Attention ruger revolver fans

[44 AMP]

The .45ACP can work in a .45 Colt cylinder, once you get the headspace right (clips, in a gun cut for them), the slightly undersize acp brass does swell a bit, not a good idea for long term case life, but quite workable in the short run. The low pressure of the ACP round helps a lot with this, as well.

The 9mm/.357 thing is much different. In a properly cut .357 chamber, the 9mm case doesn't even go half way in. The cylinder cannot be shut. It simply is too fat to fit.

A .357 chamber cut big enough to take the 9mm luger case is physically possible but I think it would be grossly oversize in the critical area of the .357 case head, and at the pressures of .357 I would think a case failure would be a very likely thing. NOT a good idea.

.357 Sig cylinder would make more sense. I'll bet those bottleneck rounds would drop in pretty easily in a hurry.

Yes, they should. The problem is getting them to drop out after firing.

The history of bottle necked cases in revolvers is ..checkered. Some rounds work well enough, others have not. It seems to depend on both the taper of the rounds, and the pressures, combined.

"bottle necked" rounds like the .32-20 and .38-40 work fine. The .22 Hornet, and even the less tapered K-Hornet work. The .22 Rem Jet, did not work well, and had severe setback issues, often tying up the guns.

I have no idea what a .357 Sig would do, but its not exactly a low pressure round. Not allowing .357 Mag and allowing .357 Sig seems rather idiotic to me, considering that the .357 Sig was built to replicate the performance of a 4" .357 Magnum with the 125gr bullet.

[Venom1956]

can a gp cylinder fit 6 40 cal holes with thick enough walls for a .357Sig? I doubt it would work out well.

[JohnKSa]

Which raises the question, how does one remove a cylinder from a Ruger double action?

I checked the manual of one of my SP101s, and it indicates removal of the mainspring and the trigger assembly to get to the cylinder. That is way too much for any convertible concept.

While it's not a simple procedure, Ruger considers it a process that any user can do--that's why it's outlined in the owner's manual.

I agree that the entire cylinder assembly, including the crane, would need to be changed out, not just the cylinder itself.

[DPris]

It's not at all difficult, but it's much more cumbersome than most would be interested in doing, just to be able to swap back & forth between two calibers in the same gun.

Few would be willing to pay the extra cost of a dual crane/cylinder GP.
Denis

[FrankenMauser]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Swapping cylinders on a Ruger SA is simple. Fitting them is simpler than doing so on a DA. I'm sure multiple cylinders could be fitted to a DA revolver, BUT, no factory I know does this. Probably due to the additional costs & complexity of fitting, vs market demand.

From 2012 to 2014, Taurus sold at least one DA model with interchangeable cylinders - the 992 Tracker Convertible.
The cylinders each had their own crane assembly and there was/is a button on the right side of the frame to enable quick crane/cylinder changes (rather than removing the front sideplate screw).

The 992 is a rimfire model, but it's DA nonetheless.

[DPris]

I suspect they did not sell a boatload of 'em.
Denis

[Screwball]

I have a Ruger New Vaquero, which the two .45 cylinders. Ruger can find a way to do it, just would take a little more than just an extra cylinder in the box...

I have my S&W 642-1 at the gunsmith, having the 9mm conversion cylinder fitted to it's own ejector rod. He swapped the one from my .38 assembly to get it going, but I want to be able to swap cylinders by taking out that one screw.





If I needed to, I could fire .38s out of it... but likely the cases would stick. Why deal with it when I have a dedicated cylinder for it?

I like shooting 9mm out of that J-frame. Recoil is like standard pressure .38, and I have a lot more variety in regards to loads. Not to mention I'm issued a 9mm and 9mm on moon clips is like half the length of .38s in a HKS speedloader.

[Real Gun]

Ruger can find a way to do it, just would take a little more than just an extra cylinder in the box...

That could be a dream gun rather than something to actually expect.

[Laz]

Screwball, you're putting a 35,000 psi cartridge in an aluminum framed J-frame?
Don't you think the frame will stretch in relatively few rounds to where you begin to have headspace issues?

[tallball]

I have one of the Taurus Trackers that has two different crane/cylinder assemblies: one for regular 22's and one for 22 magnums. It works well and has given me no problems.

My 45colt/45acp Blackhawk convertible seems equally accurate with either round.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by Laz

Screwball, you're putting a 35,000 psi cartridge in an aluminum framed J-frame?

Don't you think the frame will stretch in relatively few rounds to where you begin to have headspace issues?

First question... yes. If you look into it, S&W did the same thing in a prototype 942. Sent to a gun writer, who felt the recoil was too much and that it would never be sold. As such, it was shelved. Probably the extraction issues with the 940 also had a play in it, as well.

Second question... not really. J-frame 9mm conversions aren't a new thing, and a handful of people have made "942" revolvers in a few different ways (converting a .38 cylinder; swapping in a 940 cylinder; adding a 940 barrel with either of the two other options). I haven't seen an example of one causing issues. You see a lot of concern about pressure and barrel diameter in threads discussing it, but having a prototype made, I felt it was a viable route when you see people doing it. I do plan on watching out for it, but I really don't see it happening.

With that being said, I'm not planning on shooting +P loads (not interested in doing it, even for defensive loads). The .38 barrel was accurate enough for the rounds I fired to feel comfortable with qualifications. I'm thinking about using 147 grain Hornady XTP for my carry ammo.

[stagpanther]

Not interested in pistol rimless for revolvers myself.

[Laz]

Screwball - thanks for expanding on and sharing your thoughts and reasons. I wish you success and hope you let us know how it turns out. Very interesting project. I'll bet that little puppy is going to bark.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by Laz

Screwball - thanks for expanding on and sharing your thoughts and reasons. I wish you success and hope you let us know how it turns out. Very interesting project. I'll bet that little puppy is going to bark.

No problem. And thanks.

If you are a member on S&W Forum, this is the link to my thread. It is at the gunsmith being fitted now, but should be done in two weeks. After that, I likely do another range trip, then send it out to Robar to match it. Going to keep it up to date as it moves forward... good or bad. Like I said, a few people have done that conversion before and there are a handful of threads over there on it.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-rev...m-642-1-a.html

[Lost Sheep]

Taurus has a 22 rimfire double action revolver whose cylinders (complete crane assembly) can be swapped out by pushing a button on the frame. I have seen one in a store within the past year and personally pulled the crane and replaced it. It is easier than on my convertible Blackhawk (though not by much).

Swing the cylinder out to the normal loading/unloading position.
Press a button on the frame near the crane
Pull the crane and cylinder assembly forward, out of the frame
Put the other crane and cylinder assembly lined up with the frame
Press the button and slide the new crane/cylinder assembly in place
(Load if you want) and close cylinder.


If Taurus can do it, Ruger should be able.

Lost Sheep

p.s.

Dan Wesson style interchangeable barrels would be nice, too. Not only would it resolve the bullet size and forcing cone questions but allow a single double action revolver (carefully matching barrels and cylinders) to shoot ANY cartridge that would fit within the cylinder opening, from 22 rimfire on up to 480 Ruger.

By the way, something close to this has been done. Sometimes called "WessonHawk" or "Switch Caliber Redhawk".

http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...ead.php/110325

Post #43 on page 3 posted by jwp500 2/25/2012

[drobs]

Reminds me of the Medusa Multi-Caliber revolver - was supposed to work with any 38 cal / 9mm round.

I've only seen one years ago working at a gun shop. It was going back to the factory for warranty repair.


http://airbornecombatengineer.typepa..._revolver.html

[FrankenMauser]

Originally Posted by Laz

Screwball, you're putting a 35,000 psi cartridge in an aluminum framed J-frame?
Don't you think the frame will stretch in relatively few rounds to where you begin to have headspace issues?

What's the big worry about 9mm operating at 35,000 psi in an aluminum frame J-frame?

9mm operates with the same max chamber pressure* as .357 Mag. (*MAP)

And, from the factory...
Same frame as .357 Mag.
Same cylinder as .357 Mag (just not reamed as deeply).


If anything, the 9mm conversion should actually be easier on the frame, since the expansion ratio is notably higher and the pressure curve should be smoother.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

What's the big worry about 9mm operating at 35,000 psi in an aluminum frame J-frame?



9mm operates with the same max chamber pressure* as .357 Mag. (*MAP)



And, from the factory...

Same frame as .357 Mag.

Same cylinder as .357 Mag (just not reamed as deeply).





If anything, the 9mm conversion should actually be easier on the frame, since the expansion ratio is notably higher and the pressure curve should be smoother.

The reason for the concern is that S&W never made a .357 Airweight. The Airlite is a scandium framed revolver, and all other .357s are steel framed. Alloy frames were rated up to .38 +P.

As mentioned, S&W made one 942 that was given to Wiley Clapp. He stated the recoil was too much and that it would never sell, shelving the idea. There have been a few people that have created "942s," and results have been ok (has been going on for at least six years, and I've yet to see a "destroyed" gun). Shooting mine with UMC 115 grain bulk, recoil was not bad at all. Either ammo selection when the 942 was tried was not the same as today, or Clapp really was overblowing recoil. Scandium revolvers in .357 sell, as does the 9mm LCR, so I guess he was wrong. If S&W made one today, I don't think I'd be interested. Don't really want the lock on it. Making one on a no-lock 642, which I've been shooting/carrying for years, I'm more interested... which is why I purchased the cylinder.

I also feel similar with the stress of 9mm compared to .38 +P. Not going to be shooting 9mm +P, so I feel it will be ok.

[samsmix]

44AMP,
Yes, that seems idiotic to me too, but there it is. The .45 ACP & GAP are allowed, but the .44Spl & .45LC are not. No .357 Mags, but .357 SIG & 9mm +p+ are Kosher. 10mm is cool, but no .41 mag...it just is what it is, but you're right, it's silly.

[James K]

The single cylinder idea just doesn't work, or at least not very well.

Headspacing the 9mm on the clip will work, but without firm case support (no spring), primer ignition will be erratic and accuracy will suffer, with the possibility of misfires.

Why are some folks too cheap to buy the appropriate ammo for their choice of gun? Of course, if you can steal government ammo....

Jim

[DPris]

If interested in the .45 convertible Redhawk & how well it works there, the Kindle book's live on Amazon.com this morning.
Two-gun review, mixed results, but the concept in straight-walled .45 cases is viable.
Denis

[FrankenMauser]

Originally Posted by Screwball

The reason for the concern is that S&W never made a .357 Airweight. The Airlite is a scandium framed revolver, and all other .357s are steel framed. Alloy frames were rated up to .38 +P.

The Airlite frame is aluminum. There is only a TINY amount of scandium alloyed into it (well under 1%).
And, while scandium does provide some minor strength increase to aluminum alloys, the real benefit of scandium is that the alloy is easier to machine and weld. (Which really doesn't benefit a S&W revolver frame that is machined just fine without it and doesn't require any welding.)

Thinking that the scandium is all that matters is about like putting slicks on your truck to go drag racing. ...In Barrow, Alaska.
There are other factors that are more important, and a sticking with a myopic view that has been heavily influenced by marketing may not result in the desired outcome.

[Laz]

Screwball and Frankenmauser, you both seem to believe that the aluminum 642 frame is amply strong to handle 9 mm pressure. I, for one am interested in how this project plays out. There have been many threads over quite a few years debating the strength of alloy J-frame frames with precious little hard info and a lot of opinion on either side. Screwball, I hope that you post, over time, how this turns out and report either way whether or not you experience top strap stretching and in how many rounds, if at all. A lot of people are anxious to tell John Doe to shoot over pressure rounds in his revolver but you are willing to spend your money and your gun to prove the issue definitively.

A number of years ago, a Winchester spokesman told me their 110 grain .357 sjhp produced average pressure in the neighborhood of 33,000 psi. If that is correct, your choice of standard pressure 115 grain 9mm should be very similar. I'm not sure what I might be missing in this. Ok, sorry for the hijack. Done.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

The Airlite frame is aluminum. There is only a TINY amount of scandium alloyed into it (well under 1%).

You do realize that 0.002% of carbon in iron creates steel?

Tiny amounts can be a big difference when you look at alloys.

Originally Posted by Laz

Screwball, I hope that you post, over time, how this turns out and report either way whether or not you experience top strap stretching and in how many rounds, if at all.

If you aren't a member of S&W Forum, definitely join and subscribe to that thread. Whatever happens will be posted. I already showed that the difference in barrel diameter is moot. Also, there are a handful of other threads regarding the "942" concept.

I've carried that revolver for years. Didn't want to switch to an LCR for 9mm (would have considered it more if there was a 9mm LCRx), so it was worth it in my eyes. It isn't going to cause a catastrophe failure, but if I notice the frame stretching, I'll move either to an LCR or another J-frame (if it happens, then I'll find a stainless gun that can use the cylinder).

[FrankenMauser]

You do realize that 0.002% of carbon in iron creates steel?

Tiny amounts can be a big difference when you look at alloys.

Indeed.
But tiny amounts don't always make a big difference.
As I said before, I'm also aware of the fact that scandium's ability to strengthen aluminum alloys is overrated. It's primary purpose as a grain refiner is to improve machinability and weldability. (Just like arsenic, sulfur, and copper in lead alloys.)

It also sounds really good for marketing.