9mm Revolver??

[LSP972]

Make me shiver? Why would it? You carry what floats your boat. But your statement that you'd rather carry a .22 than a .38 or .45 kind of validates my impression...

Brain stem? I believe medulla oblongata is what you're referring to... and its located approximately behind the teeth.

I'm impressed that you feel confident enough in your marksmanship skills, under stress and the unpredictable actions of your assailant, to feel comfortable with a .22. Me, I'll take the biggest bullet I can.

[smince]

Me, I'll take the biggest bullet I can

Amen to that!

[pesta2]

This is not condescending or sarcastic question, but what is the appeal of a revolver in a pistol (9mm, 10mm / 40 cal, 45 APC) cartridge? It seems if you need a carry gun in these calibers a small frame auto would be a better choice (capacity and usually slimmer). Now for a defense or hunting round, a revolver based round in a comparable caliber would be a better choice. For instance a .41 mag instead of a 10mm, a .38 special / .357 mag instead of a 9mm, a 44 spl instead of a .45acp or to match caliber, a 45 LC which can duplicate and surpass the ballistics of a .45ACP depending on load.

[smince]

This is not condescending or sarcastic question, but what is the appeal of a revolver in a pistol (9mm, 10mm / 40 cal, 45 APC) cartridge?

My like is the fact that 5 or 6 in a moon clip load a little faster than 5 or 6 in a speedloader. No knob to turn. The whole cylinder is loaded as easily as putting one round in a standard revolver with practice.

[markster]

I bought a Taurus M905 9mm to use to shoot plastic training bullets. The cases were a tad too long so I had to ream the cylinder out to use them but now it works great with them. They are effective to 50 feet.

[markster]

This isn't a good range gun to use with 9mm as recoil is unpleasant with grips but using the plastic ammo, you can shoot it all day. Plus, I bought 1000 rounds for around 40 bucks, nice!

[alchemist11]

I love forums; they are full of so much prejudice and mere opinion, which is why I tend not to waste my time positing, but I couldn't pass up supporting someone who knows what he is talking about. Parabellum reports information and facts; most of those who disagree speak opinion and prejudice. The 9mm does have superior effficiency in a short barreled revolver compared to the .38. In fact it has extra length in the cylinder to burn less powder than the .38. To discount it by comparing it to a .357 is absurd. I even agree with him with the .22, except it has to be a magnum. The .22 magnum penetrates better and is more effective than a .380. I've pumped a number of .380's into rabid animals or wild dogs with little effect. A couple of .22 mags from a handgun always did the job. It is effective far beyond its size. Many NYC undercover cops use to use .22 mags as their primary weapon for good reason, and they used them effectively. I wouldn't want to go through the teeth to get to the medulla oblingata. The base of the skull would be superior.

[easyG]

Why the 9mm from a revolver?

Because the revolver is more reliable than the autoloader.
And, for self defense, the 9mm fairs better than the .38 Special.
And while the 9mm does not fair better than the .357 Magnum, it is easier to manage the recoil and causes less pain when shooting....and follow-up shots are faster....and with less noise and muzzel-flash too.

[easyG]

This isn't a good range gun to use with 9mm as recoil is unpleasant with grips but using the plastic ammo, you can shoot it all day. Plus, I bought 1000 rounds for around 40 bucks, nice!

I have a 905 and I don't find the recoil unpleasant at all.
It feels no worse than shooting a stainless steel .38 Special snubbie.
And it feels MUCH better than shooting my S&W Airweight .38 snub!

[mavracer]

wow alot of chest pumping going on here.Not sure I should bring this up but since I have a Taurus 905, a Smith 340 and a Chronograph.Maybe some actual results from real ammo and real guns shot across a real chrono will shed some light for you.
The 9mm is very effeciant from the short bbl of the snub and shines with 147gr bullets I chronoed ranger T series and white box 147 they were all between 980-1000 FPS.38+p 158 loads are a good 100-150fps behind this.
how ever 357 magnums will always better the 9 and 38+p no matter what the internet gurus say. 145 silvertips will break 1100fps from my snub and I've got a 180gr load that will do 1100fps from my 2 1/8" SP101.

[Russ5924]

I have had a Taurus 905 now about 4 years. I think is a great small gun. At the range the best I can do is shoot 20 rounds at a time, after that am more than happy to stop shooting it. The biggest thing is I just can't shoot reloads. Every reload I have tried keyholes the target but still is quite accurate Have had no problem with factory loads I was hoping to lighten the recoil some so could shoot it more.

[ECHOONE]

You bring the .22 to a gun fight, I'll bring my .45,that's my preference! Yea it's all about placement,but come on!

[MLeake]

ParaBellum makes some good points, but this one is a bit misleading.

Heavier bullets are better for bigger animals. The .357 125gr may be optimal for humans, but for game a 158gr is probably better, or a 180gr if you handload and can find the heavier bullets.

Bullet construction is a potential variable. Assuming similar bullet types, though, heavier bullets tend to penetrate better, while traveling slower, going deeper into vitals but blood-shotting less meat.

The best load really depends on the intended target.

[5Wire]

Here's a 3-in Bbl S&W 547, a 9 mm round butt revolver that doesn't use moonclips. Good luck finding one and then paying for it, they're up around $800 but the price seems to be falling. There's a 4-in square butt version that's getting up there, too.




(Hogue Bantams to save my fingers, originals are wood "banana" grips.)

[Lost Sheep]

smince, SMarley, cortez kid, and other interested

About chambering, headspacing and extracting/ejecting 9mm (and other rimless cases) in revolvers

Single action revolvers have their chambers just like autoloaders do. A shoulder is in the chamber. The case mouth rests on the shoulder, setting headspace. Ejection is performed by a rod that goes all the way into the chamber from the front of the cylinder (chamber throat) and forces the cartridge out by a rod INSIDE the case.

Double action revolvers do not have the ejection rod. Some double action revolvers in the past had a spring mounted in the ejector star that would engage the extractor groove of the cartridge casing (one example I know of is the Ruger Speed Six in 9mm in the '70s). I don't think any current revolver uses that means, but I could not swear to it. Half moon clips and full moon clips have gained in popularity. The clips allow headspacing on the moon clip. I believe most revolvers will also headspace on the case mouth, too, but that is redundant. No problem with that. Redundancy is good.

Ejection in the clipped cartridges of a double action revoler works thusly: The ejector star pushes on the clip(s). The clip extracts the cartridge cases when the clip is ejected by the star.

Lost Sheep.

smince, this is not meant to correct anything you wrote, just add to it. Fingernail, ejector stick, moon clip or spring ejector.

[Lost Sheep]

Originally Posted by Kojak

IMHO the 9mm is a crappy round. 115 gr is not enough. Then again I don't want anything supersonic. So no .357. I like the .40 S&W more and more. If there only was an equivalent revolver round..

Kojak,

There is an equivalent round. It's called the .41 Special. Don't let the fact that no gun manufacturer or ammo maker has seen fit to produce anything with that moniker stamped on it. Just take some .41 Mags and load light.

Lost Sheep

[Lost Sheep]

Para Bellum,

You have a point there, Case capacity and powder burn rates and specific energies have changed a lot in the past century.

did you read this article?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...9/ai_n8968390/
(web address) findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_174_29/ai_n8968390/
American Handgunner , March-April, 2005 by Mike Venturino
The .45 Colt sucks! Heresy? Listen-up before you blow a gasket!

Originally Posted by Para Bellum

(edited for brevity and focus)
The volume of the .38 cartridge has nothing to do with it's capability. It used to be a blackpowder cartridge and the length of it's case is obsolete these days.

.38Spec gas pressure limits just limit the amount of powder used so the cartdridge these days is quite empty. Even a 9x19mm cartdride is only half-full of powder.

and

Originally Posted by Para Bellum

In this league the 9x19mm comes even very close to the .357 Magnum and always outperforms the .38.

But would you consider the 9x18 or the 9x17 to be a superior cartridge to the 9mmParabellum because their case volumes are smaller?

I submit for your consideration that if you compare two identically constructed 115 grain bullets travelling at 1,150 fps, one of them .357 in diameter and one of them .355 in diameter, whatever/whoever they hit is not going to be able to tell the difference.

My opinion is that it matters not a bit if the .357 diameter slug came from a semi-auto or revolver, or indeed, if the case out of which it came was 1.155" long, 1.290" , 0.90" (38 Super) or .754" (19mm) or no case at all.

Differences of recoil, flash, noise level, do come into consideration in choice of launch platform. At his point it might be useful to note that the 9x19 can deliver a 124 grain jacketed slug at 1050 to 1250 fps, but requires 33000 psi to do it. The 38 special delivers a 125 grain jacketed slug at 900 to 1150 fps, but requires only 16000 psi to do it. Bumping the pressure up to 33000 psi will get you into the 1600 fps range with the same slug. (357 Magnum cartridge). 38 Special +p would be somewhere in between, but interpolating suggests to me it would be somewhere around 25000 psi to duplicate the terminal ballistics of the 9mm Parabellum

(data from Modern Reloading by Richard Lee)

I'm not saying you are wrong. I am just saying there is room for debate

You are definitely right about the nonsensical way we denominate barrel lengths. Automatics and rifles measure barrel length from the breechface to the muzzle. Shotguns, I think, the same way. Revolvers ignore the distance from the breechface to the cylinder's front face. For a .357 mag, that's 1.6 inches you are throwing away in the calculation. And it can vary from gun to gun, as some manufacturers have longer cylinders than others. Ruger even has two different size cylinders for their SP101 chambered for .357 Mag. (I have one. It is marked 357 Magnum, 125 grain, and the cylinder is slightly shorter than my other 357 Mag SP101)

Anyway, a 4" 38 Special revolver should compare to a 5.5" Semi-auto and my 5" Coonan .357 Magnum Semiauto should compare to a 3.4" barrel revolver. (Ignoring the pressure loss out of the gap between the cylinder and barrel and just paying attention to the gun's simple dimensions.) The volume swept by the bullet actually measures from the case mouth to the muzzle. So maybe THAT's what we should count as barrel length?

The 9mm Parabellum cartridge gets an extra 0.75" of effective "barrel" because the bullet starts out that much closer to the breechface than the 38 Special. Apples to apples. Distance from the point at which the bullets starts to the muzzle. Of course, then, a .357 fired from a revolver with a 4.0" barrel measured in that way would, if firing a 38 Special, would nominally have a 4.135" barrel. Same gun. Different barrel lengths, depending on the brass. Same gun fitted with a cylinder for 9mm would than have a 4.536" barrel. I think I just figured out why we don't measure gun barrels that way, even though ballistically it makes a certain amount of sense.

Lively discussion. As alchemist11 said "I love forums; they are full of so much prejudice and mere opinion" It is a lot of fun trying to figure out where people get their prejudices and opinions from. I do love a puzzle.

Lost Sheep

Remember, only believe half of what you see and one quarter of what you hear. That goes double for what you get from the internet. Even this post. Maybe especially this post.

Do your own independent, confirming research when ANYONE gives you new facts on the web.

Also remember, even the idiotic stuff might have a kernel of truth buried in there somewhere.

[BlueTrain]

Well, I never had one with less than a 4" barrel, so I can't really answer the original question, nor can I supply any technical information for any barrel length based on my own observations and experiments (because I have no technical equipment). However, I'm full of opinions and that's what forums are for.

My impressions from firing a 9mm from a 4" K-frame and a .38 S&W Special from the same size K-frame, both heavy barrel, is this. The 9mm has more "snap" but less actual recoil. The 9mm may have a little better performance on a live target, though I doubt there is any practical difference in the accuracy. I never had a 3" K-frame 9mm revolver but I assume the comparison still holds.

I also had a Ruger single action with two cylinders but that is a little far from the original question. Comparison with the .357 was not mentioned but the 9mm in a revolver is way more pleasant to fire and of course, so is a .38 Special.

There is little reason to load heavy bullets in a 9mm for any purpose but it can be done and safely. One of my reloading manuals gives a load using 158 grain swaged bullets. They worked just fine in all of the 9mm autos I had at the time, although I never tried it in the revolver. It makes for a funny looking round.

One reason for chambering an auto round in a revolver is simply because some people like revolvers and some of them might like to try more cartridges than the old revolver cartridges. Another reason is that in some calibers, like .45, the auto cartridge appears to offer better performance, at least in a factory load, though I doubt that was on anyone's mind when the first revolvers were chambered for .45 ACP some 90 years ago. Eventually someone took the next logical step and created a special case so clips were not required. The result was the .45 Auto-rim.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that someone did the same thing with a 9mm, which was the 9mm Federal. I believe it could only be used in one model revolver, perhaps also in Rugers but not in the S&W K-frames.

Recoil (kick) is related more to bullet weight than anything and 9mm usually has a lighter bullet than a .38 Special. There are supposedly .38 Special loadings with lighter bullets, perhaps even less than 100 grains but I have no experience with them and can't comment.

On the topic of .22s for defense, I would feel confident, though not overly confident with using one. Rex Applegate admitted carrying one for a while on the theory that he could hit better with one but he said he never got a chance to test the theory for real. No one denies a .22 rf is lethal, however. My own father died from a .22 gunshot.

[BlueTrain]

I might point out for completeness' sake that other 9mm revolver cartridges exist that had nothing to do with the 9mm Parabellum.

I might also point out that there is supposedly a difference in the bore diameter of a 9mm and a .38 special, though it is very little, and in some cases, there may be none at all. But different bullets are sold for each caliber and it would be something to keep in mind when you getting up there close to the edge. On this point, however, all my own reloads for most calibers have been on the mild side for several reasons and I've always been a little surprised at what the factory rounds are like when I shot them. The one exception to that was .44 special and I went through a period when I wanted to see "what I could do with it," generally being quite pleased with the results. But I don't think I ever fired a factory .44 special cartridge.

[James K]

I really wonder why some folks insist that not only should a revolver be made (just for them) to use an auto pistol round, but that conventional revolver rounds are somehow inferior. Yes, it can be done. No, there is not enough market (as has been demonstrated) to justify a gun maker tooling up to produce such a revolver.

The few that were made in the past had a specific purpose - an example being a police force for which revolvers were mandated, but which was then ordered to use 9mm military ammo.

Other than the folks who simply want to have something different (a childish game of "I've got something you haven't got") and who then try to justify their ideas, there is no market. Let the idea die quietly.

Jim

[WC145]

I really wonder why some folks insist that not only should a revolver be made (just for them) to use an auto pistol round, but that conventional revolver rounds are somehow inferior. Yes, it can be done. No, there is not enough market (as has been demonstrated) to justify a gun maker tooling up to produce such a revolver.

The few that were made in the past had a specific purpose - an example being a police force for which revolvers were mandated, but which was then ordered to use 9mm military ammo.

Other than the folks who simply want to have something different (a childish game of "I've got something you haven't got") and who then try to justify their ideas, there is no market. Let the idea die quietly.

Jim

I think everybody would like the gun makers to build exactly what they want. Hell, I want Chevrolet to build me a new 1969 Z28. Obviously, it'll never happen but wishes are free.

It would appear there is a market for revolvers in auto pistol calibers, all that have been made in 9mm, .40. 10mm, and .45 have sold and some of those are still being made and at least one company (Charter Arms) IS tooling up to produce a new auto caliber revolver. Also, the ones you find on the used market these days are commanding some impressive prices.

As far as conventional revolver calibers being "inferior", I guess it depends on your perspective. If less efficient equals inferior to you then yes, a .38spl is inferior to a 9mm out of a short barrel. If less velocity and power for a given bullet weight makes the .38spl inferior to a 9mm then, yes, I guess it is.

Personally, I don't care what you or anybody else has and I don't play childish games. I wanted a lightweight, snub nose 9mm revolver because I wanted one, so I had a revolver customized to my specifications to meet my wants and needs. I don't know why that would be a problem for you, unless you really want an accurate, reliable, 13oz revolver that is quick to reload, more powerful than a .38spl but has less muzzle blast and recoil than a .357mag, and shares ammo with your duty/primary weapon. If that's the case, it might bother you because I have one and you don't.

Nobody needs to justify their ideas, wants, or needs, especially where guns are concerned. That's an idea that needs to die quietly.

[KurtC]

[sdacbob]

The main reason I bought a Taurus 905 was the caliber. I already have a 9mm auto so I didn't have to buy a different caliber of ammo. That plus I got it fairly cheap and came with 3 moon clips. I will say its not a pistol that you would want to fire more than 50 or so rounds with at the range on a given day though. All in all, I like it and it carries well. Its definitely not in the same class as my old S&W Mod 28.

[jdangerous]

Very informative velocity and ballistic discussion but for me the decision is much less complicated. I really enjoy shooting revolvers and, God forbid I ever 'have' to use one, I don't like leaving brass lying around. I'm sure in those scenarios there's been plenty of 9mm and .38 Super brass left behind for an indictment!

[tekarra]

GAShooter,

I have S&W in both 9mm and 38 spl, with 2" and 3" barrels for each. With store bought ammo, the 9mms have sharper recoil. I actually prefer shooting the 9mms over the ,38s.