroking). Otherwise, you might as well just load up some hot 38 spl's & use a standard 38 spl cylnder.
I'm intrigued by the guys who had their 37/637's re-cylindered or rechambered to 9mm. 9mm pressures are quite a bit higher than 38 spl- about halfway between 38+P and 357. I don't believe S&W has ever chambered an airweight (aluminum-framed) gun for 357, just the airlites (scandium). 9mm was chamberd only in steel (547) or stainless (640) guns.
According to SCSW, S&W did produce one prototype 642 9mm airweight back in 1999, but never put it into production. I dn't know if that was becasue they thought it wouldn't sell, or if they thought 9mm pressures might be too hih for an aluminum frame.

 

[snowman.45]

I used to own a 940, but foolishly sold it. I carry a 9mm Glock as my primary duty weapon, and bought the 940 for use as a backup. I had a few minor problems with sticky brass, but started using nickel-plated cartridges and the problem stopped.

Now, I'm getting interested in converting a 340 Sc I have to 9mm, if I can find a cylinder. I removed the titanium cylinder from it long ago, and replaced it with a stainless one, so I could send the stainless cylinder off to Pinnacle and have the conversion done, but I prefer to do my own work. If I find a 9mm cylinder, I can still swap back to .38/.357 using the titanium cylinder I still have (although I don't shoot .357 in it - it is confined to Buffalo Bore 1000 fps 158 gr., LSWCHP).

I'm going to retire next sumer, and plan to increase my stable of J-frames, as I suspect they will become my primary carry guns.

 

[WC145]

A 940 cylinder is too short for your 340 frame, I tried to fit one to my 360, no joy.

 

[Jerry N.]

Now, I'm getting interested in converting a 340 Sc I have to 9mm, if I can find a cylinder.

If I find a 9mm cylinder,

IF is the operative word here. When I got my 940 it had extraction problems. I figured I could just buy a new cylinder. No luck. They are just not out there. Sure, you could run across one, but it's not like you can just go out a buy one anymore (unfortunately). I think the more practical way to do the conversion is to buy a .38 cylinder and have it milled. I'm not sure, but I bet that would be comparable in price to the cost of a 940 cylinder IF you can find one. Of course there's always the chance of finding someone who doesn't know what they have - either way, good luck.

 

[walkin' trails]

I thought Cylinder & Slide used to do it as well as another, but checked their websites and saw no specific mention of this type of conversion. You might just have to call them. I have kicked this around for a while also, but with a 442/642.

I bought a new 940 back in the early 90s as part of my quest to find the perfect back-up. I was carrying a 9mm pistol at the time and thought that if my BUG also took my duty ammo it would be good. I recall the 940 had the heavy barrel profile while the 640s were tapered barrel. I don't know if this makes much difference. I got rid of my 940 after it locked up on me at the range. I had not fired a lot of rounds thru it, but had been to the range with it once or twice before and had experienced no problems. I had shot two or three cylinders of my +P+ duty round, and it worked fine. Then I tried some 147 grain Hydra Shoks that I had, and the thing locked up. I could not get the cylinder open for a while, and am guessing it opened after it cooled down. I could not see any reason for that happening at the time and did not think it seemed excessively hot. I took it back to the shop where I had made the purchase and they sent it back to S&W. When the gun was returned, S&W had not provided any paper documenting what work had been performed, if any and the shop could not tell me. I traded it for a .38 at that point. Hind sight is that I should have shot it again to see if it worked, especially considering what prices they're now commanding. For concealed carry and BUG, it was a great idea, but I did not care for the moon clips. They just seemed like they could get bend up trying to carry them in my pocket. I don't know if there were problems with the 547's extraction system, but if S&W had made that same feature available for the 940, it would have been great IMO.