You're not going to believe what the S&W rep told me yesterday!!!!!

[rck281]

I know none of you want to here this..... BUT.. IMO... I would get a Kahr PM9 and be done with it.
It is 19+ozs. loaded with 7 rounds... It has a 3" barrel... It fits in your pocket... and it is totally reliable. A 940 weighs about 6ozs more and has two less rounds, and a much shorter barrel......YOMV
I sold my 940 to get the PM9, and have been very pleased with it.

Hate to say it but I agree 100%. My carry guns are a Kahr PM9 and a Kahr 380. Small, lightweight, and reliable. I also carry a S&W 342 on occasion.

 

[A10]

There's nothing wrong with Kahr, or Glock, or XD's, or Smeg...uh, Sigma's either. They are not Smith revolvers. Shoot what you like, like what you shoot!

 

[WC145]

I know none of you want to here this..... BUT.. IMO... I would get a Kahr PM9 and be done with it.
It is 19+ozs. loaded with 7 rounds... It has a 3" barrel... It fits in your pocket... and it is totally reliable. A 940 weighs about 6ozs more and has two less rounds, and a much shorter barrel......YOMV
I sold my 940 to get the PM9, and have been very pleased with it.

We're not talking about a 940, we're talking about a 14oz revolver with the ability to function where your small auto won't, like stuck in someone's ribs. Small autos are great, and the Kahrs are good guns, but they do not fill every need. I like a small revolver for a BUG specifically because it works in situations where an auto would likely malfunction.

Sorry Guys. I have never seen the attraction of a revolver in an autoloader caliber. The auto rounds were designed to work in self-loaders, & not in revolvers. There are inherent difficulties to overcome in revolvers. My question is, "Why"? The 9MM does nothing in a J frame the 38 Spl won't do better, without the problem of headspace & extraction. Sorry, I just don't get it. I own, shoot, & enjoy pistols in 32 ACP, 380ACP, 9MM, 40 S&W, 10MM, & 45ACP, all in auto's, I leave the revolvers for calibers with a rimmed cartridge.

The round doesn't know what platform it's being fired from. The 9mm is more efficient than the .38spl and hotter in comparable bullet weights from the same barrel lengths.

I have revolvers in 9mm, .40S&W, and .45ACP. I also have a Coonan .357mag auto. They're all great shooters, all accurate, and they all fill a need. The fact that they're chambered for the "wrong" calibers for the platform takes nothing from their performance or usefulness.

 

[5Wire]

9mm revolvers are notorius for difficult extraction.

None that I've had which is both versions of the 547. Also the weight argument doesn't cut it, there's about an ounce difference between the alloy 642 and the polymer-on-steel BG38. I have both and the BG38 is a bit easier in the recoil department.

 

[allglock]

We're not talking about a 940, we're talking about a 14oz revolver with the ability to function where your small auto won't, like stuck in someone's ribs. Small autos are great, and the Kahrs are good guns, but they do not fill every need. I like a small revolver for a BUG specifically because it works in situations where an auto would likely malfunction.


The round doesn't know what platform it's being fired from. The 9mm is more efficient than the .38spl and hotter in comparable bullet weights from the same barrel lengths.

I have revolvers in 9mm, .40S&W, and .45ACP. I also have a Coonan .357mag auto. They're all great shooters, all accurate, and they all fill a need. The fact that they're chambered for the "wrong" calibers for the platform takes nothing from their performance or usefulness.

Well if I had the choice between a 9mm snub and a .357 snub.... hmm.... I would take the 14oz. .357 in a heartbeat... the 9mm will never outperform a .357 mag....... So I see no real use for a 9mm snub.....thats just me.................

 

[rock doc]

Well if I had the choice between a 9mm snub and a .357 snub.... hmm.... I would take the 14oz. .357 in a heartbeat... the 9mm will never outperform a .357 mag....... So I see no real use for a 9mm snub.....thats just me.................

Good reply, and I agree 100%, but you burst my bubble for a new purchase

 

[WC145]

Well if I had the choice between a 9mm snub and a .357 snub.... hmm.... I would take the 14oz. .357 in a heartbeat... the 9mm will never outperform a .357 mag....... So I see no real use for a 9mm snub.....thats just me.................

But you're all about a small 9mm auto? Why not dump the Kahr and get yourself a 340?

I don't need or expect it to outperform a .357mag but I still want more than a .38spl offers and the 9mm snubby delivers that and does it with a fraction of the muzzle blast and recoil of a 2" .357mag.

 

[allglock]

But you're all about a small 9mm auto? Why not dump the Kahr and get yourself a 340?

I don't need or expect it to outperform a .357mag but I still want more than a .38spl offers and the 9mm snubby delivers that and does it with a fraction of the muzzle blast and recoil of a 2" .357mag.

I have a 340, and carry it when necessary
Also, I would carry a PM40 if Kahr could make a reliable one which would be far superior to anything else IMO.

 

[remat457]

Ok, I was excited about this until I started reading about the recoil. Is the recoil on a 940 really that bad? It's got to be less than a AirLite 357 right?
I have a 386sc and even though it is physically big, shooting it is no fun. The J AirLites are even more ridiculous.

Why the draw of the 9mm? Besides being available, inexpensive (357 prices are outrageous right now), matching a fullsize pistol, I think that the ballistics are pretty nice from a snub nose.

 

[Dave T]

I don't need or expect it to outperform a .357mag but I still want more than a .38spl offers and the 9mm snubby delivers that and does it with a fraction of the muzzle blast and recoil of a 2" .357mag.

WC145 has hit the nail on the flat part. Do some chronographing or check out what others have done. Going from 4" down to 2" the 9mm looses less velocity than the 38 Special. Of course the 357 Magnum out performs it, but that's at the expense of loss of control and actual pain.

No one shoots these little guns (2" J-frames) well the first time out and many never shoot them well because they don't practice with them. Making one painful to shoot (chambering to 357 Mag) doesn't help this one little bit.

I recommended a 9mm Ruger SP101 to a friend who had one of the original 38 Special 101s. He bought it and did some chronograph comparisons. The 9mm has been his daily carry gun for all the years since. The numbers convinced him.

Dave

Dave

 

[WC145]

Ok, I was excited about this until I started reading about the recoil. Is the recoil on a 940 really that bad? It's got to be less than a AirLite 357 right?
I have a 386sc and even though it is physically big, shooting it is no fun. The J AirLites are even more ridiculous.

Why the draw of the 9mm? Besides being available, inexpensive (357 prices are outrageous right now), matching a fullsize pistol, I think that the ballistics are pretty nice from a snub nose.

I don't think the recoil is bad at all. Before having my 360J rechambered I shot standard and +P .38's through it and I put the 9mm on par with the .38spl +P. 9mm +P+ are a little stiffer but nothing like my friend's M&P340 with .357mags. Also, my gun is very controllable, double taps are easy, as is shooting it one handed and it weighs just over 13oz with Crimson Trace LG-105 grips. When I qualified with mine I shot 100rds in about 35 mins, no big deal, no pain, no discomfort. Personally, I just don't how a 22oz 940 with standard pressure ammo could be so bad.

For me the appeal is a hotter, more efficient caliber than the .38spl while still being very controllable, and easy to carry reloads with the moonclips. Plus, they're wicked fast to reload thanks to 9mms being so short and the shape of the bullets.

 

[M2MikeGolf]

The auto rounds were designed to work in self-loaders, & not in revolvers

And yet, the Model 1917 was efficient, popular and born within a few short years of one of the most popular and enduring auto cartridges, so much so that S&W has brought it back into production numerous times and currently, not to mention the 625. Ask a 1917 owner (myself included) how well they think an auto cartridge works in a revolver. The 9mm is a perfect gap bridger between the .38 and the .357, and as popular as it is, like the .45 ACP, there's no reason to not have a quality offering in a revolver with the universally popular and effective 9mm. The prices that 547s fetch will tell you how desparate people are to own a 9mm Revolver!

I say bring back the 940, and while we're at it, the 547 too!

 

[5Wire]

Jerry Miculek seems to do all right with .45 ACP revolvers and moonclips.

 

[AKAOV1MAN]

I kind of like wheelguns in semi auto calibers. It started with me getting a 940 years ago to be a BUG for my Browning HP. One can reload the 940 by thumbing rounds out of the BHP magazine, of course they won't eject then, but I usually carry a couple of moon clips. The 9mm is really a hot number these days if you use the right ammo, and really cheap to shoot. I use my 940 in my left hand pants or coat pocket and use it with my off hand. I carry the BHP at half cock with the safety on, mainly when I am in a crowd or potential gun grab situation. By the time anyone figures out the firing sequence of the BHP he will have at least 5 9mm holes in him.
Then I became interested in other revolvers in auto round calibers, they all have the fast reload in common, except the 547 where I have HKS speedloaders at hand. Since, I have acquired a couple of 625s, a 325, a Night Guard, a Webley, a 1917 and a 1950, all 45 ACP. In 9mm I have 3 Ruger Speed Sixes, a Blackhawk with dual cylinders, a 940 PC that shoots 9mm, 9X21MM, .38 Super, and .380 ACP as well as the red hot .356. I recently acquired a 327PC that has 3 cylinders and will handle all of the above, plus 9X23 mm, .356 and of course .357. Acquired 2 extra 940 cylinders and have them fitted to a 442 and a 60-4. Throw in my 610s 3& 6 inch, and a 646 and I think I have the field covered. I know that all that work in acquiring and modifying was a lot of effort and that there are equivelant power revolver rounds available, but I just like the fast reloads and the uniquness as well as the utility.
Some times the hunt and getting something different is worth the effort.
Right now I am thinking of a K frame with a cylinder to handle the .357 Sig, probably in a 3 inch barrel.........
The kids I work with these days sometimes ask if I am carrying a percussion cap & ball gun, I used to think they were being smartasses, but most of them have never even held a revolver-ever.

 

[everett walker]

I shot two of the 38 bodyguards. One took two pulls of the trigger to turn the cylinder after each shot. The strange gonad they use in place of a hand was bouncing out of register with the cylinder ratchet. The other revolver actually did function but both of them shot five inches left at 25 yards.
If the two I shot are at all representative, this is a sorry excuse for a handgun in whatever caliber.

 

[goldenbb]

Sorry Guys. I have never seen the attraction of a revolver in an autoloader caliber. The auto rounds were designed to work in self-loaders, & not in revolvers. There are inherent difficulties to overcome in revolvers. My question is, "Why"? The 9MM does nothing in a J frame the 38 Spl won't do better, without the problem of headspace & extraction. Sorry, I just don't get it. I own, shoot, & enjoy pistols in 32 ACP, 380ACP, 9MM, 40 S&W, 10MM, & 45ACP, all in auto's, I leave the revolvers for calibers with a rimmed cartridge.

I dunno, man, the S&W Model 1917 in 45ACP is kind of a classic WWII handgun.

 

[5Wire]

I shot two of the 38 bodyguards. One took two pulls of the trigger to turn the cylinder after each shot. The strange gonad they use in place of a hand was bouncing out of register with the cylinder ratchet. The other revolver actually did function but both of them shot five inches left at 25 yards.
If the two I shot are at all representative, this is a sorry excuse for a handgun in whatever caliber.

You have to allow the trigger to reset. I learned that on mine trying to empty the cylinder too fast. You can fire rapidly if you let the trigger reset. Similar behavior on my 617P, shooting DA, but not as easy to induce. Of course, if you were renting or trying out a gun at a dealers' or borrowing one from a fellow shooter, it may have been faulty and they didn't realize it. To me, if I'm practicing with my BG38—and I think it's perfectly suited for its purpose—and I have a skip, I blame the jerk behind the trigger.

It does take some getting used to for sure. Once I did, I found the BG38 more comfortable and as accurate without using the laser as my laserless 642. With the laser in low light conditions the BG 38 is capable of a quick 5 rounds inside a minute of 4" Table Talk mini snack aluminum pie plate at 21 feet with my inexpert skills.

Getting the laser sighted in is sometimes problematic. The early BG38 manuals had incorrect instructions. S&W published a correction on their website (reproduced below).

Then S&W evidently shipped newer guns after having performed the adjustments. The newer delivered BG38s are adjust at the factory to be "nearly parallel with the barrel" as it states in the current manual:

That would put the point of impact less than an inch to the left of point of aim. You must have gotten to shoot one of the early ones adjusted by someone who didn't know how or was expressing a triangulated POI when setting the sight.

Why were you shooting it 25 yards? In fact being only 5 inches to the left at 25 yards would be good news if it was sighted POA = POI at 7 yards. Were you using the laser or the fixed sights? How are you with other fixed sight snubbies at that distance? It's not a target gun. A threat 25 yards away might best be avoided by beating feet outta there.

Also, my trigger has steadily smoothed out with lots of dry firing and over a thousand rounds downrange.

If you really want to feel confounded, try any of the H&K P7 'Squeeze Cocker' pistols.

 

[everett walker]

that was definately not the problem with mine. I was shooting the gun with all deliberate care and letting the trigger reset. Dry fired it worked fine but recoil would misalign the drive mechanism. The second revolver did not have that problem.

 

[safearm]

Like WC (and others), I have a custom 9mm J frame. Mine is a "942" (642 w/ a custom 9mm cylinder). I've also had a 940. The 940 was too heavy for anything other than belt carry, and if I was going with belt carry, I was going with a larger gun with more rounds. The concept of a lightweight 9mm revolver that I can carry in a pocket or on my ankle is the perfect BUG for me. It uses the same ammo as my primary carry gun, and is light enough to carry all of the time.
Regarding extraction, some of the 940s had really rough cylinders that caused major extraction problems. My 942 cylinder is polished glass smooth, and I've never had a problem with extraction including +P rounds. I've never fired +P+ rounds in my 942; I'm perfectly satisfied with the Gold Dot 124 grain +P I carry, and have no desire to subject my arthiritic hands to more punishment than necessary.
I think S&W is going to do much better with the Bodyguard than they did with the 940. I doubt they will be rated for +P+ use, but I'm sure someone will try them and let us all know what happened. BTW, I have CT grips on my 942 and they're great. The laser will only enhance the capability (and sales) of the new Bodyguard.
If the price is right, I might buy one.

 

[willydd]

Even with my carry 642 with Crimson Trace, I want the 9mm also.

 

[M2MikeGolf]

Right now I am thinking of a K frame with a cylinder to handle the .357 Sig

AKAOV1MAN, I was thinking about that the other day. Do you know if this can be done? I was thinking it would have to be an N-frame with bored out
.357 chambers (model 27), but wasn't sure how bottle necks would work. Not sure a K-frame or even an L- frame with bored out chambers would work, pressure wise. It's certainly been done before with older cartridges.
At this point, I'd be willing to settle for a 3" 940 in 9mm, still think that's a good idea.

 

[WiseGuy]

So I can get a 940 cylinder and put it on my 642 and I'll have a 9mm 642? If so, will a 642 handle 9mm +p ammo? Where can I get a 940 cylinder?

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

I will bet it will never be Mass Compliant, the Bodyguard .38's are illegal i Mass which needs a 10 pound trigger pull, same with the 15-22 handgun, when I talked to Smith they just laughed and said it will never be MA compliant, due to the required trigger pull.

I think the AG in Mass would like all guns to have a Nagant trigger pull!

 

[RAW]

Missing M1911

I am still waiting for the new M1911 in 9mm(sku#178017).

I was told by S&W rep: March..then April.... now "late June"

anybody know anything about this?

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

I am still waiting for the new M1911 in 9mm(sku#178017).

I was told by S&W rep: March..then April.... now "late June"

anybody know anything about this?

You need to pin them down on the year

 

[OLDMAN0090]

I already own two 9mm revolvers (S&W 940 and Ruger Speed Six) and love them both, but I could always use another one especially a light weight one. I'm sure September means not anytime in the near future. I'm still waiting on a Governor that was due in April.

 

[WC145]

I am still waiting for the new M1911 in 9mm(sku#178017).

I was told by S&W rep: March..then April.... now "late June"

anybody know anything about this?

That is the SW1911 9mm Pro Series, it's been out for a couple of years now. I got mine in April 2010.

 

[HotRoderX]

Great news wish I knew what kinda price we where looking at but I will definitely be picking on up

 

[remat457]

When I qualified with mine I shot 100rds in about 35 mins, no big deal, no pain, no discomfort. Personally, I just don't how a 22oz 940 with standard pressure ammo could be so bad.

Thanks, this is what I was thinking too. More recoil than out of a 5906? Sure!

But, I think it is more comparable to the small 9mm snubs like the Keltec, Ruger LC9, Kahr PM9. Sure the semi's have a slide/recoil spring to absorb of the recoil, but not much.

 

[Hook686]

I guess I do not see the need. With the M&P 340 in .357 magnum, loading the J-Frame to 9mm +P+ levels is not a problem, plus no fooling around with bent moon clips. What advantage would there be to a 9mm J-Frame over the M&P 340 ?